b2visahelp
07-09 04:41 PM
1. My parents included their Indonesian bank statement in rupiah. And they went to US embassy in Jakarta, their hometown. Does it make a difference to go to other city after they got rejected twice? If so, which one?
2. I had never gone back to Indonesia since I got the asylum. I'm not supposed to although I have already got my greencard. In fact, VO asked them if I ever went back to Indonesia. And my parents said no.
3. I didn't include my US bank statement because my parents self-sponsor themselves. I don't have much anyway to sponsor them.
Please let me know your advice. Thank you so much.
2. I had never gone back to Indonesia since I got the asylum. I'm not supposed to although I have already got my greencard. In fact, VO asked them if I ever went back to Indonesia. And my parents said no.
3. I didn't include my US bank statement because my parents self-sponsor themselves. I don't have much anyway to sponsor them.
Please let me know your advice. Thank you so much.
wallpaper 5.4L Ford Lightning engine
fatboysam
02-01 08:50 AM
Congrats
kprgroup
08-10 09:02 AM
Good Morning,
I went to the uscis local office. The officer told my case SRC-****7236 (765) Renewal was denied on 06/25/2010. He didn’t have the denial details. He told he will send an email to Texas USCIS asking the details. He also told my 485 motion approved and my recent travel document approved but strange that they denied EAD.
Unfortunately we (Myself & Lawyer) never received a denial notice.
My EAD is expiring sep 3rd. I know mostly they denied by without seeing my 485 motion approval.I am requesting denial notice by opening SR
Help me and suggest to overcome this SITUATION (Another wrong denial by USCIS.)
Thanks
KPR
-----------------
Background OF Myself
----------------------
1)Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
2)Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
3)September 2008 I have Joined employer “B” by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
4)Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denials in October 2008.
5)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
I went to the uscis local office. The officer told my case SRC-****7236 (765) Renewal was denied on 06/25/2010. He didn’t have the denial details. He told he will send an email to Texas USCIS asking the details. He also told my 485 motion approved and my recent travel document approved but strange that they denied EAD.
Unfortunately we (Myself & Lawyer) never received a denial notice.
My EAD is expiring sep 3rd. I know mostly they denied by without seeing my 485 motion approval.I am requesting denial notice by opening SR
Help me and suggest to overcome this SITUATION (Another wrong denial by USCIS.)
Thanks
KPR
-----------------
Background OF Myself
----------------------
1)Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
2)Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
3)September 2008 I have Joined employer “B” by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
4)Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denials in October 2008.
5)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
2011 1999-04 Ford Lightning 3Pc
mnkaushik
06-04 04:57 PM
Slightly off topic. But do we need to send our original BC if we are sponsoring someone other than your parents. I am in the process of sponsoring my aunt and would like to know if i need to send my orginal BC. Sorry for going off topic.
more...
vallabhu
09-16 02:59 PM
Done
waitnwatch
11-09 11:36 AM
Mr. Dobbs at it again....spinning it his way. This is so pathetic that it isn't even amusing.
Here's the link http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/08/Dobbs.Nov9/index.html
The relevant sections are below.....He's so desperate that he puts up his nativist colors on full display by equating English to a vote against illegal immigration. Really clutching at straws.
He fails to say that Jon Kyl is not the strident anti-immigrant that Graf and Hayworth are. Does he not get the message? Or is he just "staying the course."
-----------------------------------------------
Take for example the state of Arizona, where voters sorted through 19 ballot initiatives, eight House races, one Senate race and chose a governor. Arizona voters approved four separate measures that revealed their frustration with the endless influx of illegal aliens into that state, including one measure that makes English the official language of Arizona. And don't think that the vote was an expression of social conservatism: Arizona also became the first state in the country's history to reject a ban on same-sex marriage, the only state among eight to do so this November.
Arizonans re-elected Senator John Kyl, who co-sponsored tough legislation to establish border security and reject illegal immigration. At the same time, they refused to send anti-illegal immigration candidates Randy Graf and incumbent J.D. Hayworth to Washington.
-------------------------------------------
Here's the link http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/08/Dobbs.Nov9/index.html
The relevant sections are below.....He's so desperate that he puts up his nativist colors on full display by equating English to a vote against illegal immigration. Really clutching at straws.
He fails to say that Jon Kyl is not the strident anti-immigrant that Graf and Hayworth are. Does he not get the message? Or is he just "staying the course."
-----------------------------------------------
Take for example the state of Arizona, where voters sorted through 19 ballot initiatives, eight House races, one Senate race and chose a governor. Arizona voters approved four separate measures that revealed their frustration with the endless influx of illegal aliens into that state, including one measure that makes English the official language of Arizona. And don't think that the vote was an expression of social conservatism: Arizona also became the first state in the country's history to reject a ban on same-sex marriage, the only state among eight to do so this November.
Arizonans re-elected Senator John Kyl, who co-sponsored tough legislation to establish border security and reject illegal immigration. At the same time, they refused to send anti-illegal immigration candidates Randy Graf and incumbent J.D. Hayworth to Washington.
-------------------------------------------
more...
pasupuleti
09-25 05:25 PM
It was't a federal loan. Also it is just co-signing for a citizen.
About discover card, i told them it is just thier loss.:)
Discover Card is a bit picky...I applied a second time around and they approved it.
Student loans - federal loans require full citizenship.
About discover card, i told them it is just thier loss.:)
Discover Card is a bit picky...I applied a second time around and they approved it.
Student loans - federal loans require full citizenship.
2010 2002 Ford F-150 Lightning
simple1
10-06 03:43 PM
This is a fake post, read it carefully. There is clear fact gaps.
Explaining fact gaps will train them to create queries that look real.
just a humble question.. whats wrong in responding to this kind of posts. i dont see anything wrong in suggesting or helping other people like us.
atleast he is not posting anything bad against IV or any religion or anything negative.
MC
Explaining fact gaps will train them to create queries that look real.
just a humble question.. whats wrong in responding to this kind of posts. i dont see anything wrong in suggesting or helping other people like us.
atleast he is not posting anything bad against IV or any religion or anything negative.
MC
more...
Googler
06-18 08:23 PM
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
please please stop reading the old bill
the new one is on the iv home page
or in thomas look at sa.1150 under the s.1358 bill
Thanks for pointing that out Paskal. I stand corrected.
S.A. 1150 Section 216 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:2:./temp/~r110MkRgxl:e138316:) says:
SEC. 216. STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS.
(a) INFORMATION SHARING; INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--Section 105 (8 U.S.C. 1105) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General shall establish an interagency task force to resolve cases in which an application or petition for an immigration benefit conferred under this Act has been delayed due to an outstanding background check investigation for more than 2 years after the date on which such application or petition was initially filed.
``(2) MEMBERSHIP.--The interagency task force established under paragraph (1) shall include representatives from Federal agencies with immigration, law enforcement, or national security responsibilities under this Act.''.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year, 2008 through 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications.
(c) REPORT ON BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the background and security checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) CONTENT.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) a description of the background and security check program;
(B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications;
(C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin; and
(D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.
Doesn't promise any results and it is not clear if this extra appropriations will be used for the much ballyhooed transformation that Michael Cannon says might kick in in 2010, or for clearing the current backlog BUT is much better than trying to take away the right to file mandamus suits. Also leads us to believe that 180 days is the acceptable amount of time for a namecheck.
hair Ford Lightning?
desidas
01-22 12:30 AM
Looks like Immigration Officers at Port of Entry are asking the AP entry individuals if they are still working from the GC sponsoring company.
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
more...
amsgc
04-22 09:05 PM
I was just going over PERM data (http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx) for FY 2005 and 2006. I found that 19,515 cases were approved for India, for cases filed between March 2005-Dec 31 2005. This includes EB2 and EB3. This is smaller than what I was expecting.
Anybody have any data on LCs approved (India) for cases filed b/w Jan 04-Mar05?
Anybody have any data on LCs approved (India) for cases filed b/w Jan 04-Mar05?
hot Ron E#39;s F150 Lightning
black_logs
04-12 04:09 PM
Labor substitution is bad for those who can't find one and good for those who found one. I didn't find one so it's bad for me. But 1 thing the DOL came up with the substitution rule is that 45 days labor expiry rule. Just can't believe the administration can harrass people to that level. When labor substitution is in place what's the point of this 45 days rule ???
more...
house 2003 Ford F-150 Lightning
ChainReaction
02-21 12:15 PM
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp
that is for last month updated jan 17,2007 not for feb?
that is for last month updated jan 17,2007 not for feb?
tattoo 928 Motor Sports Billet
leoindiano
08-03 12:22 PM
what to you mean by 485 fingerprinting?
