jay75
09-21 06:48 PM
NSC Received my AOS apps. on Aug 10th
I140 Approved 11/2006 from NSC
EB3 Ind with PD 10/2004
I140 Approved 11/2006 from NSC
EB3 Ind with PD 10/2004
wallpaper The entire Logos Hope crew did
MrRoadRace
08-17 01:35 PM
Greetings,
I applied for a green card via a relative application on April 28th of 2001. I am under the 245I law. It has been 10 years since the application and it has been approved. A lawyer told me I have one more year to wait since they are still working on the visas from April of 2001. My question is: What month are they on currently and is there any way I can speed up this process? Is there a website where I can keep track of where the visas are?
Thanks in advance,
Mario
I applied for a green card via a relative application on April 28th of 2001. I am under the 245I law. It has been 10 years since the application and it has been approved. A lawyer told me I have one more year to wait since they are still working on the visas from April of 2001. My question is: What month are they on currently and is there any way I can speed up this process? Is there a website where I can keep track of where the visas are?
Thanks in advance,
Mario
chanduv23
03-20 09:57 AM
I got my DL reneul yesterday..there want any Visa question asked at all..??..Is texas not following DL reneual only untill your visa expiry date??..:confused:
They may start after seeing this post :)
Be happy about being in TX - just imagine being in MI
They may start after seeing this post :)
Be happy about being in TX - just imagine being in MI
2011 Logos Hope, the ship that has
supers789
05-24 02:25 PM
If we could add some good things for legal immigrants (EB), and the bill gets passed in senate... what are the chances of getting it passed in house and reaching president's table. The reason for this concern is that same thing happened in Dec 05, when at the last moment all immigration stuff was reformed from budget recon. bill. I am sure IV must be thinking about this as well and would like to get IV team's views on this. Also wanted to thank IV team for taking so many efforts.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
Prashanthi
07-14 02:59 PM
I and my wife are on h1. I want to come on her h4. She recently applied for h1 extension as her employer is nonprofit org and has some policies of his own, he files every year. She filled in may�09 and got receipt number, as the case is still pending who we can apply for h4 now. Is there any way around to apply for my h4 while the case is still pending?
You can file your H-4 based on the H-1b receipt of your spouse, this is not a problem. They will approve your H-4 for the same duration as your spouses H-1, you will get an approval of H-4 only after your spouses H-1 is approved.
You can file your H-4 based on the H-1b receipt of your spouse, this is not a problem. They will approve your H-4 for the same duration as your spouses H-1, you will get an approval of H-4 only after your spouses H-1 is approved.
godbole_sanjaya
01-15 09:02 AM
Subject: Guidance about GC Vs. Canada
Hello,
I have my EB3 filed with PD=Apr-2006. I dont see anything happening for next 6-8 years, and hence, I am also applying for Canada's PR. Probably, 2 yrs from now, I would move into Canada on PR and stay there for 3 yrs for citizenship.
With this in mind, should I go ahead for CP or I-485?
Thanks in advance for your valuable guidance.
Hello,
I have my EB3 filed with PD=Apr-2006. I dont see anything happening for next 6-8 years, and hence, I am also applying for Canada's PR. Probably, 2 yrs from now, I would move into Canada on PR and stay there for 3 yrs for citizenship.
With this in mind, should I go ahead for CP or I-485?
Thanks in advance for your valuable guidance.
more...
BPforGC
11-11 01:21 AM
My I-140 (National waiver approved, no labor required, self-petition) is approved, both me and my wife are working on EAD. Have valid AP till Oct 2009. 485s filed July 2007.
Today, on 10th, my wife (dependent 485) got hard LUD, "request for evidence notice sent" is the update.
-----------
Update: 12th Nov
The RFE is for absence of child's name (my wife) on the birth certificate. They wanted another birth certificate, hospital document or religious record or civil authority record that shows her name and both the parents names. They gave us 90 days time.
Today, on 10th, my wife (dependent 485) got hard LUD, "request for evidence notice sent" is the update.
-----------
Update: 12th Nov
The RFE is for absence of child's name (my wife) on the birth certificate. They wanted another birth certificate, hospital document or religious record or civil authority record that shows her name and both the parents names. They gave us 90 days time.
2010 The ship is having a selection
chidurala
07-28 08:13 AM
hi
my husband's GC has been approved.
so how long will it take me to get the green card ??
thank u in advance
my husband's GC has been approved.
so how long will it take me to get the green card ??
thank u in advance
more...
hebron
08-12 04:09 PM
Hi,
My I-140 was approved from Nebraska service center, but my attorney sent my I-485 case to Texas. I came across few people here on IV who have experienced the same.
Did USCIS provide any information regarding this? If so could you provide the link?
Thanks!
My I-140 was approved from Nebraska service center, but my attorney sent my I-485 case to Texas. I came across few people here on IV who have experienced the same.
Did USCIS provide any information regarding this? If so could you provide the link?
Thanks!
hair An event like the Logos Hope
pappu
07-09 01:09 PM
Hi Pappu and rest of IV admins,
I have been an active donor but had to temporarily cancel my subscription due to pay pal problems. I am back donating again and cannot access the donor forums. Could you please help me with this issue? I tried writing on the 'Contact us' form, but havent had any luck so far.
Could you please send a PM or an email with your latest contribution details. Its better to message us rather than opening a thread.
Thanks
I have been an active donor but had to temporarily cancel my subscription due to pay pal problems. I am back donating again and cannot access the donor forums. Could you please help me with this issue? I tried writing on the 'Contact us' form, but havent had any luck so far.
Could you please send a PM or an email with your latest contribution details. Its better to message us rather than opening a thread.
Thanks
more...
imneedy
06-25 10:36 AM
I put the receipt date and USCIS center from my previous receipt notice from USCIS.
hot sailing, is Logos Hope.
realizeit
08-12 02:08 PM
H-1B Willful Violator List of Employers
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/H1BWillfulViolator.htm
H-1B Debarred/Disqualified List of Employers
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/H1BDebarment.htm
H-1B Program Related General Link Available at DOL site:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/h1b.htm
Department of Labor - Employment and Training Administration - Office of Foreign Labor Certification - Program Debarments
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/Debartment_List_Revisions.pdf
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/H1BWillfulViolator.htm
H-1B Debarred/Disqualified List of Employers
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/H1BDebarment.htm
H-1B Program Related General Link Available at DOL site:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/immigration/h1b.htm
Department of Labor - Employment and Training Administration - Office of Foreign Labor Certification - Program Debarments
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/Debartment_List_Revisions.pdf
more...
house OM Ships M/V Logos Hope was
sweet_jungle
04-04 03:17 AM
Does anybody know how to obtain F-1 curricular practical training if the Department does not offer any internship course? If anybody has gone through similar experience, please let me know.
Also, currently, how long it is taking for OPT processing in California?
Also, currently, how long it is taking for OPT processing in California?
tattoo Touring at MV Logos Hope
setpit_gc
04-17 01:10 PM
All,
Do I need to send the following documents for AP renewal?.
1. H1B or H4
2. EAD
Thanks
Do I need to send the following documents for AP renewal?.
1. H1B or H4
2. EAD
Thanks
more...
pictures Logos Hope Malta 2010
excogitator
10-20 06:38 AM
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1169/firstalien.png
Yesss. We all know who the first man on the moon was.
Did you ever know the Alien who reached there first though.
It was meeee!! :te:
I learnt to speak English on the World Wide Web
Yesss. We all know who the first man on the moon was.
Did you ever know the Alien who reached there first though.
It was meeee!! :te:
I learnt to speak English on the World Wide Web
dresses Logos Hope was purchased in
extra_mint
04-11 05:57 PM
Came across this nice video
Listen if you have 10-15 minutes of spare time....Vivek Wadhwa gives interesting analysis on why india is taking over US and what can Guru (US) learn from disciple (india)
Link
-----
http://thetrajectory.com/blogs/?p=406
Above link is for the blog
Video to watch is a little below...scroll down a little to reach the video.
Listen if you have 10-15 minutes of spare time....Vivek Wadhwa gives interesting analysis on why india is taking over US and what can Guru (US) learn from disciple (india)
Link
-----
http://thetrajectory.com/blogs/?p=406
Above link is for the blog
Video to watch is a little below...scroll down a little to reach the video.
more...
makeup The ”LOGOS HOPE“, better known
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
girlfriend Logos Hope News Update No.82
kanshere
07-26 12:54 PM
hi folks,
I need some help wrt my wife's immi status.
She had applied H1 (from H4), and got the approval notice I-797.
Now, we applied I-485 for both of us on July 1st
But our attorney did not file for EAD/AP, because of time constraints.
Is it ok for her to start working using the H1 from Oct 1st?
Will it jeopardize her I485 Appln?
Any info / experience on this will be of great help.
Thanks,
Kans.
I need some help wrt my wife's immi status.
She had applied H1 (from H4), and got the approval notice I-797.
Now, we applied I-485 for both of us on July 1st
But our attorney did not file for EAD/AP, because of time constraints.
Is it ok for her to start working using the H1 from Oct 1st?
Will it jeopardize her I485 Appln?
Any info / experience on this will be of great help.
Thanks,
Kans.
hairstyles Logos Hope - IMO 7302914 - Callsign OZ 2000 - ShipSpotting.com - Ship Photos
sbmallik
11-29 10:20 AM
I-140 is employer's petition, so your tax returns are unnecessary. For information sake please check this link (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4a5a4154d7b3d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=7d316c0b4c3bf110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD) for details.
chanduv23
11-17 10:12 PM
If you live in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and anywhere else in the Upstate NY region, please post here.
hyddsnr
05-21 06:25 PM
One of my close friends got RFE on I-485. He is working for the Company A, but his labour and I-140 applied in June 07 from company B as substitution. Currently his I-140 got approved. But he got query as mentioned below. Can some one send sample letter .
You must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, you proffered position (if different from your current date), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offere of permanent
employment. The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition continue to exist.
You must submit a currently dated letter from your intended permanent employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, you proffered position (if different from your current date), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offere of permanent
employment. The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition continue to exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment