gc_waiter56
02-20 10:04 PM
Dear Mercies,
IV is a registered Non-profit Organization and for your kind information lobbying is not illegal in United States of America. What is illegal for a non-profit organization is to contribute to the election campaigns.
IV is in no way in the business of contributing to any election campaign. IV has hired a well-known reputed Public affairs firm who can voice our concerns in the legislative circles of this country so that they can be taken care of and this is perfectly legal in this U.S.A. Lobbying is just another word to represent put your issues in front of lawmakers. Now, to have a professional & effective representation one needs to hire a Professional of repute which is what IV has done by hiring QGA.
If you want to help this cause and have questions which are not being addressed then why don't you pick up the phone and give IV a call and also suggest the same to other folks who share similar sentiments
I hope this will help in clearing some of your doubts regarding legality of lobbying or hiring of a lobbying firm.
IV is a registered Non-profit Organization and for your kind information lobbying is not illegal in United States of America. What is illegal for a non-profit organization is to contribute to the election campaigns.
IV is in no way in the business of contributing to any election campaign. IV has hired a well-known reputed Public affairs firm who can voice our concerns in the legislative circles of this country so that they can be taken care of and this is perfectly legal in this U.S.A. Lobbying is just another word to represent put your issues in front of lawmakers. Now, to have a professional & effective representation one needs to hire a Professional of repute which is what IV has done by hiring QGA.
If you want to help this cause and have questions which are not being addressed then why don't you pick up the phone and give IV a call and also suggest the same to other folks who share similar sentiments
I hope this will help in clearing some of your doubts regarding legality of lobbying or hiring of a lobbying firm.
wallpaper Sophie Marceau is Celeb #169
senthil1
06-19 04:33 PM
Do not care about the money now. Give 5k and file thro company. If you need any help from company for RFE or any other issue after filing gc then company will help for you. Because you are working for hourly paying 2 or 3k more than normal should be ok. Some of lawyers are charging more compared to normal
I guess most of the folks here are busy preparing to apply for 485. I have different problem here.
My employer's attorney is charging me outrageous fees of around $5000 to
apply for 485, AP and EAD for me and my spouse. This excludes USCIS fees. I work on hourly basis, so I should be taking care of immigration fees. My employer is not allowing me to file through another law firm.
Do I have any other options. How much do they charge usually.
I guess most of the folks here are busy preparing to apply for 485. I have different problem here.
My employer's attorney is charging me outrageous fees of around $5000 to
apply for 485, AP and EAD for me and my spouse. This excludes USCIS fees. I work on hourly basis, so I should be taking care of immigration fees. My employer is not allowing me to file through another law firm.
Do I have any other options. How much do they charge usually.
vghc
07-25 01:45 PM
Have time to post something here? Heheee.... I am posting these message while my project is compiling and building.
How bout that!! Me too!!!! :D
How bout that!! Me too!!!! :D
2011 Sophie Marceau Website
h1techSlave
04-10 02:25 PM
If any one is meeting law makers from Maryland, I am also interested.
Thanks guys,
h1techSlave
Thanks guys,
h1techSlave
more...
ps57002
10-11 05:25 PM
Wish I could say something to help those who missed feel better. I was fortunate. My PERM (atlanta center which is another slow goer but nowhere like BECs) got approved on Aug 14. I filed aug 17 but don't think I submitted all needed docs due to unavailabilty of some. I saw some people at Atlanta center wait for much longer than PERM should take and they gave up. My heart goes out to everyone. We do need to become involved with IV...be it those who are ahead in the game, be those stuck in Atlanta PERM, be those stuck in BEC and/or coming out of it now. Each and every person must join so as to fix this broken immigration system. People are stuck in differnet stages and it's not fair, so do get involved and help IV in helping you.
Sunx_2004
10-24 12:22 PM
Optimystic,
Are you working for same company since 2001 or you invoke AC21, Can you please share us the detail of RFE (if you can).
thnx
I don't know if my NC is cleared. Tried to find it couple of times calling over phone but always ran into unfriendly IO officers.
Got out of BEC in dec 2006, I140 cleared in Jan 2007 but then my PD became current only in June 2007. And due to laziness of my law firm, my I-485 filing did not happen in June and got dragged into July 07 mess.
I think if USCIS had initiated my Namecheck as per normal timeline (sometime around when my I-485 filed , i.e anywhere between July - Sep 2007), then yes, I think it crossed 180 days long time back.
Are you working for same company since 2001 or you invoke AC21, Can you please share us the detail of RFE (if you can).
thnx
I don't know if my NC is cleared. Tried to find it couple of times calling over phone but always ran into unfriendly IO officers.
Got out of BEC in dec 2006, I140 cleared in Jan 2007 but then my PD became current only in June 2007. And due to laziness of my law firm, my I-485 filing did not happen in June and got dragged into July 07 mess.
I think if USCIS had initiated my Namecheck as per normal timeline (sometime around when my I-485 filed , i.e anywhere between July - Sep 2007), then yes, I think it crossed 180 days long time back.
more...
illinois_alum
07-24 02:33 PM
Self E-Filed for wife on June 24'08
FP: July 16'08
No word on approval yet!
PD: Feb 18 '06
I-140 Approved June '06
I-485 Filed July '07
FP: July 16'08
No word on approval yet!
PD: Feb 18 '06
I-140 Approved June '06
I-485 Filed July '07
2010 Sophie Marceau. « Back
wahwah
06-05 10:28 AM
you are correct. the new memo requires the adjudicator to approve the old i-140 first and then determine eligibility for porting. it doesn't mean that you can't port if i140 has not been approved.
actually that is not what i understand...though we should wait for
1. some lawyer to come up with clarifications.
2. updates to the adjudicator field manual.
i think this still upholds the memorandum with regards to porting off on unapproved i-140. if you notice the case they have cited "Matter of Al Wazzan" is date Oct, 2005 where as the favourable Yates memo came out in Dec 2005.
what i understand is that they are just reiterating that porting off on unapproved i-140 is not automatic and requires that the adjudicator decide on the pending i-140 first before deciding wether the porting off is protected under AC21 or not.
but again...i myself am waiting for clarifications from immigration law websites like murthy.com and immigration-law.com etc.
actually that is not what i understand...though we should wait for
1. some lawyer to come up with clarifications.
2. updates to the adjudicator field manual.
i think this still upholds the memorandum with regards to porting off on unapproved i-140. if you notice the case they have cited "Matter of Al Wazzan" is date Oct, 2005 where as the favourable Yates memo came out in Dec 2005.
what i understand is that they are just reiterating that porting off on unapproved i-140 is not automatic and requires that the adjudicator decide on the pending i-140 first before deciding wether the porting off is protected under AC21 or not.
but again...i myself am waiting for clarifications from immigration law websites like murthy.com and immigration-law.com etc.
more...
styrum
12-19 03:48 PM
Moreover, the decision totally ignores the fact that "The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment" and the entire answer to Q10 in Part I of the Aytes Memo od 12/25/05
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Still his main problem was that the employer had requested a withdrawal of 140 (apparently doesn't matter when it was actually revoked by USCIS) before 485 was pending for 180 days.
Resume: make sure the petitioning employer doesn't revoke 140 before 485 is pending for 180.
As far as actually working for them: You don't have to work for the petitioning emplyer since it is for a "future" position. But if you never do and then (after 485 has been pending for 180 days and provided 140 was not revoked) port to another, how do you show you ever had the intent to work for them? The same answer to the same Q10 in the same memo says: "Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate." So what will be your "additional evidence" of your intent if you never worked for the original petitioning employer? Looks like working for the original petitioner (not neccessarily for all the 180 days after 485 was filed but as long as they don't withdraw 140 before 180 days is up) is the main proof of your intent to work for them and their intent to hire you permanently after you have GC.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Still his main problem was that the employer had requested a withdrawal of 140 (apparently doesn't matter when it was actually revoked by USCIS) before 485 was pending for 180 days.
Resume: make sure the petitioning employer doesn't revoke 140 before 485 is pending for 180.
As far as actually working for them: You don't have to work for the petitioning emplyer since it is for a "future" position. But if you never do and then (after 485 has been pending for 180 days and provided 140 was not revoked) port to another, how do you show you ever had the intent to work for them? The same answer to the same Q10 in the same memo says: "Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate." So what will be your "additional evidence" of your intent if you never worked for the original petitioning employer? Looks like working for the original petitioner (not neccessarily for all the 180 days after 485 was filed but as long as they don't withdraw 140 before 180 days is up) is the main proof of your intent to work for them and their intent to hire you permanently after you have GC.
hair Sophie Marceau closeup photo
forever
08-06 09:10 PM
It looks like USCIS has deployed the same random selection program, used for new H1B selection, to process I-485 applications.:(
more...
abd
04-04 02:24 PM
Sent both the faxes.
:)
:)
hot Sophie Marceau
cram
10-10 10:29 PM
The October visa bulletin has been out for 10 days now and we haven't seen any approvals as of yet. Are there any?
more...
house sophie marceau vs monica
GCplease
02-29 01:54 PM
Mailed mine and 2 of my co-workers' letters to IV on 2/26/08.
Already sent them to the White House a couple of weeks ago.
Already sent them to the White House a couple of weeks ago.
tattoo Sophie Marceau Wallpapers:
priderock
07-06 04:51 PM
...................
NO SELF RESPECT
WHITE KISS ARCE ...
SUBMISSIVE U NEED A WHITE MASTER ...
....................
I wonder where you work and which country you live :confused:
NO SELF RESPECT
WHITE KISS ARCE ...
SUBMISSIVE U NEED A WHITE MASTER ...
....................
I wonder where you work and which country you live :confused:
more...
pictures Sophie Marceau pictures
laborday
07-17 10:56 AM
OK, anyone who can help me here? I am still getting June.
For NSC
--------
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a pending I-485 adjustment application [(c)(9)] March 26, 2007
For NSC
--------
I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Based on a pending I-485 adjustment application [(c)(9)] March 26, 2007
dresses Sophie Marceau played the age of 13 years in the teen comedy La Boum (1980),
Macaca
01-31 08:27 AM
Immigration Application Fees to Rise By 80 Percent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001864.html).
The Bush administration will announce an increase today in immigration application fees of more than 80 percent, federal officials said yesterday.
The cost of applying for naturalization, for example, would rise from $330 to $595, and a required fingerprint check would go from $70 to $80.
The increases, which have been under consideration for months, would raise nearly $1 billion for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The troubled $2 billion-a-year agency has antiquated paper systems that have fed years-long delays for applicants and fears that terrorists might slip through the cracks.
Union, civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups called the changes discriminatory, warning that they will keep lower-income and less-educated people from becoming citizens.
"What they're saying is, people trying to become Americans are not a priority," said Cecilia Mu�oz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights group.
Critics also said the changes would create an incentive for the agency to drag out processing, thereby extracting more fees, or to expedite cases for people who can afford premium services.
USCIS faces budget problems because of an increase in applications and because Congress funds it not with tax money but with user fees, which trail operational demands.
The money will allow USCIS to recoup its business costs, "provide future services, enhance national security and to modernize . . . a totally outdated business infrastructure," said an agency official who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement.
Officials said the increases will not address costs that would result from an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, which the White House has proposed.
Fee increases will take effect no sooner than 120 days after they are published in the Federal Register tomorrow, including a 60-day public comment period.
The Bush administration will announce an increase today in immigration application fees of more than 80 percent, federal officials said yesterday.
The cost of applying for naturalization, for example, would rise from $330 to $595, and a required fingerprint check would go from $70 to $80.
The increases, which have been under consideration for months, would raise nearly $1 billion for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The troubled $2 billion-a-year agency has antiquated paper systems that have fed years-long delays for applicants and fears that terrorists might slip through the cracks.
Union, civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups called the changes discriminatory, warning that they will keep lower-income and less-educated people from becoming citizens.
"What they're saying is, people trying to become Americans are not a priority," said Cecilia Mu�oz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights group.
Critics also said the changes would create an incentive for the agency to drag out processing, thereby extracting more fees, or to expedite cases for people who can afford premium services.
USCIS faces budget problems because of an increase in applications and because Congress funds it not with tax money but with user fees, which trail operational demands.
The money will allow USCIS to recoup its business costs, "provide future services, enhance national security and to modernize . . . a totally outdated business infrastructure," said an agency official who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement.
Officials said the increases will not address costs that would result from an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, which the White House has proposed.
Fee increases will take effect no sooner than 120 days after they are published in the Federal Register tomorrow, including a 60-day public comment period.
more...
makeup Photo of Sophie Marceau 217069
chi_shark
05-18 04:31 PM
nobody is comparing the schools over here with IIT/IISC.
There is a quota for masters in H1B.
There should be a similar quota in GC for masters.
what logic? did you vote for a senator that supports such a bill or are you planning to present it in the senate/house?
and to your point, even i am not comparing any schools... i am just saying that there should be a quota for iim/iit grads...
There is a quota for masters in H1B.
There should be a similar quota in GC for masters.
what logic? did you vote for a senator that supports such a bill or are you planning to present it in the senate/house?
and to your point, even i am not comparing any schools... i am just saying that there should be a quota for iim/iit grads...
girlfriend People: Sophie Marceau
jsb
07-25 02:02 PM
Take Infopass appointment to relieve your anxiety little bit . I took infopass on Aug 8 to know what is happening to my I-485
What do you say about your problem when you take InfoPass. You can't take an appointment to just ask what is happening to your case, unless several months have passed after all sorts of dates.
What do you say about your problem when you take InfoPass. You can't take an appointment to just ask what is happening to your case, unless several months have passed after all sorts of dates.
hairstyles marceau site does sophie
howzatt
07-06 02:15 PM
We need someone to youtube this and help with the media campaign!
amslonewolf
12-28 05:13 PM
Someone I know was EB3 I Aug 2001. They had filed for I-485 sometime in 2005. They got their GC on 12/22/2008.
Their lawyer filed a Writ of Mandamus against USCIS in Aug 2008. The deal was the USCIS was to either approve or reject their case in 60 days.. So, check with your attorney and see if filing a case in an option for you.
Their lawyer filed a Writ of Mandamus against USCIS in Aug 2008. The deal was the USCIS was to either approve or reject their case in 60 days.. So, check with your attorney and see if filing a case in an option for you.
perm2gc
05-22 04:12 PM
When the one of the IV leaders is seriously considering going out of status in order to benefit from the great amnesty, you know that something is seriously messed up. Even so, I didn't expect you guys to be the first ones to give up...
Didn't you read the bill. They didn't give up but asking our fellow 400,000 highly skilled immigrants to wakeup and be part of our struggle.Many people i talked don't know about the bill itself.What a pitty !!!:mad:
Didn't you read the bill. They didn't give up but asking our fellow 400,000 highly skilled immigrants to wakeup and be part of our struggle.Many people i talked don't know about the bill itself.What a pitty !!!:mad: