Marphad
03-27 10:34 AM
Yes, you should be.
Thanks. I am still waiting for lawyers to reply on the forum.
Thanks. I am still waiting for lawyers to reply on the forum.
wallpaper this is a nice one piece anime
smisachu
12-13 03:59 PM
Another thing is whay do you want to get into EB2???:confused::confused:
Did you not see the Jan 08 bulletin? EB2 India is behind EB3 and on the brink of the last century:mad::mad:
Of course this is assuming you are from India, if you are not; then 3 cheers for you. Study up and move out of the GC mess.
I'm thinking about pursuing maser degree of Biostatistics.
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
Did you not see the Jan 08 bulletin? EB2 India is behind EB3 and on the brink of the last century:mad::mad:
Of course this is assuming you are from India, if you are not; then 3 cheers for you. Study up and move out of the GC mess.
I'm thinking about pursuing maser degree of Biostatistics.
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
ps57002
09-15 09:53 PM
both employer and lawyer know in my case...it's not a problem. My supervisor supported me on it...
2011 -One Piece 584 Breakdown Below
dealsnet
08-04 01:31 PM
If he is willing to co-operate, she can file. If she file without his permission, he can cancel her petition any time before adjudication. The petition have the validity until the divorce. If he is not supporting with her GC, nothing can be done. She will loose her H4 status also. She need to find some other way to be in staus like, Student visa, her own H1B, marry a citizen, H1B.
Hi all,
One of my friend is separated (not divorced) from her husband.
can she file 485 by herself. Does she needs anything latest doc from her husband. She does have all the copies of his documents.
She is thinking she can work if she gets EAD. She does not have anybody here are back home except her mom. Please suggest a solution
Hi all,
One of my friend is separated (not divorced) from her husband.
can she file 485 by herself. Does she needs anything latest doc from her husband. She does have all the copies of his documents.
She is thinking she can work if she gets EAD. She does not have anybody here are back home except her mom. Please suggest a solution
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
gchopefull
10-02 02:27 PM
the RFE was on Ability to Pay
more...
aj130346
03-15 08:29 PM
My comany is filing a second LC under PERM for a substantially different job position and job location.
My first LC ( PD Oct 2004) was filed in TR. My LC is "in Process" at PBEC. No I-140 yet. I am from India
The question is: Once the PERM LC gets approved, and I140 ( second LC) approved, can the first PD ( Oct 2004) PD be retained??
Thanks for your responses
My first LC ( PD Oct 2004) was filed in TR. My LC is "in Process" at PBEC. No I-140 yet. I am from India
The question is: Once the PERM LC gets approved, and I140 ( second LC) approved, can the first PD ( Oct 2004) PD be retained??
Thanks for your responses
2010 One Piece Wallpapers - Usopp,
digitalrain
06-25 05:05 PM
Unfortunately, there are no good solutions to this problem. Humanitarian Parole is possible, but not likely except in extreme cases such as where there is a serious or life threatening illness. You should consider consulting an immigration attorney with expertise in such matters to to determine what if any chance there is for Humanitarian Parole given your family's particular circumstances.
Another strategy might be for your wife to come to the US and immediately apply for asylum in her own right. If she is granted asylum, then she can file an I-730 for your child. This strategy is complicated and could do more harm than good depending again on the particular facts of your situation. Accordingly, before taking any action, I urge you to seek expert legal representation.
Thank you very much for the response.
I have a lawyer,he advised me to ask the US Embassy to issue the kid a Humanitarian Parole,but I'm not sure if these guys know how to process these kind of unusual cases.They told my wife that I have to file a relative petition.As far as I know he is not eligible for derivative asylum since he got born after my asylum approval.
I wonder if she,my wife,can apply for humanitarian parole at the US Embassy?Or do I have to apply for humanitarian parole?
Lawers that I know are expensive and I'm not sure if these guys really know what are they doing.
I would really appreciate any advice from anyone.
Another strategy might be for your wife to come to the US and immediately apply for asylum in her own right. If she is granted asylum, then she can file an I-730 for your child. This strategy is complicated and could do more harm than good depending again on the particular facts of your situation. Accordingly, before taking any action, I urge you to seek expert legal representation.
Thank you very much for the response.
I have a lawyer,he advised me to ask the US Embassy to issue the kid a Humanitarian Parole,but I'm not sure if these guys know how to process these kind of unusual cases.They told my wife that I have to file a relative petition.As far as I know he is not eligible for derivative asylum since he got born after my asylum approval.
I wonder if she,my wife,can apply for humanitarian parole at the US Embassy?Or do I have to apply for humanitarian parole?
Lawers that I know are expensive and I'm not sure if these guys really know what are they doing.
I would really appreciate any advice from anyone.
more...
pcs
01-02 08:05 PM
Many people like us want to do an automatic contribution. Can the website be modified for this. Setting up direct payment from bank account is more cumbersome as suggested by one member
thanks
thanks
hair one piece wallpaper 1 by
Green.Tech
07-25 09:53 PM
My duties increased, in past i was doing more tech work now i mostly manage people who do the same tech work but as i said it's all subjected to the lawyer and employer.
Sounds fair. Thanks for the info buddy. Good luck!
Sounds fair. Thanks for the info buddy. Good luck!
more...
njdude26
08-26 11:16 AM
Im planning to get an online MBA from phoenix univ or someother univ. Do you guys think it is helpful in getting a GC in case the SKIL bill is passed some day !
hot Logo One Piece Wallpaper
gparr
November 15th, 2007, 07:15 AM
I reformat my cards every time I put them back in the camera, which is after every time I dump files into my computer. In other words, some of my older cards have probably been reformatted 1,000 times or more. I have never had a problem. Brands are Ridata and Sandisk (various models).
I have cleaned my sensors with a blower, the Copper Hill wet method, and using the Arctic Butterfly. I always use my Rocket blower first and I use it regularly. Now that I have an Arctic Butterfly, I find that it is extremely effective, when the blower doesn't get the job done, and I haven't broken out the swabs in some time.
Gary
I have cleaned my sensors with a blower, the Copper Hill wet method, and using the Arctic Butterfly. I always use my Rocket blower first and I use it regularly. Now that I have an Arctic Butterfly, I find that it is extremely effective, when the blower doesn't get the job done, and I haven't broken out the swabs in some time.
Gary
more...
house ONE PIECE STRAW HAT CREW WHEEL
jasmin45
08-08 04:36 PM
Even if you are not working on a project, you are technically working for a H1-B sponsorer. Once you could file your AOS, you are legal with a status of "AOS pending". During 180 days period, you don't have to work and just sit at home. Its very unlikely that your already filed AOS application will get adjudicated within 180 days. Once after 180days of filing, you invoke AC21 and start working on again with any employer.
It sounds a cake walk from your response, What if there is an RFE after 180 days on your sponsor/employer? You missed the point that GC is for future employment with the sponsor. There are certain situations where employee can invoke AC21 and get the protection against employer initiated termination etc. If you do not work for extended period.. no matter whether it is with in 180 or not.. USCIS may anytime during adjudication, question your intention for GC.
It sounds a cake walk from your response, What if there is an RFE after 180 days on your sponsor/employer? You missed the point that GC is for future employment with the sponsor. There are certain situations where employee can invoke AC21 and get the protection against employer initiated termination etc. If you do not work for extended period.. no matter whether it is with in 180 or not.. USCIS may anytime during adjudication, question your intention for GC.
tattoo Piece/One Piece Wallpapers
rajenk
07-19 07:27 PM
What if the company with your first 140 withdras th applciation (assuming 140 was approved for more than 180 days and I485 is also pending more than 180 days)
Also when you join the new company what kind of benefits you get in term of Salary/ Position/ Promotion?
It doesn't matter if the I-140 was revoked by the prev employer, still the PD is yours to keep provided that I-140 was approved. One should also be cautious about the revocation, if the approved I-140 was revoked by USCIS itself as a fraudulent filing then no benefits from that I-140! Otherwise you are good.
The new company's offer is like any other job for you, if you qualify for the job and the company likes you and your skills they are going to offer the market salary and the position can even be a manager, then you might qualify for EB1!
Also when you join the new company what kind of benefits you get in term of Salary/ Position/ Promotion?
It doesn't matter if the I-140 was revoked by the prev employer, still the PD is yours to keep provided that I-140 was approved. One should also be cautious about the revocation, if the approved I-140 was revoked by USCIS itself as a fraudulent filing then no benefits from that I-140! Otherwise you are good.
