- Rolling Stone True Blood
- true blood rolling stone
- hair The stars of True Blood made a true blood rolling stone cover pic.
- true blood rolling stone
- true blood rolling stone
- true blood rolling stone cover
- Rolling Stone
- true blood rolling stones
- true blood rolling stone
- The cover of the Rolling Stone
- Snooki#39;s Rolling Stone cover
- FOR ROLLING STONE
- True+lood+rolling+stone+
- true blood rolling stone
- true blood rolling stones
- True Blood photo shoot
- True Blood#39;s Deborah Ann Woll
- In the latest issue of Rolling
- True+lood+rolling+stone+
images true blood rolling stones 
wallpaper Rolling Stone True Blood
2011 true blood rolling stone
more...
more...
2010 hair The stars of True Blood made a true blood rolling stone cover pic.
more...
hair true blood rolling stone
more...
hot true blood rolling stone
more...
house True Blood#39;s Deborah Ann Woll
tattoo true blood rolling stone cover
more...
pictures Rolling Stone
dresses FOR ROLLING STONE
more...
makeup true blood rolling stone
girlfriend true blood rolling stone
hairstyles Snooki#39;s Rolling Stone cover
Source URL: https://emostyles2011.blogspot.com/2011/02/true-blood-rolling-stone-photoshoot.html
Visit Emo Styles for daily updated Demi Lovato Gallery
andy garcia
06-15 03:12 PM
If its I-94# whatever is your latest number, from Actual I-94 card or I-94 attached with the latest H1 renewal/extention
The A# is assigned the first time that you apply for I-485.
It is not the number on I-94. That number is everytime they issue a new one when you enter the US.
The A# is assigned the first time that you apply for I-485.
It is not the number on I-94. That number is everytime they issue a new one when you enter the US.
wallpaper Rolling Stone True Blood
smads
03-07 10:42 AM
sorry guyz have still been trying to find out what needs to be done....
sendmailtojk,
i was on a vacation and boarded from australia....it was a unique situation....when i left my PP was valid for 7 months when i came back it was valid for 5 months....
watzgc,
I renewed my PP on time but never did anything about my I-94.
I did a lot of research and have some updates for everyone.
1) My lawyer says we file for a petition that typically asks for forgiveness so that i dont get a 3 yr bar. dont know what that petition is called but it translates as "now for then". [can only be prepared by a lawyer and would cost me $1000]
2)I spoke to an immigration officer and he said it is a very common mistake and most of the times they just question the person and let them go. he said not to worry abt the 3 yr bar. he also said that the 3 yr and 10yr bar is more for the tourist visas where people actually think they have a 10yr visa so they can stay here for 10 yrs.
And yes like watzgc he also said file for extention I-539 i think.[costs only $300, anyone can fill it out and send it to USCIS]
now lets see if my lawyer will go with what she thinks is right or will she go with what the immigration officer thinks needs to be done.
I also think that these lawyers try to scare us and get all fancy things done so that they can charge as much as they feel like.
thanks for being so prompt and sorry for not replying sooner,
smads
sendmailtojk,
i was on a vacation and boarded from australia....it was a unique situation....when i left my PP was valid for 7 months when i came back it was valid for 5 months....
watzgc,
I renewed my PP on time but never did anything about my I-94.
I did a lot of research and have some updates for everyone.
1) My lawyer says we file for a petition that typically asks for forgiveness so that i dont get a 3 yr bar. dont know what that petition is called but it translates as "now for then". [can only be prepared by a lawyer and would cost me $1000]
2)I spoke to an immigration officer and he said it is a very common mistake and most of the times they just question the person and let them go. he said not to worry abt the 3 yr bar. he also said that the 3 yr and 10yr bar is more for the tourist visas where people actually think they have a 10yr visa so they can stay here for 10 yrs.
And yes like watzgc he also said file for extention I-539 i think.[costs only $300, anyone can fill it out and send it to USCIS]
now lets see if my lawyer will go with what she thinks is right or will she go with what the immigration officer thinks needs to be done.
I also think that these lawyers try to scare us and get all fancy things done so that they can charge as much as they feel like.
thanks for being so prompt and sorry for not replying sooner,
smads
reverendflash
10-21 01:50 AM
I bow to all ya'll... :) You guys make my stuff look like a 3rd grader just threw up... :P
::bows, realizing he has 2 different colored socks on::
Rev:elderly:
::bows, realizing he has 2 different colored socks on::
Rev:elderly:
2011 true blood rolling stone
fromnaija
02-06 06:38 PM
Her H4 depends on my H1B validatity. Im said if i call AC21 using my EAD, then my H1B goes invalid and so her H4. Does this makes sense to you. Do you got other opinions ? If so let mw know. thanks.
EAD is not a status. It's just an authorization for employment. Since you have filed 485 you and your spouse are in adjustment and so I don't see how your using EAD to work invalidates her H4.
EAD is not a status. It's just an authorization for employment. Since you have filed 485 you and your spouse are in adjustment and so I don't see how your using EAD to work invalidates her H4.
more...
chanduv23
06-16 07:53 AM
Pre adjucted is so misleading a term.....as someone else pointed out earlier in another thread.....pre adjucted does not necessarily mean you are all set to go, the moment visa becomes available you will be given one without any questions...
when the visa becomes available (10 years down the lane), we will then send out an RFE (if we choose) asking you for employment verification....and a "few" other things -:)
so what is pre adjucted.......:rolleyes:
I have seen a letter from USCIS after a congressional enquiry that the "485 is pre-adjudicated and waiting for a visa number"
when the visa becomes available (10 years down the lane), we will then send out an RFE (if we choose) asking you for employment verification....and a "few" other things -:)
so what is pre adjucted.......:rolleyes:
I have seen a letter from USCIS after a congressional enquiry that the "485 is pre-adjudicated and waiting for a visa number"
I-485 approval
08-21 04:56 PM
Hello Prashanthi
Thanks for your valuable input.
Thanks for your valuable input.
more...
forever
08-03 10:48 PM
What do you think..I would not have done that before posting that:)
I still don't see it...hope its not my cache issue. Will clear it and try again.
Here is the link.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
I still don't see it...hope its not my cache issue. Will clear it and try again.
Here is the link.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
2010 hair The stars of True Blood made a true blood rolling stone cover pic.
UKannan
05-23 09:24 AM
Is there anyway to get the I140 Approval or at least the Receipt # other than that off thru employer?
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hair true blood rolling stone
pappu
08-24 07:18 PM
are they from same EB catagory? or different?I like many others got a PERM labor & got 140 based on PERM labor.
Recenty , I applied 485 (based on this 140 )in this mad rush
Meanwhile, I have also received Labor approval ( from the same employer) from backlog center with an EARLIER PD .
The question is ..... Can I change the PD based on EARLIER PD after I have filed 485 ?????
I am sure many of us double PDs & might need to find an answer to this ?
can someone help ??
Thanks
Recenty , I applied 485 (based on this 140 )in this mad rush
Meanwhile, I have also received Labor approval ( from the same employer) from backlog center with an EARLIER PD .
The question is ..... Can I change the PD based on EARLIER PD after I have filed 485 ?????
I am sure many of us double PDs & might need to find an answer to this ?
can someone help ??
Thanks
more...
reddymjm
04-24 09:32 AM
Good Question. Why no one from IV posted that yet?
hot true blood rolling stone
vphope
04-04 12:22 PM
Is attorney not in the loop?
Why didnt he get any info?
Are we supposed to be monitoring all these...:mad:
Why didnt he get any info?
Are we supposed to be monitoring all these...:mad:
more...
house True Blood#39;s Deborah Ann Woll
nc14
08-28 04:08 PM
I am sure IV (which is WE) do not need sarcasm (asli_vdl_rao or what ever). Also, I think IV very much needs guys like you leoindiano and a recurring $25 contribution is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. You have been a great proponent of this cause by supporting it
What do you say leoindiano?
What do you say leoindiano?
tattoo true blood rolling stone cover
keepwalking
05-22 09:58 PM
Can you please prefix "Tracker:" to the thread's title.
Thank You.
Greetings,
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
Thank You.
Greetings,
In brief, I have applied for I-485 when I was single and now priority dates are current. I need to add my spouse. Do I need to apply for I-485 for myself again? Below are the timelines.
Thanks in advance.
In August 2006.
1. Employer A
2. I was Single.
3. Files I-140 and I-485 concurrently.
4. Schedule A expired.
5. Application moved to Eb3.
In June 2007
1.Employer B (Moved in June 2007 via H1b transfer).
Married in 2008.
April 2010.
1. Employer B.
2. New I-140 filed in EB2, approved.
3. Ported EB3 PD of Aug 2006.
May 2011.
1. PD will be current in June 2011.
2. I need apply I-485 for my spouse.
Do I need to re-apply for I-485 and G-235a for the principal applicant.
more...
pictures Rolling Stone
lee.cook
May 20th, 2007, 12:33 PM
Hello,
I seemed to have fixed the problem, my father has a Nikon D40x and we read his manual on cleaning, since the D40 and the "X" are very similar.
We cleaned the low pass filter I believe, by using the mirror lock-up option in the camera.
I am now very very happy there is no dirt :)
This thread can be locked or deleted.
I seemed to have fixed the problem, my father has a Nikon D40x and we read his manual on cleaning, since the D40 and the "X" are very similar.
