xtronics
10-26 02:16 PM
Hi,
My wife's H4 was recently approved along with my H1. We both have different last names. My name is misspelled, an "a" missing and her middle initial is also different. What can I do to get a corrected H4? Can I go to local immigration office or something? My lawyer contacted the USCIS and they said they will respond in 45 days. They don't even guarantee that they will correct the approval document.
Please let me know
Thank you so much for your help
My wife's H4 was recently approved along with my H1. We both have different last names. My name is misspelled, an "a" missing and her middle initial is also different. What can I do to get a corrected H4? Can I go to local immigration office or something? My lawyer contacted the USCIS and they said they will respond in 45 days. They don't even guarantee that they will correct the approval document.
Please let me know
Thank you so much for your help
wallpaper Haircolor, Dark Warm Brown
CaveMan232
12-16 02:00 AM
I have a valid Visitor(B1/B2) visa stamp in my passport. I previously entered the country on H1B visa stamp which has already expired. Can I come back to US based on the valid Visitor(B1/B2) visa stamp?
cled
October 28th, 2004, 09:13 PM
Second try.
Comments ?
Thanks.
Comments ?
Thanks.
2011 For medium brown hair color,
ShrutiJadhav
04-07 12:07 PM
Hello All,
The officer at the SSN issuing center told me since my passport and the stamped I-94 have my maiden I will get an SSN also in the maiden name and not my married name.
However I had already filed for my EAD (form I-765) before getting this information with my married name which I need to change to the maiden name. I have received an appointment letter for biometrics/finger printing (FP) . What should be done now? Should I wait and tell the officer during the FP about this name change that I need or how should I go about it?
Thanking you in anticipation.
Regards,
Shruti
The officer at the SSN issuing center told me since my passport and the stamped I-94 have my maiden I will get an SSN also in the maiden name and not my married name.
However I had already filed for my EAD (form I-765) before getting this information with my married name which I need to change to the maiden name. I have received an appointment letter for biometrics/finger printing (FP) . What should be done now? Should I wait and tell the officer during the FP about this name change that I need or how should I go about it?
Thanking you in anticipation.
Regards,
Shruti
more...
josecuervo
04-26 03:03 PM
https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
webm
04-17 04:29 PM
Nope,nothing as such going on for EAD new/renewals...
more...
jai_immigration
04-28 02:33 PM
Bumped, I know many of you would have done AC21, Please advise.
2010 Light Brown Hair Colors
Robby Salz
03-05 09:25 AM
Milton. hahaha
more...
Mission_Impossible_IV
06-02 03:49 PM
Immigration.com has information available in the PDF format. Not sure if there is any dates mentioned on it.
Good Luck,
Good Luck,
hair and dark brown hair color
dannyypk
04-05 03:36 PM
Recently I filed a H1-B Part time Visa. I received the notice from the Lawyer that my application got a RFE on it.
Will they usually show the status online? When I check USCIS, it does not say my case had a RFE on it.
Please advice! Thanks!
Will they usually show the status online? When I check USCIS, it does not say my case had a RFE on it.
Please advice! Thanks!
more...
nsg
11-17 02:01 PM
I am currently waiting on my 485 (EB2). My priority date is Sept 16 2005, and 485 date is Aug 27 2007. I have traveled out of the country and back on advance parole and am still on H1 as I am still with the same company. My current advance parole ends in Jan 31 2010. I have to travel again in the first week of Feb 2010. I applied for another advance parole at the TSC on Aug 31 2009 for both my Wife and I. My Wife got her parole in a week, but I am yet to receive it.
I checked the USCIS site for the time frame and it says 3 months for TSC. I am thinking I might not have received it yet as I have a parole which is active. But I want to make the travel reservations now and I wanted a confirmed parole. USCIS said that they could put in an expedited request for the parole if it is an emergency. My lawyer says not to worry as I had applied in August, I had plenty of time to receive it.
Please advice. What should I do.
I checked the USCIS site for the time frame and it says 3 months for TSC. I am thinking I might not have received it yet as I have a parole which is active. But I want to make the travel reservations now and I wanted a confirmed parole. USCIS said that they could put in an expedited request for the parole if it is an emergency. My lawyer says not to worry as I had applied in August, I had plenty of time to receive it.
Please advice. What should I do.
hot Hair Color Light Ash Brown
notsure
03-03 02:54 PM
Hi,
I have applied my H1 extension in Sep 2008 and got RFE in Dec. RFE was about my work address and we have sent the details. On March 2 2009 I have received the email saying Denial Notice Sent. Not sure the reason yet. I wanted to check my options. I do have EAD. But not used. What is my visa status now? I am planning to resubmit my application based on the denial notice. If I resubmit will I have status in US? Or should I work on EAD. If I work on EAD what should i do? I mean do I need to file AC21?
