desi3933
05-19 03:30 PM
.... So effectively will be working 32 hrs instead of 40 hrs and getting paid for 32 hrs only
.....
.....
In My LCA, prevailing wage: 52K, and my salary in LCA and I-129: 64.5K
My questions:
1) Is working 32 hrs still considered full-time and do I still remain in legal H1 status? (I heard that in US more than 30 hrs is considered full-time?)
2) Since my effective annual salary will be less than 64K due to working for only 32 hrs,will i be out of status? Can the company cut my salary below the rate of pay mentioned on my LCA but higher than(or equal to) the Prevailing Wage mentioned on my LCA?
3) If i try for H1B transfer after few months using paychecks of 32hrs salary only,can that be denied?
4) Are there any other options(without filing any H1B/LCA amendment) to maintain my H1 status while still working for 32 hrs only?
5) IF company files LCA/H1B amendment, then do they have to again use the wage survey for 2009 or they can use the same one used for my initial 1st LCA filing? Do they evaluate the entire H1B application again for amendment? Can the H1B amendment be denied?
.....
1. As per Feb 20, 1992 USCIS memo, the full-time work is generally considered to be 35-40 hours per week or whatever is appropriate for the occupation. For example, air traffic controllers work 30 hours a week because of the stress. Then, in that case 30 hours would be "full time".
2. The employer MUST notify the DOL and/or USCIS in advance by filing amended petition if the terms of the employment changes during the validity period of H1B1 petition.
3. It is very common to file H1B amendment for changing from full time to part time, changing job location, or changes in job duties.
Have a good day!
________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
.....
.....
In My LCA, prevailing wage: 52K, and my salary in LCA and I-129: 64.5K
My questions:
1) Is working 32 hrs still considered full-time and do I still remain in legal H1 status? (I heard that in US more than 30 hrs is considered full-time?)
2) Since my effective annual salary will be less than 64K due to working for only 32 hrs,will i be out of status? Can the company cut my salary below the rate of pay mentioned on my LCA but higher than(or equal to) the Prevailing Wage mentioned on my LCA?
3) If i try for H1B transfer after few months using paychecks of 32hrs salary only,can that be denied?
4) Are there any other options(without filing any H1B/LCA amendment) to maintain my H1 status while still working for 32 hrs only?
5) IF company files LCA/H1B amendment, then do they have to again use the wage survey for 2009 or they can use the same one used for my initial 1st LCA filing? Do they evaluate the entire H1B application again for amendment? Can the H1B amendment be denied?
.....
1. As per Feb 20, 1992 USCIS memo, the full-time work is generally considered to be 35-40 hours per week or whatever is appropriate for the occupation. For example, air traffic controllers work 30 hours a week because of the stress. Then, in that case 30 hours would be "full time".
2. The employer MUST notify the DOL and/or USCIS in advance by filing amended petition if the terms of the employment changes during the validity period of H1B1 petition.
3. It is very common to file H1B amendment for changing from full time to part time, changing job location, or changes in job duties.
Have a good day!
________________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
wallpaper For Family Tattoos that an
raysaikat
01-23 12:13 AM
Has anyone of you heard about Nunc Pro Tunc H1B? Will that help in my current situation with a valid and approved LCA?
Nunc pro tunc means a retroactive action normally used to correct past clerical errors. For instance, suppose your birth year is 1978 and in a form you put 1987. You may be able to retroactively correct that, which would be a nunc pro tunc.
Your problem is not a clerical error; you did not file H1-B in the first place and started working. I will be extremely surprised if you can make USCIS accept (what is in essence) a back-dated H1-B petition!
Nunc pro tunc means a retroactive action normally used to correct past clerical errors. For instance, suppose your birth year is 1978 and in a form you put 1987. You may be able to retroactively correct that, which would be a nunc pro tunc.
Your problem is not a clerical error; you did not file H1-B in the first place and started working. I will be extremely surprised if you can make USCIS accept (what is in essence) a back-dated H1-B petition!
ChainReaction
05-04 09:11 AM
I just sent webfaxes to senators from PA , NY & NJ, with my old address for NY and NJ . I did used the letter on this thread since it covers our issues in a nice layout, with some alteration to it.:)
2011 Tattoos, Family Tattoos
pappu
04-10 02:21 PM
Active members are requested to urge others to update their profile details for the tracker. If you find someone's profile has fake details, please give them a red dot.
