snowcatcher
05-22 08:12 AM
This is the actual study that was referred to in this article. It seems like they just posted it? It's timing is perfect. Looks like we are going to be lucky. Let's hope so.
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPStudyLegalImmigrantsWaitingForever052206.pdf
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/NFAPStudyLegalImmigrantsWaitingForever052206.pdf
wallpaper Selena Gomez just like Katy
BPforGC
05-11 01:51 PM
This guy has no clue on anything...
He says he gets back after talking to the 'subject experts'....
A senator clearly asked him what to do on backlogs. If he has an iota of knowledge and real interest in immigration, he should have told to increase visa numbers, eliminate country limit and recapture legislation. All he said was he will get back to them and this opportunity has gone into thin air....
So, this statement clearly epitomizes why USCIS is an inefficient and hopeless agency. They talk too much, think less and do nothing.
Don't count on USCIS to do something to eliminate backlog. They are idiots and inefficient morons.
Out of 10+ members of Judiciary committee, only two to three really care about an agency that is trying to work on legal immigration and present for this hearing. Talk about illegal immigration, every one will start running out of their beds with their pants down to get attention... this is really disconcerting.
The whole hearing is a time waste for everyone. It did not achieve anything except patting each others back. Disgusting...
He says he gets back after talking to the 'subject experts'....
A senator clearly asked him what to do on backlogs. If he has an iota of knowledge and real interest in immigration, he should have told to increase visa numbers, eliminate country limit and recapture legislation. All he said was he will get back to them and this opportunity has gone into thin air....
So, this statement clearly epitomizes why USCIS is an inefficient and hopeless agency. They talk too much, think less and do nothing.
Don't count on USCIS to do something to eliminate backlog. They are idiots and inefficient morons.
Out of 10+ members of Judiciary committee, only two to three really care about an agency that is trying to work on legal immigration and present for this hearing. Talk about illegal immigration, every one will start running out of their beds with their pants down to get attention... this is really disconcerting.
The whole hearing is a time waste for everyone. It did not achieve anything except patting each others back. Disgusting...
NKR
02-13 03:56 PM
Folks,
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
You guys deserve it after waiting for so long. The only way to check if the case has been adjudicated or not is to keep checking the LUDS, if it changes see what the status says. After being patient for so many years, if you are feeling a little impatient now call USCIS and check the status.
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
You guys deserve it after waiting for so long. The only way to check if the case has been adjudicated or not is to keep checking the LUDS, if it changes see what the status says. After being patient for so many years, if you are feeling a little impatient now call USCIS and check the status.
2011 selena gomez house address.
Dakota Newfie
07-13 09:36 AM
Since the topic of giving preference to professional athletes has come up, I'd like to relay an the experience I had when I came to the U.S. for a job interview in August of '01; when going through U.S. customs at Logan Airport (this was pre 9/11), I was arbitrarily "singled out for interrogation" for TWO HOURS! During that time, a customs official made some small talk with me while we waited for the supervisor to arrive and he asked me if I was a hockey player (since I am Canadian) to which I replied "no"; he then informed me that was too bad because otherwise I would pass through without any problems or questions! Too bad they didn't "single out" Atta and the boys the same way two weeks later- or maybe they went through as hockey players!
more...
Blog Feeds
12-18 09:50 AM
Silicon Valley Immigration Lawyer Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
Yesterday I was taken aback when I turned to the editorial page of the San Jose Mercury News, the primary newspaper of Silicon Valley, and found an Op-Ed by Patrick J. Buchanan calling for a moratorium on ALL LEGAL immigration. (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13952824?nclick_check=1) He argues that the LEGAL immigrants are taking jobs from U.S. workers, and that by barring all U.S. immigration the economy can recover faster.
Legal immigration is not the same as "illegal" immigration. He is not talking about doing something about the high number of undocumented people living in the U.S. By calling for a halt to legal immigration, he would stop the husbands and wives of U.S. citizens from immigrating to the U.S. He would prevent the children and step-children of U.S. citizens from coming to the U.S. He would stop the parents of U.S. citizens from immigrating. He would stop U.S. citizens from adopting children from abroad. He would prevent those who came as refugees from obtaining permanent residence. He would turn away the brilliant minds who qualify to immigrate by being awarded the equivalent of a Nobel Prize.
More... (http://www.siliconvalleyimmigrationlawyer.com/2009/12/san-jose-mercury-news-publishe.html)
Yesterday I was taken aback when I turned to the editorial page of the San Jose Mercury News, the primary newspaper of Silicon Valley, and found an Op-Ed by Patrick J. Buchanan calling for a moratorium on ALL LEGAL immigration. (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13952824?nclick_check=1) He argues that the LEGAL immigrants are taking jobs from U.S. workers, and that by barring all U.S. immigration the economy can recover faster.
Legal immigration is not the same as "illegal" immigration. He is not talking about doing something about the high number of undocumented people living in the U.S. By calling for a halt to legal immigration, he would stop the husbands and wives of U.S. citizens from immigrating to the U.S. He would prevent the children and step-children of U.S. citizens from coming to the U.S. He would stop the parents of U.S. citizens from immigrating. He would stop U.S. citizens from adopting children from abroad. He would prevent those who came as refugees from obtaining permanent residence. He would turn away the brilliant minds who qualify to immigrate by being awarded the equivalent of a Nobel Prize.
More... (http://www.siliconvalleyimmigrationlawyer.com/2009/12/san-jose-mercury-news-publishe.html)
greeku_veerudu
06-27 04:25 PM
Simple solution to your problem is to hire a CEO to run your business. Appoint a CEO a week before her EAD is expiring if she does not get her EAD by that time. You can pay a minimum salary, say $500 a month to run a company. Mind you, technically, she has to give all powers to the CEO including check writing powers. So the person you are hiring should be trustworthy. If she doesn't have EAD, she can not work for the company, not even sign a check or receive a phone call on behalf of the company. She can not even hire a CEO once her EAD expires. So it is important to appoint one while her EAD is valid. She can have this arrangement until she gets her EAD.
more...
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
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 physically 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 ensure. 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.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
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 physically 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 ensure. 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.
2010 selena gomez short hair
bluez25
07-16 04:03 PM
Hi tinku,
I got apointment in chennai consulate for August 11 and I already have a PCC from SFO Indian consulate which was issued in July last year. Unfortunatly the PCC is valid only for a year so I have to get a new one also. I emailed the Chennai Consulate and got a reply back saying that I might have to get the PCC from my local police station as well as from the passport office.
Hope this information helps.
I got apointment in chennai consulate for August 11 and I already have a PCC from SFO Indian consulate which was issued in July last year. Unfortunatly the PCC is valid only for a year so I have to get a new one also. I emailed the Chennai Consulate and got a reply back saying that I might have to get the PCC from my local police station as well as from the passport office.
Hope this information helps.
more...
gcwanted101
09-01 12:10 PM
Hi
I have my Labor and 140 approved. (140 approved in Jan 2009)
But my employer is not ready to provide me with copy of my approved PERM labor and 140. Just like any other employer.
So I am planning to request both of this by making FOIA request to DOL and USCIS.
I have done some ground work for that. Now here are my questions.
1) If I haven�t applied for 485 yet will USCIS/DOL release this document to me?
Or are both of this employer�s petitions?
2) I have heard that after six month of 140 approvals it become employee petition.
How much true is that?
If anyone like me (who haven�t applied 485 yet) got their copy of labor and 140 through FOIA. Please share your experience.
I have my Labor and 140 approved. (140 approved in Jan 2009)
But my employer is not ready to provide me with copy of my approved PERM labor and 140. Just like any other employer.
So I am planning to request both of this by making FOIA request to DOL and USCIS.
I have done some ground work for that. Now here are my questions.
1) If I haven�t applied for 485 yet will USCIS/DOL release this document to me?
Or are both of this employer�s petitions?
2) I have heard that after six month of 140 approvals it become employee petition.
How much true is that?
If anyone like me (who haven�t applied 485 yet) got their copy of labor and 140 through FOIA. Please share your experience.
hair selena gomez and the scene a
eb2_mumbai
10-20 09:35 PM
First of all I am not going to judge you by your actions because I do not know the full story of why you did it.
Now coming back to your question. There are few things you need to do.
1) Talk to a reputed immigration attorney. Take consulting time and tell them the whole story honestly they are the best people to guide you
2) As far as I can tell you out of status triggers a bar of 10 years on immigration to US. Perhaps if your wife can least get out of country and come back (re-enter) into the country on a valid visa then after admission perhaps you can take advantage of 245 (k) clause that counts OOS from last lawful admission for GC processin, but there is a chance that she might be denied entry if CBP officer can see her OOS in the system for some reason.
My advice is what ever you do make sure you consult an attorney and not some friend or some one from a forum. You have already made situation difficult do not make it any worse.
Now coming back to your question. There are few things you need to do.
1) Talk to a reputed immigration attorney. Take consulting time and tell them the whole story honestly they are the best people to guide you
2) As far as I can tell you out of status triggers a bar of 10 years on immigration to US. Perhaps if your wife can least get out of country and come back (re-enter) into the country on a valid visa then after admission perhaps you can take advantage of 245 (k) clause that counts OOS from last lawful admission for GC processin, but there is a chance that she might be denied entry if CBP officer can see her OOS in the system for some reason.
My advice is what ever you do make sure you consult an attorney and not some friend or some one from a forum. You have already made situation difficult do not make it any worse.
more...
sgorla
02-23 02:38 PM
I was told by the University of Nevada -Reno (UNR) that I 140 approval does not change one's immigration status, and the person (or his/her dependent) will not be eligible for in-state tution.
What if I-140 is approved , and the primary applicant (H1) is waiting for the PD to be current, and the dependent wants to go to school. Will this have any impact on the GC process?
What if I-140 is approved , and the primary applicant (H1) is waiting for the PD to be current, and the dependent wants to go to school. Will this have any impact on the GC process?
hot by Selena Gomez amp; The Scene
go_gc_way
01-14 04:31 PM
It is just frustrating to visit these forums and see nothing is happening. We need more members and more money. But if that happens in 10 years, what is the use. Not much anyone can do. Might as well as start packing.
Hello Members,
rajuram brings up a good point ..
It may be only 5% of the members who have taken up all action items seriously and did any thing .. You need strengthen the efforts by more actively participating.
Time and again it is reminded by IV core team of Action items to members. If you have not taken up any of the action items and if you wish something happen and support IV.. PLEASE ACT NOW ON ACTION ITEMS .. I think THIS IS THE TIME with several bills being discussed in media.
WITH OUT YOUR HELP AND PARTICIPATION, YOU HAVE NO IV.
Hello Members,
rajuram brings up a good point ..
It may be only 5% of the members who have taken up all action items seriously and did any thing .. You need strengthen the efforts by more actively participating.
Time and again it is reminded by IV core team of Action items to members. If you have not taken up any of the action items and if you wish something happen and support IV.. PLEASE ACT NOW ON ACTION ITEMS .. I think THIS IS THE TIME with several bills being discussed in media.
WITH OUT YOUR HELP AND PARTICIPATION, YOU HAVE NO IV.
more...
house Selena Gomez amp; The Scene
immigrationvoice1
11-29 04:55 PM
I got my H4 stamped first and then applied for H1 while in India. Travelled to US on H4. This is the reason why I cannot work in US without stamping.
I am not too sure if USCIS would ask questions when I apply for h1B again in future through another company, about my not using my previous H1 aprooval for working in US.
The line in bold above is NOT TRUE. You can work in the USA with the approved H1B even if it is not stamped and even if you arrived using H4. All you need is a SSN along with the approved H1B to start working.
I am not too sure if USCIS would ask questions when I apply for h1B again in future through another company, about my not using my previous H1 aprooval for working in US.
The line in bold above is NOT TRUE. You can work in the USA with the approved H1B even if it is not stamped and even if you arrived using H4. All you need is a SSN along with the approved H1B to start working.
tattoo choice selena gomez round
freddy22
07-20 12:59 AM
what if he is charged with 2 misdemenaors as a YOUTHFUL OFFENDER?
is the law not that these are NOT grounds for deportation proceedings?
is the law not that these are NOT grounds for deportation proceedings?
more...
pictures selena gomez facebook page.
up_guy
04-12 10:59 PM
I also have the same question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
I put application date as when ever I signed the form and dated it. I think its no big deal, if you attach copy of previous EAD...
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
I put application date as when ever I signed the form and dated it. I think its no big deal, if you attach copy of previous EAD...
dresses Selena Gomez amp; The Scene
javadeveloper
07-21 12:44 AM
thanks tinamatthew for your time and answers,
yeah it's fair law for those who re enters into usa , but not for those who lived in US for many years and have few gaps in employment.Anyhow it's a real scenario and it's my case.I gave all W2s to my company and I am not sure whether they submitted all the W2s or not , I need to check with them.I am much worried about how to proceed if my company sends all w2s to CIS and if CIS sends me RFE/NOID.I am also in dilemma to whether to consult any lawyer or not (My company uses corporate lawyers and I can't contact them directly) , even if contact any good lawyer , I am not sure if i have any options left.There are many unanswerd questions :mad: .Thanks again.
yeah it's fair law for those who re enters into usa , but not for those who lived in US for many years and have few gaps in employment.Anyhow it's a real scenario and it's my case.I gave all W2s to my company and I am not sure whether they submitted all the W2s or not , I need to check with them.I am much worried about how to proceed if my company sends all w2s to CIS and if CIS sends me RFE/NOID.I am also in dilemma to whether to consult any lawyer or not (My company uses corporate lawyers and I can't contact them directly) , even if contact any good lawyer , I am not sure if i have any options left.There are many unanswerd questions :mad: .Thanks again.
more...
makeup Selena Gomez amp; The Scene New
morchu
06-26 12:19 PM
Another option is to negotiate a deal with the new (prospective) employer, to pay those fees to the recruiter/old employer.
For example if an employer payed for your air-ticket/relocation, expecting that you will stay, and if you leave the employer the very first week, I believe it is very reasonable from your side, to refund the employer his expense (whatever the law is). And since you may not want to loose money from your pocket, ask the next employer (who is really going to benefit by your arrival) to carry that expense.
The laws are sometimes more strict towards the employer. It is kept purposely like that to avoid employers taking advantage of employees (employer being the stronger side). But we should try NOT to not mis-use this advantage , towards reasonable employers.
For example if an employer payed for your air-ticket/relocation, expecting that you will stay, and if you leave the employer the very first week, I believe it is very reasonable from your side, to refund the employer his expense (whatever the law is). And since you may not want to loose money from your pocket, ask the next employer (who is really going to benefit by your arrival) to carry that expense.
The laws are sometimes more strict towards the employer. It is kept purposely like that to avoid employers taking advantage of employees (employer being the stronger side). But we should try NOT to not mis-use this advantage , towards reasonable employers.
girlfriend selena gomez rare 2011. selena
willIWill
07-15 05:38 PM
Regarding first point,
I would also submit marriage ceremony pictures (if you have them) along with marriage certificate (notarize the photocopy), assuming it is in English, else get it translated with affidavit and again notarize the copy. Sending Birth certificate copy along with above might be a + .
HTH
GCCovet
Thanks for the reply gccovet.
I can have the marriage cert and BC notarized. Sending pics is a good idea. But I'm not sure if it will fit in the return cover they provided me with. Still unsure if I need to send the affidavit of support and other financial documents for the same like sending it for derivative I-485
Thanks again for your suggestions.
I would also submit marriage ceremony pictures (if you have them) along with marriage certificate (notarize the photocopy), assuming it is in English, else get it translated with affidavit and again notarize the copy. Sending Birth certificate copy along with above might be a + .
HTH
GCCovet
Thanks for the reply gccovet.
I can have the marriage cert and BC notarized. Sending pics is a good idea. But I'm not sure if it will fit in the return cover they provided me with. Still unsure if I need to send the affidavit of support and other financial documents for the same like sending it for derivative I-485
Thanks again for your suggestions.
hairstyles are selena gomez and justin
chanduv23
12-24 02:25 PM
Please post your own blog sites here if you have written articles about immigration and have any videos, cartoons, PSA etc....
sanju_dba
08-03 04:37 PM
Dear Registered OP,
I guess you have accidentally choose IV to post your issue,
the key word search "Frustation" on google might have drove you here,
not your mistake! try this website (http://www.atkins.com/Homepage.aspx) :D
I guess you have accidentally choose IV to post your issue,
the key word search "Frustation" on google might have drove you here,
not your mistake! try this website (http://www.atkins.com/Homepage.aspx) :D
pponakan
05-31 02:31 PM
Contributed $350 so far. Will contribute another $100 today.
No comments:
Post a Comment