STAmisha
08-03 10:19 AM
Spoke with a lawyer. He told me that PD need not be current to interfile though it is commonly held belief
wallpaper Avril Lavigne - 3600+ High
immig4me
04-29 11:09 AM
Have you sent the renewal papers to the right location? If not, after Mar 26th receive date, the applications will be sent back to the applicant - to be sent to the correct lock box.
USCIS - Change of Filing Location for Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3ca0808dfb107210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
USCIS - Change of Filing Location for Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3ca0808dfb107210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
little_willy
09-15 11:49 PM
�Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.�
2011 Avril Lavigne – Simmon Emmett
vallabhu
07-30 05:30 PM
this spring�s defunct immigration bill partially replaced with a skills-based system.
This statement is confusing between SKILL BILL and Point based system bill.
I cannot make which one he has in mind for us, can you guys comment.
This statement is confusing between SKILL BILL and Point based system bill.
I cannot make which one he has in mind for us, can you guys comment.
more...
ch102
02-24 11:11 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20090224/bs_bw/feb2009tc20090223946195
anandrajesh
01-05 01:41 PM
This is very risky, if not done correctly.
Assume that you would got the I-797 and started working in the US, subsequently, when you go for H1-b stamping in India, high risk of rejection there. This is because B1/B2 has a non-immigrant intention and changing the status to H1-b within the US sends the wrong signal to the Consular officer during stamping.
Correct thing to do would be go to India after getting I-797, get the H1-b stamped, re-enter US on H1 status. Everything would be alright.
I agree with what Boreal said. Also, you cannot get a H1 B stamping in Canada or MExico, if you change from B1/B2 to H1. You have to go back to ur country of origin to get it stamped.
Assume that you would got the I-797 and started working in the US, subsequently, when you go for H1-b stamping in India, high risk of rejection there. This is because B1/B2 has a non-immigrant intention and changing the status to H1-b within the US sends the wrong signal to the Consular officer during stamping.
Correct thing to do would be go to India after getting I-797, get the H1-b stamped, re-enter US on H1 status. Everything would be alright.
I agree with what Boreal said. Also, you cannot get a H1 B stamping in Canada or MExico, if you change from B1/B2 to H1. You have to go back to ur country of origin to get it stamped.
more...
vparam
11-01 09:34 AM
One of the requirement is if you were last submitted to the U.S. as a non-immigrant on or before Sept 30, 2002. At that point in time, i entered the U.S. in January 2003 after taking a 2 weeks Christmas break.
The document you have reffered is -->EXTENSION OF REGISTRATION PERIOD
FOR CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANTS
and this extension is valid till on or before April 25, 2003
for the following
And you were last admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant on or before
September 30, 2002; and
� If you are a male, born on or before February 24, 1987; and
� If you did not have an application for asylum pending on January 16, 2003, or if you are
not otherwise exempt as described in the attached questions and answers; and
� If you will remain in the United States at least until April 25, 2003.
So irrespective of the above regulation you should have registered if you are from the stated regions unless the original regulation also stated the above points. In that case you need not register based on the 1st point but would have to register based on the 4th point ***If you will remain in the United States at least until April 25, 2003.****. So cannot understand why you were mislead....
The document you have reffered is -->EXTENSION OF REGISTRATION PERIOD
FOR CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANTS
and this extension is valid till on or before April 25, 2003
for the following
And you were last admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant on or before
September 30, 2002; and
� If you are a male, born on or before February 24, 1987; and
� If you did not have an application for asylum pending on January 16, 2003, or if you are
not otherwise exempt as described in the attached questions and answers; and
� If you will remain in the United States at least until April 25, 2003.
So irrespective of the above regulation you should have registered if you are from the stated regions unless the original regulation also stated the above points. In that case you need not register based on the 1st point but would have to register based on the 4th point ***If you will remain in the United States at least until April 25, 2003.****. So cannot understand why you were mislead....
2010 Avril Lavigne in Miami beach
s_r_e_e
08-19 03:10 PM
I believe you should send what ever you have with a good cover letter about the unavailability & about the documents submitted originally. That might turn it in to an approval soon, hopefully.
more...
waitingonlc
02-13 03:50 PM
Immigration plan looms in Congress
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
hair Avril Lavigne Pictures, Images
pa_arora
03-02 01:15 PM
I have heard many ppl say that its okie to go back before the kid is 10 yrs...and with this statement heard many examples...so I would guess its before when the kid is in 5 grade.
-p
-p
more...
mandyharper
November 9th, 2004, 11:20 AM
Thanks for that, it makes perfect sense - I was leaning towards new anyway as there were no deals to be had.
Thanks
Thanks