Please help
Thanks
I have applied my H1 extension in Sep 2008 and got RFE in Dec. RFE was about my work address and we have sent the details. On March 2 2009 I have received the email saying Denial Notice Sent. Not sure the reason yet. I wanted to check my options. I do have EAD. But not used. What is my visa status now? I am planning to resubmit my application based on the denial notice. If I resubmit will I have status in US? Or should I work on EAD. If I work on EAD what should i do? I mean do I need to file AC21?
Please help
Thanks
more...
house My natural hair color is
legalalien
05-05 04:09 PM
Hello,
I recently received my Greencard. Will be getting married in a few months and wanted to find out the options available to sponsor my fiance. Fiance is a british citizen, does that help in any way? Also she is a qualified Doctor in the UK and is planning on taking USMLE part 1 & 2 prior to the wedding. Is it prudent to have her move to the US on an H1B instead?
Thanks
I recently received my Greencard. Will be getting married in a few months and wanted to find out the options available to sponsor my fiance. Fiance is a british citizen, does that help in any way? Also she is a qualified Doctor in the UK and is planning on taking USMLE part 1 & 2 prior to the wedding. Is it prudent to have her move to the US on an H1B instead?
Thanks
tattoo My hair color right now is
xyz2005
08-01 05:38 PM
I have neither received a receipt nor checks have been encashed. My attorney has not received any july 2nd filed cases receipts. Its a pretty big law firm.
Best Regards
Best Regards
more...
pictures light ash brown hair color
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
dresses wonder if medium ash brown
sertasheep
10-18 10:49 AM
Date/Time: Friday October 20, 2006 12:00 - 1:00 PM East Coast Time
Attorney: Sonal Mehta Verma from Nankin and Verma
Phone Number: 1-712-432-3000
Bridge Number: 153151
Range of Question IDs Covered: 71 through 100.
Conference Call Etiquette:
-We request you to put yourself on mute by pressing the following keys in succession ( 4 and *) to avoid ambient noise(breathing, background conversations, wind-noise, cellular phone static, traffic and other disturbance from your line).
- If you have a follow-up question to pose after the attorney provides a response, you can press 4* again to unmute your line. One follow-up question is permitted in real-time.
- If you have problems connecting into the call, please try after a few minutes.
Attorney: Sonal Mehta Verma from Nankin and Verma
Phone Number: 1-712-432-3000
Bridge Number: 153151
Range of Question IDs Covered: 71 through 100.
Conference Call Etiquette:
-We request you to put yourself on mute by pressing the following keys in succession ( 4 and *) to avoid ambient noise(breathing, background conversations, wind-noise, cellular phone static, traffic and other disturbance from your line).
- If you have a follow-up question to pose after the attorney provides a response, you can press 4* again to unmute your line. One follow-up question is permitted in real-time.
- If you have problems connecting into the call, please try after a few minutes.
more...
makeup Brown Hair Color Chart. ASH
sri2005_05
08-12 10:34 PM
Hi,
I would like to know can i change employer after my i-140 got approved.My i-140 got approved 6 months back and i have h1 until next year
I would like to know can i change employer after my i-140 got approved.My i-140 got approved 6 months back and i have h1 until next year
girlfriend Light or mid rown toned hair
bkshres
10-07 10:05 AM
Did anyone face similar issue recently?
Thanks
Thanks
hairstyles Dark Ash Brown 4A Hair
mihird
07-09 07:03 PM
While we all sit and wait in this painful 485 retrogression, I am just wondering, what if the retrogression pulls on past the 3 year extension (attained after the initial 6 years and I140 approval).
I have my perm LC/I140 approved/485 retrogressed with a PD of Feb 2006.
Being EB2 and starting my 7/8/9 years in early 2007, I am a bit unlikely to hit that scenerio, but someone like me in EB3 is very likely to hit that scenerio...
Does anyone know, what happens after 9 years on H1 and not able to file 485 due to retrogression??
I have my perm LC/I140 approved/485 retrogressed with a PD of Feb 2006.
Being EB2 and starting my 7/8/9 years in early 2007, I am a bit unlikely to hit that scenerio, but someone like me in EB3 is very likely to hit that scenerio...
Does anyone know, what happens after 9 years on H1 and not able to file 485 due to retrogression??
mrE
07-30 01:47 AM
the legs remind me very much of this very early power rangers bad-guy who was made entirely of snakes.
life99f
04-28 02:29 AM
I mean, when she/he wants to enroll some classes in local univ?
No comments:
Post a Comment