Almond
06-17 09:57 PM
I have been to Infopass at least four times in last two years. It depends on service rep on the window. Some of them are very cooperative and will try to answer most of your questions but others may not answer anything. I has an appointment yesterday to figure out about Background check which has been pending for last six months. Service rep on window only told me that it is still pending, she won't say when was it ordered which part of it is pending.. I tried to impress upon her but, she got up and walk away. It was such a waste of my time...
It is pure luck.. Couple of times, I got a rep who had helped me with AP stuff...
Same thing here. I've been to infopass a million times already. Some of them will tell you straight up that it's on someone's desk and to wait and come back in 1-2 months. Others will feel sorry for you and make some copies of your stuff and fill up some paperwork to "put it on the officer's desk"-you know, just to give you some hope. I've even gone with a lawyer's letter. Nada. Basically, you're at the system's mercy and the infopass people are just customer service reps that are there to answer your most basic questions. Get beyond basic and you're out of shit luck.
It is pure luck.. Couple of times, I got a rep who had helped me with AP stuff...
Same thing here. I've been to infopass a million times already. Some of them will tell you straight up that it's on someone's desk and to wait and come back in 1-2 months. Others will feel sorry for you and make some copies of your stuff and fill up some paperwork to "put it on the officer's desk"-you know, just to give you some hope. I've even gone with a lawyer's letter. Nada. Basically, you're at the system's mercy and the infopass people are just customer service reps that are there to answer your most basic questions. Get beyond basic and you're out of shit luck.
wallpaper house Chivas de Guadalajara v
saimrathi
07-03 11:20 AM
Well, here are the thoughts.
American Govt only listens when it sees an economic impact. Get thousands of such workers to not work a day, I am sure it would mean a huge economic impact. This is sending a signal that we dont tolerate this "pseudo-slavery" and that today we dont work a day but tomorrow we will be forced to leave this country (I know already several people who have done that and it is becoming more and more common for people to abstain from coming to this land of opportunity as the system is now less favorable)
If hundreds of thousands dont go to work, congress, corporates, press - the whole gamut would become sensitive to the issue. This is one way you can get them to lobby for our demands.
Taking out rally is also a very good way of doing it however if you did this in one place, the turnout will not be as impressive. Doing it in multiple cities needs an organization.
Bottomline, whatever you do, show solidarity, resolve, unity. That has never happened within this affected group of workers.
Sure, skip a day of work.. only to come back the next day and have two days worth of work lying on your desk, and one less vacation day...
American Govt only listens when it sees an economic impact. Get thousands of such workers to not work a day, I am sure it would mean a huge economic impact. This is sending a signal that we dont tolerate this "pseudo-slavery" and that today we dont work a day but tomorrow we will be forced to leave this country (I know already several people who have done that and it is becoming more and more common for people to abstain from coming to this land of opportunity as the system is now less favorable)
If hundreds of thousands dont go to work, congress, corporates, press - the whole gamut would become sensitive to the issue. This is one way you can get them to lobby for our demands.
Taking out rally is also a very good way of doing it however if you did this in one place, the turnout will not be as impressive. Doing it in multiple cities needs an organization.
Bottomline, whatever you do, show solidarity, resolve, unity. That has never happened within this affected group of workers.
Sure, skip a day of work.. only to come back the next day and have two days worth of work lying on your desk, and one less vacation day...
pamposh
10-26 08:34 AM
Do not believe on online status. Couple of my frds got their EAD and still online status is " Case Received and Pending". Looks like they are not updating the status on regular basis.
I am one of those as well. My online status shows the regular "case received on so n so" message. I got my EAD about 10 days ago n so is with my spouse.
I am one of those as well. My online status shows the regular "case received on so n so" message. I got my EAD about 10 days ago n so is with my spouse.
2011 las chivas de guadalajara ipod
sonia_sd
09-24 03:45 PM
This is an excellent proposal, can't wait for it to happen. Is this news published somewhere?
yes, this was a speculation discussed in immigration-law.com check posts you will find it in July/Aug news there.
yes, this was a speculation discussed in immigration-law.com check posts you will find it in July/Aug news there.
more...
tinku01
03-26 01:05 PM
in Coming may bulletin EB2 will go upto July 2004
red200
09-04 02:35 PM
Gradually it has to come to 2007 for sure
because
1)It came till OCT 2006 in 2007 as well as in 2008 , There would be really few members who would have missed the two boats under EB2
but there will be EB3 -> EB2 conversions not sure how many , Hard to estimate
2)The applications to USCIS are gradually decreasing and the trend probably will continue in 2010, Hence lesser revenues for USCIS
so if PD is stable in coming months or even if it has slow and steady increment, I believe 2007 will be current again in coming 3 quarters, if it doesnt happen in oct bulletin
because
1)It came till OCT 2006 in 2007 as well as in 2008 , There would be really few members who would have missed the two boats under EB2
but there will be EB3 -> EB2 conversions not sure how many , Hard to estimate
2)The applications to USCIS are gradually decreasing and the trend probably will continue in 2010, Hence lesser revenues for USCIS
so if PD is stable in coming months or even if it has slow and steady increment, I believe 2007 will be current again in coming 3 quarters, if it doesnt happen in oct bulletin
more...
RayP
12-07 11:14 PM
I applied I-485 and have recieved EAD in Sept, 2007. Now early next year (i.e. Jan/Feb 2008) I plan to go out of US for a year to complete an academic course. During that time, I would have to renew my EAD so that I can get back and start working. Anyone who has some experience or knowledge how this can be done from outside US... or is there a process to follow before I leave.
Also I am told that I might receive another finger printing request duirng the same time I am out of this country, any idea !!
Also I am told that I might receive another finger printing request duirng the same time I am out of this country, any idea !!
2010 chivas wallpapers.
vkmurthy260
06-20 05:48 PM
Hi,
I have Visa stamped in my passport till 2010 , my passport expires in July 2008 , so i was given I 94 till july 2008 when i last entered USA. I have renewed my passport . How do i change the dates in I 94 . I tried Def. Inspection sites in San francisco they say it cannot be done there . Can i travel to mexico and come back the same day and get a new I 94 .
Thanks
Kris.
I have Visa stamped in my passport till 2010 , my passport expires in July 2008 , so i was given I 94 till july 2008 when i last entered USA. I have renewed my passport . How do i change the dates in I 94 . I tried Def. Inspection sites in San francisco they say it cannot be done there . Can i travel to mexico and come back the same day and get a new I 94 .
Thanks
Kris.
more...
a_yaja
01-06 10:30 AM
I will be using AP first time. What documentation do we need to enter (other than passport and un-expired AP)? I will be visiting India for about 1 month? Is there any limitation as to for how long you can leave the country? I got 2 copies of AP. We just need "one" right?
Also while leaving which I-94 should we surrender? The one which I got when I entered last time - a couple of years ago, or the one which I received with last H1b renewal documentation. Right now I am not using H1b. I am "on" EAD.
Please share your experiences.
Thanks in advance!
You need both copies of the AP. The IO will keep one copy and stamp the other one and return it. When I got back to the USA in December 2008, my POE was Miami. My lawyer had told me to take both copies of the AP with me.
When I was in the Secondary room, there was another person who had only one copy of the AP. The IO asked him for the other copy. The dude told the IO that he had only one copy and the lawyer had told him that one copy is enough (you could see that he was nervous). The IO sarcastically told him to change his lawyer. The dude then said that he was not planning on traveling anytime before the expiry of the AP and said that the IO could keep the copy he had submitted. The IO again wryly told him that things don't work that way. He told the dude to take a seat and he wold see what he could do (the IO was actually polite all the time to this dude - even thought he sounded sarcastic at times - especially when he said "I would not waste any more money on this lawyer"). To make a long story short, I saw him get his stamped AP back and we left the room at around the same time).
My advise to you is - take both the copies - you will not regret it.
Also while leaving which I-94 should we surrender? The one which I got when I entered last time - a couple of years ago, or the one which I received with last H1b renewal documentation. Right now I am not using H1b. I am "on" EAD.
Please share your experiences.
Thanks in advance!
You need both copies of the AP. The IO will keep one copy and stamp the other one and return it. When I got back to the USA in December 2008, my POE was Miami. My lawyer had told me to take both copies of the AP with me.
When I was in the Secondary room, there was another person who had only one copy of the AP. The IO asked him for the other copy. The dude told the IO that he had only one copy and the lawyer had told him that one copy is enough (you could see that he was nervous). The IO sarcastically told him to change his lawyer. The dude then said that he was not planning on traveling anytime before the expiry of the AP and said that the IO could keep the copy he had submitted. The IO again wryly told him that things don't work that way. He told the dude to take a seat and he wold see what he could do (the IO was actually polite all the time to this dude - even thought he sounded sarcastic at times - especially when he said "I would not waste any more money on this lawyer"). To make a long story short, I saw him get his stamped AP back and we left the room at around the same time).
My advise to you is - take both the copies - you will not regret it.
hair Les traigo un wallpaper de el
obviously
05-15 09:04 PM
Folks, I just called and left VM's with all on the list. It is very simple and takes less than 15 minutes in total. If you are someone that is 'shy' or 'afraid', dont worry... you are speaking to an automated voice and leaving a message. Get over those nerves. Helps when you call again and speak with a real person. Remember, they are here to serve us and help us.
So, please take 15 minutes to call and leave these requests.
Cheers!
So, please take 15 minutes to call and leave these requests.
Cheers!
more...
JSimmivoice
01-23 12:28 AM
Thks for the response, but what I read on other sites for e.g murthydot.com and some other site in the Internet it is used even for situations where one did not realised their I-94 has expired and thought its not an issue, also for example such as employer forgot to file and its not application mistake as he was not aware about employers miss and etc. So based on a approved LCA one can get H1 approved and even get the unauthorized employment convert it into a valid employment for any period (based on conditions). I'll do more research on this and update this thread.
Meanwhile anyone with any other opinion is welcome here. Thks all
Meanwhile anyone with any other opinion is welcome here. Thks all
hot Chivas Vs America 2010: de
houston2005
03-05 09:30 PM
We cannot justify the opposition to price increase as INS expects the fees to be paid by employer. So if needed employers can oppose not the employees. Only fees the candidates expect to pay is citizenship fees and all other immigration related fees should be paid by Employers as they are sponsoring gc
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
more...
house chivas de guadalajara. el
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
tattoo chivas wallpapers. used for
usdreams
05-25 12:13 PM
Hi,
I am little scared, I have taken an Infopass appointment for this friday at my local office, as my PD is current for EB2 - May, and still didn't get any status update or GCs.
Is it risky or inviting a risk by taking infopass apt. ?
Do you think I should have waited ?
please reply if anyone have any idea.
Thank you,
I am little scared, I have taken an Infopass appointment for this friday at my local office, as my PD is current for EB2 - May, and still didn't get any status update or GCs.
Is it risky or inviting a risk by taking infopass apt. ?
Do you think I should have waited ?
please reply if anyone have any idea.
Thank you,
more...
pictures love you so much wallpaper. i
shana04
06-22 05:04 PM
I was thinking on how USCIS may be working.. heres my thought.
Boss come out of the cabin and a clerk approaches and says, Saar ji need vacation kids are getting bored in their summer vacation, boss being in a good mood announces okie everyone go on vacation for 2 months, also ask the internet guy to make the dates "UNAVAILABLE"
Then some seniors are planned to visit the USCIS office, since the dates are not current all the clerks are chit chatting, playing games on computer, texting..etc etc.. boss comes out of his office and says, what all you guys are doing ?? Get back to work.
Again a clerk comes to the officer and says :D saar dates are not current what do we do, nothing is there to do. Boss turns really angry and says go and preadjuducate the preadjudicated cases and send RFEs. Show that you are working, make some calls threaten people of fraud, send finger printing notices.
To check if this huge force is working or not he logs on to immigrationvoice.org and and start browsing the threads and then he find people posting question about the RFE on medical TST etc etc.. He is happy and satisfied that his clerks are working and may get an appraisal from his who is likely to visit the office anytime.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Really good one!
Boss come out of the cabin and a clerk approaches and says, Saar ji need vacation kids are getting bored in their summer vacation, boss being in a good mood announces okie everyone go on vacation for 2 months, also ask the internet guy to make the dates "UNAVAILABLE"
Then some seniors are planned to visit the USCIS office, since the dates are not current all the clerks are chit chatting, playing games on computer, texting..etc etc.. boss comes out of his office and says, what all you guys are doing ?? Get back to work.
Again a clerk comes to the officer and says :D saar dates are not current what do we do, nothing is there to do. Boss turns really angry and says go and preadjuducate the preadjudicated cases and send RFEs. Show that you are working, make some calls threaten people of fraud, send finger printing notices.
To check if this huge force is working or not he logs on to immigrationvoice.org and and start browsing the threads and then he find people posting question about the RFE on medical TST etc etc.. He is happy and satisfied that his clerks are working and may get an appraisal from his who is likely to visit the office anytime.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Really good one!
dresses gol de chivas
WaitingForMyGC
01-23 10:53 AM
They don't mean anything..no dates ever meant anything to USCIS. :-)
more...
makeup Festival CHIVAS REGAL de Danza
ramus
08-15 12:07 PM
Great.. please contribute to DC rally in anyway you can.
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
girlfriend es refuerzo de Chivas
LostInGCProcess
01-08 10:44 AM
I recently entered US on AP. At the POE, I gave ONLY my passport and AP(it was 3 copies stapled together). Thats all.
The IO gave me one copy and said "you can keep one for your reference" and took the other 2. Then escorted to another room, where more people were waiting, and I had to wait for about 10 minutes and an officer called my last name and handed me over, my passport along with one copy of AP with some stamp on it.
I am still on H1, also got my EAD. I-485 is pending. The other documents that I carried was, a letter from my company stating that I work for them, and all my H1 copies...but I never showed any of those documents.
edit: While I was standing in line to be called by the IO, the person(indian) in front of me who was being served by the IO, gave many documents, eventhough the IO was saying "I don't need them". This guy was pro-actively telling her that he is working for so-and-so company, took some papers and was giving it to her, and she said politely that its not required...he was also entering on AP cause I saw that guy in the room.
So, Please don't over do. just give only the document that is asked for.
The IO gave me one copy and said "you can keep one for your reference" and took the other 2. Then escorted to another room, where more people were waiting, and I had to wait for about 10 minutes and an officer called my last name and handed me over, my passport along with one copy of AP with some stamp on it.
I am still on H1, also got my EAD. I-485 is pending. The other documents that I carried was, a letter from my company stating that I work for them, and all my H1 copies...but I never showed any of those documents.
edit: While I was standing in line to be called by the IO, the person(indian) in front of me who was being served by the IO, gave many documents, eventhough the IO was saying "I don't need them". This guy was pro-actively telling her that he is working for so-and-so company, took some papers and was giving it to her, and she said politely that its not required...he was also entering on AP cause I saw that guy in the room.
So, Please don't over do. just give only the document that is asked for.
hairstyles el Nuevo estadio de las Chivas
NikNikon
June 18th, 2005, 09:56 AM
I like the top one too, maybe you could of uped your ISO and used a quicker shutter speed to freeze the bird. Also this is a personal preference thing but I like to saturate the colors a bit in my post process just to bring them out a bit. Shooting into the light kinda leaves the land in landscapes a bit dull. The bottom two bird shots came out well. Do you have a lens that will let you get in closer? I'd like to see a portrait style shot of one of the birds with the odd bills.
Steve Mitchell
February 2nd, 2004, 11:22 PM
Here are the compatable lenses from the spec sheet:
Compatible Lenses
1) DX Nikkor : All functions supported
2) Type G or D AF Nikkor : All functions supported 3) Micro Nikkor 85 mm F2.8D : All functions supported except autofocus and some exposure modes 4) Other AF Nikkor*2 : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-fl ash for digital SLR
5) AI-P Nikkor : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-flash for digital SLR, and autofocus
6) Non-CPU : Can be used in exposure mode M, but exposure meter does not function; electronic range finder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster *1 IX Nikkor lenses can not be used; *2 Excluding lenses for F3AF
Not sure about the flash...maybe StevenT will see this and help you out. Also, not sure if you've seen the full official spec sheet, but here it is. Click here (http://www.dphoto.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=121).
Hi,
From an old time NIkon user with of all cameras the N70 (sort of ironic). I currently own a canon dig camera (s50) and I have found the need for a better optical zoom range, and stronger flash.
Almost bought the new canon rebel, but since I own some nikon equipment, and heard about d70, I held off.
So, the questions:;;
1) Will I be able to use my Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm lens?
2) How about my Sigma 70-300mm apo macro for nikon?
3) I also have sb26 nikon flash?
Are these all usable? WIll I be giving up functionality with these lenses or flash? Obviously, I'm more willing to spend 1k on the camera if I can utilize my current investment in my lenses and flash.
Thanks
Craig
Compatible Lenses
1) DX Nikkor : All functions supported
2) Type G or D AF Nikkor : All functions supported 3) Micro Nikkor 85 mm F2.8D : All functions supported except autofocus and some exposure modes 4) Other AF Nikkor*2 : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-fl ash for digital SLR
5) AI-P Nikkor : All functions supported except 3D colour matrix metering, i-TTL balanced fill-flash for digital SLR, and autofocus
6) Non-CPU : Can be used in exposure mode M, but exposure meter does not function; electronic range finder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster *1 IX Nikkor lenses can not be used; *2 Excluding lenses for F3AF
Not sure about the flash...maybe StevenT will see this and help you out. Also, not sure if you've seen the full official spec sheet, but here it is. Click here (http://www.dphoto.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=121).
Hi,
From an old time NIkon user with of all cameras the N70 (sort of ironic). I currently own a canon dig camera (s50) and I have found the need for a better optical zoom range, and stronger flash.
Almost bought the new canon rebel, but since I own some nikon equipment, and heard about d70, I held off.
So, the questions:;;
1) Will I be able to use my Nikon AF Nikkor 35-80mm lens?
2) How about my Sigma 70-300mm apo macro for nikon?
3) I also have sb26 nikon flash?
Are these all usable? WIll I be giving up functionality with these lenses or flash? Obviously, I'm more willing to spend 1k on the camera if I can utilize my current investment in my lenses and flash.
Thanks
Craig
royus77
06-20 04:54 PM
Yes. You can go for H1b stamping even though you applied for 485 . Not sure above your 2 ns Question
0 comments:
Post a Comment