ramineni11
05-17 04:56 PM
Yes, I told so many people the same when they asked me "what to do". And left it upto them.
So I assume you told this to your neighbor who lives downstairs :D
So I assume you told this to your neighbor who lives downstairs :D
wallpaper Caitlin Beadles
shana04
02-14 11:57 AM
My wife is using EAD . I am still on H1 and have not started using EAD. Can I still switch to a new employer with a H1 transfer ?. Or since, she is in EAD, should I do an AC21 only with EAD ?. Thanks..
you can use h1b transfer
you can use h1b transfer
rajev_kk
08-09 08:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
Miss. Murthy reports that LS was rejected for some folks.
How does one get to know if his Labor Substitution was rejected? If a Receipt Notice was received does that mean that it was accepted? And, can they reject it later?
Miss. Murthy reports that LS was rejected for some folks.
How does one get to know if his Labor Substitution was rejected? If a Receipt Notice was received does that mean that it was accepted? And, can they reject it later?
2011 Justin byphoto of caitlin
chanduv23
05-15 12:53 PM
Copanies like INFOSYS are not the culprits. This is going tangenatially. It is the local small desi body shops that suck blood and hold candidates life in their hand because of GC. They should be investigated.
All those big ones were actually small shops. Outplacement is a common practice, the intent of numbers USA and PG is to target anyone who is on H1b and not just desi shops.
So many desi shops or Amricaan shops do outplacement and pay competitive saalaries and have nothing to do with outsourcing. CIBER and Ajilon are huge outplacement companies, but very rarely indulgein visa gouging as they deal only with transfers and involve in transfers only after client agrees to hire the consultant
All those big ones were actually small shops. Outplacement is a common practice, the intent of numbers USA and PG is to target anyone who is on H1b and not just desi shops.
So many desi shops or Amricaan shops do outplacement and pay competitive saalaries and have nothing to do with outsourcing. CIBER and Ajilon are huge outplacement companies, but very rarely indulgein visa gouging as they deal only with transfers and involve in transfers only after client agrees to hire the consultant
more...
Gravitation
04-13 11:32 AM
May Visa Bulletin is out. EB3 ROW and Philippines seem to have moved by 1 year.
Even bigger news is that "Other Workers" have become Unavailable for the whole world.
It furthers strengthens the theory that good number of 245i's are EW category and not in the regular EB3 category.
This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that all EB3 dates have been sustained above May 1st for a few months now.
Even bigger news is that "Other Workers" have become Unavailable for the whole world.
It furthers strengthens the theory that good number of 245i's are EW category and not in the regular EB3 category.
This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that all EB3 dates have been sustained above May 1st for a few months now.
gapala
02-21 12:03 PM
Bujjigadu123, do not forget to graciously ask him,
1) What is this appointment for visit about?
2) What is he going to do with the information that he is collect from you? Specifically when he collects personal and sensitive information.
3) You should ask if its possible to meet at workplace or somewhere else other than home.
I would not be comfortable meeting unknown people specifically at home with a single phone call, its not safe too.
1) What is this appointment for visit about?
2) What is he going to do with the information that he is collect from you? Specifically when he collects personal and sensitive information.
3) You should ask if its possible to meet at workplace or somewhere else other than home.
I would not be comfortable meeting unknown people specifically at home with a single phone call, its not safe too.
more...
god_bless_you
02-20 06:21 PM
Office of Communications
www.uscis.gov
Questions & Answers February 20, 2008
FBI Name Check
Q1. How has USCIS changed its national security reporting and adjudication
requirements?
A1. USCIS has not changed its background check policies as those policies related to naturalization
applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for applications where the
immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI
name check response is received after approval. For these types of applications, including applications
for lawful permanent residence, the adjudicators will approve the application if it is otherwise approvable
and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days. No application for lawful
permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border
Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably.
Q2. Why is this policy being implemented?
A2. This policy change is in response to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS
align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q3. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of
Homeland Security?
A3. Yes. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI
fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved
favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the
application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings. Lastly, in general these individuals have
been in the United States for some time and have previously been subjected to DHS background checks.
Q4. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A4. Applications included in this policy are:
�� I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
�� I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
�� I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act; and
�� I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A
of Public Law 99-603).
Q5. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are affected by this policy change?
