Canadianindian
02-10 07:30 PM
Did you file for I-485? If so, what is the address mentioned in the I-485 application? If it is US address, then you should be residing at that address.
I-485 application indicates that beneficiary is residing in the USA and applying for adjustment of status.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
The address on 485 is a US address. I was in Jersey City when my firm applied for 485. However, subsequent to 180 days of filing, I transferred to Detroit practive with the same firm. And, I provided my cousin's address in Detroit where I lived temporarily. Subsequent to that, I moved to Windsor, Canada, because it is a nicer place to live.
I did consult with my attorney at that time, and she suggested that it is fine for me to live in Canada.
Your suggestions?
I-485 application indicates that beneficiary is residing in the USA and applying for adjustment of status.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
The address on 485 is a US address. I was in Jersey City when my firm applied for 485. However, subsequent to 180 days of filing, I transferred to Detroit practive with the same firm. And, I provided my cousin's address in Detroit where I lived temporarily. Subsequent to that, I moved to Windsor, Canada, because it is a nicer place to live.
I did consult with my attorney at that time, and she suggested that it is fine for me to live in Canada.
Your suggestions?
wallpaper Though salwar kameez in
pappu
02-23 08:07 AM
Even mighty economist prints article saying that immigration reform is knocking at the door , am not sure without a paid subscription whether u can read this , am positng the link and cannot copy paste the article as that will surely be a copyright violation . http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8746356
Immigration
One more shove
Feb 22nd 2007 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
Congress is once again preparing to deal with the immigration mess
THE most dismal failure of the dismal 109th Congress was the non-reform of immigration. This is one of America's most chronic problems, with 12m illegal immigrants living in the shadows, more streaming over the border every day and many border towns buckling under the strain of so many non-citizens. Public pressure to “do something” is intense.
George Bush pushed hard for “comprehensive” immigration reform (meaning a combination of a path to citizenship for illegals and tougher border enforcement). John McCain and Teddy Kennedy crafted a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate by 62 to 36. But then the Republican-dominated House wrecked the whole thing in a fit of crude nativism.
Thankfully, the reformers have not been deterred. There has been a great deal of “scurrying about” behind the scenes, according to one insider. An odd coalition of business groups, trade unions and civil-rights organisations is pushing hard for reform under the umbrella of the Alliance for Immigration Reform 2007. An equally odd coalition of White House operatives, Democratic leaders and reform-minded Republicans is also working in the same direction. A new version of the McCain-Kennedy bill could be launched as early as mid-March. And Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, the two parties' leaders in the Senate, have said that immigration will be one of the first ten bills they will consider. This time the chances of success are higher than last.
The main reason is the new Democratic majority in the House. The most virulent opposition to reform came from Republican House members who were obsessed with cracking down on illegals and building a 700-mile (1,125km) fence along the border with Mexico. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, Zoe Lofgren, the head of the sub-committee on immigration, thinks a deal is at least a possibility.
The reformers are also adopting a tougher tone. The new McCain-Kennedy bill will put more emphasis on beefing up the border, punishing errant employers, enforcing the law and assimilating new immigrants. It will also try to rebut Republican charges that it rewards lawbreaking and offers amnesty. Two current ideas are to impose a hefty fine (up to $5,000) on illegal immigrants who want to become legal, and to make illegals return to their countries of origin (“touching base”, in the jargon) in order to apply for legal entry.
The reason for this toughness is that comprehensive reform has little chance of passing both Houses on the backs of Democrats alone. A significant number of so-called blue-dog Democrats from conservative districts have every reason to steer clear of such controversial legislation. There is also a strong undercurrent of protectionism in the Democratic Party, which suspects immigrants of holding down American wages and stealing American jobs. Insiders calculate that they need about 20 Republican votes in the Senate and 40 in the House.
The reformers will have to overcome some big political and practical problems. Why should Democrats co-operate with Mr Bush on immigration, when they can wait until they capture the White House in 2008 and solidify their lead among immigrants for a generation to come? And why should congressional Republicans change their minds on this most emotive of issues? The vast majority of these members represent white conservative voters who regard immigration reform as a reward for breaking the law and a guarantee of the “Mexification” of American culture. The minority who represent more mixed districts are well aware that 70% of Latinos voted Democratic in 2006.
The practical problem is that the proposed bill will become so tough that it is self-defeating. Why should illegal immigrants come out of the shadows if they have to “touch base” and put themselves in the hands of America's notoriously slow and inept bureaucracy? And why, for that matter, should liberal interest groups support a bill that might seem punitive?
