ebizash
10-09 12:00 PM
I am also in the same situation that my company's attorney is not giving me I140 receipt number. They just say that it was filed in first week May but don't have the receipt number yet.
wallpaper Black Men Hairstyle Pics. lack
INSpector
09-14 05:34 PM
Guys
what is the right address to submit the I485 / EAD and AP using Fedex and fill it in Nebraska?
My attorney submitted my paperwork to:
850 S Street POBOX 87845 ?
I'm confused becase in the CIS site give the address in parentesis mention to write down the right POBOX.
What if she maid a mistake and send the paperwork to POBOX 87485?
PS.
I will be in DC, and we have rented a bus departing from wallace NC monday at 12:00hrs I still have sits available, we will drive to rRaleigh, the Virginia then DC
what is the right address to submit the I485 / EAD and AP using Fedex and fill it in Nebraska?
My attorney submitted my paperwork to:
850 S Street POBOX 87845 ?
I'm confused becase in the CIS site give the address in parentesis mention to write down the right POBOX.
What if she maid a mistake and send the paperwork to POBOX 87485?
PS.
I will be in DC, and we have rented a bus departing from wallace NC monday at 12:00hrs I still have sits available, we will drive to rRaleigh, the Virginia then DC
kingpin60
07-16 03:53 PM
Hi everyone,
Here is my situation and I need URGENT help.
I am currently on L1-A for past 7 years (Visa expires Nov 07). During this span my company's attorney has unsuccessfully filed my I140 (twice was rejected at NSC and later TSC - due to 3 year degree and also my job description prior to transfer to US did not showed I have managerial/management function of a department). He refiled again this time with proper documentation and additional support letters from senior exec from my company.
I suspect he has been making mistakes in my filing and my time is running out. I am thinking of using my own money and hire another lawyer to file a fresh I140/485. Is this possible since I have already 2 pending I140; one at NSC under EB-1C and another at TSC under EB-3?
Please reply urgently if anyone has the answer to my question as I am running out of time.
Thanks in advance.
Here is my situation and I need URGENT help.
I am currently on L1-A for past 7 years (Visa expires Nov 07). During this span my company's attorney has unsuccessfully filed my I140 (twice was rejected at NSC and later TSC - due to 3 year degree and also my job description prior to transfer to US did not showed I have managerial/management function of a department). He refiled again this time with proper documentation and additional support letters from senior exec from my company.
I suspect he has been making mistakes in my filing and my time is running out. I am thinking of using my own money and hire another lawyer to file a fresh I140/485. Is this possible since I have already 2 pending I140; one at NSC under EB-1C and another at TSC under EB-3?
Please reply urgently if anyone has the answer to my question as I am running out of time.
Thanks in advance.
2011 pictures Short Men Hairstyles
jerez_z
11-03 11:43 AM
I'm looking for PHP or ActionScript work. I'm not a designer in any sense of the word, so I can't do any graphical work. I'm just starting out, so my protfolio is lacking but I have done several full blown CMSs lately. I've never gotten a problem I couldn't solve, I just need to prove myself.
more...
karl65
10-27 08:54 AM
Does Lawyer receives AP and sends it to us OR does applicants receive it?
I haven't received AP yet. got EAD/FP/notices.
cheers
Iad
You do not need to open a new tread to ask this. There is a tread about AP trend
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14005
Some lawyers receive the AP and sometimes the applicants. I do not know WHY?????
I haven't received AP yet. got EAD/FP/notices.
cheers
Iad
You do not need to open a new tread to ask this. There is a tread about AP trend
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14005
Some lawyers receive the AP and sometimes the applicants. I do not know WHY?????
iad2ead
06-21 11:07 PM
Gurus,
I am planning to schedule a H1/H4 stamping visa appointment for next month. Here are few questions regarding the vfs web site.
The date I am planning to schedule is still not showing as available. My question
is can I enter all my data and save it and once the date shows up, can I select
the date? How does it work? If not do I need to enter all the data on the day
when it opens up?
thanks
Iad
I am planning to schedule a H1/H4 stamping visa appointment for next month. Here are few questions regarding the vfs web site.
The date I am planning to schedule is still not showing as available. My question
is can I enter all my data and save it and once the date shows up, can I select
the date? How does it work? If not do I need to enter all the data on the day
when it opens up?
thanks
Iad
more...
.jpg "mohawk hairstyles for lack")
Macaca
06-22 06:55 AM
Senate Passes Energy Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html?hpid=topnews) Democrats Prevail; Mileage Standard Would Be Raised By Sholnn Freeman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/sholnn+freeman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, June 22, 2007
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation's vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters.
After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.
The package, which still must pass the House, would also require that the use of biofuels climb to 36 billion gallons by 2022, would set penalties for gasoline price-gouging and would give the government new powers to investigate oil companies' pricing. It would provide federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and would support test projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants to be stored underground.
