vallabhu
06-14 06:47 PM
Should the passport be valid for more than 6 months for applying I 485.
If somebody can answer that would begreat
I called my attorney this morning he confirmed passport need not be valid for more than 6 months.he mentioned that I can apply for passport renewal at a later date
If somebody can answer that would begreat
I called my attorney this morning he confirmed passport need not be valid for more than 6 months.he mentioned that I can apply for passport renewal at a later date
enqueued
12-11 01:38 AM
Hi,
We applied for EAD and Adv parole renewal on July 2nd for my wife. Her new EAD card was received in September and no word on the Adv Parole yet. Online status still shows 'case received and pending'.
She had her previos Adv Parole expiring on Oct 22nd. She left to India on Oct 1st. Now that her previous Adv Parole has expired and new one still not approved, will they allow her to enter US?
Thanks!
I did some research on traveling with AP. AFAIK it has to be approved while you are in US - especially if you are an AOS applicant.
http://www.murthy.com/news/ukpbadpl.html
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/advance_parole.html
Good luck
Thanks
We applied for EAD and Adv parole renewal on July 2nd for my wife. Her new EAD card was received in September and no word on the Adv Parole yet. Online status still shows 'case received and pending'.
She had her previos Adv Parole expiring on Oct 22nd. She left to India on Oct 1st. Now that her previous Adv Parole has expired and new one still not approved, will they allow her to enter US?
Thanks!
I did some research on traveling with AP. AFAIK it has to be approved while you are in US - especially if you are an AOS applicant.
http://www.murthy.com/news/ukpbadpl.html
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/advance_parole.html
Good luck
Thanks
AZ_GC
08-27 05:23 PM
No, her processing cannot go on. It would be illegal on YOUR part to claim her as a spouse for a GC when she is really is not your spouse anymore (once you file for divorce, that is).
Thanks,
Jayant
I agree this is illegal and there have been many cases where applications have been denied for fraud. I knwo that is not your intention but USCIS considers this sort of "arrangement" a fraud.
Thanks,
Jayant
I agree this is illegal and there have been many cases where applications have been denied for fraud. I knwo that is not your intention but USCIS considers this sort of "arrangement" a fraud.
Legal
08-07 10:44 AM
August Visa Bulletin is out.
EB2 - Jun 1 2006 (Unchanged) for India/China
EB3 - Unavailable.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4310.html
you have seen guys posting visa bulletins here and you thought today is your turn:p
Don't even try! You can't beat some of the guys around here.
You are going to aggravate more visitors all day, who will give you more red dots and tuen you into a communist. BTW, are you from WB or Kerala?:D
EB2 - Jun 1 2006 (Unchanged) for India/China
EB3 - Unavailable.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4310.html
you have seen guys posting visa bulletins here and you thought today is your turn:p
Don't even try! You can't beat some of the guys around here.
You are going to aggravate more visitors all day, who will give you more red dots and tuen you into a communist. BTW, are you from WB or Kerala?:D
more...
willgetgc2005
10-31 04:16 PM
This This happened to me as well. My AP which was approved in 2005 and has already expired had an LUD today. I have an approved AP in 2006. But my expired 2005 AP had LUD.
In August my I-140 which was approved in 2005 had an LUD. God knows what all this means. My 485 is pending becuase of retrogression.
Hi all
When I checked my email on Saturday I got 10 emails from USCIS.
5 of them for my 485, 5 of them for EAD I applied in 2004.
My 485 status before email was something like this: We responded to the additional info you requested on so and so date, if you not received by 14 days contact us. (This status got changed when I did address change in 2005)
Now it says about my FP which I gave in 2003. I gave FP again some time in 2004 end.
On May 20, 2003, the results of your fingerprint review for your I485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status were received, and processing has resumed on your case. We will mail you a notice if further action is needed, or when a decision is made.
I am not sure why LUD got changed for 2004 EAD now, after that I applied EAD�s 2005 and then 2006.
I understand if LUD changed means, some one touched our file to update some thing, but I am wondering why 485 Status changed to my First FP message.
Any one got similar emails......
__________________
Thanks
In August my I-140 which was approved in 2005 had an LUD. God knows what all this means. My 485 is pending becuase of retrogression.
Hi all
When I checked my email on Saturday I got 10 emails from USCIS.
5 of them for my 485, 5 of them for EAD I applied in 2004.
