binadh
07-09 01:44 PM
I have made several attempts to get my money back from my previous lawyer without any success. After complaining about his services, he has sent me an email saying the he will return half of the money because he was not prompt on processing my case and I was not happy with his services. I received that email about 6 weeks ago and haven't seen a dime from him yet. And I do not think I will get my money back from this guy. This was paid for creating my job profile and filing the labor - what this bastard calls an initial retention.
Is there any specific website/forum where I can post my experience with this guy so that others will not take their business to this scammer. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do about this type of guys?
Is there any specific website/forum where I can post my experience with this guy so that others will not take their business to this scammer. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do about this type of guys?
wallpaper jill scott son.
mnq1979
06-26 05:07 PM
If the registration date on the birth ceritificate is latest, not obtained during her birth, then you might need to back it up with secondary documents. Any of the above said documents, including 2 affidavits, should be submitted along with the bc. In any case make sure that all secondary documents includes both your parents full names. If you are using 2 affidavits as secondary documents then make sure that affiants full names and their date and place of birth information is also included. This is exactly what I did. I have submitted latest bc and backed up with 2 affidavits. This is what I learnt from my attorney. USCIS has received my response and application processing resumed and I am putting my fingers crossed:rolleyes:.
I will let u know if my status has changed. Please keep in mind that what I said all along in this thread based on my experience. Do some more research and come to your own conclusion. Good luck.
Can you please provide a template that how the affedevit should be. I mean is it possible you can provide the TEXT information of the affedevit that how it should be written.
2 affedevits mean One from Father and one from Mother right !!!!
I will let u know if my status has changed. Please keep in mind that what I said all along in this thread based on my experience. Do some more research and come to your own conclusion. Good luck.
Can you please provide a template that how the affedevit should be. I mean is it possible you can provide the TEXT information of the affedevit that how it should be written.
2 affedevits mean One from Father and one from Mother right !!!!
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
2011 Jill Scott looks phenomenal as
gotgc?
02-04 09:52 AM
My wife was allowed to travel on BA when she went from US to India. But when we were returning to US, the ticketing agent in India would not issue bording pass because Canadian PR can only be used if you are travelling to Canada and NOT to USA. The ticketing manager even called someone in London Airport to get the confirmation and after that they just denied my request even after showing the document that says Canada PR issues after Apr 2005 does not require transit visa.
I would say, get the visa to be on the safeside so that there will not be any troubles in the last minute.
Thanks deba and kk_kk...for sharing your expereince...based on what you guys say, the cheap deal i get with BA is not worth taking this risk. I am giving up on London transit..i will take Lufthansa or pacific route....thanks a lot again....
I would say, get the visa to be on the safeside so that there will not be any troubles in the last minute.
Thanks deba and kk_kk...for sharing your expereince...based on what you guys say, the cheap deal i get with BA is not worth taking this risk. I am giving up on London transit..i will take Lufthansa or pacific route....thanks a lot again....
more...
jprangi
08-04 11:28 PM
I know lot of people are waiting. But just want to tell you all the INS is moving forward may be slow. I just received my receipt notices today. My application reached INS on July second at 11:25 am. My checks have also been cashed.
Cheer up guys and keep you fingers crossed.
-Rangi
Cheer up guys and keep you fingers crossed.
-Rangi
wandmaker
11-21 04:10 PM
You ask your Ex-coworker to draft a letter with detailed duties and responsibilities and print it on his current companies letterhead. You dont have to get it notarized. I did issue a similar letter for one of my friend, it was long long ago, don't have the format yet. btw, i did not notarized, I just printed, signed and mailed.
more...
bkn96
02-18 02:09 PM
oh yeah! it is legal i know that... however, i consulted lawyers on this and they were of the opinion that it is best to have a straight case where you are working for a large us corp. essentially, uscis can question if the company has enough work to sustain employing a person on a "permanent basis". that "permanent basis" appears to be one of the criteria for approval of labor/perm, I140 etc... thats why my query to you. it seems ability to pay can also be a question, however, that is not supposed to be brought up during adjudication of 485... so you are safe there...
so, this is real cool... thanks for sharing your info...
My I140 is applied by another company and 140 already approved. So i think ability to pay question only comes during 140. So after I140 approved i think it is safe to go in this route.
so, this is real cool... thanks for sharing your info...
My I140 is applied by another company and 140 already approved. So i think ability to pay question only comes during 140. So after I140 approved i think it is safe to go in this route.
2010 Jill Scott is talking about
gcnotfiledyet
07-15 09:26 PM
I have my original I94 from when I entered on F-1. And now I have the I-94 attached to my H-1B. Which one do I hand in?
Both have same I-94 number with different visa class and expiry date. I think you have to hand the one that came with h1b. I think either way it will be in system since both I-94 have same number.
Both have same I-94 number with different visa class and expiry date. I think you have to hand the one that came with h1b. I think either way it will be in system since both I-94 have same number.
more...
hemasar
05-24 10:10 AM
I thought this would be the most appropriate place to post.
I am on my 3rd year of H1-B (non-technical field), just moved to a new company and was going to start my process toward getting a gc in the next month or so. Now, with all of this, I am very confused.
Do you folks think that it is most appropriate to sit tight and wait to see what happens? or to just go for it now?
I'd appreciate your input, as I have to make a decision soon.
If your employer is sponsoring your GC (LC and I140 by spending their money) then go for it.
I am on my 3rd year of H1-B (non-technical field), just moved to a new company and was going to start my process toward getting a gc in the next month or so. Now, with all of this, I am very confused.
Do you folks think that it is most appropriate to sit tight and wait to see what happens? or to just go for it now?
I'd appreciate your input, as I have to make a decision soon.
If your employer is sponsoring your GC (LC and I140 by spending their money) then go for it.
hair Flat#39; Jill Scott#39;s range)
up_guy
04-12 11:00 PM
I also have the same question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
more...
andy garcia
05-21 02:09 PM
Are you sure? it is going to be too much pain....
Check this memo: Elimination of Form I-688B (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ElimI688B_081806R.pdf)
Check this memo: Elimination of Form I-688B (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ElimI688B_081806R.pdf)
hot Jill talks jill scott son.
Ann Ruben
06-29 03:00 PM
Note that you cannot legally be required to reimburse certain immigration fees such as the $1500 or $750 ACWIA fee. Also,you cannot legally be required to reimburse USCIS filing fees and/or immigration related legal fees which, when subtracted from your salary, bring your salary below the required LCA wage.
more...
house photo of Singer Jill Scott
unseenguy
05-16 03:48 PM
Everything depends on your PD and how much time it will take to become current:
Scenario A: You are from EB3 India or China and PD later than Jun-05
In this case you can safely mark CP on your case at the time of filing I140. Always remember that it is going to take 4-6 months for a case to reach consulate, after I140 approval, when you mark CP on your I140. So if your PD will not become current in next 12-15 months, you are safe to choose this option. Because as soon as your PD is current you will get an appointment in consulate without additional fees of I824.
However, if there is a wild swing in visa bulletin like July 2007 fiasco, before your I140 is approved, then you can safely file I485.
Scenario B: You are EB2 China, PD of Jun-05.
At this time you do not have the option of filing I485, but it makes sense to mark I485 on the option & assuming your PD will be current soon. If the I140 gets approved and the PD still does not become current, like India was stuck in Jan-03 for long time, then you can take AC-I140 to the consulate the time PD gets current. If your I485 is stuck in admin processing for long time, despite a current PD, you can take AC-I140 to the consulate.
To Jun's questions: Police certificates & medical exams need to be done in home country. Personally I think, police certificates in India can be obtained pretty quickly. I personally have family ties in India, so they can get the process started when PD becomes current. I do not know about the delays in other countries.
Again choosing AOS or CP is a very tricky situation and depends on personal situation such as:
1) whether you need EAD/AP benefits for spouse or uourself.
2) your job prospects. Future and current. Vs job stability.
3) Your country and support from respective govt agencies.
On the face of it CP is not an attractive option but files must consider ACI140 and should try and get as many appointments as possible. Most EB based filers are financially secured and can afford additional expense of ACI140 & CP.
Scenario A: You are from EB3 India or China and PD later than Jun-05
In this case you can safely mark CP on your case at the time of filing I140. Always remember that it is going to take 4-6 months for a case to reach consulate, after I140 approval, when you mark CP on your I140. So if your PD will not become current in next 12-15 months, you are safe to choose this option. Because as soon as your PD is current you will get an appointment in consulate without additional fees of I824.
However, if there is a wild swing in visa bulletin like July 2007 fiasco, before your I140 is approved, then you can safely file I485.
Scenario B: You are EB2 China, PD of Jun-05.
At this time you do not have the option of filing I485, but it makes sense to mark I485 on the option & assuming your PD will be current soon. If the I140 gets approved and the PD still does not become current, like India was stuck in Jan-03 for long time, then you can take AC-I140 to the consulate the time PD gets current. If your I485 is stuck in admin processing for long time, despite a current PD, you can take AC-I140 to the consulate.
To Jun's questions: Police certificates & medical exams need to be done in home country. Personally I think, police certificates in India can be obtained pretty quickly. I personally have family ties in India, so they can get the process started when PD becomes current. I do not know about the delays in other countries.
Again choosing AOS or CP is a very tricky situation and depends on personal situation such as:
1) whether you need EAD/AP benefits for spouse or uourself.
2) your job prospects. Future and current. Vs job stability.
3) Your country and support from respective govt agencies.
On the face of it CP is not an attractive option but files must consider ACI140 and should try and get as many appointments as possible. Most EB based filers are financially secured and can afford additional expense of ACI140 & CP.
tattoo and Jill Scott definitely
gc_coming
07-18 07:04 PM
This is what my lawyer says : "When the I-140 is already approved, there is no need to submit such letter.
Only in the rare event that you have an interview at the time of
adjudication of your I-485, then you must bring a recently dated letter
stating such only for the purpose to reaffirm what they have already
approved on the I-140. Interviews for Employment based cases are issued
randomly. There is no reason to worry about this." Is it correct ?
Only in the rare event that you have an interview at the time of
adjudication of your I-485, then you must bring a recently dated letter
stating such only for the purpose to reaffirm what they have already
approved on the I-140. Interviews for Employment based cases are issued
randomly. There is no reason to worry about this." Is it correct ?
more...
pictures Jill Scott is rocking the
bigboy007
06-21 10:49 AM
but why are you so sure your 140 will be denied. USCIS will send u an RFE and also in worst NOID - Notice of Intent of Denial so that gives you enough room to decide on what should be done so that I140 wont be rejected.
Also : 140 gets rejected in following cases:
1. Degree compatability
2. Exp + degree in EB2
3. Financial ability of firm - this only with bad records
i dont see any other reason why 140 should be rejected i am not over optimistic but any one can comment on these it would great.
Also : 140 gets rejected in following cases:
1. Degree compatability
2. Exp + degree in EB2
3. Financial ability of firm - this only with bad records
i dont see any other reason why 140 should be rejected i am not over optimistic but any one can comment on these it would great.
dresses Jill Scott will be covering
desi3933
03-04 11:24 AM
....
My question is - how do we tackle the question if work status is EAD or GC because most times it is asked as a casual question before the interview or during the interview or after the interview.
....
The answer could be
"I have unrestricted employment authorization that allows me to work for any US employer just like green card holder" [example]
Employment can ask for valid employment authorization, but not for kind of employment authorization.
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/immdisc.htm)
[From the link]
The Immigration and Nationality Act (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/cgi-bin/leave-dol.asp?exiturl=http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm&exitTitle=Immigration_and_Nationality_Act&fedpage=yes) prohibits employers (when hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee) from discriminating because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens or discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of a aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylees.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
My question is - how do we tackle the question if work status is EAD or GC because most times it is asked as a casual question before the interview or during the interview or after the interview.
....
The answer could be
"I have unrestricted employment authorization that allows me to work for any US employer just like green card holder" [example]
Employment can ask for valid employment authorization, but not for kind of employment authorization.
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/immdisc.htm)
[From the link]
The Immigration and Nationality Act (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/cgi-bin/leave-dol.asp?exiturl=http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm&exitTitle=Immigration_and_Nationality_Act&fedpage=yes) prohibits employers (when hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee) from discriminating because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens or discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of a aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylees.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
more...
makeup A radiant Jill Scott covers
immilaw
09-22 11:33 AM
Exactly! disable free preview of forums to guests. That will propel the number of members. Even anti immigration folks will count towards the number as it will become inevitable for them to register.
I think the free preview should be limited to 2-3 messages after which they should be asked to register as a member.
I think the free preview should be limited to 2-3 messages after which they should be asked to register as a member.
girlfriend Jill Scott graces the cover of
desi3933
03-03 12:42 PM
LC approved in 2006, can I still apply for I-140?
No.
No.
hairstyles hairstyles JILL SCOTT AND HER SON HAVING jill scott son.
bkarnik
04-17 03:37 PM
But, even if you are being audited, you still would get a response within 60 days letting you know that your case is being audited. They need to do this because they need all the records from the company for auditing. This way the DOL can keep the statistics at an impressive level. My guess is that either this particular application has fallen through the cracks due to the initial IT issues or the lawyer and/or the employer have not bothered to let the employee know if they have received any information.
My 2 cents..
My 2 cents..
admin
05-18 11:21 AM
CNN-IBN covered our Issues at the Meet and Greet Event in Washington DC. Here is the full story -
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/fullbvideo.php?id=10788
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/fullbvideo.php?id=10788
amsgc
06-20 08:18 PM
Your status is valid only till the date on your most recent I-94. AFAIK, you have three options:
1) Re-enter the country before your current I-94 expires. OR
2) Go the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) office at the nearest international airport and have it corrected. They will update the duration of status in the system.
3) File for an extension with the USCIS
The advice given below is incorrect.
There is no need to change the date on I-94. As long as you have the I-797 approval petition you are good. When you leave the country, you MUSTgive the I-94 to the airline authorities. If you go to Mexico by road, there is no one to take your I-94 and so you will have illegally left the US - which can lead to problems. If you fly, you are fine!
But still, unless you are going on vacation, do not waste your money.
1) Re-enter the country before your current I-94 expires. OR
2) Go the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) office at the nearest international airport and have it corrected. They will update the duration of status in the system.
3) File for an extension with the USCIS
The advice given below is incorrect.
There is no need to change the date on I-94. As long as you have the I-797 approval petition you are good. When you leave the country, you MUSTgive the I-94 to the airline authorities. If you go to Mexico by road, there is no one to take your I-94 and so you will have illegally left the US - which can lead to problems. If you fly, you are fine!
But still, unless you are going on vacation, do not waste your money.
No comments:
Post a Comment