Is it just getting it done or any other issue relating to this...
Just getting it done...Some os us didnt get notice at all
Is it just getting it done or any other issue relating to this...
Just getting it done...Some os us didnt get notice at all
more...
pictures 2001 Ford F-150 SVT Lightning
rbachu21
02-03 12:04 AM
Is your FOIA request completed? Did you get your I-140 Approval Notice? If yes, how long did it take?
dresses ford f150 lightning,
sanjay02
08-22 03:07 PM
Doesnt make sense to pay $2500 for retaining the lawyer, they are trying to squeeze maximum out of you. If you are changing employer ask if the new company has an immigration lawyer and you can have him for your services. If they dont have any one you can engage services of your own immigration lawyer and have the new lawyer sign the G-28 form. Also please post the name of law firm and your employer so that others can be cautious.
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
more...
makeup 1994 ford lightning
abhijitp
01-27 11:47 AM
^^
girlfriend The motor is a 351 Ford
cbpds
06-08 02:52 PM
Appreciate your response kondur, we have submitted the original I94, hence we shd be fine.
In my opinion, you do not really have to. here are a few points (to the best of my knowledge):
1. Surrendering I 94 establishes the day/date when you left US.
2. If you have more than one I 94 (from the same entry), the "white one" will be attached to your passport and others (that came with extension or change of status) will be attached to your approval notices. THEY ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAME NUMBER. So, technically you have to surrender them all when you leave the country, but if you surrender any one of them, it still establishes the same thing and you do not need to do anything about the rest.
3. If you forgot to return I 94 altogether, keep a record of your leaving US on specific date (copy of boarding passes, passport stamp of entry in another country etc) and you can use that as an evidence of leaving in time (if asked about it in future). OR you can return your I 94 at a laterdate with these copies attached to USCIS.
I have not heard of anyone getting in trouble because of not returning I 94 (please correct me on this if any of you have heard of it) - as long as they did not overstay.
In my opinion, you do not really have to. here are a few points (to the best of my knowledge):
1. Surrendering I 94 establishes the day/date when you left US.
2. If you have more than one I 94 (from the same entry), the "white one" will be attached to your passport and others (that came with extension or change of status) will be attached to your approval notices. THEY ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAME NUMBER. So, technically you have to surrender them all when you leave the country, but if you surrender any one of them, it still establishes the same thing and you do not need to do anything about the rest.
3. If you forgot to return I 94 altogether, keep a record of your leaving US on specific date (copy of boarding passes, passport stamp of entry in another country etc) and you can use that as an evidence of leaving in time (if asked about it in future). OR you can return your I 94 at a laterdate with these copies attached to USCIS.
I have not heard of anyone getting in trouble because of not returning I 94 (please correct me on this if any of you have heard of it) - as long as they did not overstay.
hairstyles 2004 Ford F-150 SVT Lightning
gauravster
01-20 11:27 AM
As far as my understanding goes, EB1/2/3 is fairly recent, 15-20 year pehnomemon. As such getting examples of people who have been extremely successful post getting the visa is going to be difficult. Even for Harvard reunions, usually it is only at the 25th reunion (among a few thousand people) that you have some very successful people, in a 10-15 year span, getting extremely successful(to have your name in newspapers every other day) is like a 1 in 100,000 chance. Even with EB1s.
gc_lover
06-28 03:44 PM
O MY GOD !! You are so right............guys.. check out Rajiv Khanna's web site, Check out Sheela Murthy's web site, USCIS.....everyone is saying the same.........we are royally screwed. God Helppppppppppp
It's not funny!
It's not funny!
desi3933
01-31 06:39 PM
hi beuhler....if i understand your reply correctly, you meant that as long as there is proof that your marraige date(marraige certificate) is prior to gc approval notice...there is 6 months to file for the i485 for the wife even though she may be in india at the time of marraige?
There is no 6 months requirement. PERIOD.
As long as dependent relationship existed at the time of I-485 approval, she can either file I-485 (if in USA) or can file in home country for immigrant visa (follow to join).
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
There is no 6 months requirement. PERIOD.
As long as dependent relationship existed at the time of I-485 approval, she can either file I-485 (if in USA) or can file in home country for immigrant visa (follow to join).
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
No comments:
Post a Comment