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
Admins go through users with most red dots occasionally
more...
mheggade
07-30 11:24 AM
Don't put "difficult" and "spouse" next to each other. WHY? Its because two different words means the same????
Very funny.
Very funny.
shana04
10-14 02:48 PM
All:
My parents are going to visit USA first time. Does anyone of you suggest Medical Insurance information ? I am not sure which company I should choose for visitor Medical Insurance.
I bought Visit insurance for my parents when they visited USA. Infact one of my friend who is a doctor has suggested me this.
Here is the link www.visitinsurance.com
I believe I have opted for Plan A.
Good luck on that.
My parents are going to visit USA first time. Does anyone of you suggest Medical Insurance information ? I am not sure which company I should choose for visitor Medical Insurance.
I bought Visit insurance for my parents when they visited USA. Infact one of my friend who is a doctor has suggested me this.
Here is the link www.visitinsurance.com
I believe I have opted for Plan A.
Good luck on that.
more...
sathweb
01-21 10:30 AM
rumour say retrogression may lift on march 2009, is it true????
You created a new account just to start a rumor?
You got five red stars from two posts! that must be the new record.
We have seen gazillion rumors like that in the past. We don’t need to answer your question; you will get the answer if you ask yourself.
At least start a rumor that is believable, like...say "Every IV member is going to get Green Card in next 30 days, Executive order from President Obama".
You created a new account just to start a rumor?
You got five red stars from two posts! that must be the new record.
We have seen gazillion rumors like that in the past. We don’t need to answer your question; you will get the answer if you ask yourself.
At least start a rumor that is believable, like...say "Every IV member is going to get Green Card in next 30 days, Executive order from President Obama".
2010 For Family Tattoos designs
Aah_GC
07-21 11:16 AM
Hi there - thanks for posting this. Am in the same boat as you were. Do you by any chance have that fax number?
more...
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
hair Police Family Tattoos Greeting
chi_shark
07-16 10:55 AM
now this is weird... aside from the poster's main question: why does uscis want proof of *continuous employment* since the poster filed for 485? all they should care about is the future job... isnt that right? why do they want employment history?
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
Hi Friends,
I received an RFE last week. There were 3 points in the RFE.
The first point in the RFE says,
Submit a current and properly completed form G-325A biographic information sheet for yourself. Please Note: Answer all questions in the form 325a. If any information has changed such as your employer or marital status you must submit the required supporting evidence as indicated in the instructions for Form I-485.
Second Point and Third point are respectively
Proof of continuous employment and maintaining status since Oct 1st 2007 to till date. ( Interestingly my I-485 notice date was in the month of October 07)
Employment verification letter stating the offer still stands as per EB visa petition.
A quick brief abt my case: I'm a July 07 filer. I was single when I filed my I-485. My I-140 was approved in the beginning of 2008. I'm with the same company. I got married last year end, my wife is here with me on H4.
My question is concerning the first point.
Does the marriage certificate and my wife's H4 Visa sufficient enough to provide proof of marital status change as per I-485. In this case, Do I need to include affidavit of support etc. for my spouse now? Also do I need to provide birth certificate of my spouse?
Has any of you who were single when filing I-485 received a similar RFE ? How did you respond to the same?
Appreciate your suggestions
Thanks in advance.
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
Hi Friends,
I received an RFE last week. There were 3 points in the RFE.
The first point in the RFE says,
Submit a current and properly completed form G-325A biographic information sheet for yourself. Please Note: Answer all questions in the form 325a. If any information has changed such as your employer or marital status you must submit the required supporting evidence as indicated in the instructions for Form I-485.
Second Point and Third point are respectively
Proof of continuous employment and maintaining status since Oct 1st 2007 to till date. ( Interestingly my I-485 notice date was in the month of October 07)
Employment verification letter stating the offer still stands as per EB visa petition.
A quick brief abt my case: I'm a July 07 filer. I was single when I filed my I-485. My I-140 was approved in the beginning of 2008. I'm with the same company. I got married last year end, my wife is here with me on H4.
My question is concerning the first point.
Does the marriage certificate and my wife's H4 Visa sufficient enough to provide proof of marital status change as per I-485. In this case, Do I need to include affidavit of support etc. for my spouse now? Also do I need to provide birth certificate of my spouse?
Has any of you who were single when filing I-485 received a similar RFE ? How did you respond to the same?
Appreciate your suggestions
Thanks in advance.
more...
logiclife
05-09 10:34 AM
Meet-and-greet fellow
Immigration Voicers
Some of the Core-group members will be converging in Washington DC on Monday, May 15th. Some of us are flying over the weekend (from Florida, Nevada, Seattle etc) and the ones nearby (NY, NJ, DE, MD) are driving there.
The core-group would like to meet Immigration Voice volunteers and members in and around the Washington, DC area. We are arranging a get-together dinner event on May 15th in DC Metro area to facilitate this meet and greet, and to have frank conversations with our current and future members.
You are invited to meet with the core group and network with members, local professionals, and well-wishers of Immigration Voice. Don't lose the fantastic opportunity to learn more about IV's strategy as well as the Capitol Hill meetings first-hand from the core-group.
Attorney Rajiv Khanna would be joining us for this meeting.
The event is arranged at a Bombay Palace at a discounted price of $20 per person. Like all the activities and events, the expenses (food, travel etc) will not be reimbursed by IV, and it would be paid out-of-pocket by volunteers, members and all guests.
If you (your spouse or colleagues at work) would like to join us,
(1) Please RSVP at the following email addresses with subject "RSVP".
(2) Include the following: Name, and TOTAL number of people attending - including yourself.
(3) Children NOT allowed (As this is a professional/organizational event, we advise you not get kids along with you. We apologize for any inconvinience this may cause.)
Venue
Bombay Palace
2020 K St. NW, Washington, DC
Time
6:30pm to 9:30pm
Valet parking available(Free after 5:30 PM)
Metro directions
(Easily accessible by metro.)
Few blocks from the follow. metro stops:
Farragut North (RED line - Connecticut Avenue and K Street) and
Farragut West (BLUE and ORANGE lines - 18th and I street)
RSVP by Friday (05/12) 4:00 p.m.:
(Please include the total number of people. Children not allowed.)
jay@immigrationvoice.org (http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jay@immigrationvoice.org)
info@ immigrationvoice.org (http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=info@immigrationvoice.org)
Immigration Voicers
Some of the Core-group members will be converging in Washington DC on Monday, May 15th. Some of us are flying over the weekend (from Florida, Nevada, Seattle etc) and the ones nearby (NY, NJ, DE, MD) are driving there.
The core-group would like to meet Immigration Voice volunteers and members in and around the Washington, DC area. We are arranging a get-together dinner event on May 15th in DC Metro area to facilitate this meet and greet, and to have frank conversations with our current and future members.
You are invited to meet with the core group and network with members, local professionals, and well-wishers of Immigration Voice. Don't lose the fantastic opportunity to learn more about IV's strategy as well as the Capitol Hill meetings first-hand from the core-group.
Attorney Rajiv Khanna would be joining us for this meeting.
The event is arranged at a Bombay Palace at a discounted price of $20 per person. Like all the activities and events, the expenses (food, travel etc) will not be reimbursed by IV, and it would be paid out-of-pocket by volunteers, members and all guests.
If you (your spouse or colleagues at work) would like to join us,
(1) Please RSVP at the following email addresses with subject "RSVP".
(2) Include the following: Name, and TOTAL number of people attending - including yourself.
(3) Children NOT allowed (As this is a professional/organizational event, we advise you not get kids along with you. We apologize for any inconvinience this may cause.)
Venue
Bombay Palace
2020 K St. NW, Washington, DC
Time
6:30pm to 9:30pm
Valet parking available(Free after 5:30 PM)
Metro directions
(Easily accessible by metro.)
Few blocks from the follow. metro stops:
Farragut North (RED line - Connecticut Avenue and K Street) and
Farragut West (BLUE and ORANGE lines - 18th and I street)
RSVP by Friday (05/12) 4:00 p.m.:
(Please include the total number of people. Children not allowed.)
jay@immigrationvoice.org (http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jay@immigrationvoice.org)
info@ immigrationvoice.org (http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=info@immigrationvoice.org)
hot all got FAMILY tattoos to
kaisersose
11-10 02:32 PM
Hi ,
My 180 days have passed and I have an approved 140. My job was filed in 2002 in EB2 as s/w engg. In this job i moved to project manager in IT. Now I am getting a job offer for an awesome company, nice pay and as a program manager. the role is still in IT but it will be more managing.