The new company's offer is like any other job for you, if you qualify for the job and the company likes you and your skills they are going to offer the market salary and the position can even be a manager, then you might qualify for EB1!
more...
pictures -One Piece Chapter 599
soneC
06-15 01:10 PM
Dear Ms. Martin:
Hello. Thank you for your timely and to-the-point reply. I will file for I-485 petition (family-based) as soon as my PD becomes current. A couple of questions:
1. I know for family-based I-485, my sponsor (my father) needs to show financial support through I-864 (Affidavit of Support). What should I do in unlikely case that my father lost his engineer position in his company? My parents actually own their house (no loan, about 250K house) and have decent amount of money for retirement. Is this enough to convince USCIS?
2. National Visa Center sent my father a notice when USCIS transferred the approved I-130 application to NVC. The notice stated case number was assigned and asked us not to make travel arrangements. Obviously, NVC still believes I am aboard because in the I-130 form, my father stated that I was aboard. Should I inform NVC that I am in the country and would like to do AoS instead of CP?
3. I assume that I can apply for EAD/AP along with the family-based I-485. Am I right?
4. Do you have an estimate family-based I-485 processing time? I was told about six month. Is it true?
5. Please give me a fee quote for I-485/EAD/AP?
Thank you so much. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely
Hello. Thank you for your timely and to-the-point reply. I will file for I-485 petition (family-based) as soon as my PD becomes current. A couple of questions:
1. I know for family-based I-485, my sponsor (my father) needs to show financial support through I-864 (Affidavit of Support). What should I do in unlikely case that my father lost his engineer position in his company? My parents actually own their house (no loan, about 250K house) and have decent amount of money for retirement. Is this enough to convince USCIS?
2. National Visa Center sent my father a notice when USCIS transferred the approved I-130 application to NVC. The notice stated case number was assigned and asked us not to make travel arrangements. Obviously, NVC still believes I am aboard because in the I-130 form, my father stated that I was aboard. Should I inform NVC that I am in the country and would like to do AoS instead of CP?
3. I assume that I can apply for EAD/AP along with the family-based I-485. Am I right?
4. Do you have an estimate family-based I-485 processing time? I was told about six month. Is it true?
5. Please give me a fee quote for I-485/EAD/AP?
Thank you so much. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely
dresses one piece sogeking
SDdesi
08-29 05:01 PM
This includes 2nd July 2007 received date.....
Its very ambiguous.....on one hand they say:The processing dates shown below represent the receipt dates of petitions and applications currently being processed by the USCIS field office
and then they also say: If the receipt date shown on your receipt notice is prior to the processing date shown below, you may call USCIS Customer Service at 1-800-375-5283
So we cannot call the USCIS even if the RD is July 2. :confused::confused::confused:
Its very ambiguous.....on one hand they say:The processing dates shown below represent the receipt dates of petitions and applications currently being processed by the USCIS field office
and then they also say: If the receipt date shown on your receipt notice is prior to the processing date shown below, you may call USCIS Customer Service at 1-800-375-5283
So we cannot call the USCIS even if the RD is July 2. :confused::confused::confused:
more...
makeup by ~OnePiece-Rules on
hebron
06-21 12:23 PM
suggestions? ^^^^^^^
girlfriend One Piece Wallpapers for
makemygc
07-11 10:56 PM
Hi Guys,
Based on some recommendations, I have put together the enclosed pamplet.
I am NOT suggesting that this is the pamplet we should use but it could be a starting point. We need to generate more ideas like this to keep momentum going.
http://www.geocities.com/singhsa3/Ghandhigiri.doc
Take a look at it and make suggestions
Great job singhsa with poem and the template. My suggestion. If you can make a color template with gandhiji at the back in light background and your poem on the top.
Based on some recommendations, I have put together the enclosed pamplet.
I am NOT suggesting that this is the pamplet we should use but it could be a starting point. We need to generate more ideas like this to keep momentum going.
http://www.geocities.com/singhsa3/Ghandhigiri.doc
Take a look at it and make suggestions
Great job singhsa with poem and the template. My suggestion. If you can make a color template with gandhiji at the back in light background and your poem on the top.
hairstyles One Piece
chanduv23
09-14 03:31 PM
Some song is playing now
cbpds
09-01 07:12 PM
Even children in India are not looking after their parents properly as our parents looked after theirs.
GlobalCitizen
07-26 09:07 AM
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife�s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife�s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife�s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife�s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!