she81
01-24 04:04 PM
The school is wrong on 2 accounts:
1. The only exception to the full-time student rule on F1 is your LAST semester of graduation. If your wife is in her LAST semester, and she has fewer credits remaining for graduation, and enrolls in less than full-time credits she CANNOT be out of status. I myself was in that boat in my last sem. Not sure if things changed in the past 2 yrs.
2. If she has an EAD, then your lawyer is right. She is not required to be on F1.
1. The only exception to the full-time student rule on F1 is your LAST semester of graduation. If your wife is in her LAST semester, and she has fewer credits remaining for graduation, and enrolls in less than full-time credits she CANNOT be out of status. I myself was in that boat in my last sem. Not sure if things changed in the past 2 yrs.
2. If she has an EAD, then your lawyer is right. She is not required to be on F1.
wallpaper Find the new 2011 hair styles
eb3_nepa
11-19 01:19 PM
I guess when it comes to GC processing, NOTHING is really "wrong" is it? If you get a chance to work around and beat the long lines, I guess "It's all good". Some people are lucky that they get a chance to get Labor Sub, some ppl marry the GC and some ppl like the rest of us wait in line like "honest citizens".
The REAL question is, just how many of us would have refused a good labour sub, given the present conditions, solely on the basis that "it is unfair to others"? I know i would have taken it. Reason? It's LEGAL (or used to be). Our "misfortune" (if i can use that word), is that we did not get a similar chance.
For those wondering, what I am babbling about: "Let's not look down on this guy who got his GC approved by Labour Sub, or even continuously point out that he did."
The REAL question is, just how many of us would have refused a good labour sub, given the present conditions, solely on the basis that "it is unfair to others"? I know i would have taken it. Reason? It's LEGAL (or used to be). Our "misfortune" (if i can use that word), is that we did not get a similar chance.
For those wondering, what I am babbling about: "Let's not look down on this guy who got his GC approved by Labour Sub, or even continuously point out that he did."
amslonewolf
10-02 02:10 PM
The attorney gets the AP documents.
I did get my EAD cards at home but the AP went to Attorney.
I did get my EAD cards at home but the AP went to Attorney.
2011 hairstyles Cool Short Hair
rk07
09-20 10:15 PM
Seshu,
Which center did you file, is it NSC? If so, on what date.
I applied on 23 July at NSC and havent received anything so far.
Thanks,
-rk.
I got my checks cashed today and got ALL receipt numbers.
485 sent to NSC whereas AP and EAD stay in CSC. All have receipt numbers starting with WAC.
I saw from the previous post that EADs are being ordered within 6 days. is that true?
Application Type: I765, APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On September 17, 2007, we received this I765 APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case.
Which center did you file, is it NSC? If so, on what date.
I applied on 23 July at NSC and havent received anything so far.
Thanks,
-rk.
I got my checks cashed today and got ALL receipt numbers.
485 sent to NSC whereas AP and EAD stay in CSC. All have receipt numbers starting with WAC.
I saw from the previous post that EADs are being ordered within 6 days. is that true?
Application Type: I765, APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On September 17, 2007, we received this I765 APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case.
more...
Pagal
03-23 09:47 AM
Hello Zen,
Good question...I don't know, but it seems like the FP are valid for about 1.5 years....no idea about medical records validity.
Hello bsbawa10,
I think the process is designed for 'non-backlogged' processing which normally does not extend beyond a few months...you are right, maybe, we should have a different validity in the current situation with long backlogs.
Good question...I don't know, but it seems like the FP are valid for about 1.5 years....no idea about medical records validity.
Hello bsbawa10,
I think the process is designed for 'non-backlogged' processing which normally does not extend beyond a few months...you are right, maybe, we should have a different validity in the current situation with long backlogs.
harsh
05-24 12:27 PM
Done!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep it going guys.
more...
srikondoji
06-16 01:18 PM
eb3_nepa,
Multi national aspect of IV team should come up on its own without anyone of us forcing it that way. One thing we should forcefully implement is give everybody an oppurtunity to speak up, if a right candidate steps up.
Again we should also be concerned about how we are interfacing the outside world. At this point in time we should be result focused than process focused.
thanks
sri
Multi national aspect of IV team should come up on its own without anyone of us forcing it that way. One thing we should forcefully implement is give everybody an oppurtunity to speak up, if a right candidate steps up.
Again we should also be concerned about how we are interfacing the outside world. At this point in time we should be result focused than process focused.
thanks
sri
2010 wallpaper short hair styles
dan19
02-08 03:11 PM
Dude....
You want to see the March VB:) ?
Why waste time? Just look at Feb VB..it will be the ditto copy n paste.
The lazy html programmer might have already cut it by now. He will take 3 days to paste it into a new page. After all that 'hard work', he will bring out a broken link on the 4th day.
Really getting tired of this monthly ritual!
You want to see the March VB:) ?
Why waste time? Just look at Feb VB..it will be the ditto copy n paste.
The lazy html programmer might have already cut it by now. He will take 3 days to paste it into a new page. After all that 'hard work', he will bring out a broken link on the 4th day.
Really getting tired of this monthly ritual!
more...
qualified_trash
10-09 09:21 AM
We are talking two different things here. You are saying about AC-21. The OP is asking about retaining PD. The way you can retain your PD after I-140 approval is :-
You file a new labor with the new employer - once it is approved - you need to file a new I-140 application and attach the old approved application with it - this would ensure that your PD will become the PD from the old case.
Difference with AC21 is - in the case of AC21, you just switch jobs and your current GC process continues - you do not have to file a new labor,140 etc.
thanks dilbert_cal!!
You file a new labor with the new employer - once it is approved - you need to file a new I-140 application and attach the old approved application with it - this would ensure that your PD will become the PD from the old case.
Difference with AC21 is - in the case of AC21, you just switch jobs and your current GC process continues - you do not have to file a new labor,140 etc.
thanks dilbert_cal!!
hair short hair styles men 2011.
sbabunle
03-27 05:36 PM
I'm afraid of same things too...Hope something will work out.
Based on Assement in this article, it almost seems that the chances of STRIVE are dead even before it goes to House Immigration Commettee. I am not trying to be negative or something but the article has such a tone. I can understand that Pelosi did not schedule any timing but what concerns me most is the fact that
"California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, will hold hearings before marking up any bill"
Now we all know how one sided these hearings are and how long they take. In nutshell these hearings give chance to any tom, dick and harry to express his opinion and create melodrama. We already worry about melodrama of people such as Sen Sessions in the Senate. Add this drama, and it can easily eat the short window we have to get the relief. I really hope I am wrong here but I have a bad feeling about this :(:mad:
Based on Assement in this article, it almost seems that the chances of STRIVE are dead even before it goes to House Immigration Commettee. I am not trying to be negative or something but the article has such a tone. I can understand that Pelosi did not schedule any timing but what concerns me most is the fact that
"California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, will hold hearings before marking up any bill"
Now we all know how one sided these hearings are and how long they take. In nutshell these hearings give chance to any tom, dick and harry to express his opinion and create melodrama. We already worry about melodrama of people such as Sen Sessions in the Senate. Add this drama, and it can easily eat the short window we have to get the relief. I really hope I am wrong here but I have a bad feeling about this :(:mad:
more...
immi_twinges
07-14 06:47 PM
There are lots of threads on the same topic.
Its very confusing to follow.
We should combine every thing to a single thread
Lest be organised... Just because you can make a new thread just dont make it. Search before you make a new thread.
Be organized:) be prepared
Its very confusing to follow.
We should combine every thing to a single thread
Lest be organised... Just because you can make a new thread just dont make it. Search before you make a new thread.
Be organized:) be prepared
hot A new; short hair styles
pyrosleepy
12-14 12:55 PM
I have done many PR applications, please let me know if you need any help when you file your self. I would be able to help you.
I am just starting the Canadian PR process. Can you tell me how long it is taking right now? Also, do you know if you have to work for the employer if you are a provincial nominee?
Thanks
I am just starting the Canadian PR process. Can you tell me how long it is taking right now? Also, do you know if you have to work for the employer if you are a provincial nominee?