Would this be a safe bet to take by choosing AC-21?
Please reply. i need to respond to them in a couple of days....
Nope. Management activities fall into a different job code and you will be breaking AC21 rules by taking up this new role.
If your employer is cooperative and your lawyer is willing write the new job description to fall into the engineering category and not management, you may be OK. But if it is an "awesome" company as you put it, I doubt they will be willing to manipulate your job description.
Anyway, check with them and the lawyer before you give up.
Good luck
My 180 days have passed and I have an approved 140. My job was filed in 2002 in EB2 as s/w engg. In this job i moved to project manager in IT. Now I am getting a job offer for an awesome company, nice pay and as a program manager. the role is still in IT but it will be more managing.
Would this be a safe bet to take by choosing AC-21?
Please reply. i need to respond to them in a couple of days....
Nope. Management activities fall into a different job code and you will be breaking AC21 rules by taking up this new role.
If your employer is cooperative and your lawyer is willing write the new job description to fall into the engineering category and not management, you may be OK. But if it is an "awesome" company as you put it, I doubt they will be willing to manipulate your job description.
Anyway, check with them and the lawyer before you give up.
Good luck
more...
house Symbol For Family Tattoos
cal97
03-12 02:17 PM
Congratulations! I am not sure if the online status is being updated. I got my I-140 approval on 3/5/2009 and still shows as pending online.
Anyways, enjoy your freedom.
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
Anyways, enjoy your freedom.
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
tattoo History of Polynesian Tattoos
VDaminator
06-11 04:36 PM
lmao nah i didnt draw the bra it was there just when i put the textures over the image it kind of made it look hand drawn.
more...
pictures Symbol For Family Tattoos
rajmehrotra
07-09 01:48 PM
Lawyers do not refund any payments (period).
An Indian saying comes to mind (roughly translated): Never try to snatch the sugarcane out of an elephant's mouth.
An Indian saying comes to mind (roughly translated): Never try to snatch the sugarcane out of an elephant's mouth.
dresses Print Deer Family Tattoos
raysaikat
05-04 12:30 PM
Is there any way to link buying house and green card?
I know EB5 is to invest $500,000 to get a green card.
How about to invest $500,000 buying a house in US and get a green card? Say 100,000 green card for that, that would help the current US economy a lot.
I thought that that $500,000 (actually $1M unless the investment is in underprivileged areas) has to be personal funds, not loans. I do not think that there are many with personal funds close to that. Most people buy home with loans.
I know EB5 is to invest $500,000 to get a green card.
How about to invest $500,000 buying a house in US and get a green card? Say 100,000 green card for that, that would help the current US economy a lot.
I thought that that $500,000 (actually $1M unless the investment is in underprivileged areas) has to be personal funds, not loans. I do not think that there are many with personal funds close to that. Most people buy home with loans.
more...
makeup Family Tattoos,
prioritydate
07-28 11:48 PM
Where is the presence of other guys? how many of them responded to "the country of birth" poll? People of other nations doesn't suffer as much as people of India.
girlfriend Print Celtic Family Tattoos
paskal
10-26 03:11 PM
Can you talk in english please?
:D
:D
hairstyles Tattoos. Family Tattoos
sheela
08-22 11:26 AM
I applied on June 12 (paper file) at TSC , Notice date June 18th , RD June 13th and received EAD cards on Aug 18th (CPO mail on Aug 15th).
Hope this info helps.
e-filed EAD renewal on 5/27 TSC
FP:6/21
still waiting....
EB2 i
PD:10/05, I140 approved 2/06
Hope this info helps.
e-filed EAD renewal on 5/27 TSC
FP:6/21
still waiting....
EB2 i
PD:10/05, I140 approved 2/06
jayz
07-17 07:01 PM
While today's development is great news for folks in the 485/AOS cue, what happens with people in CP? With the opening of the floodgates, I am unsure when visas will be available to CP cases who were scheduled for interviews in Aug and beyond. I am a great supporter of today's victory, but I am unsure where CP cases stand now? Another 4 year wait?
gimme_GC2006
08-26 01:46 PM
Congrats Bro..:D:D
No comments:
Post a Comment