Democratic leaders said they hoped the legislation will be a rallying point for voters concerned about national security, climate change and near-record gasoline prices.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels and for the first time in decades significantly improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks," said Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader.
Final passage of the bill capped an otherwise rancorous week in which senators grappled over energy policy. Early yesterday, Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote. But late in the day, a bipartisan group of senators came together to break an impasse on vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Earlier in the week, the Senate rejected additions to the bill that would have pumped billions of federal dollars into efforts to ramp up production of a coal-based fuel for cars and trucks, which proponents had called an important alternative to petroleum. Additionally, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) failed to win approval for a proposal to allow exploration for natural gas off the Virginia coast, and Republicans blocked an effort to require that more of the nation's electricity come for renewable sources.
The passage of fuel-efficiency measure was viewed as a major triumph for the Democrats, particularly the last-minute dealmaking that enabled passage of the comprehensive change to mileage standards.
The politics of fuel economy had gone virtually unchanged since Congress passed the first nationwide standards -- known as corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE -- in 1975. The last time the full Senate tried to boost fuel-economy standards was in 2002, and the effort was defeated handily.
The auto industry successfully argued that large increases in efficiency standards would force them to build smaller vehicles -- the kind American consumers won't buy. In recent years, however, low mileage standards left U.S. automakers with little market defense against higher-mileage Japanese cars, particularly at times when gas prices soar. As consumers have moved gradually from SUVs and pickup trucks to smaller vehicles, Detroit's Big Three automakers have gone through a painful restructuring period.
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
The fuel-efficiency language in the Senate energy package originally had coupled a 35 mile-per-gallon standard with a requirement of 4 percent annual increases for the decade after 2020. A group led by the two Michigan senators -- Democrats Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow -- and Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had sought instead to gain support for an amendment that would impose less-stringent standards while satisfying growing demands for change in the fuel-efficiency laws.
In the compromise-- shepherded principally by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) -- lawmakers dropped a provision that would have mandated additional 4 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency between 2021 and 2030. They also softened a provision that would have required all automakers to build substantially more vehicles that can run on ethanol and other biofuels.
After the fuel-economy vote, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), another architect of the compromise, said the nation's desire to be less dependent on foreign oil would be a "hopeless journey" without more efficient cars and trucks.
"Now, in our vehicles, we have better cup-holders, we have keyless entry, we have better music systems, we have heated seats," Dorgan said. "It is time that we expect more automobile efficiency."
Senators who had previously been friendly to the auto industry said they were changing their position after growing weary of the industry's position. "I listened and I listened, year after year," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said on the Senate floor. "And now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change."
In the end, Senate aides said, Levin's group did not have the votes.
Democratic leaders said the bipartisan backing of the compromise worked out in the Senate would help build support in the House when that chamber House begins debate on its energy package. Already, Rep. John D. Dingell, (D-Mich.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have battled over fuel economy.
In another Senate battle yesterday, Democrats lost a fight against oil companies when Republicans blocked a $32 billion tax package that would have poured money into alternative fuel projects by raising taxes on oil and gas companies.
President Bush, meanwhile, visited the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Ala., where he touted nuclear power as a clean, dependable and safe source of electricity and promised to streamline the federal regulatory process to ease the way for the construction of new plants.
"Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases," Bush said. "If you're interested in cleaning up the air you ought to be for nuclear power."
Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Athens, Ala., contributed to this report.
2010 Black Men Hairstyles (37 of
rag_1970
07-25 11:55 AM
Do we need to sign the I-485 docs on behalf of minors? My daughter is 9 years old and she has signed her papers all by herself. When I asked my attorney, one time she said I need to sign and finally she sent the docs with her signature only.
more...
wandmaker
10-14 10:42 AM
YES, (1) in the same line of specialty area (2) and full time & part time employer should permit taking up another job (ie. some employers ask you to sign a agreement not to work for another employer during the employment with them)
hair Cool Haircuts for Black Men
questions
06-08 01:31 PM
Hi all,
I have been fortunate enough to get one step closer to a green card.
I need to fill out form 230 and Line 25 asks to list all visits to or residence in the US.
I have been living in the US for the past 7.5 years. Can I just list my residences and corresponding visas or do I have to list all visits? :confused:
I have a fair number of visits, as I have been travelling both for work and leisure in the past few years. I have most of the entry/exit stamps, but there are a few missing. So I am wondering if there will be a problem when I list the visits and some of the dates cannot be supported with passport stamps.
Can anyone please advise if listing my residence will suffice (although this is already requested in line 20)?
btw I got my notification June 4, EU00006xxx
Best of luck to anyone who has not received a notification yet!
I have been fortunate enough to get one step closer to a green card.
I need to fill out form 230 and Line 25 asks to list all visits to or residence in the US.
I have been living in the US for the past 7.5 years. Can I just list my residences and corresponding visas or do I have to list all visits? :confused:
I have a fair number of visits, as I have been travelling both for work and leisure in the past few years. I have most of the entry/exit stamps, but there are a few missing. So I am wondering if there will be a problem when I list the visits and some of the dates cannot be supported with passport stamps.
