apb
08-06 06:54 PM
Bump
wallpaper Boxing Glove Tattoos
21stIcon
12-21 08:44 AM
Excatly, you got it. at the end of year w2 should have 100k as a salary not after employer deduction.
ragz4u
05-03 11:49 AM
We have already sent the reporter an email on behalf of IV.
And, also please note that IV does not have anything against Illegal aliens. We are sympathetic to their cause but have no opinion regarding amnesty for illegal aliens
If someone wants to go to this protest/write to the reporter, do so in individual capacity please (do not claim to represent IV).
And, also please note that IV does not have anything against Illegal aliens. We are sympathetic to their cause but have no opinion regarding amnesty for illegal aliens
If someone wants to go to this protest/write to the reporter, do so in individual capacity please (do not claim to represent IV).
2011 images Boxing Gloves Card by
Hinglish
01-08 12:25 AM
I rue for the big "premium" company that has hired a "premium" MBA graduate that cracks under pressure. A Satyam waiting to happen I guess ... best of luck
I am sorry for "atrocious" english. I guess I am just very nervous. Lemme reprahse:
I never worked on that H1-B application. I just filled the H1-B and left USA (I was working on OPT before that with another company). My biggest mistake in life was filing the H1-B with a shady consultant out of desperation. Good that I never worked with him before leaving states. obviously I got a 221G, but now a big company has recruited me from India. I am again nervous if they can transfer my H1-B(which I never used).
Now do I make some sense?
I am sorry for "atrocious" english. I guess I am just very nervous. Lemme reprahse:
I never worked on that H1-B application. I just filled the H1-B and left USA (I was working on OPT before that with another company). My biggest mistake in life was filing the H1-B with a shady consultant out of desperation. Good that I never worked with him before leaving states. obviously I got a 221G, but now a big company has recruited me from India. I am again nervous if they can transfer my H1-B(which I never used).
Now do I make some sense?
more...
waitin_toolong
07-30 01:31 PM
Congratulations,
dependent getting the approval before primary happens, and the good news about that is that you will be approved as well. Sometimes the people who are supposed to update the system and issue notices dont get to all the applications at one time. or maybe they forget to commit the transaction :)
To those wondering about how he was able to file should browse through archives of bulletins to note that his PD was current at a particular time. and current in July hence approval.
Lets not get upset over the good luck of others. Sometimes it is so hard to be happy for others when our own conditions seem a little gloomy.
dependent getting the approval before primary happens, and the good news about that is that you will be approved as well. Sometimes the people who are supposed to update the system and issue notices dont get to all the applications at one time. or maybe they forget to commit the transaction :)
To those wondering about how he was able to file should browse through archives of bulletins to note that his PD was current at a particular time. and current in July hence approval.
Lets not get upset over the good luck of others. Sometimes it is so hard to be happy for others when our own conditions seem a little gloomy.
gantilk
04-27 11:02 PM
I see the following in the USCIS website:
"Filings made Pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107: As previously announced, all forms I-765 and I-131 applications based on employment-based adjustment of status applications filed pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107 that are submitted on or before August 17, 2007 must be filed under the fee structure in place prior to July 30, 2007. On or after July 30, 2007, those applications may not be electronically filed and must be submitted to a Service Center via regular mail or courier service."
Can somebody clarify this please? I applied 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and want to renew my EAD now? Can i e-file with $340 fee?
"Filings made Pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107: As previously announced, all forms I-765 and I-131 applications based on employment-based adjustment of status applications filed pursuant to Visa Bulletin No. 107 that are submitted on or before August 17, 2007 must be filed under the fee structure in place prior to July 30, 2007. On or after July 30, 2007, those applications may not be electronically filed and must be submitted to a Service Center via regular mail or courier service."
Can somebody clarify this please? I applied 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and want to renew my EAD now? Can i e-file with $340 fee?
more...
lostinbeta
10-03 01:45 PM
mwwwwwahahahahahhahahhahhhaaaaa :evil:
2010 Boxing Gloves Outline
karanp25
06-16 11:57 PM
LOL...that's the best reply you could come up with? "You are not looking for experiences but relevant information" - what else could be more relevant than an experience?
BTW, that isn't my experience, but it may very well be yours given that the list of questions you have are rather irritating.
Do you really think your anxiety and you tracking every step (name check, BG check, assignment to officer...blah blah) of you GC will really get you the GC faster? I seriously doubt that.
But after thinking a bit more - i now understand your plan. Your list of questions may impress the infopass immigration officer, and the officer may recommend that you should be hired by USCIS as an IO, given that you are more familiar than him/her with the immigration process. Once you are hired, you plan to approve your own GC? Isn't that true?
I am impressed.
BTW, that isn't my experience, but it may very well be yours given that the list of questions you have are rather irritating.
Do you really think your anxiety and you tracking every step (name check, BG check, assignment to officer...blah blah) of you GC will really get you the GC faster? I seriously doubt that.
But after thinking a bit more - i now understand your plan. Your list of questions may impress the infopass immigration officer, and the officer may recommend that you should be hired by USCIS as an IO, given that you are more familiar than him/her with the immigration process. Once you are hired, you plan to approve your own GC? Isn't that true?
I am impressed.
more...
Env_Engr
10-18 10:45 PM
Here are my details. I hope EAD comes in before this month end.
hair tattoo with oxing gloves
jonty_11
07-16 03:28 PM
please also post ur details, PD, Country ND, RD etc...
more...
admesystems
01-10 07:15 PM
I485 through Marriage pending for NC.
I was out of status more than a year when I got married.
Can I apply for advance parole?
Does anyone know anything about it?
I was out of status more than a year when I got married.
Can I apply for advance parole?
Does anyone know anything about it?
hot Horse shoe/oxing gloves.
snathan
03-27 12:49 AM
Hello,
I had applied for the H1 Extension in Sep 2009 and it went to Security Check. My Visa and I94 expired in Nov 2009. Recently, H1b transfer has been applied, and got the I129 approval but EOS(I94) has been rejected by saying that
" An Extension of Stay(EOS) mayn't be approved for an appllicant who failed to maintain his/her previously accorded status or where such status expired before the application or petition was filed( see CFR 214.1(c)(4) and 248.1(b))".
New employer says that i can't work for him till I94 accepts. So he is suggesting me togo India and get Visa stamped.
As i can work only 240 days from my I94 expiry date, i can't work after July 2010
so am planning to go to India to attend the embassy as soon as possible.
Some are saying that i am no supposed to stay here as I94 expired but when i says to my employer he says that you can stay and work as long as the current extension decision is pending. so i am scared about it. could you plz help me out on this.
Am also wondering that is there any chances of gettinga Visa rejected in India as my extension is in pending or they are going to keep in hold till my security
clearance is done. I am in fix what to do??.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in Advance,
Satya.
Your I-94 expired and I-94 extension got denied. In that case you can not stay as you are accumulating the illegal presence. I am not sure when you are saying I94 rejected, what is the decision pending. If its not rejected and you got only RFE, you can stay still get the final decision.
I had applied for the H1 Extension in Sep 2009 and it went to Security Check. My Visa and I94 expired in Nov 2009. Recently, H1b transfer has been applied, and got the I129 approval but EOS(I94) has been rejected by saying that
" An Extension of Stay(EOS) mayn't be approved for an appllicant who failed to maintain his/her previously accorded status or where such status expired before the application or petition was filed( see CFR 214.1(c)(4) and 248.1(b))".
New employer says that i can't work for him till I94 accepts. So he is suggesting me togo India and get Visa stamped.
As i can work only 240 days from my I94 expiry date, i can't work after July 2010
so am planning to go to India to attend the embassy as soon as possible.
Some are saying that i am no supposed to stay here as I94 expired but when i says to my employer he says that you can stay and work as long as the current extension decision is pending. so i am scared about it. could you plz help me out on this.
Am also wondering that is there any chances of gettinga Visa rejected in India as my extension is in pending or they are going to keep in hold till my security
clearance is done. I am in fix what to do??.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in Advance,
Satya.
Your I-94 expired and I-94 extension got denied. In that case you can not stay as you are accumulating the illegal presence. I am not sure when you are saying I94 rejected, what is the decision pending. If its not rejected and you got only RFE, you can stay still get the final decision.
more...
house oxing glove tattoo
satishku_2000
11-20 12:40 PM
For July 2nd filers, the freedom is attained on Dec 29th (180 days after filing).
I know ... :)
I know ... :)
tattoo also a former oxer,
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
pictures Boxing gloves Tattoo
ntpatil
04-26 04:18 PM
Hello All,
Sorry for the post outside immigration boundaries.
My wife with 2 toddler kids will be traveling to India via Lufthansa.
I wanted to know from recent experiences how many check-in bags are allowed per person. My kids are 4 yrs old and they have a full ticket.
I know that some airlines only allow 1 checking per person, but wanted to know about Lufthansa specifically.
I could not find a clear answer on Lufthansa.com for baggage allowance to either India or Asia.
Thanks in advance for all your help.
Sorry for the post outside immigration boundaries.
My wife with 2 toddler kids will be traveling to India via Lufthansa.
I wanted to know from recent experiences how many check-in bags are allowed per person. My kids are 4 yrs old and they have a full ticket.
I know that some airlines only allow 1 checking per person, but wanted to know about Lufthansa specifically.
I could not find a clear answer on Lufthansa.com for baggage allowance to either India or Asia.
Thanks in advance for all your help.
dresses oxing gloves tattoos.
GcInLimbo
11-17 03:53 PM
Bump.. Updated the profile.
more...
makeup Boxing Gloves Card by
lj_rr
07-23 10:10 PM
This is for my friend who received Greencard in 2006. She just got married in June 2007 to an Indian citizen.
What are the options for her to bring her spouse to US ?
The spouse has an MBA.
I know H1 is not an option as they have to wait atleast till October 2008.
What are the other quick options?
What are the options for her to bring her spouse to US ?
The spouse has an MBA.
I know H1 is not an option as they have to wait atleast till October 2008.
What are the other quick options?
girlfriend i see oxing gloves on the
deardar
09-14 03:49 PM
good!
hairstyles Boxing gloves. young
sayantan76
07-21 08:51 AM
Normally my wife is the one who is used to post or follow up on the latest here.
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
wow - thats a new one.......and really intriguing........one could argue that if a work can be done remotely - then why should the work be located in United States at all and hence - why the need for a visa? on the other hand - that would be totally counterproductive as companies would use the logic to outsource work outside the country and result in reduction in number of employees who pay US taxes.......
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
wow - thats a new one.......and really intriguing........one could argue that if a work can be done remotely - then why should the work be located in United States at all and hence - why the need for a visa? on the other hand - that would be totally counterproductive as companies would use the logic to outsource work outside the country and result in reduction in number of employees who pay US taxes.......
WeShallOvercome
08-05 11:05 AM
Hello,
How can I inform the USCIS (I-485 pending) that my lawyer is not representing me any more? Do I need to fill up any form (like G28)?
I do not want USCIS to send ant document to my ex-lawyer anymore.
Thanks so much
EB2-NIW
PD march 2003
RD - august 2003
I-485 pending
Yes, you need to send another G-28 with a cover letter and a copy of your receipt notice.
How can I inform the USCIS (I-485 pending) that my lawyer is not representing me any more? Do I need to fill up any form (like G28)?
I do not want USCIS to send ant document to my ex-lawyer anymore.
Thanks so much
EB2-NIW
PD march 2003
RD - august 2003
I-485 pending
Yes, you need to send another G-28 with a cover letter and a copy of your receipt notice.
freddy22
07-20 12:59 AM
what if he is charged with 2 misdemenaors as a YOUTHFUL OFFENDER?
is the law not that these are NOT grounds for deportation proceedings?
is the law not that these are NOT grounds for deportation proceedings?