snathan
02-13 01:14 AM
H1B - LCA Related Issues - How can we save ourselves ???
HI
I guess everybody know by now that ICE arrested 11 H1 workers mainly due to mail fraud/wire fraud, and these frauds
I am starting this thread to discuss what we can do to save ourselves from LCA related issues.
** LCA is very important and H1 b employees should work as per LCA - Period.
Location, job and every thing should be as per LCA. No questions.
I am afraid, most of the H1b guys do not even have LCAs with them.
** This is very concerned for all the DESI Consulting companies H1 employees, as we never work at LCA place. I am going to give ultimatum to my employer to change LCA and keep all the docs in place. Otherwise i am going to change to employer, where they are good wrt papers.
Please throw your suggestions to make our H1 system clean and save H1 employees.
Whenever you move from one state to another....urge your employer to file the LCA amendment. Thats the only way to save ourself.
HI
I guess everybody know by now that ICE arrested 11 H1 workers mainly due to mail fraud/wire fraud, and these frauds
I am starting this thread to discuss what we can do to save ourselves from LCA related issues.
** LCA is very important and H1 b employees should work as per LCA - Period.
Location, job and every thing should be as per LCA. No questions.
I am afraid, most of the H1b guys do not even have LCAs with them.
** This is very concerned for all the DESI Consulting companies H1 employees, as we never work at LCA place. I am going to give ultimatum to my employer to change LCA and keep all the docs in place. Otherwise i am going to change to employer, where they are good wrt papers.
Please throw your suggestions to make our H1 system clean and save H1 employees.
Whenever you move from one state to another....urge your employer to file the LCA amendment. Thats the only way to save ourself.
wallpaper She is a member of the South
ubetman
08-04 03:14 PM
Thank you guyz for your responses.
I understand if G-28 forms are not sent, then all correspondence will sent to me which is good. But my concern is what if my lawyer signs the forms as a representative and not sending G-28 forms to represent the case.
This is the process which i have gone through:
1. My lawyer sent the questionnaire forms for 485/131/765. I filled the forms with my personal information and sent them to him online.
2. He made the necessary corrections and filled some gaps and sent them back to me for my signature. At the end of each form his name and address is printed as a representative of my case. He asked me to send all the forms signed along with reqd. documents.
when his name and adddress is printed and he signs the forms, then it shows he is representing the case. Then he has to send G-28 forms for each form I guess. If he didn't signed the forms as a representative then I guess all correspondence comes to me but my concern if he signs the forms but not sending G-28 for each form, then I guess I am in trouble for not sending G-28 forms...am I thinking correctly...suggestions plz...
My lawyer is not that responsive. He always says(pretends) that he is busy(not sure though)..I send an email but no response yet. If really G-28 forms required and if he sends the packet without them, then as per USCIS my application will be rejected right away. No time to reapply also.
thanks in advance....
I understand if G-28 forms are not sent, then all correspondence will sent to me which is good. But my concern is what if my lawyer signs the forms as a representative and not sending G-28 forms to represent the case.
This is the process which i have gone through:
1. My lawyer sent the questionnaire forms for 485/131/765. I filled the forms with my personal information and sent them to him online.
2. He made the necessary corrections and filled some gaps and sent them back to me for my signature. At the end of each form his name and address is printed as a representative of my case. He asked me to send all the forms signed along with reqd. documents.
when his name and adddress is printed and he signs the forms, then it shows he is representing the case. Then he has to send G-28 forms for each form I guess. If he didn't signed the forms as a representative then I guess all correspondence comes to me but my concern if he signs the forms but not sending G-28 for each form, then I guess I am in trouble for not sending G-28 forms...am I thinking correctly...suggestions plz...
My lawyer is not that responsive. He always says(pretends) that he is busy(not sure though)..I send an email but no response yet. If really G-28 forms required and if he sends the packet without them, then as per USCIS my application will be rejected right away. No time to reapply also.
thanks in advance....
malibuguy007
10-02 05:51 PM
Just joined SC chapter on Yahoo Groups
2011 Favorite Song from Girls#39;
gcdreamer05
02-24 11:45 AM
Recently we are seeing lot of people with new id without completing profile they are able to start new thread. What if admin enforced new user to fill the personnel information and then only they can post on this web site. More importantly some key massages\important issues get berried in active forums due to above issue.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
This is a very valid suggestion , because i believe most of the new questions are posted by that fake guy tunnel rat... with different different ids.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
This is a very valid suggestion , because i believe most of the new questions are posted by that fake guy tunnel rat... with different different ids.
more...
sbmallik
07-02 11:28 AM
Since this is not the first H-1 you have the option to stamp the visa in Canada / Mexico. However, these consulates cannot evaluate the educational credentials unless they are from that country or USA. Please carry educational evaluations with you. Moreover your valid AP will be a handy backup.
kirupa
01-02 12:56 AM
Oh, I wasn't planning on banning any AS1 projects. I don't really care which version of AS people use. Sen could probably use AS4 if he wanted to!
I was just curious to know if our canadian friend was thinking of using AS1.
:P
I was just curious to know if our canadian friend was thinking of using AS1.
:P
more...
atul555
03-25 05:40 PM
Yes, very good question. Everyone vote for this question.
Good question.. I asked similar one.
"Mr. President,
I am patiently waiting for my employment based LEGAL green card to get processed for over 6 years and looking at 3-5 years more, putting on hold my plans to buy home, be an entrepreneur. I expect to wait but can it be reasonable? "
I voted for other questions for legal immigration.
Good question.. I asked similar one.
"Mr. President,
I am patiently waiting for my employment based LEGAL green card to get processed for over 6 years and looking at 3-5 years more, putting on hold my plans to buy home, be an entrepreneur. I expect to wait but can it be reasonable? "
I voted for other questions for legal immigration.
2010 Member Profile. Name: Kwon
satyasaich
04-23 12:42 AM
You are correct.
Remember during july 2nd drama, lot of people got different notice dates and receipt dates. The processing date meaning is Nebraska service center is ready to review applications with receipt date of July11th.
so if someone mailed on jun 30th and the status online says received on july 26th does it mean that they are not processing these dates as yet? Im kinda confused!
Remember during july 2nd drama, lot of people got different notice dates and receipt dates. The processing date meaning is Nebraska service center is ready to review applications with receipt date of July11th.
so if someone mailed on jun 30th and the status online says received on july 26th does it mean that they are not processing these dates as yet? Im kinda confused!
more...
transpass
07-29 10:55 PM
Also one EB1 participant asked for preferential treatment for EB1 applications.
I don't think that dude knows what he is talking about. Anyway EB1 cases ARE separate from EB2/EB3 and ARE adjudicated separately than the rest. That's why it is current and I don't know what more that dude wanted...Just few months here and there in adjudication process of EB1 cases...so what? In this whole mess of years and years of waiting for others, what's the big deal?
I don't think that dude knows what he is talking about. Anyway EB1 cases ARE separate from EB2/EB3 and ARE adjudicated separately than the rest. That's why it is current and I don't know what more that dude wanted...Just few months here and there in adjudication process of EB1 cases...so what? In this whole mess of years and years of waiting for others, what's the big deal?
hair Stage name: Taeyeon
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
ramesh10
06-15 07:20 PM
Franklin,
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
hot a Girls#39; Generation (SNSD)
Muj@ck0_it
03-11 03:20 AM
I'll cast my vote for paddy...:yes:
more...
house Birth name: Seo Joohyun
mhb
05-31 01:11 PM
doing it right now...
tattoo Girls#39; Generation (Hangul:
rajsand
10-04 09:58 AM
I havent go the receipts yet, but wondering how long (approx) should it take for AP travel document to come so we can travel out of the country.>
NSC is pretty bad so would like to get some statistics.
Thankyou IV and all members
NSC is pretty bad so would like to get some statistics.
Thankyou IV and all members
more...
pictures Girls Generation SNSD member
smiledentist
06-14 06:33 PM
Any more advices please
dresses to girls generation Chang
permfiling
12-09 10:40 PM
My cousin has a offer from a employer in CA who is willing to do H1 transfer but the condition mentioned in the agreement is that
In the event the employee voluntarily resigns or her employment is terminated for performance or cause prior to 4 years, employee agrees to reimburse the "Employer" for the full amount of legal, administrative and filing fees associated with the sponsorship of the employee's work visas as permitted by law.
The employer won't do premium processing so my cousin paid $1000 on her own but she had to travel outside the country to canada to get a new I-94. The employer's law firm filed the paper work with canada embassy in US to get a canadian visa.
Now my cousin got her GC through her hubby which her employer does not know .
The employment laws in CA are different so how can she move (if moves within 4 yrs) to another company without paying anything or a little fee to the employer. I told her that H1-B fees are not too high maybe around $4000.00 so the employer will have to spend lot of money on the lawyer's to go to court to suit her if she left say after 2 years of employment as she feels that the agreement is one sided considering the time line.
In the event the employee voluntarily resigns or her employment is terminated for performance or cause prior to 4 years, employee agrees to reimburse the "Employer" for the full amount of legal, administrative and filing fees associated with the sponsorship of the employee's work visas as permitted by law.
The employer won't do premium processing so my cousin paid $1000 on her own but she had to travel outside the country to canada to get a new I-94. The employer's law firm filed the paper work with canada embassy in US to get a canadian visa.
Now my cousin got her GC through her hubby which her employer does not know .
The employment laws in CA are different so how can she move (if moves within 4 yrs) to another company without paying anything or a little fee to the employer. I told her that H1-B fees are not too high maybe around $4000.00 so the employer will have to spend lot of money on the lawyer's to go to court to suit her if she left say after 2 years of employment as she feels that the agreement is one sided considering the time line.
more...
makeup Korean girls generation or
ujayra01
07-12 10:21 AM
Most of the EB3 India applicants having received their GC between 2002 and 2005?
You really got to be kidding us. The 8 people I know of in EB3 during these period is still waiting.
actually, i think that the EB3 will also make rapid advances come October.
with the quota exhausted for this year, and the pre-adjudication taking place and with most of the EB3 India applicants having received their GC between 2002 and 2005, i think the dates will advance to 2003 by Dec and to mid 2004 by Feb/March. After that, it is anyone's guess if the quota for India will hold out. As for me, I see at least another year or two wait for my GC, unless the Congress passes a miracle.
You really got to be kidding us. The 8 people I know of in EB3 during these period is still waiting.
actually, i think that the EB3 will also make rapid advances come October.
with the quota exhausted for this year, and the pre-adjudication taking place and with most of the EB3 India applicants having received their GC between 2002 and 2005, i think the dates will advance to 2003 by Dec and to mid 2004 by Feb/March. After that, it is anyone's guess if the quota for India will hold out. As for me, I see at least another year or two wait for my GC, unless the Congress passes a miracle.
girlfriend She is a member of the Korean
bkr
12-06 09:17 AM
My wife got all the AP paperback after her return from India. One AP have stamp. Two AP papers are not touched.
I got all three AP documents back. I had an expired Visa stamp in the passport. They checked one of the AP document and gave it back after stamping it.
HTH.
I got all three AP documents back. I had an expired Visa stamp in the passport. They checked one of the AP document and gave it back after stamping it.
HTH.
hairstyles Birth name: Seo Joo-hyun
kumhyd2
07-22 02:25 PM
Think before you post. People look into the threads based on the heading and your post which is irrelavant to the original post doesn't make any sense. May be look for the appropriate thread and post in there.
I am in H1 and filed for 485 and EAD, AP. Still have my H1B visa in my passport. Does getting EAD mean you are no more in H1? Or you really have to USE it to be out of H1.
I am in H1 and filed for 485 and EAD, AP. Still have my H1B visa in my passport. Does getting EAD mean you are no more in H1? Or you really have to USE it to be out of H1.
rajenk
02-07 08:57 PM
Hi Guys,
Isn't EAD application I-765? What is I-131? Excuse my poor knowledge on the USCIS forms
Isn't EAD application I-765? What is I-131? Excuse my poor knowledge on the USCIS forms
lee.cook
May 20th, 2007, 12:09 PM
Hello,
OK so today I went out with my father to take some images in the countyside, got home, looked on the PC, and there is dust spots in the image!
So I took a few more images of the sky (this seems to show up easily) and its still there.
I took my lens off, and had a look in and there is loads off dust, I tried using little brush to get some off the dirt off, but its still there.
I feel stupid about this, but, where is the sensor ? I can only see 2 mirrors, one I believe is the focus mirror.
I found another mirror behind another mirror and believe its the sensor but unsure.
I read that cleaning the mirrors has nothing to do with the output off the final image.
This is what my image dust looks like.. http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/886/dsc1723hl7.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6991/dsc1208am4.jpg
As you can see, there is a dust spot in the upper top half off the picture.
Could anybody recommend any cleaning solutions for this, I really need my sensor clean by Saturday as the start of the Isle of Man TT practice is here :)
I can provide pictures if needed, thanks for reading.
OK so today I went out with my father to take some images in the countyside, got home, looked on the PC, and there is dust spots in the image!
So I took a few more images of the sky (this seems to show up easily) and its still there.
I took my lens off, and had a look in and there is loads off dust, I tried using little brush to get some off the dirt off, but its still there.
I feel stupid about this, but, where is the sensor ? I can only see 2 mirrors, one I believe is the focus mirror.
I found another mirror behind another mirror and believe its the sensor but unsure.
I read that cleaning the mirrors has nothing to do with the output off the final image.
This is what my image dust looks like.. http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/886/dsc1723hl7.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6991/dsc1208am4.jpg
As you can see, there is a dust spot in the upper top half off the picture.
Could anybody recommend any cleaning solutions for this, I really need my sensor clean by Saturday as the start of the Isle of Man TT practice is here :)
I can provide pictures if needed, thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment