pushkarw
12-21 01:53 PM
You are a Ray of light my friend. We need more like you to make this place brighter!
Thanks for asking Pushkar. I did.
Thanks for asking Pushkar. I did.
wallpaper Lyndsy Fonseca Joins Hot Tub
RayP
12-08 03:13 AM
Thanks for your response. Good to hear that I can file while I am outside the US.
Meanwhile, I was wondering if it expires due to (assume) my neglect... does that create issues or can I apply at a later date... this is just in case I forget !! Sorry !!
Meanwhile, I was wondering if it expires due to (assume) my neglect... does that create issues or can I apply at a later date... this is just in case I forget !! Sorry !!
chanduv23
03-04 11:36 AM
The answer could be
"I have unrestricted employment authorization that allows me to work for any US employer just like green card holder" [example]
Employment can ask for valid employment authorization, but not for kind of employment authorization.
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/immdisc.htm)
[From the link]
The Immigration and Nationality Act (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/cgi-bin/leave-dol.asp?exiturl=http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm&exitTitle=Immigration_and_Nationality_Act&fedpage=yes) prohibits employers (when hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee) from discriminating because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens or discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of a aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylees.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Well - we all know this but if the question is "Do you have a Green Card? Yes or No ?" if you give the above answer, you have not provided a specific answer.
If you notice - job sites like dice etc... have drop downs that make you choose your work authorization (GC, EAD, H1b .....) and your work authorization is automatically visible there.
Monster, careerbuilder and some job sites do the right thing by asking "Are you authorized to work for any employer? or do you need sponership" - which makes sense to ask. An employer always has a choice to sponsor or not because additional costs are associated.
"I have unrestricted employment authorization that allows me to work for any US employer just like green card holder" [example]
Employment can ask for valid employment authorization, but not for kind of employment authorization.
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Equal Employment Opportunity - Immigration (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/immdisc.htm)
[From the link]
The Immigration and Nationality Act (http://www.savingmatters.dol.gov/cgi-bin/leave-dol.asp?exiturl=http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/INA.htm&exitTitle=Immigration_and_Nationality_Act&fedpage=yes) prohibits employers (when hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee) from discriminating because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens or discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of a aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylees.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Well - we all know this but if the question is "Do you have a Green Card? Yes or No ?" if you give the above answer, you have not provided a specific answer.
If you notice - job sites like dice etc... have drop downs that make you choose your work authorization (GC, EAD, H1b .....) and your work authorization is automatically visible there.
Monster, careerbuilder and some job sites do the right thing by asking "Are you authorized to work for any employer? or do you need sponership" - which makes sense to ask. An employer always has a choice to sponsor or not because additional costs are associated.
2011 Lyndsy Fonseca
gc_maine2
05-24 08:36 AM
Good job Salil. Keep up the good work.
more...
sanojkumar
08-21 11:51 AM
bumping up??
aarzoo
02-02 06:33 PM
@clockwork: Can you suggest some good lawyer(s).
more...
CaliGC
06-15 04:12 PM
Our I485 approved today and officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks. Thanks
Hi RLNY122004
Please accept my congratulations and enjoy the freedom. Could you please answer the following questions.
1. What do you mean by 'officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks' Did you take an appointment and visit neary USCIS office?
2. Did you speak on the phone?
3. When was your name check cleared?
4. Did you submit your finger prints recently? if yes was it code 1? 2? 3?
5. Was your I-485 case trasnferred to Texas/Nebraska recently?
I have many more questions but would not bug you, Please provide as much info as possible I would appreciate your reply.
TIA
Hi RLNY122004
Please accept my congratulations and enjoy the freedom. Could you please answer the following questions.
1. What do you mean by 'officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks' Did you take an appointment and visit neary USCIS office?
2. Did you speak on the phone?
3. When was your name check cleared?
4. Did you submit your finger prints recently? if yes was it code 1? 2? 3?
5. Was your I-485 case trasnferred to Texas/Nebraska recently?
I have many more questions but would not bug you, Please provide as much info as possible I would appreciate your reply.
TIA
2010 Lyndsy Fonseca
amitjoey
05-31 04:27 PM
100.00 - Google Order #601837695595056
also post in the funding drive.
also post in the funding drive.
more...
binadh
07-09 01:44 PM
I have made several attempts to get my money back from my previous lawyer without any success. After complaining about his services, he has sent me an email saying the he will return half of the money because he was not prompt on processing my case and I was not happy with his services. I received that email about 6 weeks ago and haven't seen a dime from him yet. And I do not think I will get my money back from this guy. This was paid for creating my job profile and filing the labor - what this bastard calls an initial retention.
Is there any specific website/forum where I can post my experience with this guy so that others will not take their business to this scammer. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do about this type of guys?
Is there any specific website/forum where I can post my experience with this guy so that others will not take their business to this scammer. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do about this type of guys?
hair lyndsy fonseca feet. lyndsy
amitpan007
06-29 03:21 PM
Paying little extra for few months is better than remaining uninsured. Check with your employer and health insurance if there is a pre-existing condition clause for maternity. Usually, there is none and in that case you can take a cheaper individual plan for now to cover for office visits (and pay discounted rates for those as most of them will count against deductible in any decently priced plan you choose) and later shift to employer plan as delivery time gets closer. But one thing to keep in mind is that usually depending on employer size and health insurance company you choose, declaring current status as pregnant may add more premium later.
more...
gc_perm2k6
03-06 01:38 PM
Both the points are very reasonable. Lets try to send letters.
hot Lyndsy Fonseca, Nikita
imm_pro
06-11 12:55 AM
This will be useful if you filed your labor after the end of 5th year and the 140
is still pending at the end of the 6th year.
is still pending at the end of the 6th year.
more...
house -Premiere-April-13-lyndsy-
tonyHK12
01-11 09:28 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
tattoo lyndsy fonseca shape. lyndsy
sam_hoosier
05-22 11:23 AM
plss do not rush with ur filing in june....pls file after june 10th so that cut off dates move foward in july VB.
;)
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
;)
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
more...
pictures First pics of Lyndsy @ CW
sumant18
07-17 08:03 PM
Today (7/17/08), I received a reply from USCIS by mail in response to an "expedite" service request I opened with regards to my biometric finger printing on last Friday (7/11/08).
Under the heading of status, the letter says:
"Due to the high volume of expedite requests of this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
While your situation appears serious, you have not provded evidence of an extreme emergent need.
A request for finger prints will be sent.
XM0625"
Although the first part says that I have not submitted the evidence, the last but one line above contardicts somewhat, in that it says that the fingerprinting request WILL BE SENT.
Anybody have any idea what this means? Should I be looking forward to somethig or call USCIS? Does "XM0625" mean anything or is is some system generated code?
Under the heading of status, the letter says:
"Due to the high volume of expedite requests of this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
While your situation appears serious, you have not provded evidence of an extreme emergent need.
A request for finger prints will be sent.
XM0625"
Although the first part says that I have not submitted the evidence, the last but one line above contardicts somewhat, in that it says that the fingerprinting request WILL BE SENT.
Anybody have any idea what this means? Should I be looking forward to somethig or call USCIS? Does "XM0625" mean anything or is is some system generated code?
dresses Lyndsy Fonseca
glus
02-19 11:38 AM
not really, but close.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
Surge:
Your authorized period of stay ended on 10/1. Your marriage does not matter. The only reason you MAY be able to adjust status in your situation is the fact that you married a U.S. citizen. It is VERY risky to leave the United States before your I485 gets approved. Please consult an attorney before doing so. AP does not guarantee re-admittance especially when one was EVER out of status.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
Surge:
Your authorized period of stay ended on 10/1. Your marriage does not matter. The only reason you MAY be able to adjust status in your situation is the fact that you married a U.S. citizen. It is VERY risky to leave the United States before your I485 gets approved. Please consult an attorney before doing so. AP does not guarantee re-admittance especially when one was EVER out of status.
more...
makeup featuring lyndsy fonseca,
vivache
10-05 05:41 PM
Hi
Is there any webpage that has details on an EAD and what jobs a person can do, cannot do, whether new job it needs to tie in 50% to current job etc ..
I'm looking for the official page that has some detail on this.
Looked online did not find anything. A little surprised.
Let me know if any of you have any relevant links to this info.
Not looking for hearsay ... something official.
Thanks
V
Is there any webpage that has details on an EAD and what jobs a person can do, cannot do, whether new job it needs to tie in 50% to current job etc ..
I'm looking for the official page that has some detail on this.
Looked online did not find anything. A little surprised.
Let me know if any of you have any relevant links to this info.
Not looking for hearsay ... something official.
Thanks
V
girlfriend Lyndsy Fonseca Web
k_sing
09-19 01:00 AM
Unfortunately Bitu72 did not have answer to my specific question, so the question is still Open.
Any appropriate response is much appreciated !
Any appropriate response is much appreciated !
hairstyles Lyndsy Fonseca arrives at the
vasa
07-16 11:50 PM
yes, everyone at hill knows that we pay taxes/abide by the law and still gets screwed because we dont have any representations!...
why is NumberUSA and other groups on CNN/FOX and other channels and our story is just passing comment..
we need to confront these people with fact check; like there is a thread for Lou Dobbs fact check.
why is NumberUSA and other groups on CNN/FOX and other channels and our story is just passing comment..
we need to confront these people with fact check; like there is a thread for Lou Dobbs fact check.
looivy
11-02 12:59 PM
If this is a possible solution, have your Mother-in-Law visit Canada temporarily for a few day and have her come back to US. I am just floating this idea for discussuion.
royus77
06-20 04:54 PM
Yes. You can go for H1b stamping even though you applied for 485 . Not sure above your 2 ns Question