A3. USCIS is currently aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases
that are otherwise approvable but for the fact that an FBI name check is pending. In a subset of these
case, the FBI name check request that been pending for more than 180 days. USCIS anticipates that the
majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q5. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A5. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
Q6. How long will it take for USCIS to work through these cases affected by the policy change?
A6. USCIS has begun identifying the cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and
service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly.
USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be
processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring
about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
Q7. USCIS Director Gonzalez pledged in his January 17, 2008, testimony regarding naturalization
backlogs before Congress not to cut corners in the adjudicative process or risk national security in
the interest of production? Does this policy comply with the Director’s pledge?
A7. Yes. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
For those applications for permanent residence that are affected by this policy modification, no
application will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection
Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. USCIS will continue to initiate the FBI
name check requests upon receipt of the applications and will review, monitor and track cases approved
under this policy until the FBI name check is complete. In the unlikely event that DHS receives
actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings.
Q8. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include
other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A8. No.
Q9. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an
INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if they believe their application meets the criteria
of this new policy?
A9. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about cases affected by this
policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant
pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer
service line at 1-800-375-5283.
Q10. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center if their fingerprints have expired?
A10. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new/updated fingerprint checks are
needed.
– USCIS –
www.uscis.gov
Questions & Answers February 20, 2008
FBI Name Check
Q1. How has USCIS changed its national security reporting and adjudication
requirements?
A1. USCIS has not changed its background check policies as those policies related to naturalization
applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for applications where the
immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI
name check response is received after approval. For these types of applications, including applications
for lawful permanent residence, the adjudicators will approve the application if it is otherwise approvable
and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days. No application for lawful
permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border
Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably.
Q2. Why is this policy being implemented?
A2. This policy change is in response to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS
align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q3. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of
Homeland Security?
A3. Yes. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI
fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved
favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the
application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings. Lastly, in general these individuals have
been in the United States for some time and have previously been subjected to DHS background checks.
Q4. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A4. Applications included in this policy are:
�� I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
�� I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
�� I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act; and
�� I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A
of Public Law 99-603).
Q5. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are affected by this policy change?
A3. USCIS is currently aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases
that are otherwise approvable but for the fact that an FBI name check is pending. In a subset of these
case, the FBI name check request that been pending for more than 180 days. USCIS anticipates that the
majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q5. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A5. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
Q6. How long will it take for USCIS to work through these cases affected by the policy change?
A6. USCIS has begun identifying the cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and
service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly.
USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be
processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring
about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
Q7. USCIS Director Gonzalez pledged in his January 17, 2008, testimony regarding naturalization
backlogs before Congress not to cut corners in the adjudicative process or risk national security in
the interest of production? Does this policy comply with the Director’s pledge?
A7. Yes. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check
results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
For those applications for permanent residence that are affected by this policy modification, no
application will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection
Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. USCIS will continue to initiate the FBI
name check requests upon receipt of the applications and will review, monitor and track cases approved
under this policy until the FBI name check is complete. In the unlikely event that DHS receives
actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings.
Q8. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include
other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A8. No.
Q9. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an
INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if they believe their application meets the criteria
of this new policy?
A9. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about cases affected by this
policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant
pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer
service line at 1-800-375-5283.
Q10. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center if their fingerprints have expired?
A10. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new/updated fingerprint checks are
needed.
– USCIS –
2010 +justin+ieber Caitlin we
rongha_2000
07-17 10:02 AM
Better to get a band-aid than leave the injury open and bleeding.
I hear what you are saying. I am just saying this is a band aid solution.
jasquil
I hear what you are saying. I am just saying this is a band aid solution.
jasquil
more...
vbkris77
06-01 07:53 PM
Done..
hair Justin and Caitlin
H4_losing_hope
02-21 12:38 PM
I checked with some of my colleagues and friends. They all have sent the letters, but most of them have not participated in this poll at the start. So I wouldnt get discouraged by smaller number of votes in it.
thanks for your efforts!
thanks for your efforts!
more...
skp71
03-18 09:31 AM
Instead to lobbying politicians, why don't we file tons of lawsuits againt USCIS for the process delay? July my opinion.
