nogc_noproblem
07-11 01:36 PM
Nope, just being 'current' doesn't mean everybody will get their GC.
PD movement temporary, Retro permanent.
1 year from now, only EB3-Indians with PDs of 2001-2006 will hang on the IV website. Everybody else(or atleast 99%) will be gone...
PD movement temporary, Retro permanent.
1 year from now, only EB3-Indians with PDs of 2001-2006 will hang on the IV website. Everybody else(or atleast 99%) will be gone...
gc_chahiye
08-26 12:59 PM
This is not correct. you can apply for 1 year extensions if you have applied for 485 and is pending.
not true. For H1 extension you only need an LC >365 days old, or I-140 approved. Just 485 pending does not matter.
If your I-140 is approved and your PD is not current, you will get a 3 year extension irrespective of 485 filing or not. This has also been confirmed by the USCIS in its recent FAQs.
If your LC is >365 days old you get a 1 year extension.
not true. For H1 extension you only need an LC >365 days old, or I-140 approved. Just 485 pending does not matter.
If your I-140 is approved and your PD is not current, you will get a 3 year extension irrespective of 485 filing or not. This has also been confirmed by the USCIS in its recent FAQs.
If your LC is >365 days old you get a 1 year extension.
diptam
08-13 05:14 PM
7:30 AM folks started getting receipts now - We 11:30 AM guys have to wait at least 2-3 more weeks :D :D
By the way - guys whose things gone between 9 to 9:30 got receipts the first ( there are exceptions though) - After Coffee everyone was charged !! The early (7:30) guys are penalized for too much alertness and late (11:30) guys are taken care of for too much laziness.
I've never imagined that i'll see such interesting stuffs in GC process at US.
Same here...mine was signed by GERKENSMEYER AT 11.34am
By the way - guys whose things gone between 9 to 9:30 got receipts the first ( there are exceptions though) - After Coffee everyone was charged !! The early (7:30) guys are penalized for too much alertness and late (11:30) guys are taken care of for too much laziness.
I've never imagined that i'll see such interesting stuffs in GC process at US.
Same here...mine was signed by GERKENSMEYER AT 11.34am
dilbert_cal
07-10 12:00 AM
Answer inline in different color
I'm working for a big company in US since 2001. My Lc is filed in 2001 and it is still pending in BEC (phily).
Recently my company offered me LC substitution (PD of 2002). I have taken it and they filed 140. I need to show the previous experience of a skill set in 1999. I have a letter from that company for that. The problem is that company is out of business.
Questions
1)Will USCIS call that employer (employer is in a foreign country) for that experience?If so, the company is closed. What will happen? Will they reject my 140?
The chances of USCIS calling up the company are slim - havent heard of it from anyone yet. In case, they do call and find the company is closed, they might ask for additional evidence that you worked for the company - paystubs, I.T. return or anything that proves you were working there.
2)My original LC is approved (got approved yesterday)? My lawyer is telling that they will file 140 on this one also? How on earth can I habe 2 140's? When my time comes for 485, which 140 should I choose? I'm confused
Can you have more than one 140 - Absolutely yes. Can you have it from the same company - YES again. In terms of which 140 to choose - here is what I might have done if I were in your position. The substitution 140 can only be filed in normal processing. For the month of July, premium processing is not available for 140 but hopefully in Auguest, USCIS will again allow premium processing. I'd had put my own labor's 140 in premium processing.
Next, I would wait for September and as soon as the bulletin comes out - there is a very very high possibility of your 2001 date becoming current then , make sure that your 485 is filed on the very first date. Your 2001 PD is better in terms of PD if both the PDs are in the same category. Otherwise, EB2 is better than EB3 as of now.
Hope this helps you.
I'm working for a big company in US since 2001. My Lc is filed in 2001 and it is still pending in BEC (phily).
Recently my company offered me LC substitution (PD of 2002). I have taken it and they filed 140. I need to show the previous experience of a skill set in 1999. I have a letter from that company for that. The problem is that company is out of business.
Questions
1)Will USCIS call that employer (employer is in a foreign country) for that experience?If so, the company is closed. What will happen? Will they reject my 140?
The chances of USCIS calling up the company are slim - havent heard of it from anyone yet. In case, they do call and find the company is closed, they might ask for additional evidence that you worked for the company - paystubs, I.T. return or anything that proves you were working there.
2)My original LC is approved (got approved yesterday)? My lawyer is telling that they will file 140 on this one also? How on earth can I habe 2 140's? When my time comes for 485, which 140 should I choose? I'm confused
Can you have more than one 140 - Absolutely yes. Can you have it from the same company - YES again. In terms of which 140 to choose - here is what I might have done if I were in your position. The substitution 140 can only be filed in normal processing. For the month of July, premium processing is not available for 140 but hopefully in Auguest, USCIS will again allow premium processing. I'd had put my own labor's 140 in premium processing.
Next, I would wait for September and as soon as the bulletin comes out - there is a very very high possibility of your 2001 date becoming current then , make sure that your 485 is filed on the very first date. Your 2001 PD is better in terms of PD if both the PDs are in the same category. Otherwise, EB2 is better than EB3 as of now.
Hope this helps you.
more...
vrbest
08-17 05:13 PM
I just came back this afternoon (1:30 PM EST) via Dubai...Atlanta..from Chennai.. Just showed AP document and passport.. no questions asked...
Airline just verified AP at Chennai and Dubai to ensure I travel with valid documentation to USA.
sanjay02: Dependents may need to produce Primary Applicant's 485 receipt just incase they ask.. Not sure if it really matters as there is no primary or dependent on AP document mentioned.
Hope this helps!
I just wanted to confirm that it is ok to travel on AP via Dubai from Emirates without H1B stamp. Has anyone done this recently and can you share your experience? Thanks.
- gchopes
Airline just verified AP at Chennai and Dubai to ensure I travel with valid documentation to USA.
sanjay02: Dependents may need to produce Primary Applicant's 485 receipt just incase they ask.. Not sure if it really matters as there is no primary or dependent on AP document mentioned.
Hope this helps!
I just wanted to confirm that it is ok to travel on AP via Dubai from Emirates without H1B stamp. Has anyone done this recently and can you share your experience? Thanks.
- gchopes
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
more...
cheg
08-20 10:00 PM
you'll see your private message (PM) on the top right side of your screen. Just click on that. :)
GCOrNoGC - what do u mean by PM's..? I have not recd. anything from u.!
GCOrNoGC - what do u mean by PM's..? I have not recd. anything from u.!
sayantan76
07-05 08:36 PM
Hello,
I am on L1 B visa here for last 2.5 years working for MNC (Fortune 200). The benefits folks recently contacted me and told me that I was not allowed to participate in US retirement plans (401K) due to L1 visa restrictions, and that they are returning all my previous contributions and earnings back to me as an income. They said that they allowed to participate me for past 2.5 years by mistake.
My question is if this is true ? Are there other folks on L1 who are participating in 401 K plans ? what are my options here ?
PLEASE HELP.
I have been in US on L1A for more than 3 years now....i participate in 401(k), my company matches as per company policy, company contributes to pension plan separately as per company policy for US employees.....
I am not a lawyer nor a tax expert and this is purely based on my personal interpretation.......all retirement/ welfare benefits etc have to be non discriminatory - i.e. any plan available to general class of employees on US payroll should equally apply to you irrespective of your visa status..this has nothing to do with whether company intends to sponsor GC or not or any other factor....only exception is B1 holders since B1 holders are not supposed to get US payroll........
I am on L1 B visa here for last 2.5 years working for MNC (Fortune 200). The benefits folks recently contacted me and told me that I was not allowed to participate in US retirement plans (401K) due to L1 visa restrictions, and that they are returning all my previous contributions and earnings back to me as an income. They said that they allowed to participate me for past 2.5 years by mistake.
My question is if this is true ? Are there other folks on L1 who are participating in 401 K plans ? what are my options here ?
PLEASE HELP.
I have been in US on L1A for more than 3 years now....i participate in 401(k), my company matches as per company policy, company contributes to pension plan separately as per company policy for US employees.....
I am not a lawyer nor a tax expert and this is purely based on my personal interpretation.......all retirement/ welfare benefits etc have to be non discriminatory - i.e. any plan available to general class of employees on US payroll should equally apply to you irrespective of your visa status..this has nothing to do with whether company intends to sponsor GC or not or any other factor....only exception is B1 holders since B1 holders are not supposed to get US payroll........
more...
indianabacklog
06-10 01:45 PM
Thanks for encouragement,
It's always scary the first time. : )
Re. Check caching - just FYI, now-a-days, they copy the check, convert it to EFT and destroy the original so getting case number from copy may not work.
Also do I write A# on back of photos or something else? Any idea if there are restrictions for using pen or pencil or such?
thanks again,
NS
I did not get the case number from the hard copy but the electronic copy which I can access from my online account information.
I did write my husbands A# on the back of the photo in pencil if I remember rightly but just so that it did not push through the imprint on the photo itself.
Believe in yourself. I filed both mine and my spouse's adjustment of status packet myself and we have our green cards without any requests for evidence. If you have read the instructions and followed them, filled all the blank spaces in on the form and supplied all the other documents etc that are needed you are doing fine. If the USCIS needs anything else they will ask for it.
It's always scary the first time. : )
Re. Check caching - just FYI, now-a-days, they copy the check, convert it to EFT and destroy the original so getting case number from copy may not work.
Also do I write A# on back of photos or something else? Any idea if there are restrictions for using pen or pencil or such?
thanks again,
NS
I did not get the case number from the hard copy but the electronic copy which I can access from my online account information.
I did write my husbands A# on the back of the photo in pencil if I remember rightly but just so that it did not push through the imprint on the photo itself.
Believe in yourself. I filed both mine and my spouse's adjustment of status packet myself and we have our green cards without any requests for evidence. If you have read the instructions and followed them, filled all the blank spaces in on the form and supplied all the other documents etc that are needed you are doing fine. If the USCIS needs anything else they will ask for it.
voldemar
12-31 02:30 PM
If your wife wants to work, then, of course, both of you have to be on EAD.That's not correct. Primary applicant could be on H1 and dependent use EAD. When dependent starts using EAD it doesn't affect primary applicant.
more...
prioritydate
08-06 05:35 PM
I have an LUD on my I-140 on 04/20/2008(Sunday)
itsokgc
08-10 05:14 PM
I am in the same boat. However, I have issue with my I-140, where there is typo in the Priority Date.
I have infopass appointment tomorrow. Hope dates will not retrogress behind Feb 2006.
I have infopass appointment tomorrow. Hope dates will not retrogress behind Feb 2006.
more...
ps57002
09-14 07:50 AM
I see IV has done an excellent job in promoting the event as I see it listed in several newspapers (and listed on lawfirm websites such as murthy, siskund, etc. I think it will be a huge turnout and you want to be a part of this exciting rally. If you're thinking "well there's enough people already" then you need to think "i'm doing my part, that's what matters, no matter how many show/don't show up". Stand up for what is right. Stand up cause enough is enough. Stand up because each and every one counts. Come on to D.C. You'll make a lot of new friends and can have fun in person talking to people who understand....you can talk about your receipts in person too :p Will be great...don't miss out.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070025734
http://www.sulekha.com/groups/postdisplay.aspx%3fcid=1733%26forumid=1073559
blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/immigration-v-2.html
www.i-newswire.com/pr120784.html
www.ianh.org/CommunityEvents
http://bibdaily.com/
www.telugucinema.net/board/viewtopic.php?topic=532&forum=1
www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openThread.cfm?forum=2&threadid=50661
www.aapkamanoranjan.com/beta/event_detail.php?id=224
www.atlantadunia.com/dunia/DesiCafeShowDtl.asp?ThisAd=226&Vuid=2358
washington.eknazar.com/Events/viewevent.php?id=27493
www.gbnc.org/sajha/html/eventdetail.cfm?eventid=1224
http://www.universitet.us/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9129
http://www.indiaabroad.com/events/ia_display.php?seldate1=&seldate2=&location=District+Of+Columbia
http://www.netsapboston.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=412
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070025734
http://www.sulekha.com/groups/postdisplay.aspx%3fcid=1733%26forumid=1073559
blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/immigration-v-2.html
www.i-newswire.com/pr120784.html
www.ianh.org/CommunityEvents
http://bibdaily.com/
www.telugucinema.net/board/viewtopic.php?topic=532&forum=1
www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openThread.cfm?forum=2&threadid=50661
www.aapkamanoranjan.com/beta/event_detail.php?id=224
www.atlantadunia.com/dunia/DesiCafeShowDtl.asp?ThisAd=226&Vuid=2358
washington.eknazar.com/Events/viewevent.php?id=27493
www.gbnc.org/sajha/html/eventdetail.cfm?eventid=1224
http://www.universitet.us/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9129
http://www.indiaabroad.com/events/ia_display.php?seldate1=&seldate2=&location=District+Of+Columbia
http://www.netsapboston.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=412
indianindian2006
03-24 07:47 PM
Does a dentist qualify under STEM.Please advice.
more...
perm2gc
08-24 04:48 PM
I have similar situation and not sure whether I will be able to apply for H1B revalidation..
I filed my i 140 and i 485 on Dec 23rd 2003 under EB3 category. I think my labor was filed under EB3 category. My Priority date is Mid August 2003. After 180 days of filing (around Nov 2004) I left my sponsoring company and joined another company with similar Job responsibility (to avail AC21), But didn't get my H1b transferred to new company. I got married recently and Ofcourse I can't file for my wife's i 485 since I am from India and visa numbers are not available. Can I get my H1Bvisa transferred to new employer if he is willing to sponsor? I got 3 years on H1B left
H1B Years are not based on employer..You can Recapture H1B time for any employer.You will get your 3 year extension with new employer if your attroney files so..
My Views Are Personal..Consult Immigration Attroney !!!
I filed my i 140 and i 485 on Dec 23rd 2003 under EB3 category. I think my labor was filed under EB3 category. My Priority date is Mid August 2003. After 180 days of filing (around Nov 2004) I left my sponsoring company and joined another company with similar Job responsibility (to avail AC21), But didn't get my H1b transferred to new company. I got married recently and Ofcourse I can't file for my wife's i 485 since I am from India and visa numbers are not available. Can I get my H1Bvisa transferred to new employer if he is willing to sponsor? I got 3 years on H1B left
H1B Years are not based on employer..You can Recapture H1B time for any employer.You will get your 3 year extension with new employer if your attroney files so..
My Views Are Personal..Consult Immigration Attroney !!!
freedom_fighter
03-08 02:38 PM
another one bites the card.
more...
frost_oni
04-08 02:16 PM
yes, interesting concept. teh characters are ok, but you gotta work a bit more on the txt...
Cataphract
05-25 08:53 AM
I just read this article in the paper today and wanted to share it with all of you.
It seems the general media has an impression that this CIR bill is a boon for the legal, skillled immigrant population, now we all know how true that is.
No one it seems has bothered to did deep enough to find out about the true perils of this bill, from the legal immigrants standpoint. That is where we need to also focus our resources.
I truly think that the conservative commentators who write on the op-ed pages of Washington Post, New York Times a and WSJ are our best bets in these tough times. Believe it or not, in the last few days I have read more than a few articles where they have addressed the new bill and have come out in support of legal, skilled immigrants rather than the liberals who are all gung-ho for the the low skilled population and care too much about still preserving family ties and encouraging chain migration. If we were to email something to say, George Will, Charles Krauthammer (I truly despise this right wing nut, but still) or even Robert Novak, there is a good chance they will address this issue.
I think we should develop a stinging rebuke (i know we already have, but this will be a very, very simpler version without all the clause quotations and targeted directly to the laymen), in the form of an Op-Ed piece that addresses in a point-by-point basis some of the most unfavorable provisions that this bill is littered with and also address the misinformation that is being spread suggesting that all of us legal skilled immigrants are going to come out way ahead once this bill passes.
I think we have a very good chance getting it published in one of these papers and it will have a huge impact.
This truly is make or break point for us and thanks everyone for doing their part. I just hope our lobbyists are aware of this predicament and that how damaging it will be to our interests if this bill passes.
Btw, just saw this poll/article on NYT about how most Americans are in favor of the guest worker program and legalizing illegals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402605.html?hpid=topnews
For some reason my uploads of PDF's failed, so I am adding links.
It seems the general media has an impression that this CIR bill is a boon for the legal, skillled immigrant population, now we all know how true that is.
No one it seems has bothered to did deep enough to find out about the true perils of this bill, from the legal immigrants standpoint. That is where we need to also focus our resources.
I truly think that the conservative commentators who write on the op-ed pages of Washington Post, New York Times a and WSJ are our best bets in these tough times. Believe it or not, in the last few days I have read more than a few articles where they have addressed the new bill and have come out in support of legal, skilled immigrants rather than the liberals who are all gung-ho for the the low skilled population and care too much about still preserving family ties and encouraging chain migration. If we were to email something to say, George Will, Charles Krauthammer (I truly despise this right wing nut, but still) or even Robert Novak, there is a good chance they will address this issue.
I think we should develop a stinging rebuke (i know we already have, but this will be a very, very simpler version without all the clause quotations and targeted directly to the laymen), in the form of an Op-Ed piece that addresses in a point-by-point basis some of the most unfavorable provisions that this bill is littered with and also address the misinformation that is being spread suggesting that all of us legal skilled immigrants are going to come out way ahead once this bill passes.
I think we have a very good chance getting it published in one of these papers and it will have a huge impact.
This truly is make or break point for us and thanks everyone for doing their part. I just hope our lobbyists are aware of this predicament and that how damaging it will be to our interests if this bill passes.
Btw, just saw this poll/article on NYT about how most Americans are in favor of the guest worker program and legalizing illegals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402605.html?hpid=topnews
For some reason my uploads of PDF's failed, so I am adding links.
Lasantha
04-26 12:39 PM
I don't think you really need the physical card. Canadian Immigration officer simply told me that i am a landed immigrant now, the entry stamp and document attached to the passport are enough for me to come and go freely as long as i live in CA for 2 in every 5 years. So there is no additional advantage from giving an temporary address and getting a card.
Yes there is. Without the card, you cannot "freely come and go" as you put it. If you fly to Canada you will have to apply for an entry permit if you do not have your PR card. They will not let you board the plane otherwise. You will either need the PR card or the entry permit. Check the CIC web site for more info on this. What you say used to be true prior to 2002 before they introduced the new PR card but its different now.
If you drive then I believe you can get away without the card but I am not sure about that.
Yes there is. Without the card, you cannot "freely come and go" as you put it. If you fly to Canada you will have to apply for an entry permit if you do not have your PR card. They will not let you board the plane otherwise. You will either need the PR card or the entry permit. Check the CIC web site for more info on this. What you say used to be true prior to 2002 before they introduced the new PR card but its different now.
If you drive then I believe you can get away without the card but I am not sure about that.
beppenyc
04-09 04:14 PM
The system is broken, but only for us. Trust me, the US is only profit from the Illegal and Legal immegration. I lost hope, it`s the same dance, again, again and again.
Browndog
February 20th, 2005, 07:43 AM
if it's any help i have a 2nd hand Sigma APO macro 70-300mm. like NikNikon i found the D70 kit lens much sharper generally, but the sigma when stopped sown to f8 or f9 at 300mm seems to be sufficiently clear enough and really helps for picking out faces in crowds etc. i recently went to a chinease new year festival and the extra reach of the lens blew me away. i could get full frame shots of the dragon mask even though i was stood further back in the crowd. being stopped down thoough i find if the light is less than ideal i need a very fast ISO to keep the shutter speed up. hope that helps :-)