My 485 status before email was something like this: We responded to the additional info you requested on so and so date, if you not received by 14 days contact us. (This status got changed when I did address change in 2005)
Now it says about my FP which I gave in 2003. I gave FP again some time in 2004 end.
On May 20, 2003, the results of your fingerprint review for your I485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status were received, and processing has resumed on your case. We will mail you a notice if further action is needed, or when a decision is made.
I am not sure why LUD got changed for 2004 EAD now, after that I applied EAD�s 2005 and then 2006.
I understand if LUD changed means, some one touched our file to update some thing, but I am wondering why 485 Status changed to my First FP message.
Any one got similar emails......
__________________
Thanks
dealsnet
01-13 10:13 AM
Six years is the time you spent in USA. Not from the approval date. If you take vacation and go out from USA, you can deduct that period also.
You can try to stamp, if the H1B company give you a new job offer letter and other documentation. You must ready to answer the question about the delay in stamping.
No harm in trying. Or try to find another employer to file for H1B transfer, or with the same employer can file an amended petition with new start date and new salary offer, and after getting that approval, go for stamping.
I had applied for a visa back in 2007 and the initial approval was for 3 years till 2010 Oct.I have 9 years of IT exp and I have been in US before on a H1B visa through a top Indian IT firm for 2 years. The visa that I applied in 2007 is through a small but well functioning IT consulting firm. I lived in India then but now I am working in Toronto in Canada.
Because of the recession and bad market I couldnt make a move and I didnt get the visa stamped on my passport too after the approval
Since the market is getting better, I plan to get it stamped the coming year as and when I get a job opportunity. Since the initial approval was till 2010 and I never got it stamped, can I still schedule for stamping now or should I go for an entirely new one now. As the visa runs for 6 years, would I be able to use it only till 2013 (6 years from 2007) or once I get it stamped this year (2010) , I can use it till 2016 ?
I heard that embassies scrutinize each case for fraud (although mine is based on real skills and job opportunities) I just want to avoid any issue with the stamping. I rather then go for a new visa if such a risk exists ( to avoid such an investigation or enquiry shadowing future prospects)
If it comes to me applying for a new visa, would I be subject to cap again or am I cap free as I have been counted earlier in 2007 ?
Thanks a ton for your service and pls help me out.
Regards,
Alex
You can try to stamp, if the H1B company give you a new job offer letter and other documentation. You must ready to answer the question about the delay in stamping.
No harm in trying. Or try to find another employer to file for H1B transfer, or with the same employer can file an amended petition with new start date and new salary offer, and after getting that approval, go for stamping.
I had applied for a visa back in 2007 and the initial approval was for 3 years till 2010 Oct.I have 9 years of IT exp and I have been in US before on a H1B visa through a top Indian IT firm for 2 years. The visa that I applied in 2007 is through a small but well functioning IT consulting firm. I lived in India then but now I am working in Toronto in Canada.
Because of the recession and bad market I couldnt make a move and I didnt get the visa stamped on my passport too after the approval
Since the market is getting better, I plan to get it stamped the coming year as and when I get a job opportunity. Since the initial approval was till 2010 and I never got it stamped, can I still schedule for stamping now or should I go for an entirely new one now. As the visa runs for 6 years, would I be able to use it only till 2013 (6 years from 2007) or once I get it stamped this year (2010) , I can use it till 2016 ?
I heard that embassies scrutinize each case for fraud (although mine is based on real skills and job opportunities) I just want to avoid any issue with the stamping. I rather then go for a new visa if such a risk exists ( to avoid such an investigation or enquiry shadowing future prospects)
If it comes to me applying for a new visa, would I be subject to cap again or am I cap free as I have been counted earlier in 2007 ?
Thanks a ton for your service and pls help me out.
Regards,
Alex
more...
milind70
04-06 12:55 PM
Can anyone please give me some suggestions..
My dad health is not stable and has been admitted to hospital. I would like to visit him. Does this qualify for emergency appointment. Mine is H1 revalidation.
Also please let me know what forms I need to complete before going to india.
Your suggestions are appreciated. Thanks
In word from your situation yes you can qualify for the emergency situation
the below are the reasons VFS mentioned when i was going for revalidation
1.Returning worker
2. For attending a funeral
3. If some family member is seriously ill
But things change i would advise you to check the website it tells u clearly who qualify for the emergency appointment. Also write to the consulate with your situation they will definately respond to you.
My dad health is not stable and has been admitted to hospital. I would like to visit him. Does this qualify for emergency appointment. Mine is H1 revalidation.
Also please let me know what forms I need to complete before going to india.
Your suggestions are appreciated. Thanks
In word from your situation yes you can qualify for the emergency situation
the below are the reasons VFS mentioned when i was going for revalidation
1.Returning worker
2. For attending a funeral
3. If some family member is seriously ill
But things change i would advise you to check the website it tells u clearly who qualify for the emergency appointment. Also write to the consulate with your situation they will definately respond to you.
cdeneo
03-25 08:55 PM
Hi there,
I had a quick question on the best/quickest way to mail Advance Parole paper filing application to USCIS:
I would like to get some sort of tracking but the address I had was a PO Box in Nebraska.
I am guessing I would need to use USPS to mail the package - what kind of mailing do I need to do so that it reaches quickly and I get tracking that it got delivered to USCIS.
My concern was that whether sign on receipt option would work or not given that this is a PO Box address.
I would really appreciate your input on this. Thanks!
I had a quick question on the best/quickest way to mail Advance Parole paper filing application to USCIS:
I would like to get some sort of tracking but the address I had was a PO Box in Nebraska.
I am guessing I would need to use USPS to mail the package - what kind of mailing do I need to do so that it reaches quickly and I get tracking that it got delivered to USCIS.
My concern was that whether sign on receipt option would work or not given that this is a PO Box address.
I would really appreciate your input on this. Thanks!
more...
wait4ever
09-22 11:15 AM
You should not have any impact if you have the GC
goldbuckle
March 14th, 2006, 10:29 PM
I started shooting rodeo last year with my Nikon D70. The lighting at the rodeos I am shooting is very poor. Last year I shot with a Tameron AF Aspherical LD 28-200mm f3.8 to 5.6. I was able to get some good shots but mostly I was disappointed. I shot up to 1600 ISO in manual, with the lowest f stop possible for the zoom used, auto white balance, AF-C, single area & dynamic area AF mode, and experimented with shutter speeds from 1/60 to 1/500. I was very displeased with the results I got. On the 1/60 end I got to much blur and trying to stop the action the results were to dark. So I invested in a Nikon Speedlight SB-600. Occasionally I would get a could shot, but I almost always get red eye or the horse or cattle eyes are solid white from the flash. I even tryed to fill in the shadows with flash on manual at 1/64. I still get the white animal eyes. This year I bought a Nikor 50mm f1.8 lense. The lighting was very poor, but most of the pictures were better than last year. I am still not pleased with the quality though. I shot with and without flash. Without the flash pictures were still to dark even at 1.8 and had to be digitally enhanced. I shot some at 800 and 1600 ISO. The images are just to grainy. Any one got any advise. Here are four examples from about 2200 shots from Fri & Sat.
more...
Saiom19
08-09 12:07 PM
I think "augustus" worry is related to the application acceptance ...what if USCIS sends it back post August 17, 2007? One way to check that USCIS has accepted application is cheque clearance....well we are all in the same boat......Happy sailing!!
qualified_trash
06-16 09:34 AM
why cant we set up a webfax/email for all members to be sent to CNN and FOX like the ones we setup for the senators?
more...
reddymjm
08-07 09:55 AM
you made my day.....it was so funny
It was Funny....
It was Funny....
DareYouFireMe
03-12 11:35 AM
If you look closely its for the I-484 stage. I have also been told that the first stage has to be apporved. So the first I-140 has to be approved (earlier priority date). The word 'subsequent' is throwing the confusion around.
I think this is not fair since lot of people have their earlier petition being approved after their second petitions (due to perm and premium I-140).
example i guess clears the statement.
I think this is not fair since lot of people have their earlier petition being approved after their second petitions (due to perm and premium I-140).
example i guess clears the statement.
more...
frostrated
07-09 01:26 PM
Dear Mr. ------:
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. The need to fix our broken system is clear, and I appreciate having the benefit of your insight on one of the most important issues of our day.
Immigration reform must ultimately be about improving our system for legal immigration, not about creating new benefits for illegal aliens. Although we are a proud nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. If policymakers will agree that all immigrants must abide by the rule of law, then we can reach a consensus on ways to improve the legal process so that it meets the needs of our society, our economy, and our national security.
During the 110th Congress, the Senate considered comprehensive immigration reform legislation (S. 1639). I had serious concerns that the legislation, as drafted, would have repeated the well documented mistakes of the 1986 amnesty bill. Furthermore, Senators were not allowed the full opportunity to offer amendments to this flawed legislation, and as such, I was one of 53 Senators who voted against the cloture motion to bring S. 1639 to a vote.
