bluez25
07-26 02:45 PM
Guys ... please help. I am trying to get PCC from my local police station and they are giving me hell time here... and I am running out of time. The local police station guys are saying that they will only give a letter in white paper (No letter head) and they are insisting that it will not be used. What shall I do and I have to submit my documents by tuesday by latest.....
Questions for friends around
1.. is the letter given by the local police station with out the letter head will e accepted in the Consulate?
2.. If not can we get a PCC from the commisioner office?
Please give me some directions.
Questions for friends around
1.. is the letter given by the local police station with out the letter head will e accepted in the Consulate?
2.. If not can we get a PCC from the commisioner office?
Please give me some directions.
wallpaper Hyperdunk 2010 – Dirk Nowitzki
gc_bulgaria
02-23 08:38 PM
If we're forced to see the glass half full, delayed 140 processing may actually be good for some people who are about to be laid off and whose 140 is on shaky grounds. It might just buy'em some more time to switch employers and figure out alternatives.
Maverick_2008
Ummm, how exactly is delayed I 140 good if they are about to be laid off? To be able to use AC21 these guys need need their I 140 approved and have worked for the employer 6 months after receipt date.
I don't see the logic in your statement.
Maverick_2008
Ummm, how exactly is delayed I 140 good if they are about to be laid off? To be able to use AC21 these guys need need their I 140 approved and have worked for the employer 6 months after receipt date.
I don't see the logic in your statement.
gc_check
01-08 10:22 AM
I got it in a week, I got it from SF Consulate.
This might be a simple stupid question,
Can you please update, if you used a standard 2*2 passport taken here in the applicaiton form or got one 3.5 cm * 3.5 cm as put in the passport form. If yes, where did you took one. The standard size Passport Photo appears to be a little bigger than the one specified in the Passport application.
This might be a simple stupid question,
Can you please update, if you used a standard 2*2 passport taken here in the applicaiton form or got one 3.5 cm * 3.5 cm as put in the passport form. If yes, where did you took one. The standard size Passport Photo appears to be a little bigger than the one specified in the Passport application.
2011 Big news on Dirk Nowitzki
pawnrule
01-15 03:05 PM
1) General test.
2) Best thing is not to ask them to send results. Just get an extra copy for yourself and mail it to Buffalo. No specific officer just write on the address
TO
File # B4567890
Immigration section
Consulate General of Canada
Best of luck
Nozerd - Thanks for your help/response.
2) Best thing is not to ask them to send results. Just get an extra copy for yourself and mail it to Buffalo. No specific officer just write on the address
TO
File # B4567890
Immigration section
Consulate General of Canada
Best of luck
Nozerd - Thanks for your help/response.
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
Juan28210
11-06 09:31 AM
Thanks for all the replies!
My current employer is not a very big company so I think you're right. They wouldn't waste their money on me.
My current employer is not a very big company so I think you're right. They wouldn't waste their money on me.
more...
forgerator
04-29 03:39 PM
The majority of people who return to their home countries do so due to family related reasons. America is still the land of opportunity and the best bet to earn big bucks.
2010 here#39;s Dirk Nowitzki
Jen2010
12-06 04:55 PM
Dear BimmerFan,
Thank you very much for sharing your experience !!
I am in F-1 Visa and finishing my PhD and I have recently received a job offer to start next June.
The J1 waiver process is related to two visas J-1 that I had before I applied to the PhD program: I came to US in 2006 as exchange visitor scholar to do a research project for six months at X University with a J-1 visa, after this I came back to my country for 1 month and applied to another J-1 visa from August'06 through Dec'06 because I was invited again to continue doing research at this university (while applying to the PhD); after this I went my country and changed my visa to F-1 to start my PhD studies. I was aware that all J-1 visas have a restriction called two-year rule "INA 212(e)" but I did not have any problem to issue my F-1 visa in 12/2006.
Recently, I have found out that I need to issue a waiver for the two-year rule in order to be able to apply to a visa H-1B that my employer will sponsor after my OPT. I am preparing to apply now to the waiver, asking a No Objection Statement (NOS) from my embassy, I was planning to send the application next week to so that it doesn't delay my H-1 visa application next year and I don't have money to pay an attorney so I wanted to send it myself.
I am not sure if I should mention or not my offer of employment as one of the reasons of requesting the waiver ? Do you think it could be good or bad ??
Do you think I should pay an attorney ? of it is okay to do it independently ?
I do not have any commitment with my home country and I have not received any sponsorship from my country or US government during these programs. This rule applied to me because my profession is written in the Exchange Visitor Skill List of the US. Department of State.
Please advise,
Thanks !!!
Thank you very much for sharing your experience !!
I am in F-1 Visa and finishing my PhD and I have recently received a job offer to start next June.
The J1 waiver process is related to two visas J-1 that I had before I applied to the PhD program: I came to US in 2006 as exchange visitor scholar to do a research project for six months at X University with a J-1 visa, after this I came back to my country for 1 month and applied to another J-1 visa from August'06 through Dec'06 because I was invited again to continue doing research at this university (while applying to the PhD); after this I went my country and changed my visa to F-1 to start my PhD studies. I was aware that all J-1 visas have a restriction called two-year rule "INA 212(e)" but I did not have any problem to issue my F-1 visa in 12/2006.
Recently, I have found out that I need to issue a waiver for the two-year rule in order to be able to apply to a visa H-1B that my employer will sponsor after my OPT. I am preparing to apply now to the waiver, asking a No Objection Statement (NOS) from my embassy, I was planning to send the application next week to so that it doesn't delay my H-1 visa application next year and I don't have money to pay an attorney so I wanted to send it myself.
I am not sure if I should mention or not my offer of employment as one of the reasons of requesting the waiver ? Do you think it could be good or bad ??
Do you think I should pay an attorney ? of it is okay to do it independently ?
I do not have any commitment with my home country and I have not received any sponsorship from my country or US government during these programs. This rule applied to me because my profession is written in the Exchange Visitor Skill List of the US. Department of State.
Please advise,
Thanks !!!
more...
GCD
07-27 10:07 PM
My lawyer filed the I-485, EAD and AP package for me and my wife. She put a G-28 notice for each application (with our and her signatures). She missed signing the AP G-28 for my wife. I asked her about this. She said it should be fine. They would not consider her notice of representation for this particular case, and would mail the AP approval directly at our home address.
I hope we are fine and our application doesn't get rejected since we had one check for all the applications.
Please reply. Thanks a lot.
Gurus. Please reply. Thanks a lot.
I hope we are fine and our application doesn't get rejected since we had one check for all the applications.
Please reply. Thanks a lot.
Gurus. Please reply. Thanks a lot.
hair Nightly Notable: Dirk Nowitzki
bigboy007
06-17 04:13 AM
There might be way but may be you need play carefully : this is possible before you actually get your GC , Once you apply for GC and CAn PR , PR takes 1.7 years where as GC whole process needs atleast 4-5 years i dont know wherez ur state at ( that time line is from scratch)
Now you can play staying in windsor area before you actually take up GC and then apply for citizenship while leaving this is possible but timing and luck needs to play . But you cant have both for sure.
Now you can play staying in windsor area before you actually take up GC and then apply for citizenship while leaving this is possible but timing and luck needs to play . But you cant have both for sure.
more...
kaisersose
06-02 01:32 PM
Isnt all that in picture only when you are travelling outside ?
Nope...she is out of status if you lose your H-1b. At any point of time, inside the US, she has to have a valid status. It can be H-4, H-4 extension pending or AOS. If she is not in any of the three, then she is accrueing unlawful presence.
Nope...she is out of status if you lose your H-1b. At any point of time, inside the US, she has to have a valid status. It can be H-4, H-4 extension pending or AOS. If she is not in any of the three, then she is accrueing unlawful presence.
hot Swedish model Elin
nousername
07-22 07:44 PM
No, not at all.. It is just a safety net, which one can use if they switch to EAD i.e. use AC21.
more...
house could cough up without
akred
02-24 04:23 PM
Isn't there a state which needs a valid visa stamp in order to issue a driver's license? You need to be able to drive to work, therefore visa stamping travel and expenses can be justified as work related expenses if you happen to work in that state.
On a related note, there may be a profitable business somewhere in offering tax penalty and audit "insurance" for deductions ;). Pay a premium to the insurer to cover the value of your deductions and the insurer will pay up in case the IRS disallows the deductions.
On a related note, there may be a profitable business somewhere in offering tax penalty and audit "insurance" for deductions ;). Pay a premium to the insurer to cover the value of your deductions and the insurer will pay up in case the IRS disallows the deductions.
tattoo tiger woods swedish girlfriend
rimzhim
06-01 01:57 PM
Plus, H1B is debated and decided upon (pro-H1B's are quite happy as-is), EB has not been debated at all.
And when they vote, they may delete the H1B from the cap-removal and retain the GC, which will be just fine for us. We should support this amendment. It might go through after some changes.
And when they vote, they may delete the H1B from the cap-removal and retain the GC, which will be just fine for us. We should support this amendment. It might go through after some changes.
more...
pictures tiger woods girlfriend
pani_6
07-19 05:23 PM
1. My lawyer clearly said you can't, unless you file it together with AOS.
2. I765 and I131 forms. Everything else has already gone in with the AOS.
I spoke with the USICS immi officer...she mentioned that you cant apply Ead/ap without A#..they will rject it and you cant update them later with the #
2. I765 and I131 forms. Everything else has already gone in with the AOS.
I spoke with the USICS immi officer...she mentioned that you cant apply Ead/ap without A#..they will rject it and you cant update them later with the #
dresses Dallas Mavericks#39; Dirk
srh1
10-30 11:19 AM
bluez25 ....thank you so much for your reply.
addsf345 looks like you have a chicken head.
you dont have the common sense to understand the thread might be useful for people like me who could'nt decide whether to jump to a new employer with in 6 months or not as it would trigger any problem during Naturalization.
Seeing your comments i see your jealous of others getting GC. Change your thinking as the question which i asked at some point or the other you will also have the same question then at that point you will look like a chicken.
addsf345 looks like you have a chicken head.
you dont have the common sense to understand the thread might be useful for people like me who could'nt decide whether to jump to a new employer with in 6 months or not as it would trigger any problem during Naturalization.
Seeing your comments i see your jealous of others getting GC. Change your thinking as the question which i asked at some point or the other you will also have the same question then at that point you will look like a chicken.
more...
makeup Dirk Nowitzki - Terez Owens
abcdefgh
01-18 10:26 AM
Do the Primary Applicant and the Spouse both need to take this Test??
No
only the primary applicant needs to take the test
No
only the primary applicant needs to take the test
girlfriend Dirk Nowitzki with his MVP
gc_check
07-12 05:51 AM
Our lawyer Company has decided to file the AOS application in July
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
Looks like most of the Attorney's who told, they will not file after the July 2nd revision of VB, are now planning to file anyway. Think the decission could have influenced after the Tuesday's Aila Conf. Call. My Attorney finally gave updates that they would have all the 485's completed and ready to go while monitoring the situation and action of AILA/USCIS and will file if is of the best interest to the applicant. Also, the reason they are holding back now is also, what if, USCIS neither receipts nor rejects the applications and hold them and argue they cannot take an action as the cases are subject to litigation.... then it could be even worse.... Any thoughts on this...Folks share your communication with your attorney's if any details worth sharing.
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
Looks like most of the Attorney's who told, they will not file after the July 2nd revision of VB, are now planning to file anyway. Think the decission could have influenced after the Tuesday's Aila Conf. Call. My Attorney finally gave updates that they would have all the 485's completed and ready to go while monitoring the situation and action of AILA/USCIS and will file if is of the best interest to the applicant. Also, the reason they are holding back now is also, what if, USCIS neither receipts nor rejects the applications and hold them and argue they cannot take an action as the cases are subject to litigation.... then it could be even worse.... Any thoughts on this...Folks share your communication with your attorney's if any details worth sharing.
hairstyles nowitzki girlfriend pictures
cox
October 23rd, 2005, 04:48 PM
A couple more from the job finish today. I liked the backdrop - looks like ricepaper, which really pleased the Japanese-born client. This was taken vertically. I hung the wreath with a thread and then cloned it out :) I wasn't really happy with the backdrop lighting in the second one. Guess I need to invest in some lights. I used natural light from the right and a reflector card on the left of the subject.
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/933/wreath_blue_102305_JP8X5706.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/933/red_rose_tea_setting_102305_JP8X5748.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/933/wreath_blue_102305_JP8X5706.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/933/red_rose_tea_setting_102305_JP8X5748.jpg
sravani
05-15 01:05 PM
Here's a rather strange and may be uncommon situation for someone I know who needs suggestions from gurus here...such huge PD movements do result in strange situations such as these :)
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
My case is also similar and I decided to go with EB2
My EB3 PD is Nov 2002. I got promotion this year and same company applied for my EB2 labor via Perm and got approved with in couple of months.
My attorney already filed my 485 application concurrently while applying for EB2 I-140 PD (PP) last month. I got an RFE(edu: 3 year Engineering degree). My EB2 I-140 is approved yesterday after receiving the RFE response. It's better to utilize the EB2 category if you can, in case if they decide to retrogress again, it's likely that you will get the GC soon with EB2 PD than EB3 PD.
EB3 India Labor + I-140 certified with PD Feb 2003
EB2-140 pending at NSC hoping to port the EB3 PD date
So both cases are now current, which leads to a couple of options for AOS:
1. File based on approved EB3 (and risk a potential retrogression in future)
2. File based on pending EB2 140 before it is approved (and risk potential RFE, etc. and who knows if it would be too late to revert to the EB3)
The other option is to upgrade the EB2 140 to PP, but could you please list the relative merits of the above two options?
My case is also similar and I decided to go with EB2
My EB3 PD is Nov 2002. I got promotion this year and same company applied for my EB2 labor via Perm and got approved with in couple of months.
My attorney already filed my 485 application concurrently while applying for EB2 I-140 PD (PP) last month. I got an RFE(edu: 3 year Engineering degree). My EB2 I-140 is approved yesterday after receiving the RFE response. It's better to utilize the EB2 category if you can, in case if they decide to retrogress again, it's likely that you will get the GC soon with EB2 PD than EB3 PD.
gcadream
03-04 08:24 AM
Thanks a lot Rakson for updating the forum with valuable question and answers with the lawyer. Really appreciate it !!
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
No comments:
Post a Comment