750|140|765|131|485
11-24 12:43 AM
If your co-worker is giving you the letter it makes more sense to have it notarized to make sure that he really signed it - Its okay if he signs in front of Canada or other countrie's notary public. Since this an RFE - you dont want to take any chances.
In general big companies wont issue this letter in this format and small companies disappear - so co-worker route is a pretty popular way !!
************* general layout , change accordingly ************
January 01, 2007
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
Nebraska Service Center
P.O. Box 87140
Lincoln, NE 68501-7140
Re: XXXX XXXXX
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I write this letter to verify that Mr. XXXX XXXXX worked at YYYY YYYYY from Aug 1998 until December 2004. During this period he worked 40 Hours per week.
During the period of employment at YYYY YYYYY Mr. XXXX XXXXX’s duty were to Analyze, Plan, Design, Develop and Test computer programs for Business applications using Oracle, PL/SQL, UNIX, JAVASCRIPT, JAVA, J2EE, XML, JSP, EJB, Hardware/Software Configurations, JDBC, ASP, VB6, DHTML, Linux, COM, DCom, Lotus Notes, Domino, SQL Server, DB2, and Informatica.
Mr. XXXX XXXXX rendered these services with the highest degree of responsibility and professionalism.
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Mr. ZZZZ ZZZZZ
Designation
Company Name
**************************************
You should write the job duties, salary , 40hrs.week and get it approved by the lawyer and then email to lawyer. Once lawyer approves you should send it to your friend in Canada and he should print I believe he can notarize in Canada and send it back to you or may be he can print in his company letter head. Thank you.
In general big companies wont issue this letter in this format and small companies disappear - so co-worker route is a pretty popular way !!
************* general layout , change accordingly ************
January 01, 2007
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
Nebraska Service Center
P.O. Box 87140
Lincoln, NE 68501-7140
Re: XXXX XXXXX
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I write this letter to verify that Mr. XXXX XXXXX worked at YYYY YYYYY from Aug 1998 until December 2004. During this period he worked 40 Hours per week.
During the period of employment at YYYY YYYYY Mr. XXXX XXXXX’s duty were to Analyze, Plan, Design, Develop and Test computer programs for Business applications using Oracle, PL/SQL, UNIX, JAVASCRIPT, JAVA, J2EE, XML, JSP, EJB, Hardware/Software Configurations, JDBC, ASP, VB6, DHTML, Linux, COM, DCom, Lotus Notes, Domino, SQL Server, DB2, and Informatica.
Mr. XXXX XXXXX rendered these services with the highest degree of responsibility and professionalism.
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Mr. ZZZZ ZZZZZ
Designation
Company Name
**************************************
You should write the job duties, salary , 40hrs.week and get it approved by the lawyer and then email to lawyer. Once lawyer approves you should send it to your friend in Canada and he should print I believe he can notarize in Canada and send it back to you or may be he can print in his company letter head. Thank you.
wallpaper More Avril Lavigne Photos!
pal351
11-22 09:16 PM
Fee : $305.00
Applied on line, printed the form.
Attached the following and sent them to USCIS
1) 485 - copy.
2) Old APs 2 - Copies.
3) Cover letter explaining that I need to visit my parents as they are old.
4) DL - Copy.
5) Photos : 2 (write A# and name back of them) (I forgot to send the photos with the application)
I forgot to attach the photos and got RFE, sent photos and approved yesterday. Waiting for the physical copy.
Thank You.
Applied on line, printed the form.
Attached the following and sent them to USCIS
1) 485 - copy.
2) Old APs 2 - Copies.
3) Cover letter explaining that I need to visit my parents as they are old.
4) DL - Copy.
5) Photos : 2 (write A# and name back of them) (I forgot to send the photos with the application)
I forgot to attach the photos and got RFE, sent photos and approved yesterday. Waiting for the physical copy.
Thank You.
txh1b
04-15 10:46 AM
What took you sooo long to wake up from the slumber and realize that you need to get paid? Look up WH4 and complain to DOL. Look for the contents in the Neufield memo as well.
2011 makeup Avril Lavigne (2002)
sandy_anand
01-24 10:17 AM
We are back to 140K, refer to demand data. This year both EB1 and EB2 are showing much lower consumption the dates will definitely move into 2007.
Thanks!
Thanks!
more...
akhilmahajan
02-10 04:45 PM
First of all Congrats!!!!!!!1
I am just curious, if you were on H-1B or have used EAD. If you had used EAD, did you work during these 3 months.
Infact, I got good news today. My MTR approved after 3 months. My 485 was denied due to withdrawal of I140 by previous employer (AC21 case).
So I had applied MTR and approved today. Looks like USCIS understood the error and approving all MTR (I didn't hear a single MTR rejection on AC21 case )
I am just curious, if you were on H-1B or have used EAD. If you had used EAD, did you work during these 3 months.
Infact, I got good news today. My MTR approved after 3 months. My 485 was denied due to withdrawal of I140 by previous employer (AC21 case).
So I had applied MTR and approved today. Looks like USCIS understood the error and approving all MTR (I didn't hear a single MTR rejection on AC21 case )
sandy_anand
01-24 10:16 AM
We are back to 140K, refer to demand data. This year both EB1 and EB2 are showing much lower consumption the dates will definitely move into 2007.
Based on the information available i am expecting EB2-I will get 8-12K visa this year (2011), unlike 20k last year (2010). Which means the PD will move as far as Nov-06 or Dec-06 the best this year.
No FB Spillover
High PERM approvals
Divergent opinions. Let's hope for the best!
Based on the information available i am expecting EB2-I will get 8-12K visa this year (2011), unlike 20k last year (2010). Which means the PD will move as far as Nov-06 or Dec-06 the best this year.
No FB Spillover
High PERM approvals
Divergent opinions. Let's hope for the best!
more...
stirfries
12-01 06:28 PM
Hello,
My case is unique. We applied for our AP(for both myself and my spouse) through our Attorney on October 21st and the online case status for our AP petitions changed to,
"Document Production or Oath Ceremony" on November 16th.
Our case notes also said,
"On November 16, 2009 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283".
It has been 12 Postal business days since the document was mailed out and our Attorney is yet to receive it.
Today I called up USCIS customer service enquiring about my petition. I was told by the CSR that, the "Document Production" doesn't necessarily mean that the document was sent out. It merely means that the Petition was approved and they have moved on to the next step of "Producing" / "Printing" the actual document and once it is produced/printed, it would be mailed out. She also asked me to call them back, 30 days after November 16th, if I still didn't receive the documents.
Whatever the CSR said, contradicts the case notes which clearly says, the Document was mailed out.
Any advises on what I should do?
I have an upcoming Travel by last week of December and I would really like to have my AP document on hand before I exit out of the the country.
Any clues or advises would be highly appreciated.
Thanks,
My case is unique. We applied for our AP(for both myself and my spouse) through our Attorney on October 21st and the online case status for our AP petitions changed to,
"Document Production or Oath Ceremony" on November 16th.
Our case notes also said,
"On November 16, 2009 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283".
It has been 12 Postal business days since the document was mailed out and our Attorney is yet to receive it.
Today I called up USCIS customer service enquiring about my petition. I was told by the CSR that, the "Document Production" doesn't necessarily mean that the document was sent out. It merely means that the Petition was approved and they have moved on to the next step of "Producing" / "Printing" the actual document and once it is produced/printed, it would be mailed out. She also asked me to call them back, 30 days after November 16th, if I still didn't receive the documents.
Whatever the CSR said, contradicts the case notes which clearly says, the Document was mailed out.
Any advises on what I should do?
I have an upcoming Travel by last week of December and I would really like to have my AP document on hand before I exit out of the the country.
Any clues or advises would be highly appreciated.
Thanks,
2010 Avril Lavigne 2002.
snathan
02-24 11:19 AM
snathan,
I-140 related to Company's potential to pay his salary not sachisdis qualifications; if he clear Perm EB2 ride then he is all set. Please clarify your concern…
no...education also checked during I-140. Just google 3 years degree and I-140 issues. Most of the time the PERM is gettting approval and only during the I-140 process people are facing issues.
I-140 related to Company's potential to pay his salary not sachisdis qualifications; if he clear Perm EB2 ride then he is all set. Please clarify your concern…
no...education also checked during I-140. Just google 3 years degree and I-140 issues. Most of the time the PERM is gettting approval and only during the I-140 process people are facing issues.
more...
singhsa3
01-29 07:38 PM
Just today, I spoke to one of my freind, he is also from Bangladesh and his PD is sometime in 2006. He got his GC. So it could very well be true. If you want PM me and I can give you his phone number, you are his compatriot after all.
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you’re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I’m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved……
Some help here will be highly appreciated…….thanks in advance
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you’re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I’m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved……
Some help here will be highly appreciated…….thanks in advance
hair Avril Lavigne 2002 by TVS
sachisdis
02-23 07:48 PM
Hi,
Im from India and joined the company 4 years back as Programmer/Analyst. I have an Bachelors in Computer Science (3 Yrs) + MCA (3 Yrs) and experience of 4 years & 8 months before joining the company. The company field for GC under EB3, priority date: November 2008 and I-140 approved date: November 2009.
With nearing 9 years of experience company promoted me to Sr. Programmer/Analyst consultant and is ready to file the case in EB2.
My question:
1. My priority date from EB3 is November 6, 2008. So after approval of fresh labor for EB2, can the new I-140 for EB2 be filed with the old priority date of EB3 ?
2. Can the same company hold two I-140 for the same employee? That is keep the EB3 I-140 active and apply for EB2 I-140 till the EB2 clears/approves ?
3. The designation & job duties can be the same as that of EB3 or need to be changed.
Thanks in advance!
Im from India and joined the company 4 years back as Programmer/Analyst. I have an Bachelors in Computer Science (3 Yrs) + MCA (3 Yrs) and experience of 4 years & 8 months before joining the company. The company field for GC under EB3, priority date: November 2008 and I-140 approved date: November 2009.
With nearing 9 years of experience company promoted me to Sr. Programmer/Analyst consultant and is ready to file the case in EB2.
My question:
1. My priority date from EB3 is November 6, 2008. So after approval of fresh labor for EB2, can the new I-140 for EB2 be filed with the old priority date of EB3 ?
2. Can the same company hold two I-140 for the same employee? That is keep the EB3 I-140 active and apply for EB2 I-140 till the EB2 clears/approves ?
3. The designation & job duties can be the same as that of EB3 or need to be changed.
Thanks in advance!
more...
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
hot .avrillavigne.com/us/home
cool_guy_onnet1
03-10 12:16 PM
How does USCIS know about salary ? I understand that if they send rfe, we need to send the w-2 but does IRS also send the w2 information to USCIS? The other question is whats the criteria of judging the salary? Is it w-2 or pay stub ? My pay stub has been showing the correct salary but w-2 does not reflect that much since I was out of the work for quite sometime.
I MAY switch my job and this is an emergency.
Please pardon the relevancy.
Thanks
I MAY switch my job and this is an emergency.
Please pardon the relevancy.
Thanks
more...
house Avril Lavigne, Bravo January
wei
04-18 01:18 PM
Your lawyer should check with DOL after 90 days(from submission). I requested my lawyer did such thing and got response from DOL for RFE. One month later, I got approval notice.
tattoo Avril Lavigne, YM Magazine
loudoggs
07-30 01:14 PM
Congrats!!!
I guess timing really matters......and you were at the right place at the right time....
I have got my case approved as well. I also received my GC cards. Thanks for all the info and Best of Luck,
I guess timing really matters......and you were at the right place at the right time....
I have got my case approved as well. I also received my GC cards. Thanks for all the info and Best of Luck,
more...
pictures Avril Lavigne Pics!
andy garcia
02-06 03:47 PM
Hi,
What is legally considered as "Permanent Residency approval date" - is it the approval of I485/getting greencard or is it the approval of I140. Sometimes the I140 referred to as an immigrant petition. As we know the process is once this immigrant petition (I14) is approved we apply for adjustment of status as a permanent resident thru II485 - so legally - can we consider that until I485 is not approved, our permanent residence applicaiton is pending?
If you read the back of the approval of the I-140. It says:
APPROVAL OF AN IMMIGRANT PETITION
Approval of an immigrant petition does not convey any right or status. The approval petition simply establishes a basis upon which the person you filed for can apply for an immigrant or fiance(e) visa or for adjustment of status.
What is legally considered as "Permanent Residency approval date" - is it the approval of I485/getting greencard or is it the approval of I140. Sometimes the I140 referred to as an immigrant petition. As we know the process is once this immigrant petition (I14) is approved we apply for adjustment of status as a permanent resident thru II485 - so legally - can we consider that until I485 is not approved, our permanent residence applicaiton is pending?
If you read the back of the approval of the I-140. It says:
APPROVAL OF AN IMMIGRANT PETITION
Approval of an immigrant petition does not convey any right or status. The approval petition simply establishes a basis upon which the person you filed for can apply for an immigrant or fiance(e) visa or for adjustment of status.
dresses Avril Lavigne Pictures
pappu
07-09 10:34 AM
Pappu,
Thanks for the response! I really appreciate that.
I said IV doesn't care for CP filers because there are no provision for CP filers in IV's agenda (ofcourse, efforts like recapturing would help CP filers in a big way) as most of the efforts were targeted at AOS. I am not blaming but just requesting that CP filers are also included whenever IV core think about big picture.
All that we need is a safety net like EAD. Else, if several years of wait on GC were to go waste, it would be a disaster.
From what you said, looks like there are very few CP filers who visit this forum (and ofcourse, there is a reason why, hardly anything for them here), however, I would try to see if I could gain some mass here.
Thanks again!
Thanks.
Try to gather more people in the same boat. Once you have a critical mass you can raise that issue better with lawmakers, media, administration...
Thanks for the response! I really appreciate that.
I said IV doesn't care for CP filers because there are no provision for CP filers in IV's agenda (ofcourse, efforts like recapturing would help CP filers in a big way) as most of the efforts were targeted at AOS. I am not blaming but just requesting that CP filers are also included whenever IV core think about big picture.
All that we need is a safety net like EAD. Else, if several years of wait on GC were to go waste, it would be a disaster.
From what you said, looks like there are very few CP filers who visit this forum (and ofcourse, there is a reason why, hardly anything for them here), however, I would try to see if I could gain some mass here.
Thanks again!
Thanks.
Try to gather more people in the same boat. Once you have a critical mass you can raise that issue better with lawmakers, media, administration...
more...
makeup Avril Lavigne and her band
ajay
03-14 09:30 PM
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.
I also just emailed.
thanks.
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.
I also just emailed.
thanks.
girlfriend Avril Lavigne First Album
realist
11-19 08:28 AM
I have a similar situation, I would like for my brother to come here on a visitor's visa. He is an engineer and is currently working in a University. It would greatly help if you could share your experience on how and if you were successful in getting the visa
hairstyles Avril Lavigne Wallpapers
gsvisu
07-13 06:51 AM
Moral : Play Soccer
Leave Doctor, Software, Engineering professions... & play soccer.
Leave Doctor, Software, Engineering professions... & play soccer.
snathan
04-26 05:43 PM
Thanks UKannan,
That is the first thing I did and the cust rep said it is 1 bag, moreover, she said talk to your travel agent.
Also, it is different to hear from cust rep and then get the actual experience in front of the check-in staff. Hence I was asking recent experiences here.
Please don't get me wrong, but traveling with 2 toddlers, the last thing I want is baggage hassle.
Two bags, each can be max. 20 kg.
That is the first thing I did and the cust rep said it is 1 bag, moreover, she said talk to your travel agent.
Also, it is different to hear from cust rep and then get the actual experience in front of the check-in staff. Hence I was asking recent experiences here.
Please don't get me wrong, but traveling with 2 toddlers, the last thing I want is baggage hassle.
Two bags, each can be max. 20 kg.
gc_on_demand
03-31 01:20 PM
For once, I like what Grassley is doing.
All antis says something good about one program and bad for rest.. they want to kill all program one by one. Today in hearing anti's tone was to reduce total immigration.
this is only way they can reduce is making one group happy while bashing at another, but you never know when is your turn.
I should say if they are really worried about L1 and its fraud why not to scrap L1 and grant GC for all l1holders. why don't they say like that ?
All antis says something good about one program and bad for rest.. they want to kill all program one by one. Today in hearing anti's tone was to reduce total immigration.
this is only way they can reduce is making one group happy while bashing at another, but you never know when is your turn.
I should say if they are really worried about L1 and its fraud why not to scrap L1 and grant GC for all l1holders. why don't they say like that ?
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق