raj3078
04-27 11:08 AM
This looks like a hoax to me. Could you quote a credible news story or a link on a enforcement site where there is any advisory?
Pappu,
This is the hoax and seems like an attempt to discredit India Law system. Please close the thread. We should not be party to such attempts. I get tons of emails like that including the one which talks about getting 10 million of lottery prize money. If I start believeing them then god save me....Please close this immediately.:mad:
Pappu,
This is the hoax and seems like an attempt to discredit India Law system. Please close the thread. We should not be party to such attempts. I get tons of emails like that including the one which talks about getting 10 million of lottery prize money. If I start believeing them then god save me....Please close this immediately.:mad:
wallpaper cute quotes and sayings about.
tnite
08-10 11:32 AM
any CT members coming along with you.. ?
None of them have PM'd or called me so far.
None of them have PM'd or called me so far.
EkAurAaya
03-20 10:26 AM
if you are foreign national selling a house, 10 % of your sale price may be held in escrow account till you pay the taxes. This is the case in atleast some states. This is what your real estate lawyer might be referring to. The rest 10 % is released after you have shown proof that you have paid your taxes.
Thanks you pointed me in the right direction... very interesting its called FIRPTA
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=105000,00.html
Anyone investing in Real estate should read this
Thanks you pointed me in the right direction... very interesting its called FIRPTA
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=105000,00.html
Anyone investing in Real estate should read this
2011 really cute quotes about
gcwait2007
05-16 03:25 PM
Unseenguy, Thank you for the good, satisfying answer.
I have few questions:
(1) Let me allow my present company to file I-140 as regular processing (mark as 'I-485 processing' in I-140 part IV) and change it later, using I-824 to convert from AOS case to Consular processing for using AC-140? This is faster and easier. Whether my understanding is correct?
(2) What documents one needs for filing Consular Processing? Is it the same set of documents for filing I-485?
(3) I hear that one needs to get police clearance certificates. Where does they come from?
I look forward for your reply,
Thank you
I have few questions:
(1) Let me allow my present company to file I-140 as regular processing (mark as 'I-485 processing' in I-140 part IV) and change it later, using I-824 to convert from AOS case to Consular processing for using AC-140? This is faster and easier. Whether my understanding is correct?
(2) What documents one needs for filing Consular Processing? Is it the same set of documents for filing I-485?
(3) I hear that one needs to get police clearance certificates. Where does they come from?
I look forward for your reply,
Thank you
more...
xbohdpukc
03-27 10:12 PM
I think the main point (and the most expensive one) is how you advertised your position and what requirements you put in printed ads. You can refile PERM and get a decision quite easily if you can find a wiggling room in your ad to squeeze your MBA degree in those reqs.
Good luck to you!
Good luck to you!
shahuja
02-06 09:02 PM
hello ..EVERYBODY..need help..
this is the email came from my lawyer today..for the inquiry they did with the consulate regarding my visa.
Hi Shweta,
We understand how frustrating this is for you. We received a response to our inquiry with the consulate. It seems the application is being kept pending for additional administrative processing. The stated reason for the review falls within the law under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under these circumstances, we typically see that the government issues a notice to the applicant wherein additional information is often requested. Kindly advise if you have received any notification from the consulate on this issue.
Best regards,
IS ADMIN PROC DIFFERENT FROM ADD ADMIN PROC ???
also the same day i called DOS and they told me case was approved already in jan..so that means that now more processing needs to be done ??
ADVICE ??
this is the email came from my lawyer today..for the inquiry they did with the consulate regarding my visa.
Hi Shweta,
We understand how frustrating this is for you. We received a response to our inquiry with the consulate. It seems the application is being kept pending for additional administrative processing. The stated reason for the review falls within the law under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under these circumstances, we typically see that the government issues a notice to the applicant wherein additional information is often requested. Kindly advise if you have received any notification from the consulate on this issue.
Best regards,
IS ADMIN PROC DIFFERENT FROM ADD ADMIN PROC ???
also the same day i called DOS and they told me case was approved already in jan..so that means that now more processing needs to be done ??
ADVICE ??
more...
saketkapur
01-21 12:57 PM
Hi Guys
As all of us know that the renewal process for EADs will start from end Feb for people who were short changed last year and had lost 3 months on their EAD renewals in EAD. USCIS had issued record number of EADs by June end last year to avoid giving 2 year EADs and those people are coming up for renewal now.
So to me it looks like a pure scam. Move the dates significantly ahead since if the PD is current then they only need to issue 1 year EAD and then move them back next month or so.
Keep milking the cow as current PDs do not neccessarily mean getting green. Just my 2 cents.
regards
Saket
As all of us know that the renewal process for EADs will start from end Feb for people who were short changed last year and had lost 3 months on their EAD renewals in EAD. USCIS had issued record number of EADs by June end last year to avoid giving 2 year EADs and those people are coming up for renewal now.
So to me it looks like a pure scam. Move the dates significantly ahead since if the PD is current then they only need to issue 1 year EAD and then move them back next month or so.
Keep milking the cow as current PDs do not neccessarily mean getting green. Just my 2 cents.
regards
Saket
2010 cute quotes on pictures. cute
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
more...
chrisa
November 16th, 2007, 12:26 AM
Arctic Butterfly works great. I picked one up in Toronto at Henry's after shooting some photos of the CN Tower. Noticed I had a few spots and sure enough they were on the high pass filter. I did attempt to blow the particles off but they were not budging. I decided to deploy the butterfly and it worked just fine. After two passes the dust was gone. I didn't find it a difficult or stressful task and never felt as if I was "at risk" of damaging my camera. My two cents.