We cleaned the low pass filter I believe, by using the mirror lock-up option in the camera.
I am now very very happy there is no dirt :)
This thread can be locked or deleted.
dresses FOR ROLLING STONE
abhisam
07-10 12:52 PM
I am in the same boat..
If we have a gap between the expiry and new EAD card,
we should not work thats for sure,
but wont have any issues of going out of status during the gap?
Are you the primary applicant? My husband is the primary applicant in our case, so i believe we will not have an issue of going out of status.
If we have a gap between the expiry and new EAD card,
we should not work thats for sure,
but wont have any issues of going out of status during the gap?
Are you the primary applicant? My husband is the primary applicant in our case, so i believe we will not have an issue of going out of status.
more...
makeup true blood rolling stone
rvendra
05-18 02:11 PM
My case is EB 2 Dec 15th 2003 is priority date. I have filed my I 485 in August 2007. Still my case is pending more than 3 1/2 years. I have tried all possable options. Nothing is wokring out. Just simply telling background check is pending. Can you somebdoy helpme out other than WOM.
Thank you for your help
Raj
Thank you for your help
Raj
girlfriend true blood rolling stone
gc_chahiye
10-09 04:22 PM
Hi,
I called up and spoke to the IO and asked him about the rejection of I-485 due to old fees and he defended that the application would be rejected without the new fee, I tried to explain him about the July bulletin 107 and that people who were on employment based category and whose dates were current should have used only the OLD FEES till August 17th, he did not agree about it and I did not force the issue!
If the IO officers don't agree about the right facts how would the people who just check the fee! I am sure that is why my application was rejected!
I am not sure what to do! Can somebody suggest anything!
How to let those people know that when we applied in August there was a bulletin which said that we can apply with old fee!
ask them to look at Questions 7 and 9 in USCISs own FAQ related to 485 filing and the July VB:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf [pdf]
Q7: Which fees apply to I-765 and I-131 applications associated with AOS applications filed on or after July 30th under the July Bulletin?
A7. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107. These fees will remain in effect for all such applications filed between July 17 � August 17, 2007.
Q9: Will customers eligible to file adjustment applications under July Visa Bulletin No. 107 have the option to pay the NEW filings fees in connection with adjustment applications filed on or after July 30, 2007 and on or before August 17, 2007?
A9. No, customers will not have the option of paying the new filing fees for adjustment applications.
USCIS has determined that aliens in employment-based categories filing applications pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107 should be subject to the pre-July 30, 2007 fees as that fee schedule would have applied had aliens been allowed to file throughout the month of July
I called up and spoke to the IO and asked him about the rejection of I-485 due to old fees and he defended that the application would be rejected without the new fee, I tried to explain him about the July bulletin 107 and that people who were on employment based category and whose dates were current should have used only the OLD FEES till August 17th, he did not agree about it and I did not force the issue!
If the IO officers don't agree about the right facts how would the people who just check the fee! I am sure that is why my application was rejected!
I am not sure what to do! Can somebody suggest anything!
How to let those people know that when we applied in August there was a bulletin which said that we can apply with old fee!
ask them to look at Questions 7 and 9 in USCISs own FAQ related to 485 filing and the July VB:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf [pdf]
Q7: Which fees apply to I-765 and I-131 applications associated with AOS applications filed on or after July 30th under the July Bulletin?
A7. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107. These fees will remain in effect for all such applications filed between July 17 � August 17, 2007.
Q9: Will customers eligible to file adjustment applications under July Visa Bulletin No. 107 have the option to pay the NEW filings fees in connection with adjustment applications filed on or after July 30, 2007 and on or before August 17, 2007?
A9. No, customers will not have the option of paying the new filing fees for adjustment applications.
USCIS has determined that aliens in employment-based categories filing applications pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107 should be subject to the pre-July 30, 2007 fees as that fee schedule would have applied had aliens been allowed to file throughout the month of July
hairstyles Snooki#39;s Rolling Stone cover
itsmesabby
07-06 02:57 PM
Using AP does not change one's immigration status. It is just a travel document. You will continue to maintain your H1-B even if you use the AP to re-enter.
Using AP has no relation to using EAD. I have confirmed this with my attorney as well.
Using AP has no relation to using EAD. I have confirmed this with my attorney as well.
eb3retro
08-30 12:38 PM
My PD is 2002 Aug
hi redhat..
welcome to IV. looks like you joined IV recently. I hope you will get answers for your questions here and will come out of this RFE mess. Please do consider abt giving IV (and yourself) a hand in the Washington Rally. All the best.
hi redhat..
welcome to IV. looks like you joined IV recently. I hope you will get answers for your questions here and will come out of this RFE mess. Please do consider abt giving IV (and yourself) a hand in the Washington Rally. All the best.
validIV
04-16 11:46 AM
See my answers in red
I did not wan to create a separate thread since I have similar questions:
My situation:
US pharmD graduating in may 09
H1B approved ( start oct 09)
OPT not approved yet
Married to F-1
child born in US
Country- Gabon (both)
city- nashville TN
Company-CVS
Facts:
My company told me I qualify for GC sponsoring after 90 days of full time as pharmacist and to just buzz them when I am ready. I will be full time rx on my OPT, which shoudl come out before graduation.
I pass my boards in June, I should be go to go for GC filing as soon as October.
Questions:
1. is changing address within the same city affect GC procress? Its not a big deal, people do it all the time. Its a two step process, much easier if you have a lawyer file your applications since they will usually get copies of all correspondences with USCIS and they will take care of this for you. If you are self filing, you will need to take care of both steps yourself. See this: https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa
2. What r the pros and cons of filing GC that early into employment?The earlier the better. The CVS guy told me usually people prefer to wait longer before filing for GC. why? Corporations and businesses do not make it a habit to file GC/PERM apps for their employees if they are only temp or on probationary periods. Normally when they hire someone, they are on probation with the company for a year or so. If they like your work they will keep you and file your application for permanent residency. So normally businesses dont file your GC app until after 6 or 12 months. With CVS, consult your supervisor what the standard filing procedure is. Do not overstep the company policies and file yourself. You need them to file it for you when they are ready and willing.
3. When GC filing start can I include my husband from the start with his F1 status or do we have to switch him to H4 status first?. Does not matter what status your husbands is in as long as it is valid. You can research the pros and cons of H4 vs F1 yourself, that alone is another thread's worth of discussion. You specifiy your husband as a dependant of your GC application usually at the last step before your I485 approval, when your PD becomes current.
4. any suggestion, that you think I can benefit from on how to approach is welcomed. I 've been F1 for 5-6 years now..just looking forward to ending my life as an international student, but I don't want to rush into things out of ignorance. I was in the same boat as you, coming from F-1 to H-1. You are doing the right thing by expanding your knowledge base and asking people. Work hard at what you do and follow up once your application is filed. With the economy the hardest part is finding a job that will sponsor H-1 but youve already gone beyond that point.
I did not wan to create a separate thread since I have similar questions:
My situation:
US pharmD graduating in may 09
H1B approved ( start oct 09)
OPT not approved yet
Married to F-1
child born in US
Country- Gabon (both)
city- nashville TN
Company-CVS
Facts:
My company told me I qualify for GC sponsoring after 90 days of full time as pharmacist and to just buzz them when I am ready. I will be full time rx on my OPT, which shoudl come out before graduation.
I pass my boards in June, I should be go to go for GC filing as soon as October.
Questions:
1. is changing address within the same city affect GC procress? Its not a big deal, people do it all the time. Its a two step process, much easier if you have a lawyer file your applications since they will usually get copies of all correspondences with USCIS and they will take care of this for you. If you are self filing, you will need to take care of both steps yourself. See this: https://egov.uscis.gov/crisgwi/go?action=coa
2. What r the pros and cons of filing GC that early into employment?The earlier the better. The CVS guy told me usually people prefer to wait longer before filing for GC. why? Corporations and businesses do not make it a habit to file GC/PERM apps for their employees if they are only temp or on probationary periods. Normally when they hire someone, they are on probation with the company for a year or so. If they like your work they will keep you and file your application for permanent residency. So normally businesses dont file your GC app until after 6 or 12 months. With CVS, consult your supervisor what the standard filing procedure is. Do not overstep the company policies and file yourself. You need them to file it for you when they are ready and willing.
3. When GC filing start can I include my husband from the start with his F1 status or do we have to switch him to H4 status first?. Does not matter what status your husbands is in as long as it is valid. You can research the pros and cons of H4 vs F1 yourself, that alone is another thread's worth of discussion. You specifiy your husband as a dependant of your GC application usually at the last step before your I485 approval, when your PD becomes current.
4. any suggestion, that you think I can benefit from on how to approach is welcomed. I 've been F1 for 5-6 years now..just looking forward to ending my life as an international student, but I don't want to rush into things out of ignorance. I was in the same boat as you, coming from F-1 to H-1. You are doing the right thing by expanding your knowledge base and asking people. Work hard at what you do and follow up once your application is filed. With the economy the hardest part is finding a job that will sponsor H-1 but youve already gone beyond that point.
Source URL: https://emostyles2011.blogspot.com/2011/02/true-blood-rolling-stone-photoshoot.html
Visit Emo Styles for daily updated Demi Lovato Gallery
.jpg)
