gc_freedom
02-21 02:28 AM
admesystems you can apply for AP but you can not use it because you were out of status for 1 year you will not be allowed to enter US for next 10 years!
So it's of no use to you.
gc_freedom
So it's of no use to you.
gc_freedom
wallpaper my installment from Sleepy
jackdaniels
05-31 04:23 PM
100.00 - Google Order #601837695595056
dealsnet
08-04 11:55 AM
We need a new Social Security Card after receiving the GC. Restrictions in the H1B people's card. So we need to apply to remove the restrictions.
I did apply at the Social Security office and got the new card within 1 week. The application is same for a new SSN and we need to show the Green card as a proof. We need to surrender the old card at the office. The old card with 'employment with INS authorization' will be removed from the system.
So after getting GC, we need to give new I-9 to the employer with GC copy and new Scoial Security Card. Same applicable for dependants.
I did apply at the Social Security office and got the new card within 1 week. The application is same for a new SSN and we need to show the Green card as a proof. We need to surrender the old card at the office. The old card with 'employment with INS authorization' will be removed from the system.
So after getting GC, we need to give new I-9 to the employer with GC copy and new Scoial Security Card. Same applicable for dependants.
2011 an installment of the army
pxkuma
06-17 07:20 AM
I am in the same boat too. Only difference is that I have formally accepted the offer and it's in the same corporation (but different legal entity).
My lawyer recommended that I have three options
1) Start over and recapture your PD. She mentioned that this is the cleanest option.
2) Apply for 485 from your old job and then move to the other job after six months
3) Move to the new job but apply for your 485 from your old job.However, you will need to move back to your old job once you get your Green Card.
I believe Option 3 is the best for all of you. Try contacting your old employers to see if they can file for your 485. That said, once your complete your six months after applying for 485, you can technically move. Now I am not sure if this will work, but can we not move into another company at more apparent time before the actual receipt of the Green Card. Also, given the severe retrogression expected, it may be a long wait and this move may potentially not have to happen for a while.
Please note the above is my opinion and you will need to consult your own lawyers.
My lawyer recommended that I have three options
1) Start over and recapture your PD. She mentioned that this is the cleanest option.
2) Apply for 485 from your old job and then move to the other job after six months
3) Move to the new job but apply for your 485 from your old job.However, you will need to move back to your old job once you get your Green Card.
I believe Option 3 is the best for all of you. Try contacting your old employers to see if they can file for your 485. That said, once your complete your six months after applying for 485, you can technically move. Now I am not sure if this will work, but can we not move into another company at more apparent time before the actual receipt of the Green Card. Also, given the severe retrogression expected, it may be a long wait and this move may potentially not have to happen for a while.
Please note the above is my opinion and you will need to consult your own lawyers.
more...
masti_Gai
08-16 10:20 AM
I recently visited India in June 07. I didn't wanna go and waste a couple of dayz in chennai so wanted to use ma AP. While returnin I showed ma PP to the Immigration officer, he asked me where ma VISA was. I told him i have an AP and showed it to him.. He wasn't surprized. he just let me get in after stampin a seal on my PP.
At Germany (coz i flew via lufthansa) the lady asked my VISA again. I showed her my AP... she suddenly understood and asked me if i had applied for a GC. I said yes.. she signed a form and let me check in at the counter.
Its so simple no problem at all.
Happy Journey...
At Germany (coz i flew via lufthansa) the lady asked my VISA again. I showed her my AP... she suddenly understood and asked me if i had applied for a GC. I said yes.. she signed a form and let me check in at the counter.
Its so simple no problem at all.
Happy Journey...
aish_m04
11-21 12:46 AM
I am in the same situation as yours. Any update after the infopass appointment.
more...
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-20 08:50 AM
If it is approved don't wait for the actual paper to arrive. You can apply 140/485 right away and USCIS will contact DOL for your LC papers. That's what I am doing. Don't wait just apply!
See the Requirements for the same ....
Lot of Documentation needed; look at the theard for 485/EAD filing
In the mean time you could wait for the Physical Paper and consult with your attorney to see how u could file it ...
One of my friend is in the same situvation and this is the way we are proceeding !
See the Requirements for the same ....
Lot of Documentation needed; look at the theard for 485/EAD filing
In the mean time you could wait for the Physical Paper and consult with your attorney to see how u could file it ...
One of my friend is in the same situvation and this is the way we are proceeding !
2010 installment buying 1920s. during Middle class wages and consumer goods
ayazali17
12-18 07:08 PM
One more question. Does a person with EAD (I-766) considered a permanent legal resident? The reason why i asked is because i was filling out a form to open a Scottrade account, i was stumped on this question, so i thought i asked someone here to verify.
Thanks for answering.
Thanks for answering.
more...
Libra
09-14 04:00 PM
Pradhan is being interview on EBC radio....now
Whats the 30,000? I'm not listening
Whats the 30,000? I'm not listening
hair Installment: D/P P20,925
belmontboy
11-03 05:57 PM
Do you guys think this 2008 election will have any impact on the immigration process?
