silk2fire
07-18 09:59 AM
;) Thanks you for efforts and long live IV
wallpaper Categories: Tiberian Sun:
shreekhand
09-02 05:04 PM
eastindia,
Your comment is as hilarious and immature as saying....I had a bad teacher in school so all teachers are bad !
Wake up ! Do not insult people's intelligence :p
Stop this belief in babas and fakirs. This is a big scam in India by people who are unemployed and want easy life and money. See this video and open your eyes
YouTube - Sathya Sai Baba's Miracles - Truth & Misconceptions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7hntuicBg4)
Your comment is as hilarious and immature as saying....I had a bad teacher in school so all teachers are bad !
Wake up ! Do not insult people's intelligence :p
Stop this belief in babas and fakirs. This is a big scam in India by people who are unemployed and want easy life and money. See this video and open your eyes
YouTube - Sathya Sai Baba's Miracles - Truth & Misconceptions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7hntuicBg4)
sargon
09-29 06:58 PM
USCIS has updated the processing dates pages of all the four service centers on September 28. Now the pages say that these dates are valid as of July 31, 2008 only.
If I remember well the processing dates information was more up-to-date earlier.
So looks like CIS has backtracked from their earlier published dates. They are telling us that they simply cannot tell what the current processing dates are. All they can tell us is that what applications they were processing on July 31.
What can we deduce from this? Is it good? Is it bad? Or no relevance?
It could be good as CIS might be processing July 2007 485 applications as of today? Or may be not.
Simply more confusion, as if as it is we were not confused enough.
If I remember well the processing dates information was more up-to-date earlier.
So looks like CIS has backtracked from their earlier published dates. They are telling us that they simply cannot tell what the current processing dates are. All they can tell us is that what applications they were processing on July 31.
What can we deduce from this? Is it good? Is it bad? Or no relevance?
It could be good as CIS might be processing July 2007 485 applications as of today? Or may be not.
Simply more confusion, as if as it is we were not confused enough.
2011 Camp;C: Tiberian Sun Firestorm
ita
11-08 03:38 PM
Change add' online in USCIS website. After few days you will receive confirmation letter. Also send AR-11 for to DHS and confirm with USCIS.
FYI, i saw 2 LUDs on 485 & EAD from the day i changed the address online.
I didn't get second part.
What is DHS?
Which address should I send AR-11 to ?
After all this is done will they resend the returned card or do I have to specifically request for it?
Thank you.
FYI, i saw 2 LUDs on 485 & EAD from the day i changed the address online.
I didn't get second part.
What is DHS?
Which address should I send AR-11 to ?
After all this is done will they resend the returned card or do I have to specifically request for it?
Thank you.
more...
RDB
12-02 08:24 PM
Don't get excited too soon :)
I saw the following message when I logged into the USCIS case tracking system.
* Note on "Last Updated" date:
Your case may have a new "Last Updated" date and you may receive an Email Notification of your case being updated, without the status of the case changing. This is due to internal USCIS processing being performed on your Case. This will be reflected in the "Last Updated" date, but may not result in a different status message.
I saw LUDs for both me and my wife's 485 on 11/22(Sat) and 11/24.
PD-12/05
RD-07/03/07
This LUD was after more than a year. Hope Jan bulletin brings some movement.
I saw the following message when I logged into the USCIS case tracking system.
* Note on "Last Updated" date:
Your case may have a new "Last Updated" date and you may receive an Email Notification of your case being updated, without the status of the case changing. This is due to internal USCIS processing being performed on your Case. This will be reflected in the "Last Updated" date, but may not result in a different status message.
I saw LUDs for both me and my wife's 485 on 11/22(Sat) and 11/24.
PD-12/05
RD-07/03/07
This LUD was after more than a year. Hope Jan bulletin brings some movement.
YesWeWillGet
09-13 06:45 AM
I'll be graduating from med school next year. Per student counsel/student affair office, my seniors are qualified med professionals and are eligible for eb2 category.
Does immi law allow a person to file H-1B when he/she is a derivative 485 applicant / AOS pending status?
Just trying to explore the possibilities to apply 485 under EB2 category and my current status is 485 EB3 AOS, primary applicant is my spouse. I would really appreciate the valuable suggestions and thoughts.
Thanks,
Does immi law allow a person to file H-1B when he/she is a derivative 485 applicant / AOS pending status?
Just trying to explore the possibilities to apply 485 under EB2 category and my current status is 485 EB3 AOS, primary applicant is my spouse. I would really appreciate the valuable suggestions and thoughts.
Thanks,
more...
ItIsNotFunny
04-17 09:01 PM
the problem is if it works
Me too! But this can only happen in dreams :p
Me too! But this can only happen in dreams :p
2010 Tiberian Sun - German - Nod -.
PavanV
08-08 06:32 PM
To hell with the checks and all, if you are all legit, there is absolutely no need to worry, people are ready to go back and not rot with this economy, increasing this intrusive checks will make people more averse towards H1 , which might help the local folks finds jobs, but it will adversely impact the economy of this country. I guess it has to be this way.
more...
va_dude
05-07 12:52 PM
it doesn't boil down to who you trust more. Both opinions have its merits.
But you should base your decision on whether or not you have truly ported to a job with similar duties and if you have the paperwork to prove it. If you have all this, then evn if you do get RFE its not a bad thing, since you can prove that you did no wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
But you should base your decision on whether or not you have truly ported to a job with similar duties and if you have the paperwork to prove it. If you have all this, then evn if you do get RFE its not a bad thing, since you can prove that you did no wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
hair Tiberian Sun Firestorm on
veni001
11-04 07:25 PM
Hi Experts,
Need inputs on following scenarios.