hot caitlin beadles and justin
cagcwait
03-09 07:49 AM
Meeting with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren�s staff, San Jose
03/08/06
A group of us met with the with Chief of Staff and Congressional Aide at Zoe Lofgren�s office in San Jose, yesterday. The meeting went very well and lasted an hour. The Chief of Staff was very knowledgeable about the issues. She ofcourse knew that the IV team had already met with the Congresswoman and the staff at her DC office. One of her first comments was about that meeting and she remarked that it was very good to have � an organized group� like IV. She was very appreciative of what IV was doing as an �organized group� � doing their homework and research and putting out presentations and materials that brought out the core issues very clearly and hiring a very competent lobbying firm to help execute our agenda. She wanted to know who made those presentations (thanks to Berkeley Bee!!!!!) J.. In fact, she repeated her appreciation quite a few times about IV. She also mentioned that she had read about IV in the Roll Call and was looking forward to meet the group.
We went through the presentation, explaining the issues � most of which the Chief of Staff was already were aware of. The Congressional Aide was not aware of a few and we used the opportunity to explain the issues. Needless to say, personal examples helped to get the point across very well. While we went through the issues at the BECs and the USCIS, we quoted quite liberally from the Ombudsman report and the Presidents Economic report and from logiclife�s post on the backlog centers. At one point we were asked/ told that since these were infrastructure problems that are very deep, it is probably going to take time to completely address the fixes in the system. We again took that opportunity and told them about IV goals such as the 3yr H1B extensions instead of 1yr and the recapture of the visas lost between 2001 and 2004 - which would provide interim relief to the people affected by the backlog. We explained how the 3yr extensions instead of 1yr would relieve the USCIS of additional work and allow them to focus their efforts on actual processing / clearing of backlog. When they commented that the Dept of Homeland Security may want this to be a 1yr process, we pointed out that currently 3yr extensions are being offered to people who have filed for I485, so we are merely asking that the same be extended to people with their Labour and I-140 pending.
They offered us a couple of suggestions:
1. To talk to the Congress people �on the other side� especially in the Judiciary committee. They wanted us to consult with our lobbying firm first. They strongly felt that we should be talking to lawmakers who are not pro-immigration. They said that we may need to study their district and the industries there and try to point out how those industries are benefited by immigrants directly or indirectly.
2. To collaborate with the giants in the Private sector who employ highly skilled legal immigrants because some of them have very loud voices on the hill.
We do have an action to get back to them with a list of states that we know that don�t issue drivers license renewals for 1yr. Can someone please provide us with this information so that we can relay it back to them?
They also wanted a softcopy of our presentation and the supporting materials. We are working on that.
Overall, they had a very good opinion about ImmigrationVoice. To quote them again,
�Very Organized Group� � and they felt that organized groups make a great difference,
�Done their homework very well in terms of research, pinpointing the exact issues, presenting and communicating them in a way lawmakers / people understand�, �Have a very good lobbying firm�. They wanted IV to continue what we are doing and meet with lawmakers on either side (pro and anti immigration), so that when a �window of opportunity� presents itself, we can use it to our advantage. The Chief of Staff reiterated this point and mentioned how important it was to be prepared for this �window of opportunity�.
My request to people who read this,
1. If you are not a member of IV, please become a member and join hands with IV NOW. You can clearly see what an impact IV is making with the lawmakers in such a short frame of time.
2. If you have not contributed, please do so NOW. It is absolutely required to retain this �very good lobbying firm� and make sure that our voices continue to be heard.
3. Please join the membership drive started by logiclife at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=305 and bring in 5 more members who can contribute monetarily / otherwise.
Thanks,
cagcwait
03/08/06
A group of us met with the with Chief of Staff and Congressional Aide at Zoe Lofgren�s office in San Jose, yesterday. The meeting went very well and lasted an hour. The Chief of Staff was very knowledgeable about the issues. She ofcourse knew that the IV team had already met with the Congresswoman and the staff at her DC office. One of her first comments was about that meeting and she remarked that it was very good to have � an organized group� like IV. She was very appreciative of what IV was doing as an �organized group� � doing their homework and research and putting out presentations and materials that brought out the core issues very clearly and hiring a very competent lobbying firm to help execute our agenda. She wanted to know who made those presentations (thanks to Berkeley Bee!!!!!) J.. In fact, she repeated her appreciation quite a few times about IV. She also mentioned that she had read about IV in the Roll Call and was looking forward to meet the group.
We went through the presentation, explaining the issues � most of which the Chief of Staff was already were aware of. The Congressional Aide was not aware of a few and we used the opportunity to explain the issues. Needless to say, personal examples helped to get the point across very well. While we went through the issues at the BECs and the USCIS, we quoted quite liberally from the Ombudsman report and the Presidents Economic report and from logiclife�s post on the backlog centers. At one point we were asked/ told that since these were infrastructure problems that are very deep, it is probably going to take time to completely address the fixes in the system. We again took that opportunity and told them about IV goals such as the 3yr H1B extensions instead of 1yr and the recapture of the visas lost between 2001 and 2004 - which would provide interim relief to the people affected by the backlog. We explained how the 3yr extensions instead of 1yr would relieve the USCIS of additional work and allow them to focus their efforts on actual processing / clearing of backlog. When they commented that the Dept of Homeland Security may want this to be a 1yr process, we pointed out that currently 3yr extensions are being offered to people who have filed for I485, so we are merely asking that the same be extended to people with their Labour and I-140 pending.
They offered us a couple of suggestions:
1. To talk to the Congress people �on the other side� especially in the Judiciary committee. They wanted us to consult with our lobbying firm first. They strongly felt that we should be talking to lawmakers who are not pro-immigration. They said that we may need to study their district and the industries there and try to point out how those industries are benefited by immigrants directly or indirectly.
2. To collaborate with the giants in the Private sector who employ highly skilled legal immigrants because some of them have very loud voices on the hill.
We do have an action to get back to them with a list of states that we know that don�t issue drivers license renewals for 1yr. Can someone please provide us with this information so that we can relay it back to them?
They also wanted a softcopy of our presentation and the supporting materials. We are working on that.
Overall, they had a very good opinion about ImmigrationVoice. To quote them again,
�Very Organized Group� � and they felt that organized groups make a great difference,
�Done their homework very well in terms of research, pinpointing the exact issues, presenting and communicating them in a way lawmakers / people understand�, �Have a very good lobbying firm�. They wanted IV to continue what we are doing and meet with lawmakers on either side (pro and anti immigration), so that when a �window of opportunity� presents itself, we can use it to our advantage. The Chief of Staff reiterated this point and mentioned how important it was to be prepared for this �window of opportunity�.
My request to people who read this,
1. If you are not a member of IV, please become a member and join hands with IV NOW. You can clearly see what an impact IV is making with the lawmakers in such a short frame of time.
2. If you have not contributed, please do so NOW. It is absolutely required to retain this �very good lobbying firm� and make sure that our voices continue to be heard.
3. Please join the membership drive started by logiclife at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=305 and bring in 5 more members who can contribute monetarily / otherwise.
Thanks,
cagcwait
more...
house tattoo Justin Bieber #39
calif
12-04 01:17 PM
was it EB2 or EB3?
My EB2 was rejected initially but later approved due to Sheila's evalaution of my CA degree equivalent to master's degree. I did not know her but my lawyer insisted to get it done through her. She was good for me.
My EB2 was rejected initially but later approved due to Sheila's evalaution of my CA degree equivalent to master's degree. I did not know her but my lawyer insisted to get it done through her. She was good for me.
tattoo Justin Bieber#39;s ex has broken
ivbabu
01-04 01:59 PM
You can bring UP TO 4 spouses on H4 visa. That's why it is called H4. Similarly on F2, you can only bring 2 spouses, Ah...students do not make that kind of money to support more than 2 spouses. USCIS thinks so much about us.
I am just talking out of my A**.
kumar1 & gc_chahiye: your posts made me laugh for more than 10 min. You guys made my day short. I cannot forget this thread at least till this weekend. We need threads like this to easeoff stereotype life and stress
I am just talking out of my A**.
kumar1 & gc_chahiye: your posts made me laugh for more than 10 min. You guys made my day short. I cannot forget this thread at least till this weekend. We need threads like this to easeoff stereotype life and stress
more...
pictures Justin Bieber With Former
BharatPremi
11-07 02:00 PM
I received my AP on Nov 3 and looking at the AP doc it had an approval date of Oct 10 whereas I had "Document mailed to applicant" message on Oct 31.
I am not sure what happened between Oct 10 and Oct 31st.
I am sure nothing happened between that period to your papers except eating dust in USCIS mailroom.
I am not sure what happened between Oct 10 and Oct 31st.
I am sure nothing happened between that period to your papers except eating dust in USCIS mailroom.
dresses Justin Bieber And Caitlin Beadles
wellwishergc
04-10 07:24 PM
Berkeley,
I am of the opinion that issues such as 'allowing I-485 even if visa data not current' or 'allowing for application of EAD once I-140 approved' could be addressed by urging appropriate agencies to make changes to the existing regulations. As bharnik pointed out there is no effect on the visa numbers for the USCIS, by allowing this. While we fight and wait for legislation, this is a very good short-term relief.
Is it possible for IV to brain-storm on this? and come up with an approach to address this, without having to go through the congress?..
Please advise..
Sincerely,
Raj
bkarnik,
Excellent, creative question. Alas, the answer to this lies not in the INA itself but the Code of Federal Regulations.
To be specific, 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/8cfr274a.12.pdf) is what allows employment authorization at the adjustment of status stage. See page 658 of the linked document.
I was about to write an explanation of 8 CFR 274, but then I found this excellent summary which describes the regulation of the employment of aliens http://www.coane.com/pdfs/workpermits.pdf
Now how do we go about changing this provision to include I-140 -- not sure.
However, it is simply a case of moving the ball around --
either you ask that people be able to file adjustment of status even if visa numbers are not available
OR
you ask that 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) be amended so that people with approved I-140s be allowed to get EADs and Advance Parole.
I am of the opinion that issues such as 'allowing I-485 even if visa data not current' or 'allowing for application of EAD once I-140 approved' could be addressed by urging appropriate agencies to make changes to the existing regulations. As bharnik pointed out there is no effect on the visa numbers for the USCIS, by allowing this. While we fight and wait for legislation, this is a very good short-term relief.
Is it possible for IV to brain-storm on this? and come up with an approach to address this, without having to go through the congress?..
Please advise..
Sincerely,
Raj
bkarnik,
Excellent, creative question. Alas, the answer to this lies not in the INA itself but the Code of Federal Regulations.
To be specific, 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/8cfr274a.12.pdf) is what allows employment authorization at the adjustment of status stage. See page 658 of the linked document.
I was about to write an explanation of 8 CFR 274, but then I found this excellent summary which describes the regulation of the employment of aliens http://www.coane.com/pdfs/workpermits.pdf
Now how do we go about changing this provision to include I-140 -- not sure.
However, it is simply a case of moving the ball around --
either you ask that people be able to file adjustment of status even if visa numbers are not available
OR
you ask that 8 CFR 274 a.12(c) (9) be amended so that people with approved I-140s be allowed to get EADs and Advance Parole.
more...
makeup But does Justin really want a
jethro11
04-20 02:41 PM
Solaris27,
Thanks for your reply, there are a lot of conflicting reports from different sources so I wanted to be sure. Have you traveled in the past month or know of anybody who has come back without a transit visa through Frankfurt? The new Schengen visa rules are causing a lot of confusion. Thanks!
Thanks for your reply, there are a lot of conflicting reports from different sources so I wanted to be sure. Have you traveled in the past month or know of anybody who has come back without a transit visa through Frankfurt? The new Schengen visa rules are causing a lot of confusion. Thanks!
girlfriend CAITLIN BEADLES
makemygc
08-01 12:14 PM
I just checked - mine was L.Armstrong too....
Is there anybody who filed on July 2nd at NSC, I-140 approved from TSC and got the receipt or checks encashed??
Is there anybody who filed on July 2nd at NSC, I-140 approved from TSC and got the receipt or checks encashed??
hairstyles kissing justin bieber
abhijitp
01-13 05:18 PM
wGpSCdeEkB4
rameshk75
02-12 06:25 PM
Hi Shana,
Just came home from work and logged back. My scenario:
- I have my H1 until Sep'09.
- If i change the employer will i get an extension for 3yrs based on the approved 140?
- Do i need to file 140 again with the new employer?
Thanks in advance
Just came home from work and logged back. My scenario:
- I have my H1 until Sep'09.
- If i change the employer will i get an extension for 3yrs based on the approved 140?
- Do i need to file 140 again with the new employer?
Thanks in advance
nrk
10-27 05:08 PM
Please let me know what are the things to carry for info pass appointment.
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
No comments:
Post a Comment