Thanks
more...
house Short Spikey Hair styles for
joshi_nilesh
08-27 01:17 PM
I am living in IL Suburb of Chicago
tattoo Short Hair Styles: New
gc_bulgaria
03-19 05:36 PM
The second bill (HR 5634) says that people with PhD from US universities are cap-exempt from EB. So it means some quota will be freed up from EB1 and also from Eb2-NIW.
Read all the bills. I guess you are bummer !!!!
So is this bill passes, can a person with a PhD apply for a GC without an employer (same as EB1)? I am confused...
Read all the bills. I guess you are bummer !!!!
So is this bill passes, can a person with a PhD apply for a GC without an employer (same as EB1)? I am confused...
more...
pictures haircuts 2011 men.
gsc999
05-27 11:04 PM
Hello Gus
My understanding is that Sen Maj. Leader and Min leader pick senate
conferees. Similar with house. Democrats support the bill. Most of the
republicans oppose it. House and Senate Bill are different like day and
night. The bill has to pass because.
1. Enforcement and Boarder protection is highly needed and the house
really want it. If they need it they have to make some sacrifice accepting
guest workers program with slight modification etc. Otherway the CIR supporting conferees may not agree and bill dies leaving things same as now
which nobody wants.
2. Election is approaching. Most of the leaders in Rep party openly admitted
that Enforcement only bill will affect them adversly
3. Mr. Persident is a strongly supporting Guest Worker program.
4. If a enforcement only bill is pased thats going to affect the relationship
with Mexico.
I believe the House is against legal immigration too. Otherway some provisions might have survived in the budget bill. My biggest worry is that
if CIR supporters and Opposers (conferees) will be happy to remove legal immigration provisions in the in the reconcilation process and call it deal!
thanks
babu
My understanding is that the legal immigration provisions were dropped from the "Budget" bill because the senate was planning to re-introduce Conprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) bill. House probably didn't want to address it in an ad-hoc manner. House Rep. have always said, Border first.
Honestly, from the senate debates it was obvious the issue is border security and illegal immigration. Legal immigrants took back seat in senate. Lets see if their issues are understood and the CIR passes House with the current provisions.
My understanding is that Sen Maj. Leader and Min leader pick senate
conferees. Similar with house. Democrats support the bill. Most of the
republicans oppose it. House and Senate Bill are different like day and
night. The bill has to pass because.
1. Enforcement and Boarder protection is highly needed and the house
really want it. If they need it they have to make some sacrifice accepting
guest workers program with slight modification etc. Otherway the CIR supporting conferees may not agree and bill dies leaving things same as now
which nobody wants.
2. Election is approaching. Most of the leaders in Rep party openly admitted
that Enforcement only bill will affect them adversly
3. Mr. Persident is a strongly supporting Guest Worker program.
4. If a enforcement only bill is pased thats going to affect the relationship
with Mexico.
I believe the House is against legal immigration too. Otherway some provisions might have survived in the budget bill. My biggest worry is that
if CIR supporters and Opposers (conferees) will be happy to remove legal immigration provisions in the in the reconcilation process and call it deal!
thanks
babu
My understanding is that the legal immigration provisions were dropped from the "Budget" bill because the senate was planning to re-introduce Conprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) bill. House probably didn't want to address it in an ad-hoc manner. House Rep. have always said, Border first.
Honestly, from the senate debates it was obvious the issue is border security and illegal immigration. Legal immigrants took back seat in senate. Lets see if their issues are understood and the CIR passes House with the current provisions.
dresses girlfriend short hair styles
raju123
07-12 04:13 PM
There is no second opinion that USCIS is wrong on morale ground for July VB issue. But I am not sure technically, they are right or wrong. They interpreted the law in their convenience. Here is what I see
What ever visa left for year 2007, they requested to use for July 2007. They kept ready all pre-adjudicated applications and assigned visa numbers on July 1 (Sunday). No one can stop them to send green card approval notice for visa assigned cases later. In a rush, they assigned visa number to few cases whose security check is still pending (technically this is wrong). They realize their mistake and now checking all the cases which are assigned visa numbers on July 1 whether security check is cleared or not. They are now approving the cases (with a slow speed) whose security check is cleared and assigned visa number on July 1. They are returning visa number which are assigned to cases whose security check is not clear.