I have been working throughout my time in the Senate to develop a solution to this problem that I believe will work. I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/immigration for more information regarding the immigration reforms I support. As we consider immigration reform proposals in the future, I will continue to promote these policies, but I will oppose any bill that rewards illegal conduct and encourages further disrespect for our laws.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
i have sent him about three emails. The response is the same - word for word. If they see any immigration related email from a constituent, all they get is this canned response. Sen. Conryn is anti-immgrant for all I know and care.
Thank you for contacting me about immigration reform. The need to fix our broken system is clear, and I appreciate having the benefit of your insight on one of the most important issues of our day.
Immigration reform must ultimately be about improving our system for legal immigration, not about creating new benefits for illegal aliens. Although we are a proud nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. If policymakers will agree that all immigrants must abide by the rule of law, then we can reach a consensus on ways to improve the legal process so that it meets the needs of our society, our economy, and our national security.
During the 110th Congress, the Senate considered comprehensive immigration reform legislation (S. 1639). I had serious concerns that the legislation, as drafted, would have repeated the well documented mistakes of the 1986 amnesty bill. Furthermore, Senators were not allowed the full opportunity to offer amendments to this flawed legislation, and as such, I was one of 53 Senators who voted against the cloture motion to bring S. 1639 to a vote.
I have been working throughout my time in the Senate to develop a solution to this problem that I believe will work. I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/immigration for more information regarding the immigration reforms I support. As we consider immigration reform proposals in the future, I will continue to promote these policies, but I will oppose any bill that rewards illegal conduct and encourages further disrespect for our laws.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
i have sent him about three emails. The response is the same - word for word. If they see any immigration related email from a constituent, all they get is this canned response. Sen. Conryn is anti-immgrant for all I know and care.
shivarajan
08-14 08:14 PM
USCIS is considering to "permit pre-filing of I-485 applications upon approval of I-140 petitions for preadjudication of the I-485 applications pending immigrant visa number availability."
News From The Oh Law Firm Site: Link (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
Possible good news for folks who missed 07' July Fiasco and still waiting to file I-485
News From The Oh Law Firm Site: Link (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
Possible good news for folks who missed 07' July Fiasco and still waiting to file I-485
more...
aguy
01-05 10:52 AM
Can I use AVR even if I am on my 8th year of H1B (because of an approved I140, waiting for I485 to become current)?
Refugee_New
08-02 12:50 PM
I don't think a 1 year ead or 2 year ead is really affecting 485 applications.
USCIS will approve 2 yrs EAD only if the dates are not current and visa is not available for that particular case. in my case my pd is always current and visa is available.
USCIS will approve 2 yrs EAD only if the dates are not current and visa is not available for that particular case. in my case my pd is always current and visa is available.
gc28262
11-05 11:25 AM
All,
I am starting this thread to track I-485 applications that did not receive receipt notices yet after filing in July-August
I filed on August 15th
No receipt notice yet as of Nov, 5, 2007
Anybody else in similar situation ?
I am starting this thread to track I-485 applications that did not receive receipt notices yet after filing in July-August
I filed on August 15th
No receipt notice yet as of Nov, 5, 2007
Anybody else in similar situation ?
imv116
03-01 10:42 PM
Yeah yes medical one and yes she can come on B1...and all has to go well with the visa...
-the 116
-the 116
immig4me
11-03 10:08 AM
I don't care much for either party, but I do find "talking points" abhorring as it never considers the practical matters...........
What is it about the immigration debate that makes Republicans in Congress act like children?
In the latest stunt, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee - Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions - have signed a letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to "detail exactly how much funding" would be needed to "ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended."
The answer: A lot.
John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told me that Congress appropriates $2.6 billion each year for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
According to Morton, ICE is able to apprehend, process and remove a maximum of about 400,000 immigrants per year. (From October 2009 to September 2010, the Obama administration deported 392,862 people.) This is a record, and yet still only a fraction of the estimated 10.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
So to remove 10 million illegal immigrants, it would cost about $65 billion.
There you go, senators. Will that be cash or charge?
Of course, there are also the ancillary costs. First, if the federal government were to cast the net wide enough to apprehend large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants, perhaps by substituting skin color for probable cause (see: Arizona), it's likely to ensnare a good number of U.S.-born Latinos who would probably file a flurry of lawsuits for racial profiling, and thus run up the tab. Second, in the time that it takes to detect, detain and deport 10 million illegal immigrants, many of those who had already been removed would come back - and then have to be re-deported at an additional cost. And third, by spending that much more money on enforcement, federal immigration officials would surely inspire smugglers on the other side of the border to raise their prices. This would only enrich and empower the bad guys to bring in still more illegal immigrants.
Then, there is another problem. As incredible as it sounds, deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be disruptive to Americans' way of life. As Morton pointed out, there would likely be massive and debilitating labor shortages, especially in those industries that currently depend more heavily than they should on illegal immigrant labor.
"No one is talking about letting people go on their way with no punishment whatsoever," Morton said. "But we need a rational discussion of the proper sanction in light of the circumstances."
Republicans are really in no position to talk about seriousness. When serious leadership is called for, they offer only theatrics and chest-thumping. They have to realize that, as a practical matter, ICE can't deport every illegal immigrant it comes in contact with. But they don't care. They only want attention.
The GOP has a lot invested in spinning the yarn that the border can be secured and millions of illegal immigrants expelled through a strategy of enforcement only. Once you adopt this line of thinking, the way to explain the fact that there are still millions of illegal immigrants in the United States is to somehow argue that the Obama administration has been slow to deport them.
This was a harmless delusion when Republicans were in the minority in Congress. But now that they are gaining seats, it could become a real nuisance as politicians proceed to lecture law enforcement officials about the best way to enforce the law.
As the country's top immigration enforcement official, Morton is critical of an enforcement-only approach.
"You have to be much more precise than simply saying 'deport them all'," he said. "That kind of attitude doesn't make sense in the context of how you deal with 10.3 million people."
There you have it. Right on cue, seven Republican senators have stopped making sense.
Read more: Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL#ixzz14ETlnYgq)
Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL)
What is it about the immigration debate that makes Republicans in Congress act like children?
In the latest stunt, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee - Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions - have signed a letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to "detail exactly how much funding" would be needed to "ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended."
The answer: A lot.
John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told me that Congress appropriates $2.6 billion each year for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
According to Morton, ICE is able to apprehend, process and remove a maximum of about 400,000 immigrants per year. (From October 2009 to September 2010, the Obama administration deported 392,862 people.) This is a record, and yet still only a fraction of the estimated 10.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
So to remove 10 million illegal immigrants, it would cost about $65 billion.
There you go, senators. Will that be cash or charge?
Of course, there are also the ancillary costs. First, if the federal government were to cast the net wide enough to apprehend large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants, perhaps by substituting skin color for probable cause (see: Arizona), it's likely to ensnare a good number of U.S.-born Latinos who would probably file a flurry of lawsuits for racial profiling, and thus run up the tab. Second, in the time that it takes to detect, detain and deport 10 million illegal immigrants, many of those who had already been removed would come back - and then have to be re-deported at an additional cost. And third, by spending that much more money on enforcement, federal immigration officials would surely inspire smugglers on the other side of the border to raise their prices. This would only enrich and empower the bad guys to bring in still more illegal immigrants.
Then, there is another problem. As incredible as it sounds, deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be disruptive to Americans' way of life. As Morton pointed out, there would likely be massive and debilitating labor shortages, especially in those industries that currently depend more heavily than they should on illegal immigrant labor.
"No one is talking about letting people go on their way with no punishment whatsoever," Morton said. "But we need a rational discussion of the proper sanction in light of the circumstances."
Republicans are really in no position to talk about seriousness. When serious leadership is called for, they offer only theatrics and chest-thumping. They have to realize that, as a practical matter, ICE can't deport every illegal immigrant it comes in contact with. But they don't care. They only want attention.
The GOP has a lot invested in spinning the yarn that the border can be secured and millions of illegal immigrants expelled through a strategy of enforcement only. Once you adopt this line of thinking, the way to explain the fact that there are still millions of illegal immigrants in the United States is to somehow argue that the Obama administration has been slow to deport them.
This was a harmless delusion when Republicans were in the minority in Congress. But now that they are gaining seats, it could become a real nuisance as politicians proceed to lecture law enforcement officials about the best way to enforce the law.
As the country's top immigration enforcement official, Morton is critical of an enforcement-only approach.
"You have to be much more precise than simply saying 'deport them all'," he said. "That kind of attitude doesn't make sense in the context of how you deal with 10.3 million people."
There you have it. Right on cue, seven Republican senators have stopped making sense.
Read more: Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL#ixzz14ETlnYgq)
Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL)
No comments:
Post a Comment