fullerene
08-13 11:14 AM
From my notice the processing date is meaningless at TSC because the dates are mostly the processing windows. For example, I140 was Jan 13 in July notice, which was 6 months behind. If you take a look on AP and EAD, they were just 3 months behind.
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
It turns out to me that processing date is the date that you are entitled to make a phone call to request your status. You may be lucky to have your EAD in 1 or 2 months. But if you do not have it in three months, you can make a call to request a reason they can not deny your request. But if your date is later than the processing date, they may turn down your request or ask you to wait.
That's it!
wallpaper Adriana Lima Bombshell Fantasy
xyzgc
10-13 11:10 PM
how abt dressing up as a mickey? they'll love u for it..;)
raj2007
02-18 10:32 PM
Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything in your wife's matter. The people you are referring to as the ones whose cases got accepted are the ones with bounced checks. There is a difference between the manner in which USCIS treats cases with bounced checks and cases where checks are missing, are in an incorrect amount, there is a mismatch between words and figures in the check, check is not dated, check is not signed, etc.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
I see no harm to take infopass and explain your situation in person.
2011 adriana lima 2011 photoshoot.
LostInGCProcess
09-18 05:05 PM
But if I get out of US and get back with H1b stamping will then I can start again with my current company as H1b while I wil work with EAD for another company full time?
Please try to understand. Once you use your EAD, you lose your H status. Doesn't matter if you hold H1 from company A and work on EAD for Company B, or vice versa.
Ok, now once you start using your EAD, you are in AOS pending status. But if you want to reinstate H status, Yes..you go out of the country, get the Visa stamped on your passport and enter as H1-b...but then you should not use your EAD if you want to continue to work on H1.
Please try to understand. Once you use your EAD, you lose your H status. Doesn't matter if you hold H1 from company A and work on EAD for Company B, or vice versa.
Ok, now once you start using your EAD, you are in AOS pending status. But if you want to reinstate H status, Yes..you go out of the country, get the Visa stamped on your passport and enter as H1-b...but then you should not use your EAD if you want to continue to work on H1.
more...
Sai_07
06-27 10:31 PM
My I-140 was approved in Dec 2006 and still working with sponsoring company.
Now my attorney got withdrawal decision on my I-140.My company or my attorney never send withdrawal letter for my I-140. However, my company sent withdrawal letters for some 12 other cases.
Here are the exact words from letter:
In accordance with the authority contained in Titl18,Code of federal Regulations, Section 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C),the approval of the petition is automatically revoked as of the date of approval because of your written request of revocation(termination) field on XX/XX/XXXX,in this employment-based preference petition.
Could you please suggest how to correct USCIS mistake? Do we have to file Motion to Re-Open on my I-140?
Appreciate your help.
Now my attorney got withdrawal decision on my I-140.My company or my attorney never send withdrawal letter for my I-140. However, my company sent withdrawal letters for some 12 other cases.
Here are the exact words from letter:
In accordance with the authority contained in Titl18,Code of federal Regulations, Section 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C),the approval of the petition is automatically revoked as of the date of approval because of your written request of revocation(termination) field on XX/XX/XXXX,in this employment-based preference petition.
Could you please suggest how to correct USCIS mistake? Do we have to file Motion to Re-Open on my I-140?
Appreciate your help.
rsayed
04-27 08:08 PM
there is no strive in senate....what r they goona debate? I don't think they are going to discuss other than circus if at all they do
Yep, true. But, sounds like there's just too many Bills floating around, this year!
Yep, true. But, sounds like there's just too many Bills floating around, this year!
more...
Desi Unlucky
07-27 08:51 PM
I 140 and 485 filed concurrently.
Let's say I 140 is approved after 200 (greater than 180) days, If employer revokes I 140 after 230 days (let's say he is pissed off that i left the company using Ac 21 portability)
will it create any issue for my GC ?
Let's say I 140 is approved after 200 (greater than 180) days, If employer revokes I 140 after 230 days (let's say he is pissed off that i left the company using Ac 21 portability)
will it create any issue for my GC ?
2010 images adriana lima 2011
trueguy
12-11 01:43 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
more...
smuggymba
09-22 07:35 PM
Oh My God. These three won't stop, would they.
hair hot adriana lima hairstyles.
gconmymind
08-05 05:58 PM
I am not sure this will count as an illegal behavior. Of course, I am not a lawyer. But companies typically ask for relocation reimburesement and lawyer expenses, etc. to be paid back pro-rated, in case the employee leaves within a year or so.
Again, this is not really asking for money for labor, but just making sure that the company gets their expenses back in case employee leaves within an year.
Btw, I do not have any such agreement with my company. But I think this is standard. Unfair, maybe. Illegal? I dont know....
Again, this is not really asking for money for labor, but just making sure that the company gets their expenses back in case employee leaves within an year.
Btw, I do not have any such agreement with my company. But I think this is standard. Unfair, maybe. Illegal? I dont know....
more...
lecter
December 8th, 2003, 02:29 AM
i don't normally go for tricked-up stuff, but this one kind of hooked me. I did the "Ansel Adams" conversion to B&W which gave me a contrasty and "antique' look. Then I merged it with the original at about 45%.
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
Sure is surreal... I'm with Steve, where does one get the plug-in?? (Perhaps I didn't read enough...)
This gave the shot a very surreal look.
Don
Sure is surreal... I'm with Steve, where does one get the plug-in?? (Perhaps I didn't read enough...)