This is my understanding.
Just trying to sum up the situation from USCIS perspective...
1) DOS releases July visa bulletin making all EB categories current (except for other workers)...hoping to force the USCIS to adjudicate cases and avoid wasting visa numbers as in previous years
2) This infuriates USCIS, and for whatever reasons (this has been debated enough already), they decide to use up all the FY2007 visa numbers in June itself and then force the DOS to revise the July bulletin in June itself...so no one can file in July.
3) Unfortunately, they run into issues going through with their plan of using up all visa numbers in June
4) July 1st and morning of July 2nd...they still are working frantically to use up the numbers to avoid new July filers. But by now, it is July already and they have failed in their original mission (see 2 above). Now they start panicking and do some dumb stuff (in violation of their own regulations). They approve I-485's of some folks who were ready for approval (processing complete and FBI check cleared), but whose dates were not current. They also pre-requested some numbers for folks whose dates were current, but processing was not complete i.e. FBI check was not cleared.
5) Late morning July 2nd: By requesting all available numbers from DOS and exhausting FY2007 quota, they forced DOS to revise the July bulletin, which was unprecedented.
6) July 5th and later: It is now post July-2nd, and USCIS still has cases for which they pre-requested numbers. Now the problem is that even if the FBI check comes through for those cases, they cannot approve them because technically, all numbers have been used up for FY 2007. So they start returning numbers to DOS. They also decide NOT the send the applications of people who filed on July 2nd or later back while they decide on the next course of action...
I think this will have major implications for both USCIS and DOS. The key for USCIS was to exhaust visa numbers on or before June 29th to achieve their obejective without repercussions...and force DOS to revise the bulletin in June itself...and they failed miserably at it.
And now they will have to pay. I know some people are thinking please let USCIS just sweep it under the carpet and just allow us to file our cases...no harm done. But I diasgree...what they have done is shameful. And they should be made to pay for playing with our lives. They should never be able to even think of doing something like this again. And their operations should have direct congress/DOS oversight so they cannot get away with snail-paced processing wasting visas ever again...
What ever visa left for year 2007, they requested to use for July 2007. They kept ready all pre-adjudicated applications and assigned visa numbers on July 1 (Sunday). No one can stop them to send green card approval notice for visa assigned cases later. In a rush, they assigned visa number to few cases whose security check is still pending (technically this is wrong). They realize their mistake and now checking all the cases which are assigned visa numbers on July 1 whether security check is cleared or not. They are now approving the cases (with a slow speed) whose security check is cleared and assigned visa number on July 1. They are returning visa number which are assigned to cases whose security check is not clear.
This is my understanding.
Just trying to sum up the situation from USCIS perspective...
1) DOS releases July visa bulletin making all EB categories current (except for other workers)...hoping to force the USCIS to adjudicate cases and avoid wasting visa numbers as in previous years
2) This infuriates USCIS, and for whatever reasons (this has been debated enough already), they decide to use up all the FY2007 visa numbers in June itself and then force the DOS to revise the July bulletin in June itself...so no one can file in July.
3) Unfortunately, they run into issues going through with their plan of using up all visa numbers in June
4) July 1st and morning of July 2nd...they still are working frantically to use up the numbers to avoid new July filers. But by now, it is July already and they have failed in their original mission (see 2 above). Now they start panicking and do some dumb stuff (in violation of their own regulations). They approve I-485's of some folks who were ready for approval (processing complete and FBI check cleared), but whose dates were not current. They also pre-requested some numbers for folks whose dates were current, but processing was not complete i.e. FBI check was not cleared.
5) Late morning July 2nd: By requesting all available numbers from DOS and exhausting FY2007 quota, they forced DOS to revise the July bulletin, which was unprecedented.
6) July 5th and later: It is now post July-2nd, and USCIS still has cases for which they pre-requested numbers. Now the problem is that even if the FBI check comes through for those cases, they cannot approve them because technically, all numbers have been used up for FY 2007. So they start returning numbers to DOS. They also decide NOT the send the applications of people who filed on July 2nd or later back while they decide on the next course of action...
