GotFreedom?
07-20 01:50 PM
If your I-485 is already approved, you already have a GC (your status is permanent resident) regardless if you have the physical card in possession or not. You do not need EAD to work in the US. You are allowed to work wherever you may choose without worrying about work authorization. Your GC is your work authorization as well.
Sorry to hear about your job loss. With I-485 already approved, you should be able to apply for the unemployment benefits but I do not know what kind of implications it might have when you go for citizenship. I beleive, you are elegible to reap the benefits of the social benefits even if its considered burden.
Sorry to hear about your job loss. With I-485 already approved, you should be able to apply for the unemployment benefits but I do not know what kind of implications it might have when you go for citizenship. I beleive, you are elegible to reap the benefits of the social benefits even if its considered burden.
wallpaper dresses selena gomez red
tikka
07-05 11:24 AM
OK.. We have almost 200 Ready to send flowers...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6025
1. The date will be July 10.
2. Color of the flower is white (peace)
Q1. Let us know Where to send....
Q2. Also if you can pen 3 or 4 lines what message to send along with the flowers.
please check
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6025
1. The date will be July 10.
2. Color of the flower is white (peace)
Q1. Let us know Where to send....
Q2. Also if you can pen 3 or 4 lines what message to send along with the flowers.
please check
whattodo
07-27 02:01 PM
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
How stupid a person has to be to even ask a question like this???
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
How stupid a person has to be to even ask a question like this???
2011 STEPS TO ACHIEVE SELENA#39;S SHOW
rolrblade
10-08 09:57 AM
Hello Friends:
I have a I-485 pending (receipt date 7/19/07) with the USCIS. The situation is my company (Company A) has now officially laid me off and my last date is on November 16, 2007. I have spoken to them about the possibility of extending this date till Mid January 08, but it is NOT GOING TO Happen. Nov 16 will be my last date.
I have an offer from a different employer (Company B) for a SIMILAR job. I have an approved I-140 from the original employer and have assurances that they are NOT going to withdraw the I-140, since this is a company layoff and no fault of mine.
My questions are the following:
1. What is USCIS view when they see the new H1B transfer petition? Will they reject my I-485?
2. If I take a job with Company B, starting Nov 17, can I use AC21 and send in the letter after January 15 (180 days pending).
3. Do I have any other options here (I dont have EAD yet, just applied last week)
Your responses would be greatly appreciated. Please help.
I have a I-485 pending (receipt date 7/19/07) with the USCIS. The situation is my company (Company A) has now officially laid me off and my last date is on November 16, 2007. I have spoken to them about the possibility of extending this date till Mid January 08, but it is NOT GOING TO Happen. Nov 16 will be my last date.
I have an offer from a different employer (Company B) for a SIMILAR job. I have an approved I-140 from the original employer and have assurances that they are NOT going to withdraw the I-140, since this is a company layoff and no fault of mine.
My questions are the following:
1. What is USCIS view when they see the new H1B transfer petition? Will they reject my I-485?
2. If I take a job with Company B, starting Nov 17, can I use AC21 and send in the letter after January 15 (180 days pending).
3. Do I have any other options here (I dont have EAD yet, just applied last week)
Your responses would be greatly appreciated. Please help.
more...
Madhuri
05-04 11:34 AM
I know one of my friend who applied 3 different LCs thr' different employers and he finally applied thr' PERM and got approval. But his all 3 cases are still in pending queue. There might be many others who did this and together it may be quite substantial number. Of course no way to extract this kind of data.
Folks,
I was analysing the data based on posts in various immigration websites for India based filings. The data could be very well wrong too. (data for India folks as below).
It appears on rough estimates :
2005
EB1 - 4000
EB2 - 26000
EB3 - 39000
2004
EB1 - 5500
EB2 - 32000
Eb3 - 36000
Folks,
I was analysing the data based on posts in various immigration websites for India based filings. The data could be very well wrong too. (data for India folks as below).
It appears on rough estimates :
2005
EB1 - 4000
EB2 - 26000
EB3 - 39000
2004
EB1 - 5500
EB2 - 32000
Eb3 - 36000
gconmymind
03-25 01:26 PM
I remember this bill being brought up last year also and was "supposed" to be passed but never even came up for voting...why do u anticipate this will go through this time? My wife is applying for her "H1B" and she is awaiting the lotto results...
I strongly disapprove of ppl waiting for their GC voicing against H1B cap increase because they have crossed that bridge and have H1B. I am only safely assume such ppl will voice against IV and all IV activities once they receive their GC...
H1B increase is ok, but it will cause further backlog for the new filers because of 7% country limit and very few visa numbers. Business is only interested in H1Bs as it gets them the workforce. A GC makes an employee freer and less valuable to a company????
I strongly disapprove of ppl waiting for their GC voicing against H1B cap increase because they have crossed that bridge and have H1B. I am only safely assume such ppl will voice against IV and all IV activities once they receive their GC...
H1B increase is ok, but it will cause further backlog for the new filers because of 7% country limit and very few visa numbers. Business is only interested in H1Bs as it gets them the workforce. A GC makes an employee freer and less valuable to a company????
more...
arnet
02-12 05:10 PM
2yrs ago, my friend did H1 extension -premium processing and he filed his wife H4 extension along with his extension application. so USCIS approved both within 15 days because both are filed together.
if filed separately, i dont think you can have premium processing for H4. check with your immigration attroney as laws/procedures changes often.
if filed separately, i dont think you can have premium processing for H4. check with your immigration attroney as laws/procedures changes often.
2010 Selena Gomez Showcases Irina
styrum
03-04 07:01 PM
It's not like he suddenly realized something. The only reason they changed the policy is that they got sued. Period! :mad: They continue the sabotage with processing dates going backward (which is never supposed to happen!), etc, because they feel no threat to their well-being.
more...
Ramba
04-22 02:19 PM
My lawyer got the RFE notice yesterday....
My LC / I-140 stated that I am an "Electrical Engineering Technician" due to PW concerns at the time of application but my H1-B application said "Applications Engineer (Chemicals Group)". But the job duties were exactly the same word for word. I'm not sure if that is causing the problem. I am being paid significantly more than the LC / 1-140 wage currently. So, lack of ability to pay is not an issue. I have also been continuously employed by the same organization. I have not sought a different employer ever since I applied for my GC.
Please reply with your thoughts.
Though, it appears as regular employment verification letter, there may be catch in it due to what you explained above. Though you were an "engineer" in H1B, your employer applied as a "technician" in green card application (LC/140) to overcome pre-wailing wage issue. This is not good one if they found out, as the technicians can not be in H1B visa. You can not argue I will be technician after getting GC. Also, you can not use AC21 as "engineers" and "technicians" are not similar occupations.
My LC / I-140 stated that I am an "Electrical Engineering Technician" due to PW concerns at the time of application but my H1-B application said "Applications Engineer (Chemicals Group)". But the job duties were exactly the same word for word. I'm not sure if that is causing the problem. I am being paid significantly more than the LC / 1-140 wage currently. So, lack of ability to pay is not an issue. I have also been continuously employed by the same organization. I have not sought a different employer ever since I applied for my GC.
Please reply with your thoughts.
Though, it appears as regular employment verification letter, there may be catch in it due to what you explained above. Though you were an "engineer" in H1B, your employer applied as a "technician" in green card application (LC/140) to overcome pre-wailing wage issue. This is not good one if they found out, as the technicians can not be in H1B visa. You can not argue I will be technician after getting GC. Also, you can not use AC21 as "engineers" and "technicians" are not similar occupations.
hair selena gomez who says dress
kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 01:05 PM
Please explain, Why did I get red? Is it for asking question? Guys, I am new.
more...
ivrox
01-29 03:31 PM
Able/willing!!
Look how EB process affected our life.. Labor certification terminology now feels so natural to us
Yep, any qualified person can notice his inability/unwillingness !
Look how EB process affected our life.. Labor certification terminology now feels so natural to us
Yep, any qualified person can notice his inability/unwillingness !
hot Selena Gomez Dolce Gabbana
h1b_tristate
07-27 08:02 PM
Hi everyone,
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
I have a question on changing jobs. I am on my second H1b and my h1 expires in a little over a year. I have a possible offer for a job and would like to change. My question is if i DO change jobs right now, can i still apply for my PERM and will i be eligible for further h1b extentions?
A friend mentioned to me that your labour needs to be applied for atleast one whole year (even if it has been approved in PERM), to be able to apply for any kind of H1 extentions.
Can someone on here please tell me what the law is on H1B extentions and how it works exactly in a case like mine.
Thanks
more...
house house selena gomez cutest
Hassan11
08-24 03:43 PM
Hi. I am sorry if I am posting this on the wrong thread but I am trying to get some help or suggestions.
I have a question regarding an appeal I did a year ago for a rejected LC.
I have an approved LC and I-140 on an entry level position (EB3) with my company. after I got a promotion to a senior position that requires a masters degree but with a smilar job description but more senior and supervisory responsabilities with the same company. after promotion, I filed for a new LC (EB2) but it got rejected because DOL thinks it is the same position as the already approved LC. my company and I wrote a letter as an appeal on Sep 2006 within 30 days from rejection of LC to BALCA explaining that new position requires a masters degree and it is a senior position with more supervisory duties. as of today, almost a year later, we haven't heard anything regarding DOL (BALCA) decision on my appeal. is anybody in the same situation?? what should I do next?? also I read somewhere that DOl might revoke the already approved LC EB3 after I filed a second LC for EB2 with the same employer. can DOL revoke the first LC EB3 after I have an approved I-140?? please help. Thanks
I have a question regarding an appeal I did a year ago for a rejected LC.
I have an approved LC and I-140 on an entry level position (EB3) with my company. after I got a promotion to a senior position that requires a masters degree but with a smilar job description but more senior and supervisory responsabilities with the same company. after promotion, I filed for a new LC (EB2) but it got rejected because DOL thinks it is the same position as the already approved LC. my company and I wrote a letter as an appeal on Sep 2006 within 30 days from rejection of LC to BALCA explaining that new position requires a masters degree and it is a senior position with more supervisory duties. as of today, almost a year later, we haven't heard anything regarding DOL (BALCA) decision on my appeal. is anybody in the same situation?? what should I do next?? also I read somewhere that DOl might revoke the already approved LC EB3 after I filed a second LC for EB2 with the same employer. can DOL revoke the first LC EB3 after I have an approved I-140?? please help. Thanks
tattoo Selena Gomez, Nelly Furtado,
delhirocks
06-29 11:30 AM
Is there any quota on filing the I 140s? My friend requested his employer for upgrading his 140 and he says that the attorney mentioned that the quota for I 140 is already full. I don't think it is right. Any inromation please.
There is no quota for I 140, the employer is just trying to save money.
There is no quota for I 140, the employer is just trying to save money.
more...
pictures Selena Gomez
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
dresses Selena Gomez UNICEF Tap Water
waiting_4_gc
07-27 03:30 PM
You can't write 01/01/1995. In that case your check will be invalidated. Check expires after 180 days. :D :D
But you are correct for RD :)
Umm, what if USCIS takes more than 180 days to encash the checks?
Do we have to re-file the application/re-send the check?:confused:
But you are correct for RD :)
Umm, what if USCIS takes more than 180 days to encash the checks?
Do we have to re-file the application/re-send the check?:confused:
more...
makeup selena gomez oscars dress
Ryall
09-04 01:08 PM
its almost like smuging, or smearing a pixel value.
Peace
Peace
girlfriend selena gomez dress in who says
stupendousman11
08-22 01:14 PM
EB2 India from NC.
Filed EAD renewal at TSC (my 485, however, is pending at NSC) on Aug 6. RD Aug 7. No LUDs since the notice was issued.
Filed EAD renewal at TSC (my 485, however, is pending at NSC) on Aug 6. RD Aug 7. No LUDs since the notice was issued.
hairstyles selena gomez mtv movie awards
ssnd03
07-30 02:17 PM
Congratulations on your approval. Yor are really lucky and we envy you.
I know the systems is so much screwed up. There are so many frustrated people with their priority dates EB2 before August 2004 and could not file I-485 until this July. Its a wonder USCIS approved a case with priorioty date of August 2005. :mad: :confused: the system is so disgusting.
Remember one and only one thing prevents FIFO (First in First Out) for I485 approvals and that is FBI name-check delays. I do not believe FIFO is not honored due to USCIS processing problems.
(BEC backlogs also inhibit GC FIFO but hopefully that will be over by Sep 2007)
This guy's security checks were cleared timely and he got a visa number as soon as they were available.
It is rumored that USCIS in last month assigned visa numbers to applicants without FBI security-check completion. However, these GCs will not be approved if FBI checks are not completed by Sep 30, 2007 and the visa numbers will be returned to DOS. Hence, it remains to be seen how many visa numbers will be wasted in FY 2007 despite the fact that the visa bulletin says U August onwards.
Next to retrogression, this is a serious problem. But the irony is that retrogression allows FBI to enjoy, at our cost, years of delay in doing their job. However, you can also be so unlucky that your name-check does not clear when years later your PD becomes current
I know the systems is so much screwed up. There are so many frustrated people with their priority dates EB2 before August 2004 and could not file I-485 until this July. Its a wonder USCIS approved a case with priorioty date of August 2005. :mad: :confused: the system is so disgusting.
Remember one and only one thing prevents FIFO (First in First Out) for I485 approvals and that is FBI name-check delays. I do not believe FIFO is not honored due to USCIS processing problems.
(BEC backlogs also inhibit GC FIFO but hopefully that will be over by Sep 2007)
This guy's security checks were cleared timely and he got a visa number as soon as they were available.
It is rumored that USCIS in last month assigned visa numbers to applicants without FBI security-check completion. However, these GCs will not be approved if FBI checks are not completed by Sep 30, 2007 and the visa numbers will be returned to DOS. Hence, it remains to be seen how many visa numbers will be wasted in FY 2007 despite the fact that the visa bulletin says U August onwards.
Next to retrogression, this is a serious problem. But the irony is that retrogression allows FBI to enjoy, at our cost, years of delay in doing their job. However, you can also be so unlucky that your name-check does not clear when years later your PD becomes current
martinvisalaw
02-23 06:10 PM
so assuming all goes well i would be protected from deportation from the time of filing until decisions are made?
No necessarily protected. Anyone who overstays their I-94 is removable (deportable). However, some people can contest that in removal proceedings. One basis to contest a removal order is because the foreign national is married to a US citizen and/or has an Adjustment of Status pending.
The problem with VWP entrants is that they sign away their rights to contest a removal order, even if married to a US citizen (unless they claim asylum). Worse - they can be removed without a hearing in immigration court, simply by an order of the local District Director. In theory, a VWP entrant who overstayed could file for permanent residence and be issued a removal order and put in detention when s/he turned up for the marriage interview at the District Office.
I don't mean to terrify you, and most district offices do approve cases filed by VWP entrants, but please check with a local attorney before filing anything.
__________________
No necessarily protected. Anyone who overstays their I-94 is removable (deportable). However, some people can contest that in removal proceedings. One basis to contest a removal order is because the foreign national is married to a US citizen and/or has an Adjustment of Status pending.
The problem with VWP entrants is that they sign away their rights to contest a removal order, even if married to a US citizen (unless they claim asylum). Worse - they can be removed without a hearing in immigration court, simply by an order of the local District Director. In theory, a VWP entrant who overstayed could file for permanent residence and be issued a removal order and put in detention when s/he turned up for the marriage interview at the District Office.
I don't mean to terrify you, and most district offices do approve cases filed by VWP entrants, but please check with a local attorney before filing anything.
__________________
indianabacklog
10-28 11:03 AM
I have searched for US 31 and 146st intersection for 1 1/2 hours, it is very confusing. Actually, there is no 146st and US 31 intersection as such. It is actually Greyshound pass and 146 st intersection. Finally i went to one Starbucks at 11:45, but nobody was there. Also there are so many Starbucks in and around that area. Please post the exact location with address next time onwards.
DPP once again, I am sad that we did not get to meet yesterday.
Where are you based in Indiana, maybe you work in Indianapolis? I work in downtown Indy and can always find time to talk to a fellow sufferer.
Lynne
DPP once again, I am sad that we did not get to meet yesterday.
Where are you based in Indiana, maybe you work in Indianapolis? I work in downtown Indy and can always find time to talk to a fellow sufferer.
Lynne
No comments:
Post a Comment