NOPE.
Earlier democrats had a reason of not getting things done [Bush's veto, filibuster...etc.etc]
Now nothing will get done, and they will have no reasons.
Welcome to world of politics my friend :)
NOPE.
Earlier democrats had a reason of not getting things done [Bush's veto, filibuster...etc.etc]
Now nothing will get done, and they will have no reasons.
Welcome to world of politics my friend :)
more...
bluekayal
08-21 07:16 PM
To the red dot distributor
You said to me:
"Doesn't make any sense....let them then work on the SRs instead of answering calls...bottom line is that pointless calls are taking time away from real work."
These calls go to the IIO (ay-ay-oh!) not to adjudication officers. Now, why don't you stop distributing red dots? So rest easy, your GC will come when it will, red dot, or no red dot.
You said to me:
"Doesn't make any sense....let them then work on the SRs instead of answering calls...bottom line is that pointless calls are taking time away from real work."
These calls go to the IIO (ay-ay-oh!) not to adjudication officers. Now, why don't you stop distributing red dots? So rest easy, your GC will come when it will, red dot, or no red dot.
hot i#39;m uying for sure.
kumar07
09-13 11:10 AM
Somebody please give me suggestions?
more...
house installment buying 1920s. than uying a new Mac.
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
tattoo installment buying 1920s. to prevent you uying one; to prevent you uying one
reddymjm
03-11 01:02 PM
I just emailed mine to info@immigrationvoice.org.
more...
pictures installment buying 1920s. I really want to keep uying
ArunAntonio
10-17 12:48 PM
I am trying to book an appointment at the chennai consulate through the vfs website.
I fill in all the details on the DS 156 application and on hitting continue I do not seem to be getting the printable version with the bar code that we need to print and take to the consulate during the interview.
Another thing is after clicking on continue I am presented with a page to fill in the DS 157 and petition details and after filling that, I just get options to save and exit or go back.
I am not getting options to select a date to schedule the interview.
Any one who has done this recently please hlep, I am stuck witth this stupid thing for a couple of days now.... Please help ;(
I fill in all the details on the DS 156 application and on hitting continue I do not seem to be getting the printable version with the bar code that we need to print and take to the consulate during the interview.
Another thing is after clicking on continue I am presented with a page to fill in the DS 157 and petition details and after filling that, I just get options to save and exit or go back.
I am not getting options to select a date to schedule the interview.
Any one who has done this recently please hlep, I am stuck witth this stupid thing for a couple of days now.... Please help ;(
dresses installment buying 1920s. they#39;re uying one thing
nandakumar
01-18 12:59 PM
Bump
more...
makeup installment buying 1920s. Stop uying things for; Stop uying things for
arunmohan
11-16 12:35 PM
bump
girlfriend installment buying 1920s. users between uying a mp3
vnsriv
07-21 11:44 AM
Damn I am going to be pissed off if he gets a green card before I do.
Beckham has all the 3-in-1 qualification for GC .
Beckham has all the 3-in-1 qualification for GC .
hairstyles installment buying 1920s. uying whatever I can get.
skagitswimmer
June 16th, 2005, 10:49 AM
i agree with kevin, looking at it from my work monitor. I will check at home later - there was a big difference between the 2 on your other shots from this series.
With the first shot, the zero detail black area is pretty much background and oof anyway so there is no real loss. There is enough detail where it counts - around the eyes and face to make it work. There is also really nice detail in the grey border to the black area.
The only nit I'd have, and it is just a nit, is that from where I am looking at the moment the front of the beak is very slightly oof. I suspect it could be sharpened as much as needed with the sharpening tool in CS2. You might also tone down the oof leaf in the foreground right that is a bit distracting.
I really like the play of light and shadow on the other one. If you don't mind I might play with it a bit in CS2. QJ's instructions have got me all fired up and I've been masking my way to nirvana for the past 2 weeks.
With the first shot, the zero detail black area is pretty much background and oof anyway so there is no real loss. There is enough detail where it counts - around the eyes and face to make it work. There is also really nice detail in the grey border to the black area.
The only nit I'd have, and it is just a nit, is that from where I am looking at the moment the front of the beak is very slightly oof. I suspect it could be sharpened as much as needed with the sharpening tool in CS2. You might also tone down the oof leaf in the foreground right that is a bit distracting.
I really like the play of light and shadow on the other one. If you don't mind I might play with it a bit in CS2. QJ's instructions have got me all fired up and I've been masking my way to nirvana for the past 2 weeks.
tamil12
09-09 08:55 AM
If you can't able to wait for the AP to come...Then give a shot to the local USCIS office...and get an emergency AP...you can get it in oneday...But you need a valid document to show as it's a emergency travel to India....probably a document from India...
gc_on_demand
09-10 03:11 PM
If person is working for same company after MS then he/she cannot use experience for GC for same company. One of my friend got GC who was working for same company since he graduated and got GC under EB2. He had 4 years of exp after MS when he applied but could not show
No comments:
Post a Comment