chanduv23
01-10 01:19 PM
IV has not done anything that could have a negative impact on your green card processing. IV is striving hard to change your lives.
Shame on those who are scared or pessimistic. All you people do is to gaze at the sky and wait for the stars to fall.
If you are so scared - how will u raise your children? What will u teach them? Cowardice? Will U teach them to run away from issues? Will u teach them how to not cooperate?
Shame on those who are scared or pessimistic. All you people do is to gaze at the sky and wait for the stars to fall.
If you are so scared - how will u raise your children? What will u teach them? Cowardice? Will U teach them to run away from issues? Will u teach them how to not cooperate?
wallpaper Google em 1998
test101
07-11 10:17 AM
I AM ORDERING PIZZA and gourmet food from local restuarants every week to be delivered to Emilio Gonzalez
The delivery will be on the 15th July.
Anybody want to join
Hold on , wait till we all agree on this, and run it by the IV core. The flower campaingn is running nicly now. We do not want to over it . wait a little bit and lets decide an the next step. i doubt that they will accept food.
The delivery will be on the 15th July.
Anybody want to join
Hold on , wait till we all agree on this, and run it by the IV core. The flower campaingn is running nicly now. We do not want to over it . wait a little bit and lets decide an the next step. i doubt that they will accept food.
glus
01-16 09:59 AM
If you entered on AP and your I485 is pending, you cannot fell out-of-status as you are being considered in "Adjustment of status" status. This is somehow a special kind of a status. The only problem one may have is if the I-485 is denied for any reason. At that point you fell out of status. That's the reason many choose to enter on h1 instead AP. Then, even if I485 is denied, a person who entered on H1 is still in H1 legal status. Hence, it is generally advisable to enter and maintain an non-immigrant status while i485 is pending.
Regards,
I am not an attorney. If you need a legal advise, seek an immigration attorney.
Regards,
I am not an attorney. If you need a legal advise, seek an immigration attorney.
2011 beta version of Google.
Sri_1975
06-16 03:50 PM
Yes L1 Situation needs to be contained. Place i work has lot for L1 people on client location.
PM me OP what did you do to complain to ICE agents.
PM me OP what did you do to complain to ICE agents.
more...
singhsa3
08-20 09:29 PM
So what are the alternatives?
Yes true but passing of Vise arecapture bill is like waiting for 'Kumbhkaran' to wake up, they've been sleeping for 4-5 years what is the gurantee that they'll not sleep for another 5 years on the immigration bills ?
Yes true but passing of Vise arecapture bill is like waiting for 'Kumbhkaran' to wake up, they've been sleeping for 4-5 years what is the gurantee that they'll not sleep for another 5 years on the immigration bills ?
neverbefore
08-16 05:28 PM
My case is at the local USCIS service center. I opened an SR on Aug 12 and got an email response encouraging me to apply for an Infopass appointment: "We have determined that your case would have a better result if you make an appointment to visit your local office, so you may speak with an Immigration Services Officer about your case."
I now have an Infopass booked. Let's see what happens. My case is pre-adjudicated since we had an interview two years ago.
Should it go any further this way, can anyone please explain the process of Ombudsman / Congressman / Senator et al?
Thanks in advance.
:confused:
I now have an Infopass booked. Let's see what happens. My case is pre-adjudicated since we had an interview two years ago.
Should it go any further this way, can anyone please explain the process of Ombudsman / Congressman / Senator et al?
Thanks in advance.
:confused:
more...
contactkpatel@yahoo.com
08-13 03:02 PM
Who is the primary applicant ?
I am the Primary - Last update on my case is 2009
Did you create an SR ? Yes
Did you have an Infopass ? Yes - which was of no use
My wife has a RFE last year so may be taht soft LUD is they r checkin may be
I am the Primary - Last update on my case is 2009
Did you create an SR ? Yes
Did you have an Infopass ? Yes - which was of no use
My wife has a RFE last year so may be taht soft LUD is they r checkin may be
2010 o site da google em 1998:
milind70
04-17 02:50 PM
I am not yet on EAD have to file 485 yet retrogressed.But from my friends who are on EAD i heard that you are better off applying for EAD six months in advance before the expiry of current EAD.
more...
pappu
11-19 07:55 PM
This is the reply from Attorney Murthy on a question asked on Murthy chat about filing two employment based I-485's for the same beneficiary (not the husband/wife situation).
"Generally it is safer not to file 2 separate 485s since it can confuse USCIS since they may assign two separate Alien or A numbers to the same person. This could end up delaying the person's I-485 approval down the road or create a security delay in many cases with multiple I-485s generally we recommend one case to be filed as an AOS and the other for CP if possible."
After much research on this, I tend to agree with this answer above (not the CP part though). As per my latest information from a lawyer who does multiple filings, the processing delay can be significant due to this. Looking back, wish our community had more information on this and more real examples of people who have done it. It would have helped members who were unsure if they should do multiple filings.
Anyways this thread will be useful for future I485 filers.
"Generally it is safer not to file 2 separate 485s since it can confuse USCIS since they may assign two separate Alien or A numbers to the same person. This could end up delaying the person's I-485 approval down the road or create a security delay in many cases with multiple I-485s generally we recommend one case to be filed as an AOS and the other for CP if possible."
After much research on this, I tend to agree with this answer above (not the CP part though). As per my latest information from a lawyer who does multiple filings, the processing delay can be significant due to this. Looking back, wish our community had more information on this and more real examples of people who have done it. It would have helped members who were unsure if they should do multiple filings.
Anyways this thread will be useful for future I485 filers.
hair google 1998 homepage.
axp817
09-16 08:30 AM
Received 'card production (green card)' approval e-mails for both me and my wife this morning.
IV leaders and IV Texas State Chapter can still count on my voluntary involvement. I love walking through the walkways of the Congress House and the Senate, especially the tram that connects the House and the Senate via the tunnel. ;)
Congratulations! I remember exchanging PMs with you during the last DC drive. I'm happy for you.
IV leaders and IV Texas State Chapter can still count on my voluntary involvement. I love walking through the walkways of the Congress House and the Senate, especially the tram that connects the House and the Senate via the tunnel. ;)
Congratulations! I remember exchanging PMs with you during the last DC drive. I'm happy for you.
more...
MeraNaamJoker
08-18 03:20 PM
On Aug 17th the message changed to "On Aug 16th Card Production Ordered...."
when should I expect the card in mail?
For me and my family, it took exactly 11 days for the cards to arrive after the CPO mail.
6 days from CPO mail I got the Welcome Notice or Approval notice.
when should I expect the card in mail?
For me and my family, it took exactly 11 days for the cards to arrive after the CPO mail.
6 days from CPO mail I got the Welcome Notice or Approval notice.
hot Google Homepage in 1998
snathan
08-20 06:33 PM
I have similar experience. I moved to sunrocket (which is now teleblend) from vonage. I pay half of what I used to pay vonage for same services/usage.
currently teleblend offers $50 unlimited india calling + ofcourse US+canada unlimited. However as now vonage has come up with $25 world plan, I am sure teleblend would come up with something similar soon... may be $20 world plan or so. As they always price it below vonage. Let's hope! competition is good for consumer.
I also had Teleblend world...but I removed the unlimited world as it was $35. Lets see they might come up with something like this.
currently teleblend offers $50 unlimited india calling + ofcourse US+canada unlimited. However as now vonage has come up with $25 world plan, I am sure teleblend would come up with something similar soon... may be $20 world plan or so. As they always price it below vonage. Let's hope! competition is good for consumer.
I also had Teleblend world...but I removed the unlimited world as it was $35. Lets see they might come up with something like this.
more...
house with google 1998 homepage.
royus77
06-29 09:08 PM
This is very serious now, We all better be prepared to screw USCIS if it messes this time.
Lets wait first for our fee checks to return .....
Lets wait first for our fee checks to return .....
tattoo launch of Google in 1998.
SunnySurya
08-07 04:22 PM
Well said, the principle applies here too!:)
No, no ... Not a chance. We don't allow you you to port from red dots to green dots. If you want green dots, you can always start a new application (new Handle) with green dot (s). :) :)
No, no ... Not a chance. We don't allow you you to port from red dots to green dots. If you want green dots, you can always start a new application (new Handle) with green dot (s). :) :)
more...
pictures Google is attempting to allay
bindoke
08-19 10:24 PM
Congrats...Not sure whats happening with my case :( The officer is just sitting on it. It went to his desk on Aug 3 :(
same here Buddy, i was told that cases assigned to officer on Aug 3 and pre-adjudicated.(NSC)
havnt heard back eversince. got standard reply to SR:
"Your I-485 case as August 12, 2010 is currently under review. You should receive a decision or notice of other action within 60 days of the date of this letter."
same here Buddy, i was told that cases assigned to officer on Aug 3 and pre-adjudicated.(NSC)
havnt heard back eversince. got standard reply to SR:
"Your I-485 case as August 12, 2010 is currently under review. You should receive a decision or notice of other action within 60 days of the date of this letter."
dresses Google has been doodling with
gc_chahiye
06-20 09:30 PM
Thanks for posting this I was searching for some advise on this aspect ....
I have one questions based on this comment :
If a person uses one of his I-140s and the adjustment is for some
reason denied, it appears that there is no reason why they can not then
re-apply for adjustment using the other approved I-140 providing all the
requirements are met under the petition.
So lets say Husbands 485 gets deined for some reason and the wife has an approved I 140 but her PD is not current any more, can the substiution still happen or are the couple doomed?
Please respond.
AA
this is what I understand:
the wife can continue on her H1 extensions. The husband can stay until the current H1 expires. For future extensions he will need a fresh PERM/I-140 (since PD is not current).
Might be worth filing separately now, and joining the spouse's petition once its approved. From what I have read so far (CHECK WITH ATTORNEY) you can add your spouse to your I-485 within 180 days of approval, if you were married before it got approved.
I have one questions based on this comment :
If a person uses one of his I-140s and the adjustment is for some
reason denied, it appears that there is no reason why they can not then
re-apply for adjustment using the other approved I-140 providing all the
requirements are met under the petition.
So lets say Husbands 485 gets deined for some reason and the wife has an approved I 140 but her PD is not current any more, can the substiution still happen or are the couple doomed?
Please respond.
AA
this is what I understand:
the wife can continue on her H1 extensions. The husband can stay until the current H1 expires. For future extensions he will need a fresh PERM/I-140 (since PD is not current).
Might be worth filing separately now, and joining the spouse's petition once its approved. From what I have read so far (CHECK WITH ATTORNEY) you can add your spouse to your I-485 within 180 days of approval, if you were married before it got approved.
more...
makeup google 1998 logo. google 1998
CADude
09-14 11:31 AM
It seems only few July 2nd filer left. I am one of them.
girlfriend The first Google index in 1998
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
hairstyles 1998, Google Inc. opened
factoryman
06-21 01:42 PM
that's is how my attorney sent it to me. I just looked at my record copy and answering such questions like this.
By the way fellow IVans, don't forget to keep one copy of every thing (of course NOT the sealed cover)of AOS, EAD, AP filing for your records and future reference. Friday evn. after 3.00 PM is a good time at your office copier. Don't use - Automatic Document feeder (whatever thay call it - you pile your papers on top and press button); do it the hard way. One paper after another.
Don't comeback and CRY that you Original Approval Notice or I-94 or BC or something like that was stuck in the copier and now damaged.
In the section 11 of the document what should be the text incase you are supporting your spouse and child @100%
Appreciate your help
///////////////////////////////
I
intend
do not intend to make specific contributions to the support of the person(s) named in item 3.
(If you check "intend," indicate the exact nature and duration of the contributions. For example, if you intend to furnishroom and board, state for how long and, if money, state the amount in U.S. dollars and state whether it is to be given in a lumpsum, weekly or monthly, and for how long.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks
roy
By the way fellow IVans, don't forget to keep one copy of every thing (of course NOT the sealed cover)of AOS, EAD, AP filing for your records and future reference. Friday evn. after 3.00 PM is a good time at your office copier. Don't use - Automatic Document feeder (whatever thay call it - you pile your papers on top and press button); do it the hard way. One paper after another.
Don't comeback and CRY that you Original Approval Notice or I-94 or BC or something like that was stuck in the copier and now damaged.
In the section 11 of the document what should be the text incase you are supporting your spouse and child @100%
Appreciate your help
///////////////////////////////
I
intend
do not intend to make specific contributions to the support of the person(s) named in item 3.
(If you check "intend," indicate the exact nature and duration of the contributions. For example, if you intend to furnishroom and board, state for how long and, if money, state the amount in U.S. dollars and state whether it is to be given in a lumpsum, weekly or monthly, and for how long.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks
roy
malaGCPahije
08-07 04:12 PM
The point was about abusing the system to get ahead in the line. In that way labor sub shares similarity with PD porting. If a person who landed yesterday fits the job profile and the law allowed it , then what's wrong.
On the other hand if those labor are sold for a price then it is serious problem. And thats why Lab Sub was eleminated. Now thats what is going to happen (and happening) in PD porting case.
any action should be against the so called "paid PD porting" cases. But why harm a honest EB3 person switching companies to go up the ladder? If he is getting the benefit of the rule, what is wrong? As long he it is done by the law, I do not see any problem.
Tomorrow, if you get a position that justifies EB1 category for you, would you not move to that category? Nothing wrong in that either.
I endorse Pappu's comments. Wrong doers can be punished. But people benefiting by a certain rule should not be.
On the other hand if those labor are sold for a price then it is serious problem. And thats why Lab Sub was eleminated. Now thats what is going to happen (and happening) in PD porting case.
any action should be against the so called "paid PD porting" cases. But why harm a honest EB3 person switching companies to go up the ladder? If he is getting the benefit of the rule, what is wrong? As long he it is done by the law, I do not see any problem.
Tomorrow, if you get a position that justifies EB1 category for you, would you not move to that category? Nothing wrong in that either.
I endorse Pappu's comments. Wrong doers can be punished. But people benefiting by a certain rule should not be.
jsb
09-18 10:31 AM
... he successfully emailed and inquiry notice to NSC requesting a followup on my pending application. ...
RpH
So he did not insist on waiting for 90 days. When did he promise a response back? If you were not in the system, how are they going to check?
BTW, I am also July 2, J Barret, 10:25am, No receipt yet.
RpH
So he did not insist on waiting for 90 days. When did he promise a response back? If you were not in the system, how are they going to check?
BTW, I am also July 2, J Barret, 10:25am, No receipt yet.
0 comments:
Post a Comment