I think this will have major implications for both USCIS and DOS. The key for USCIS was to exhaust visa numbers on or before June 29th to achieve their obejective without repercussions...and force DOS to revise the bulletin in June itself...and they failed miserably at it.
And now they will have to pay. I know some people are thinking please let USCIS just sweep it under the carpet and just allow us to file our cases...no harm done. But I diasgree...what they have done is shameful. And they should be made to pay for playing with our lives. They should never be able to even think of doing something like this again. And their operations should have direct congress/DOS oversight so they cannot get away with snail-paced processing wasting visas ever again...
more...
makeup short hair styles men. short
stucklabor
06-19 08:00 AM
The FBI name check is not a side problem that once we finish fighting other problems, let's come back and pick up another problem. This is one of the major obstacles in the GC and Citizenship process which unfortunately is not transparent and there is no data available to tell you when you will pass this obstacle. If the attitude of some of the members in this organization is the delay in FBI name check is not going to happen to them and it is only random and a side problem, think again and watch out for what will be coming your way. By no means, this is not a side problem, this is one of those hidden obstacles that you don't know it is in your way once you hit it...and once you hit it, you are stuck. There is no congressman, senator or individual to help you. If we are going to be united and make the GC process transparent, we should not hand pick some of the problems that we want to fight today and come back to other problems later. You are going to soon realize how gigantic the delay with FBI name check is.
Franklin: Just to clarify, the name check effort is a private effort of Logiclife, who is one of the moderators.
Sroym: Name check not being on IV's official agenda has nothing to do with member nationalities. It is a case of greatest good for the greatest number. 200,000 people - 20% of all the green cards issued last year - are in name check. Since EB immigrants are about 20% of the total green cards, only about 40K EB immigrants are in name check. Compare that with the 250K people stuck in retrogression and 200K people in the Labor cert backlog centers.
Sroym, I understand you posted in good faith, but PM a moderator first, please, to get the facts.
Franklin: Just to clarify, the name check effort is a private effort of Logiclife, who is one of the moderators.
Sroym: Name check not being on IV's official agenda has nothing to do with member nationalities. It is a case of greatest good for the greatest number. 200,000 people - 20% of all the green cards issued last year - are in name check. Since EB immigrants are about 20% of the total green cards, only about 40K EB immigrants are in name check. Compare that with the 250K people stuck in retrogression and 200K people in the Labor cert backlog centers.
Sroym, I understand you posted in good faith, but PM a moderator first, please, to get the facts.
girlfriend new hairstyles 2011 for men.
alinaturkova
01-15 08:11 AM
Hey Everyone,
My brother is a US citizen who has filed an I-130 for me and my family in May, 2008. We've traveled to the US on B1/B2 visas in February, 2009. The thing about it is that in the DS-156 form point "36. Has Anyone Ever Filed an Immigrant Visa Petition on Your Behalf?" we've answered "No". I've had no idea at that time that it was referring to the petition for alien relative. Anyways, we've returned back home in time. Also, I've had 3 visas before (2 tourist and 1 student) and never violated any immigration laws.
Then in December, 2009 we've applied for F-1 visa and got denied. This time it was a DS-160 form that we filled out which replaced the old DS-156 form. It didn't have that question about the petition anymore. I think they've decided to exclude it because a lot of people were confused by it. Anyways, the consulate officer didn't like the fact that I haven't transferred my credits from 2 courses of University that I've completed in my home country. Plus my major differed from my previous education course.
So my question is. Is it ok to apply for F-1 visa while I-130 is pending? I mean we've been issued B1/B2 visas before. Even though we've answered "No" to that question, they saw that I had a brother in the US who is a US citizen. I'm thinking of transferring my credits and using same major course this time or at least similar. This way in the eyes of the consulate officer it will look as I am going to the US to finish my education. The thing is, I am planning to attend community college first in order to finish general courses and then transfer to the university. My major in my home university was physics and this community college doesn't have it. I may go with "general education" course at the community college and explain to the consulate officer my situation.
Is it even legal to apply for F-1 visa while I-130 is pending? I believe so. My another question is. Once I finish education. What's the next step would be? Will it be easy to transfer from F-1 to H1B visa while I-130 is pending? What about my wife and a baby who will be on F-2 status? Please share your thoughts. Thank you!
My brother is a US citizen who has filed an I-130 for me and my family in May, 2008. We've traveled to the US on B1/B2 visas in February, 2009. The thing about it is that in the DS-156 form point "36. Has Anyone Ever Filed an Immigrant Visa Petition on Your Behalf?" we've answered "No". I've had no idea at that time that it was referring to the petition for alien relative. Anyways, we've returned back home in time. Also, I've had 3 visas before (2 tourist and 1 student) and never violated any immigration laws.
Then in December, 2009 we've applied for F-1 visa and got denied. This time it was a DS-160 form that we filled out which replaced the old DS-156 form. It didn't have that question about the petition anymore. I think they've decided to exclude it because a lot of people were confused by it. Anyways, the consulate officer didn't like the fact that I haven't transferred my credits from 2 courses of University that I've completed in my home country. Plus my major differed from my previous education course.
So my question is. Is it ok to apply for F-1 visa while I-130 is pending? I mean we've been issued B1/B2 visas before. Even though we've answered "No" to that question, they saw that I had a brother in the US who is a US citizen. I'm thinking of transferring my credits and using same major course this time or at least similar. This way in the eyes of the consulate officer it will look as I am going to the US to finish my education. The thing is, I am planning to attend community college first in order to finish general courses and then transfer to the university. My major in my home university was physics and this community college doesn't have it. I may go with "general education" course at the community college and explain to the consulate officer my situation.
Is it even legal to apply for F-1 visa while I-130 is pending? I believe so. My another question is. Once I finish education. What's the next step would be? Will it be easy to transfer from F-1 to H1B visa while I-130 is pending? What about my wife and a baby who will be on F-2 status? Please share your thoughts. Thank you!
hairstyles short hair styles men 2009.
vjkypally
03-25 12:38 PM
Applied on August 23rd, Still pending, 7 months over for H-1 extension, still not approved and no RFE. This was for a 3 year extension after I-140 approval, I ve finished 7 years on H-1B. Anyone on the same boat? It's really frustrating.....
akhilmahajan
09-21 09:30 AM
Folks, the idea of this thread was to appreciate what Pankaj did and i am sure everyone agrees with me that he did a wonderful job.
To do it or not to do it, is a totally different thing.
This is a learning process and this rally was done for the first time. So, there were a lot of lessons learned.
We will do a better job in the next rally.
Instead of worrying about the rights and the wrongs, lets spread the words, lets get some more local lawmakers meetings, lets educate ppl about the issue.
Come on folks lets use this wonderful oppurtunity to advance our cause, lets use this positive energy to educate ppl more about LEGAL IMMIGRATION.
IV is a platform where we can unite and get things done together. IV does its best, but IV wants individuals to try at their personal level.
Come on guuys so lets start working on positive things and lets keep on moving forward.
GO IV GO
To do it or not to do it, is a totally different thing.
This is a learning process and this rally was done for the first time. So, there were a lot of lessons learned.
We will do a better job in the next rally.
Instead of worrying about the rights and the wrongs, lets spread the words, lets get some more local lawmakers meetings, lets educate ppl about the issue.
Come on folks lets use this wonderful oppurtunity to advance our cause, lets use this positive energy to educate ppl more about LEGAL IMMIGRATION.
IV is a platform where we can unite and get things done together. IV does its best, but IV wants individuals to try at their personal level.
Come on guuys so lets start working on positive things and lets keep on moving forward.
GO IV GO
NKR
05-23 08:55 AM
I have some good news and some bad news!
The bad news is that. You will get your green card in 5 years and after other five years you will get your citizenship. So in 10 years will be in position to get married.
Now , you will be wondering what is the good news.
Well!, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switiching to GEICO.
LOL, this is very funny. Had a good laugh this friday morning.
The bad news is that. You will get your green card in 5 years and after other five years you will get your citizenship. So in 10 years will be in position to get married.
Now , you will be wondering what is the good news.
Well!, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switiching to GEICO.
LOL, this is very funny. Had a good laugh this friday morning.
0 comments:
Post a Comment