I have approved I-140 with Company A. I am on H1 currently, 7th year. My extension is due on April 2011.
Scenario 1: If H1 extension gets denied, can I move to H4 (my wife is on h1) and then search for a job and convert from H4 to H1 using approved I-140 from company A?
Ans: Only if approved I-140 is not revoked by sponsoring employer.
Scenario 2: If I move to Company B, and do not start GC there, after 3 years, can I get 3 years extension based on approved I-140 from company A?
Ans: Only if approved I-140 is not revoked by sponsoring employer.
Scenario 3: If I move to Company B, after some time, can I move to company C using I-140 from company A?
Ans: Only if approved I-140 is not revoked by sponsoring employer.
Given the uncertainty of h1 approvals these days, please suggest favorable scenarios in the cases above.
Thanks
The way current administration scrutinizing immigrant/non-immigrant case i doubt any employer dare not to revoke I-140 once employee leaves:o
Need inputs on following scenarios.
I have approved I-140 with Company A. I am on H1 currently, 7th year. My extension is due on April 2011.
Scenario 1: If H1 extension gets denied, can I move to H4 (my wife is on h1) and then search for a job and convert from H4 to H1 using approved I-140 from company A?
Ans: Only if approved I-140 is not revoked by sponsoring employer.
Scenario 2: If I move to Company B, and do not start GC there, after 3 years, can I get 3 years extension based on approved I-140 from company A?
Ans: Only if approved I-140 is not revoked by sponsoring employer.
Scenario 3: If I move to Company B, after some time, can I move to company C using I-140 from company A?
Ans: Only if approved I-140 is not revoked by sponsoring employer.
Given the uncertainty of h1 approvals these days, please suggest favorable scenarios in the cases above.
Thanks
The way current administration scrutinizing immigrant/non-immigrant case i doubt any employer dare not to revoke I-140 once employee leaves:o
more...
priderock
09-17 03:21 PM
Looks like no one is accepting my apologies :( maybe they will all come to DC and beat me up instead
That means no one was really offended by you. :)
You did well.
That means no one was really offended by you. :)
You did well.
hot Tiberian Sun Firestorm
nomi
04-20 09:33 AM
Does any one have any input or suggestion?
Why don`t you ask your Attorney about it since you are paying him and that`s his job to tell what documents he needs. ASK HIM.
Why don`t you ask your Attorney about it since you are paying him and that`s his job to tell what documents he needs. ASK HIM.
more...
house Tiberian Sun/Firestorm.
seahawks
09-12 10:02 AM
remember when you get your new passport in 2007, carry the new passport and the old passport with you when you travel because the valid visa will still be in your old passport.
tattoo Tiberian Sun: Firestorm as
bitzbytz
07-13 02:55 PM
i do agree. can we leave this over here.....i will refrain from unncessary posts in future...
more...
pictures Tiberian Sun - Firestorm
stucklabor
03-16 09:36 AM
I am not sure how we can conclude that there is massive corruption and mismanagement. According to this report, tons of immigration applicants knowingly commit fraud in their applications. For instance, people file frivolous I485 applications that have no chance of succeeding, just to get EAD/AP. USCIS is having trouble balancing the Presidential mandate to reduce the backlog - which means faster processing of each application - with the need to detect and prevent fraud, which means taking a longer time over each application.
The title of this thread is quite misleading, IMHO.
The title of this thread is quite misleading, IMHO.
dresses Command amp; Conquer Tiberian Sun
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
more...
makeup Tiberian Sun Firestorm,
she81
01-23 08:25 PM
"Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
- Mark Twain
Nice adage. :)
So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
- Mark Twain
Nice adage. :)
girlfriend Command amp; Conquer Tiberian Sun Fire Storm Part 5
BlueSoft
01-16 06:19 AM
Hello,
Do not upgrade your file for Premium Processing. Any time you do that, chances for an RFE from USCIS goo higher. You will get a decision from USCIS within two weeks for sure. You can also call USCIS as right now they are processing cases which they have received in late July and mid August.
Do not upgrade your file for Premium Processing. Any time you do that, chances for an RFE from USCIS goo higher. You will get a decision from USCIS within two weeks for sure. You can also call USCIS as right now they are processing cases which they have received in late July and mid August.
hairstyles Command amp; Conquer Tiberian Sun
SGP
12-11 04:09 PM
Is upgrading to premium actually an upgrade of the existing case or is it just a new application filed under premium?
Upgrading to Premium is actually an upgrade of existing case. It is NOT a new application. You have to pay the premium processing fees though. It feels like being back home, asking to push the file up. You know what I am trying to say.
Upgrading to Premium is actually an upgrade of existing case. It is NOT a new application. You have to pay the premium processing fees though. It feels like being back home, asking to push the file up. You know what I am trying to say.
vavuvya
11-04 01:48 PM
You will not know until I-140 is filed as the preference category is requested on I-140 and not on the PERM.
Thank you very much for your reply.Usually howmany it will take to get the I-140 receipt number once it has filed.My 140 has filed under premium processing in few days ago.
Thank you very much for your reply.Usually howmany it will take to get the I-140 receipt number once it has filed.My 140 has filed under premium processing in few days ago.
karanp25
07-06 03:34 AM
yes, u need to inform them of every small move u make, all ur life. this holds true even after ur us citizenship is approved.
Friends, I would like to know if I change job after I-140 & I-485 approval, do I still need to notify USCIS about AC-21. Also, will it require my new employer to provide a letter of job duties to confirm that the new job is either same or similar to the old one.
Thanks
Friends, I would like to know if I change job after I-140 & I-485 approval, do I still need to notify USCIS about AC-21. Also, will it require my new employer to provide a letter of job duties to confirm that the new job is either same or similar to the old one.
Thanks