Can anyone please advise if listing my residence will suffice (although this is already requested in line 20)?
btw I got my notification June 4, EU00006xxx
Best of luck to anyone who has not received a notification yet!
more...
StuckInTheMuck
07-11 10:28 AM
There are multiple threads on this topic running already.
hot Black men hairstyle with a
ivx
03-19 09:06 AM
Bump. Anyone?
more...
house Black Men With Blonde Hair
H1BGCWait
09-20 06:56 PM
I have searched lot of threads regrading AC21 when the new is less. I am currently working in a city. I have applied for 485 on July 2. 140 is approved. I am planning to move to rural area in the same state. Since the location is rural, the pay is lower than pay specified in my current labor. Since they also sponsor GC, I am sure the pay is higher than the prevailing wage.
Under these circumstances, is it ok to use AC21. Is it possible to argue that the wage is higher than the prevailing wage in the new EVL to be submitted with AC21.
I am aware AC21 is for "same or similar job". What about pay? ANy issuew with this.
I appreciate any help.
Thanks.
Under these circumstances, is it ok to use AC21. Is it possible to argue that the wage is higher than the prevailing wage in the new EVL to be submitted with AC21.
I am aware AC21 is for "same or similar job". What about pay? ANy issuew with this.
I appreciate any help.
Thanks.
tattoo hair styles for lack men.
abhi_jais
03-09 04:44 PM
looking at the past data, looks like its not gonna move till June-July
more...
pictures mohawk hairstyles for lack
centaur
08-13 06:40 PM
I have an old priority date with previous employer (jan 2006), however my I140 with the new employer has date of May 2007. I can also apply for 485 under NIW. My question is if I apply for 485 by both pathways(two different applications), can I recapture the same PD of the old employer TWICE?
gurus please advise.
gurus please advise.
dresses designs in hair for lack men.
vikasgarg24
07-21 04:04 PM
I am a US Citizen and will be filing a petition (i 130) to bring my mother over on a greencard.
Recently on her visit to the US on a visitor visa she was marked as NO AOS/COS/EOS on her I - 94
and she left by the date specified on her i - 94.
My question is will it have any effect on her GC petition and what is the current wait time for consular processing on an i-130 petition
Recently on her visit to the US on a visitor visa she was marked as NO AOS/COS/EOS on her I - 94
and she left by the date specified on her i - 94.
My question is will it have any effect on her GC petition and what is the current wait time for consular processing on an i-130 petition
more...
makeup 2008 men black hairstyle
immigrationvoice1
02-05 03:34 PM
I have no LUD at all for my 1-140 which was approved 6 months back. The status message still stays "...processing..." !!
So do not bother much about the online statuses and LUDs.
So do not bother much about the online statuses and LUDs.
girlfriend Black Men Haircuts Mohawks.
anilsal
09-14 05:25 PM
when it says it has something to report.
This is what I like about IV.
I will be in DC anyway for the rally.
This is what I like about IV.
I will be in DC anyway for the rally.
hairstyles The latest lack hairstyles
Blog Feeds
11-08 03:30 PM
Our lawmakers are again behaving badly in public over illegal immigration. This time the tussle threatens passage of health care reform legislation. The latest contentious debate, as the New York Times reports, revolves around a slew of issues. Among these is whether unauthorized migrants -- who will be subject to the mandate that all purchase health insurance -- will be allowed to use their own money to buy coverage from the public exchanges. Another is whether uninsured legal immigrants -- who must also buy their own insurance -- will be barred from insurance-premium subsidies until long waiting periods have elapsed....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/11/on-october-11-2009-pope-benedict-xvi-canonized-a-belgian-priestdamien-de-veuster-two-days-earlierpresident-obama-----on.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/11/on-october-11-2009-pope-benedict-xvi-canonized-a-belgian-priestdamien-de-veuster-two-days-earlierpresident-obama-----on.html)
oldguynewguy
12-29 12:23 PM
Hi,
1) Is there any rule that you have to stay with your company for 6 months after getting the GC?
2) Is there any rule that you have to stay in the same job profile for 6 months after getting the GC?
Thanks.
1) Is there any rule that you have to stay with your company for 6 months after getting the GC?
2) Is there any rule that you have to stay in the same job profile for 6 months after getting the GC?
Thanks.
rk2006
08-12 10:08 AM
Can some one reply to my post please. My question is regarding EAD only. Once I apply for EAD and go to India what happens
1. If I am not there while it approved? Can my frnd send me the EAD to India?
2. if I get called for finger printing for EAD and if dont go for it? Will my AOS will be treated as abandoned?
1. If I am not there while it approved? Can my frnd send me the EAD to India?
2. if I get called for finger printing for EAD and if dont go for it? Will my AOS will be treated as abandoned?
No comments:
Post a Comment