lebron shoes red

images $75.99. Nike Air Max Lebron

Nike Zoom LeBron V black red

kiran_k02

12-16 01:49 PM

A freind of mine had two years EAD and don't have H1 anymore. His drivers License was denied as EAD is not considered a valid document for drivers License extention.
This happened in Wayne , NJ.
I too will be going for the renewal soon. Did anyone else faced similar situtation. If yes, how did they resolve?

I used My EAD for license extention in East Brunswick DMV in NJ on Rt 18. They extended till EAD expiration date + 3months. I had 1 year EAD. This was back in Apr, 08.

---

wallpaper Nike Zoom LeBron V black red

Therefore, Lebron Shoes 7 has

va_dude

08-31 11:51 AM

I think there's a whole lot of people who haven't received a notice for the second round of FP and there is a group who have received it too.

My attorney also suggested that uscis is working on reusing the initial FP. Not sure if there's any truth to this.

---

Lebron Shoes air max 8 white/

glosrfc

10-22 11:00 AM

When I was a kid, I built a tree-house with the tops of some discarded collapsible tables. I really can't imagine trying to do the same with CSS.

---

2011 Therefore, Lebron Shoes 7 has

Lebron Air Force 1 Shoes Red

GCScrewed

08-22 11:58 AM

Hi I have quick question about converting. If the employer withdrew approved I-140 (after 180 days have passed since I-485 has filed), can one still port the original priority date? Thanks so much!

---

more...

$85.98. Nike Zoom Lebron

FinalGC

11-09 08:54 AM

Munna Bhai:

You better get your 140 applied ASAP and hope that you get your approval before March 2007. Then you can apply for H1 for 3 years. I was in a similar boat and I got my 140 about 1.5 months before my H1 was expiring (8th year). I then used Premium Processing and got H1 in 4 days.

It will be tough call if you can get a 1 year renewal...check with your lawyers


Get moving fast man

---

Save: 57% off. Nike Air Max

akhilmahajan

04-23 11:21 AM

Wow..........

Thats something really interesting.....

So based on this, if this holds up, once DOL approves the labor, i dont think USCIS can switch a case from EB-3 to EB-3...........

If my interpertation is wrong, can you please let me know.......

---

more...

Nike Zoom LeBron 4 IV shoes

rsdang

08-01 12:54 PM

Guys,

I like the approach however I will request all Iowa residents to call Congressman Kings again and again. Also get your friends and coworkers to call.

Voter calls will always impact politicians...

Lets keep the efforts on...

Thanks

---

2010 Lebron Shoes air max 8 white/

$75.99. Nike Air Max Lebron

ilikekilo

05-27 12:22 PM

When did they say they have repealed AC21? Is this true?

Regarding (6) above, it is not 10K, more like 5K.

form immigrationlaw.com

Final Version of Sanders' Amendment of H-1B Supplemental Fee and American Student Scholarship Fund as Passed

The controversial Sanders' amendment initially was passed in the Senate last week which imposes $3,500 (or $1,750) for a supplemental fee for the American Student Scholarship Fund. The supplemental fee is added to the current fees that include $1,500 (or $750) ACWIA fee, $500 fraud prevention fee, and $190 H-1B petition (which will in itself increase substantially when the fee increase regulation is implemented). Go figure! The text of the final amendment is as follows:
SEC. 713. SUPPLEMENTAL FEES.
Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:``(15)(A) In each instance where the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State is required to impose a fee pursuant to paragraph (9) or (11), the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a supplemental fee on the employer in addition to any other fee required by such paragraph or any other provision of law, in the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $3,500, except that the fee shall be 1/2 that amount for any employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees who are employed in the United States (determined by including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section 286(x).''
Initially it was proposed to charge $10,000!!!

---

more...

and black and red shoes

gapala

07-09 12:26 PM

I am working on EAD which expires on 10th Septempber 2008. I filed for my EAD on 25th June, 2008 and with the current processing dates at Nebraska, my guess is that I wont recieve my EAD until later September/early October.

Will I have to stop working for the period when I dont have my EAD? My employer is very co-operative and will bear with me. But what are my options?

My husband is the primary applicant of our 485 petition, so we wont have any issues of going out of status.

I would really appreciate your advice on this.

I am sure your employer knows about the rules around eligibility to work and will not allow any unauthorized to work even for a day past expiry date.

Hope you will get the Renewed EAD soon before expiry of old one.

---

hair Lebron Air Force 1 Shoes Red

Nike Zoom LeBron V black red

Gravitation

06-04 10:11 AM

Morning business @ 2:30 p.m. ??

morning business - Routine business that is supposed to occur during the first two hours of a new legislative day. This business includes receiving messages from the President and from the House of Representatives, reports from executive branch officials, petitions from citizens, memorials from States, and committee reports, and the introduction of bills and submission of resolutions. In practice, the Senate often does this business instead by unanimous consent at other convenient points in the day.

Reference:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/morning_business.htm

---

more...

Nike Air Max LeBron

PBECVictim

07-29 02:59 PM

In Texas Service Center, they are not processing I-140 cases filed in the month July end and August. They kept the side. God knows about their future. But they are processing 2008 April and may cases also.


Where is FIFO? They should follow FIFO. Lot of those cases were BEC labor applications. So BEC guys suffered 3 yrs in backlog ceter, no justice there. No justice in USCIS even, waiting more than 1 yr for I-140 processing.

It is not fair.

---

hot $85.98. Nike Zoom Lebron

this lebron shoes by Nike

kaarmaa

02-10 02:40 PM

In your sim city you can make these rule. However for the real world support IV initiatives for the best results.

what initiatives? Never seen any publicized...

---

more...

house nike lebron

Vii 7 Ps Black Red Shoes

immigrationbond007

06-14 09:22 PM

They should arrive within 90 days of applying. They are not related to the Priority date. ;)

First, Congrats to everyone and IV Core Team!!

Priority Date may retrogress again. I am debating right now if I need to push my lawyer to file I-485 ASAP (hired by the firm, won't move a bit if not being bugged).

My understanding is: the immediate benefits for my wife and me once I-485 is filed are Advanced Parole and Employment Authorization Document.

My question is: are AP and EAD linked with Priority Date in any way, or you will have them once I-485 package is sent, no matter what? In other words, if PD retrogresses again in the near future, will AP and EAD be delayed also?

Thanks again!!! Sorry, have to open a thread like this. Went thru 30+ pages of posting on I-485, haven't found the answer.

---

tattoo Save: 57% off. Nike Air Max

men#39;s black/grey/red shoes

coopheal

05-06 12:39 PM

Transaction ID: 15509419M155420

You sent a payment of $100.00 USD to Immigration Voice (donations@immigrationvoice.org)

It may take a few moments for this transaction to appear in your account.

Thanks

---

more...

pictures Nike Zoom LeBron 4 IV shoes

2011 lebron james shoes-lebron

grupak

11-09 12:33 PM

Have analytical and writing (mostly scientific research journal type) skills. Would be glad to help where I can.

---

dresses this lebron shoes by Nike

shoes red. lebron shoes 7.

rkat

08-16 11:20 PM

Thanks a lot everybody for spending ur valuable time replying to my Queries.!

I applied for H1 and the contracting company (hence will be referred to X in this email) went ahead and filed for my concurrent H1 on april 1 2007. Inspite of me asking for a contract letter or offer letter i was given no offer letter or anything.! DOESN"T USCIS need to see a accepted JOB OFFER along with the I-129 petition.? Isn't that a mandatory thing..?

Anyway the H1 was filed and i recd. a email from X saying that X has paid the fees in the amount of $1440 in filing fees and $900 in attorney fees...I was elated that the H1 was filed on time...after a lot of anxiety, frustration and living in darkness about the QUOTA, etc...i recd. the RECEIPT NOTICE in May 2007...As of 8/15/07 decision reg. H1 approval is still pending at USCIS...But now of course i have filed for EAD and do not need the H1 because my current H1 job pays well and is quite secure..besides i will receive my EAD in a few months..

So i now tell X that i don't want to join u in October 1st.....X tell me to remimbure for $900 + $1440 and slaps an additional $1000 in reimbursememt costs...!!! These 1000 costs are called attorney consulation fees...!! For Q's that i had asked X to ask lawyer...These Q's had pertained to the already filed H1b....NO ATTORNEY IN USA CHARGES $1000 to ask them 4 Q's for a H1B case that has already been filed by them..!!!

So now what do i do...To follow the good samaritan law i will reimburse the 1440 + 900 to X in good faith but why should i pay the additional $1000.??? FOR WHAT..??

X has also requested from DAY1 to not contact immigration attorney directly...i respected that but i guess it's time to ask lawyer directly now...!!

How should i handle this sitaution...???? THANK YOU FOR UR HELP>.!!

---

more...

makeup and black and red shoes

nike lebron

morchu

04-23 12:32 PM

Do not assume things. I had waited for my LC approval more than probably the time you spend in college. So dont even go there. Anyway I chose to remain anonymous, and I will remove all details from my profile.
Dude,
You say you got your Labor from Atlanta in 01/04/2004 approved. Perm was not even there in 2004.

---

girlfriend men#39;s black/grey/red shoes

VI High Top shoes Red Gold

go_guy123

08-24 04:52 PM

ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)

Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta

As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).

Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.

In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.

At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8

Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.

Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10

�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�

Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:

1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�

It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.

---

hairstyles Nike Air Max LeBron

lebron shoes red.

drona

09-10 02:19 PM

We've had 19 members join WA State Chapter in the past two days, let's keep it going. Please get active in your state chapter and help IV succeed.

---

harrydr

06-29 06:32 PM

Hello,
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?

My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.

Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.

---

a1b2c3

07-10 05:17 PM

my PD is still not current :p
Just kidding..glad to see the dates move fwd.

---