AP
Still, it would be a mistake to write the reformers off. The Democratic leadership risks provoking a backlash if it refuses to put its weight behind the bill, particularly among Latinos, who desperately want the mess cleared up. And the Republican Party also contains some powerful pro-immigration forces. American business strongly favours immigration reform: parts of the economy such as hotels and agribusiness depend on immigrant labour. “Big tent” Republicans also favour reform.
Karl Rove, Mr Bush's chief strategist, has long pointed out that it is stupid to alienate America's fastest-growing minority—particularly one as culturally conservative as the Latinos. In a swathe of states that Republicans need to retain the presidency, their numbers are crucial: New Mexico is 43% Latino, Texas 35%, Nevada 24%, Florida and Colorado 20%.
The November elections have also strengthened the hand of the big-tent Republicans. Several high-profile immigrant-bashers, such as Arizona's J.D. Hayworth and Indiana's John Hostetler, lost their elections. And John Boehner, who was one of only 17 House Republicans to vote against the party's border-protection act, has become minority leader.
Over the next few months everything will depend on the delicate politics of bipartisanship. Immigration reform gives both sides the chance to blame the other for failure. But it also gives both sides a chance to share the praise for a wrenching but necessary reform. The stakes for everybody involved, not least 12m illegal immigrants, could hardly be higher.
===
Letters to the editor
Send an e-mail to letters@economist.com to comment on this article you have read in The Economist or on Economist.com requesting them to cover IV and its issues
Immigration
One more shove
Feb 22nd 2007 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
Congress is once again preparing to deal with the immigration mess
THE most dismal failure of the dismal 109th Congress was the non-reform of immigration. This is one of America's most chronic problems, with 12m illegal immigrants living in the shadows, more streaming over the border every day and many border towns buckling under the strain of so many non-citizens. Public pressure to “do something” is intense.
George Bush pushed hard for “comprehensive” immigration reform (meaning a combination of a path to citizenship for illegals and tougher border enforcement). John McCain and Teddy Kennedy crafted a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate by 62 to 36. But then the Republican-dominated House wrecked the whole thing in a fit of crude nativism.
Thankfully, the reformers have not been deterred. There has been a great deal of “scurrying about” behind the scenes, according to one insider. An odd coalition of business groups, trade unions and civil-rights organisations is pushing hard for reform under the umbrella of the Alliance for Immigration Reform 2007. An equally odd coalition of White House operatives, Democratic leaders and reform-minded Republicans is also working in the same direction. A new version of the McCain-Kennedy bill could be launched as early as mid-March. And Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, the two parties' leaders in the Senate, have said that immigration will be one of the first ten bills they will consider. This time the chances of success are higher than last.
The main reason is the new Democratic majority in the House. The most virulent opposition to reform came from Republican House members who were obsessed with cracking down on illegals and building a 700-mile (1,125km) fence along the border with Mexico. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, Zoe Lofgren, the head of the sub-committee on immigration, thinks a deal is at least a possibility.
The reformers are also adopting a tougher tone. The new McCain-Kennedy bill will put more emphasis on beefing up the border, punishing errant employers, enforcing the law and assimilating new immigrants. It will also try to rebut Republican charges that it rewards lawbreaking and offers amnesty. Two current ideas are to impose a hefty fine (up to $5,000) on illegal immigrants who want to become legal, and to make illegals return to their countries of origin (“touching base”, in the jargon) in order to apply for legal entry.
The reason for this toughness is that comprehensive reform has little chance of passing both Houses on the backs of Democrats alone. A significant number of so-called blue-dog Democrats from conservative districts have every reason to steer clear of such controversial legislation. There is also a strong undercurrent of protectionism in the Democratic Party, which suspects immigrants of holding down American wages and stealing American jobs. Insiders calculate that they need about 20 Republican votes in the Senate and 40 in the House.
The reformers will have to overcome some big political and practical problems. Why should Democrats co-operate with Mr Bush on immigration, when they can wait until they capture the White House in 2008 and solidify their lead among immigrants for a generation to come? And why should congressional Republicans change their minds on this most emotive of issues? The vast majority of these members represent white conservative voters who regard immigration reform as a reward for breaking the law and a guarantee of the “Mexification” of American culture. The minority who represent more mixed districts are well aware that 70% of Latinos voted Democratic in 2006.
The practical problem is that the proposed bill will become so tough that it is self-defeating. Why should illegal immigrants come out of the shadows if they have to “touch base” and put themselves in the hands of America's notoriously slow and inept bureaucracy? And why, for that matter, should liberal interest groups support a bill that might seem punitive?
AP
Still, it would be a mistake to write the reformers off. The Democratic leadership risks provoking a backlash if it refuses to put its weight behind the bill, particularly among Latinos, who desperately want the mess cleared up. And the Republican Party also contains some powerful pro-immigration forces. American business strongly favours immigration reform: parts of the economy such as hotels and agribusiness depend on immigrant labour. “Big tent” Republicans also favour reform.
Karl Rove, Mr Bush's chief strategist, has long pointed out that it is stupid to alienate America's fastest-growing minority—particularly one as culturally conservative as the Latinos. In a swathe of states that Republicans need to retain the presidency, their numbers are crucial: New Mexico is 43% Latino, Texas 35%, Nevada 24%, Florida and Colorado 20%.
The November elections have also strengthened the hand of the big-tent Republicans. Several high-profile immigrant-bashers, such as Arizona's J.D. Hayworth and Indiana's John Hostetler, lost their elections. And John Boehner, who was one of only 17 House Republicans to vote against the party's border-protection act, has become minority leader.
Over the next few months everything will depend on the delicate politics of bipartisanship. Immigration reform gives both sides the chance to blame the other for failure. But it also gives both sides a chance to share the praise for a wrenching but necessary reform. The stakes for everybody involved, not least 12m illegal immigrants, could hardly be higher.
===
Letters to the editor
Send an e-mail to letters@economist.com to comment on this article you have read in The Economist or on Economist.com requesting them to cover IV and its issues
.jpg "An elegant dress for wedding")
swo
07-13 02:28 PM
Notwithstanding the good research below...
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
Given this is legislation, I don't think rule changes can trump it. I don't believe per country limits will change. Besides, how is that a solution to anything? This is not an Indian or Chinese issue. It's a legal immigrant issue.
See pg CRS-5 of document http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/84914.pdf
Two important exceptions to the per-country ceilings have been enacted in the
past decade. Foremost is an exception for certain family-sponsored immigrants.
More specifically, the INA states that 75% of the visas allocated to spouses and
children of LPRs (2ndA family preference) are not subject to the per-country ceiling.18
Prior to FY2001, employment-based preference immigrants were also held to percountry
ceilings. The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act
of 2000 (P.L. 106-313) enabled the per-country ceilings for employment-based
immigrants to be surpassed for individual countries that are oversubscribed as long
as visas are available within the worldwide limit for employment-based preferences.
The impact of these revisions to the per-country ceilings is discussed later in this
report......................
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
Given this is legislation, I don't think rule changes can trump it. I don't believe per country limits will change. Besides, how is that a solution to anything? This is not an Indian or Chinese issue. It's a legal immigrant issue.
See pg CRS-5 of document http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/84914.pdf
Two important exceptions to the per-country ceilings have been enacted in the
past decade. Foremost is an exception for certain family-sponsored immigrants.
More specifically, the INA states that 75% of the visas allocated to spouses and
children of LPRs (2ndA family preference) are not subject to the per-country ceiling.18
Prior to FY2001, employment-based preference immigrants were also held to percountry
ceilings. The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act
of 2000 (P.L. 106-313) enabled the per-country ceilings for employment-based
immigrants to be surpassed for individual countries that are oversubscribed as long
as visas are available within the worldwide limit for employment-based preferences.
The impact of these revisions to the per-country ceilings is discussed later in this
report......................
2011 2011 Salwar Kameez Designs
smsthss
12-03 09:34 AM
I got an RFE on Nov 15th for copies of my degree certificates and my attorney sent them in a few after getting the RFE notice. I had an LUD on Nov 30th (Date when they received response to RFE) saying case processing has resumed. I also have another LUD on Dec 2nd. But the status still says case processing resumed. Does anyone know why there are 2 LUD's even though the case status is the same. Does it mean anything?
any replies on this !!
any replies on this !!
more...
sunny1000
12-11 12:52 PM
This will not affect retrogressed applicants since they cannot file concurrently anyways....
radm06
11-11 12:34 PM
I filed concurrent I140/I485 June 27, still pending :)
more...
dks
05-24 12:46 PM
sent
2010 An elegant dress for wedding
Tito_ortiz
03-27 01:34 PM
Guys, Sen. Reid has the power and will to make this one goes through.
I was told that Sen. Pelosi did not directly endorse the bill, but she is fine with amnesty bills. I think we may finally see something cooking. If we don't, then chances are we need to wait till 2009 !!
gsc u r a lil confused
speaker pelosi is the head of the house of representatives (Lok Sabha) with Steny Hoyer serving as majority leader in the House and Senator Reid is the majority leader of the Senate (Rajya Sabha). The president of the senate is the VP
Both have floor schedules and have issues that need to be debated on. the bill has to pass in both houses..either with the exact same wording or alternate text that will be reconciled in conference committee
http://www.answers.com/topic/party-leaders-of-the-united-states-senate
http://www.answers.com/topic/party-leaders-of-the-united-states-house-of-representatives
I was told that Sen. Pelosi did not directly endorse the bill, but she is fine with amnesty bills. I think we may finally see something cooking. If we don't, then chances are we need to wait till 2009 !!
gsc u r a lil confused
speaker pelosi is the head of the house of representatives (Lok Sabha) with Steny Hoyer serving as majority leader in the House and Senator Reid is the majority leader of the Senate (Rajya Sabha). The president of the senate is the VP
Both have floor schedules and have issues that need to be debated on. the bill has to pass in both houses..either with the exact same wording or alternate text that will be reconciled in conference committee
http://www.answers.com/topic/party-leaders-of-the-united-states-senate
http://www.answers.com/topic/party-leaders-of-the-united-states-house-of-representatives
more...
Guig0
01-03 12:31 PM
Originally posted by lostinbeta
Oh Please... no more shakespeare :hangover: I hated his stuff in school, there is no reason I can't hate his stuff now. Too much thinking involved... thinking is bad!!!!
No shakespeare for me, just plain old tolkien :)
Oh Please... no more shakespeare :hangover: I hated his stuff in school, there is no reason I can't hate his stuff now. Too much thinking involved... thinking is bad!!!!
No shakespeare for me, just plain old tolkien :)
hair ladies salwar kameez design
Pravan
10-02 12:59 PM
Always, Always, Always maintain liquidity!! The benefit of having the money with you far offsets any benefits of saving anything on mortgage interest rate payments. CASH is unboubtedly indeed the KING !!
more...
logiclife
02-14 06:31 PM
You mean to say CIR will be introduced to the immigration or judiciary senate committee or introduce directly to the senate. If it is introduced directly to the senate floor that will save a lot of time, on the flip side it will become difficult to add or change provisions if it is directly introduced to the senate bypassing the senate judiciary and immigration committee
Bills almost never go to the floor directly. Especially something as huge as CIR. It will go thru committee again and it will go thru normal rounds of debate and amendments between the 18 people in Judiciary committee.
Its very unusual for a bill to hit the floor directly without going thru the committee that has jurisdiction over it. If it happens all the time, then the committees would be meaningless. The whole point of having a committee is to be able to either kill the entire bill, or a congressional appointment before such a bill / confirmation is debated by all 100 senators. Same thing in the House.
If it was possible to bypass committees, then people would have floored the SKIL or other bills directly on the floor of the house, therby bypassing Jim Sensenbrenner and his Judiciary committee last year.
Bills almost never go to the floor directly. Especially something as huge as CIR. It will go thru committee again and it will go thru normal rounds of debate and amendments between the 18 people in Judiciary committee.
Its very unusual for a bill to hit the floor directly without going thru the committee that has jurisdiction over it. If it happens all the time, then the committees would be meaningless. The whole point of having a committee is to be able to either kill the entire bill, or a congressional appointment before such a bill / confirmation is debated by all 100 senators. Same thing in the House.
If it was possible to bypass committees, then people would have floored the SKIL or other bills directly on the floor of the house, therby bypassing Jim Sensenbrenner and his Judiciary committee last year.
hot dress designs salwar kameez
gcseeker2002
02-11 12:09 PM
EAD is like plate meals. GC is like full meals.:D
Full meals is not recommended by any doctor, plate meal is the best way to be healthy :)
So in other words GC will make you lazy and EAD keeps you working hard.
Full meals is not recommended by any doctor, plate meal is the best way to be healthy :)
So in other words GC will make you lazy and EAD keeps you working hard.
more...
house Special Wear salwar kameez
rongha_2000
05-13 05:45 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
tattoo Salwar Kameez
anilnag
11-07 08:21 PM
I don't think there is any problem in EAD approval if you go out of country after filing it. I left USA the very next day of filing I-485. Still out of USA (in Canada). I already got my EAD and am waiting for AP. My attorney also said that for filing EAD, AP, 485 I must be physically present in USA.
Just to be safe maintain your H-1B status in case there is any issue with AP (because of what murthy's firm told). I can update on my AP status as soon as I hear something.
Just to be safe maintain your H-1B status in case there is any issue with AP (because of what murthy's firm told). I can update on my AP status as soon as I hear something.
more...
pictures dress designs salwar kameez.
sertasheep
07-05 04:04 PM
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST ALL MEMBERS TO UPDATE THEIR PROFILES WITH NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER(MOST RELIABLE) AND EMAIL ADDRESSES ALONG WITH CURRENT GC STATUS AND CLASS OF ADMISSION
dresses Churidar Neck Designs Patterns
gc_check
09-19 03:27 PM
Thanks everyone for being patient and supporting us. The work is happening at all ends and it is an uphill task.
We really need to increase our membership. Higher membership will mean us looking tall when we meet lawmakers. Please all try to help us spread the word of IV to everyone you know that is stuck in retrogression. We represent at least half million people but we currently not even have 6 thousand members. Thus we have to bring lot many people into IV. I would encourage everyone to pls. register on this forum instead of being visitors.
Pls try to help us increase our membership in your own capacity, in any way you can. This is something everyone on this forum can help us with.
Many users just browse through the forum/website. How about making the forum available only to registered members ?? This will also make users register/login. Remove anonymous access to forum
We really need to increase our membership. Higher membership will mean us looking tall when we meet lawmakers. Please all try to help us spread the word of IV to everyone you know that is stuck in retrogression. We represent at least half million people but we currently not even have 6 thousand members. Thus we have to bring lot many people into IV. I would encourage everyone to pls. register on this forum instead of being visitors.
Pls try to help us increase our membership in your own capacity, in any way you can. This is something everyone on this forum can help us with.
Many users just browse through the forum/website. How about making the forum available only to registered members ?? This will also make users register/login. Remove anonymous access to forum
more...
makeup Salwar dress neck design has
Green4Ev1
06-04 11:36 AM
Salawrene,
Congratulations.
Don't mind a few people's complaints.
Most people including myself don't know the details of the immigration law.
That's why we need lawyers, and you followed your lawyer's suggestion to get your GC.
Congratulations, again
Congratulations.
Don't mind a few people's complaints.
Most people including myself don't know the details of the immigration law.
That's why we need lawyers, and you followed your lawyer's suggestion to get your GC.
Congratulations, again
girlfriend includes variety of designs
JA1HIND
02-07 11:23 AM
My 8th year H1/H4 extension applied @VSC on 10/22/2007. My employer received approval letters on 01/31/2008. As of today my online status still shows as "Case received and pending" (now that's why I call USCIS is a useless system):D
Note: on 01/24 & 01/25 there were LUD's on both H1/H4 cases and nothing changed with online case status
EB2-140 @ TSC still pending.
Note: on 01/24 & 01/25 there were LUD's on both H1/H4 cases and nothing changed with online case status
EB2-140 @ TSC still pending.
hairstyles Neck Designs See More Designs
chanduv23
07-19 01:49 PM
Digg
http://digg.com/world_news/Skilled_Workers_May_See_Green_Card_Surge
http://digg.com/world_news/Skilled_Workers_May_See_Green_Card_Surge
immi2006
02-11 02:00 PM
But even with primitive PD's if visa nos are not available, things will still be the same. What say abt 6 yr old pd's in EB2...namecheck removal doesn't help!!!
But atleast with PD of March 2001, I have some hope, esp mine is in NC presently.
But atleast with PD of March 2001, I have some hope, esp mine is in NC presently.
sbind_77
08-31 01:05 PM
My 485 got approved on Aug 6th 2010 and I received my Approval notice on Aug 14h. I haven't received the card yet.
My 485 status changed from "Initial Review" to "Post Decision Activity".
Anyone with similar situation? Does anyone know what to do now or do I need to wait for USCIS to mail the card?
Thx
My 485 status changed from "Initial Review" to "Post Decision Activity".
Anyone with similar situation? Does anyone know what to do now or do I need to wait for USCIS to mail the card?
Thx
No comments:
Post a Comment