pmat
03-14 03:50 PM
She doesn't need a transit visa. My mother-in-law came last week through Munich. She had a 10-yr multiple entry US visa stamped and didn't need any German transit visa.
wallpaper 2011-Hamann-BMW-5-Series-F10-M-Technik-03.jpg
Hinglish
01-08 12:44 AM
Thank you qasleuth ..... ..... ..... ..... frack you
Just read your post and you will see the same dastardly mistakes that I supposedly made.
Can you phrase a single complete sentence without '.....' ?
Dastardly means cowardly. What does "dastardly atrocious english" mean in the context of Neha's post ?
Sentences start with capital letters, need to have commas, and there should be proper usage of articles. I can point out atrocious mistakes in every sentence of your post.
Apart from your atrocious English, your profile is incorrect, your presumptions/tone is even more atrocious (addressing the poster as 'Miss', using words like 'hell'). Best of luck.
Just read your post and you will see the same dastardly mistakes that I supposedly made.
Can you phrase a single complete sentence without '.....' ?
Dastardly means cowardly. What does "dastardly atrocious english" mean in the context of Neha's post ?
Sentences start with capital letters, need to have commas, and there should be proper usage of articles. I can point out atrocious mistakes in every sentence of your post.
Apart from your atrocious English, your profile is incorrect, your presumptions/tone is even more atrocious (addressing the poster as 'Miss', using words like 'hell'). Best of luck.
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
2011 Hamann BMW 5 Series F10 M
PDOCT05
08-15 02:11 PM
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
Is your packet is signed by R.Williams? where is your I-140 approved? and what is your PD?
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
Is your packet is signed by R.Williams? where is your I-140 approved? and what is your PD?
more...
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.
dixie
08-09 11:26 AM
It is true that big businesses are putting a lot of pressure to initiate legal immigration reform, so while there is certainly room for optimism, we cannot sit still and just wait for things to happen. That is what legal immigrants have been doing for generations and we now know the mess that we are in. In contrast, look at the illegal immigrants. They create a lot of sound and fury, and ultimately even though nobody likes illegal immigration, an amnesty(or something close) is almost inevitable every 20 years or so.
IV is the first organization to initiate activism among legal immigrants. We are not that powerful right now, but we have already seen what activism can do. See the dramatic increase in coverage of legal immigration issues in the media. I cannot recall anything being published about our plight before. Those who say IV has done is ineffective should remember that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.IV has taken that important first step.
I don't know.
My friend same something that it makes sense;
Don't expect to see any real improvement throughout the Pres. Bush Administration. Remember politicians do shows. Even the current SKIL bill seems to be way unilateral and that would not be welcome by American voters either. I think until lawmakers truly stop listening to lobbysts and bring a true balanced bill to the table, we will see lots of "shows", but no real result.
It may happen someday, but I don't count on it necessarily in 2007.
IV is the first organization to initiate activism among legal immigrants. We are not that powerful right now, but we have already seen what activism can do. See the dramatic increase in coverage of legal immigration issues in the media. I cannot recall anything being published about our plight before. Those who say IV has done is ineffective should remember that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.IV has taken that important first step.
I don't know.
My friend same something that it makes sense;
Don't expect to see any real improvement throughout the Pres. Bush Administration. Remember politicians do shows. Even the current SKIL bill seems to be way unilateral and that would not be welcome by American voters either. I think until lawmakers truly stop listening to lobbysts and bring a true balanced bill to the table, we will see lots of "shows", but no real result.
It may happen someday, but I don't count on it necessarily in 2007.
more...
aachoo
02-20 06:54 PM
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
-a
2010 Advertisement: 2011 BMW
GotFreedom?
07-20 01:50 PM
If your I-485 is already approved, you already have a GC (your status is permanent resident) regardless if you have the physical card in possession or not. You do not need EAD to work in the US. You are allowed to work wherever you may choose without worrying about work authorization. Your GC is your work authorization as well.
Sorry to hear about your job loss. With I-485 already approved, you should be able to apply for the unemployment benefits but I do not know what kind of implications it might have when you go for citizenship. I beleive, you are elegible to reap the benefits of the social benefits even if its considered burden.
Sorry to hear about your job loss. With I-485 already approved, you should be able to apply for the unemployment benefits but I do not know what kind of implications it might have when you go for citizenship. I beleive, you are elegible to reap the benefits of the social benefits even if its considered burden.
more...
pappu
03-06 11:51 AM
Dear members,
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
hair Label: Car Hamann BMW 5-Series
IV_Friend
03-29 04:39 PM
Dear Attorney,
My Brother is working Employer "X" on H1B.
His employer started his Green Card Processing in 2007.
His Labor (PD 2007) and 140 are approved by 2008.
Because of some reasons he had leave the employer "X" and Join Employer "Y".
Employer Y, willing to start green card process.
Can my brother use prior Priority Date?
Please advice. I Appreciate your help.
My Brother is working Employer "X" on H1B.
His employer started his Green Card Processing in 2007.
His Labor (PD 2007) and 140 are approved by 2008.
Because of some reasons he had leave the employer "X" and Join Employer "Y".
Employer Y, willing to start green card process.
Can my brother use prior Priority Date?
Please advice. I Appreciate your help.
more...
gimme_GC2006
08-26 01:46 PM
Congrats Bro..:D:D
hot 2011 Hamann BMW 5-Series F10 M
a1b2c3
12-19 08:41 AM
If we were not present there would not be jobs for the current american colleagues of ours.
If Andy Grove was not allowed to immigrate, there would be no Intel in the USA.
If Sergey Brin was not allowed to immigrate, there would be no Google in the USA.
If Charles Simonyi and others was not allowed to immigrate, there would be no Xerox Star, no Mac and no Windows in the USA.
If .. <Add other names here>> there would be no Silicon Valley.
I and other outsiders have created countless jobs and maintained America's technological superiority.
... So I respectfully disagree with your statement about us displacing jobs :)
- JK
ok. convince yourself then, that you are all of the above names you just rattled off.
If Andy Grove was not allowed to immigrate, there would be no Intel in the USA.
If Sergey Brin was not allowed to immigrate, there would be no Google in the USA.
If Charles Simonyi and others was not allowed to immigrate, there would be no Xerox Star, no Mac and no Windows in the USA.
If .. <Add other names here>> there would be no Silicon Valley.
I and other outsiders have created countless jobs and maintained America's technological superiority.
... So I respectfully disagree with your statement about us displacing jobs :)
- JK
ok. convince yourself then, that you are all of the above names you just rattled off.
more...
house nextgt;gt;. 2011 HAMANN BMW
gc_chahiye
12-10 12:40 PM
Please look at the below links, it says that one can move jobs after 180 days even without 140 being approved.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
Any comments / suggestions ?
To be safe, either your I-140 needs to be approvable right off the bat (as filed) or your employer needs to co-operate with responding to RFE etc...
Safer to wait for approval...
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
Any comments / suggestions ?
To be safe, either your I-140 needs to be approvable right off the bat (as filed) or your employer needs to co-operate with responding to RFE etc...
Safer to wait for approval...
tattoo Feb 132011. Hamann BMW 5
supers789
07-11 04:12 PM
As most of you know USCIS is auditing all PERM applications filed by Fragomen. My application filed on April 20th 2008 also received audit (as filed by fragomen). I was wondering how long is it taking to get the response back for these audits? Anyone receilved response for their audits filed by Fragomen?
This is mainly important for me since with PD moved to June 2006, my PD is current (carrying over from old employer), but since PERM is in Audit I cannot file for 485.
Thanks!
This is mainly important for me since with PD moved to June 2006, my PD is current (carrying over from old employer), but since PERM is in Audit I cannot file for 485.
Thanks!
more...
pictures 2011 Hamann Bmw 5 Series F10 M
immi2006
08-17 09:29 AM
Most folks here would have used a lens to double check their APplns before mailing it.
If your friend wants to know ask him to join IV , why are you proxying for him > He shud be more worried than you. Pls talk to a professional lawyer on this situation, I am sure none of the folks here can advise on this,
Please
If your friend wants to know ask him to join IV , why are you proxying for him > He shud be more worried than you. Pls talk to a professional lawyer on this situation, I am sure none of the folks here can advise on this,
Please
dresses Hamann BMW 5 Series F10 M
bharad
09-21 04:01 PM
wanted to share my experience with anticompete
I have been a consultant with vendor V at client C for over 4 years now, wanted to change the vendor but this guy showed an anti compete I signed with him at previous client(no contract signed for current client though) mentioning anticompete for any future clients of Vendor.
The company is based off New York where anticompete is followed, so I had to forgo my plans of joining another vendor for the client.
I have been a consultant with vendor V at client C for over 4 years now, wanted to change the vendor but this guy showed an anti compete I signed with him at previous client(no contract signed for current client though) mentioning anticompete for any future clients of Vendor.
The company is based off New York where anticompete is followed, so I had to forgo my plans of joining another vendor for the client.
more...
makeup Hamann BMW 5-Series F10 M
caprianurag
11-15 03:55 PM
So, what did you decide..to join as PM or not?
girlfriend 2011 Hamann Bmw 5 Series F10 M Technik. 2011 BMW 5 Series M Sport
stirfries
12-02 01:27 PM
Thanks SS777 !!!
I am optimistic as well !!! I am just hoping that I receive the documents by end of this week !
But at the same time, I wouldn't want to sit idle, just hoping !!! :)
I am going to try whatever options that might be available, to speed up the document receipt, if it is possible !!!
Probably, I can set up an appointment with InfoPass, sometime next week, and see what they have to say about this...
The scary part is, I have read several posts by other users who had reported the loss of document once it has been mailed out by USCIS. I hope I do not fall into that category and I want to be aware of the next course of action, if indeed, I fall into that category.
Cancelling my Tickets is the last option that I have in my mind !!!
The things that we have to go through to get a GC !!!! :)
My attorney finally received the AP documents on hand, 16 days after the online status had changed to "Document Production or Oath Ceremony".
At least, now I don't have to think about postponing my Tickets !!!
Hope it works out for all you folks !!!
Good Luck !!!
Thanks,
I am optimistic as well !!! I am just hoping that I receive the documents by end of this week !
But at the same time, I wouldn't want to sit idle, just hoping !!! :)
I am going to try whatever options that might be available, to speed up the document receipt, if it is possible !!!
Probably, I can set up an appointment with InfoPass, sometime next week, and see what they have to say about this...
The scary part is, I have read several posts by other users who had reported the loss of document once it has been mailed out by USCIS. I hope I do not fall into that category and I want to be aware of the next course of action, if indeed, I fall into that category.
Cancelling my Tickets is the last option that I have in my mind !!!
The things that we have to go through to get a GC !!!! :)
My attorney finally received the AP documents on hand, 16 days after the online status had changed to "Document Production or Oath Ceremony".
At least, now I don't have to think about postponing my Tickets !!!
Hope it works out for all you folks !!!
Good Luck !!!
Thanks,
hairstyles 2011 Hamann Bmw 5 Series F10 M
nixstor
03-05 11:52 AM
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main
Choose USCIS for the agency and click submit. That returns the proposed fee increase which is open for comments. I doubt it makes any difference but nothing to lose leaving a comment on the portal
Alternatives
You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS- 2006-0044 by one of the following methods:
� Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
� E-mail: OSComments@dhs.gov. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.
� Facsimile: Federal eRulemaking portal at 866-466-5370.
� Mail: Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2006-0044 on your correspondence. This mailing address may also be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions.
� Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. Contact Telephone Number (202) 272-8377.
Choose USCIS for the agency and click submit. That returns the proposed fee increase which is open for comments. I doubt it makes any difference but nothing to lose leaving a comment on the portal
Alternatives
You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS- 2006-0044 by one of the following methods:
� Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
� E-mail: OSComments@dhs.gov. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.
� Facsimile: Federal eRulemaking portal at 866-466-5370.
� Mail: Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2006-0044 on your correspondence. This mailing address may also be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions.
� Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. Contact Telephone Number (202) 272-8377.
GoGreen
07-18 10:16 AM
Here is:
e-file 765(180 $)
Send copy of 485 along with printout of receipt
Wait for FP appointment
Done(got cards 40 days later)
I already did it for wife, son and myself.
Saved about 1500$
Hello, Thanks for your reply.
My case is.
I dont have a 485, I will be applying for one today. So I guess I need to wait for 485 reciept...right?
Also does it cost anything to do a eFiling?
Thanks again
e-file 765(180 $)
Send copy of 485 along with printout of receipt
Wait for FP appointment
Done(got cards 40 days later)
I already did it for wife, son and myself.
Saved about 1500$
Hello, Thanks for your reply.
My case is.
I dont have a 485, I will be applying for one today. So I guess I need to wait for 485 reciept...right?
Also does it cost anything to do a eFiling?
Thanks again
aaren253
02-19 02:51 AM
ok i 16 and i want to go to pasadena art center for transportation...and i want to know is their llike a art school that i can go to to help me create a portfolio and enhance my skills in sketching.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น