ocpmachine
06-17 12:26 PM
Thanks yganreddy for your input. It might help.
In my case, the X Ray shows nothing - so I am all clear on that.
My concern is I don't how big the thing became after the test was done (twice). Once in 1997 when I first came from India and next in 1998 (when i worked in NY Preysbeterian Hosptal and they mandatorily tested for TB via skin test). I have asked for the reports from NY hospital and am hoping that it is less than 10 mm as the civil surgeon says that if the size is bigger than 10 mm, I will have to go through the treatment for TB (even though i have no evidence of active TB). I hope he is wrong.
I had another question. Can I get the reports from India, when i got the TB test done? I might have the papers at home and will have to search for it or does USCIS not consider the papers from India? I hear a sealed envelope is what is needed from a doctor. In that case, we might be able to try to get in touch with the doctor that did the test and ask for a sealed envelope (showing him the papers he gave us when we got the test done).
EB3June03,
Its upto the doctor's discretion to accept an old TB skin test(PPD), my doctor did not consider the old test results, she recommended taking a new PPD test as the test is a snapshot test which indicates the state as of the time of the test and you might be infected with TB since the last test.
Also, there is a new test as mentioned earlier called Quantiferone-Gold test (QFT-G) which provides better test of TB. However, this test is NOT certified by USCIS.
Just for clearing the doubt, you can take QFT_G test, if QFT-G result is +ve then you need to undergo treatment, if x-ray is clean and QFT result �ve you are clear of TB. My QFT-G came back as �ve and clean X-ray, however my 693 form was marked �Class B Latent� due to PPD result > 10mm, I am not taking treatment due to �ve QFT but keeping all the paperwork to respond in case of future RFE.
Disclaimer: I am not a Doctor/Lawyer.
In my case, the X Ray shows nothing - so I am all clear on that.
My concern is I don't how big the thing became after the test was done (twice). Once in 1997 when I first came from India and next in 1998 (when i worked in NY Preysbeterian Hosptal and they mandatorily tested for TB via skin test). I have asked for the reports from NY hospital and am hoping that it is less than 10 mm as the civil surgeon says that if the size is bigger than 10 mm, I will have to go through the treatment for TB (even though i have no evidence of active TB). I hope he is wrong.
I had another question. Can I get the reports from India, when i got the TB test done? I might have the papers at home and will have to search for it or does USCIS not consider the papers from India? I hear a sealed envelope is what is needed from a doctor. In that case, we might be able to try to get in touch with the doctor that did the test and ask for a sealed envelope (showing him the papers he gave us when we got the test done).
EB3June03,
Its upto the doctor's discretion to accept an old TB skin test(PPD), my doctor did not consider the old test results, she recommended taking a new PPD test as the test is a snapshot test which indicates the state as of the time of the test and you might be infected with TB since the last test.
Also, there is a new test as mentioned earlier called Quantiferone-Gold test (QFT-G) which provides better test of TB. However, this test is NOT certified by USCIS.
Just for clearing the doubt, you can take QFT_G test, if QFT-G result is +ve then you need to undergo treatment, if x-ray is clean and QFT result �ve you are clear of TB. My QFT-G came back as �ve and clean X-ray, however my 693 form was marked �Class B Latent� due to PPD result > 10mm, I am not taking treatment due to �ve QFT but keeping all the paperwork to respond in case of future RFE.
Disclaimer: I am not a Doctor/Lawyer.
wallpaper mensajes cristianos de amor.
for_gc
04-27 04:28 PM
Thanks a lot everybody. This is so helpful.
You all made my weekend !!!
You all made my weekend !!!
trueguy
12-11 01:43 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
2011 mensajes de amor cristianos
fide_champ
08-04 06:50 PM
Hi,
Thanks , for point 3 , I can apply for premium COS with future date as effective(say 6 weeks from now) , I will know on approval within 2 weeks since its a premium n then i can get my family here since I know for sure L1-H1 is approved , this will avoid family either going to stamping at chennai or every one (all of us) leaving back to india due to non approval of COS. But now Major question is , if I apply for premium COS will it be possible to include dependents COS as well in the same request , with dependents currently being in India ? or if i were to apply COS for them after they are here , will it be same cost n procedure as mine (COS that was successfully processed just for myself)?
You cannot do a COS for them while they are in india. It would be better if you can apply COS for all including yourself at the sametime to avoid complications. Basically the COS for your family must be applied before your COS gets approved. I suggest you speak with a lawyer for exact interpretation of rules.
Thanks , for point 3 , I can apply for premium COS with future date as effective(say 6 weeks from now) , I will know on approval within 2 weeks since its a premium n then i can get my family here since I know for sure L1-H1 is approved , this will avoid family either going to stamping at chennai or every one (all of us) leaving back to india due to non approval of COS. But now Major question is , if I apply for premium COS will it be possible to include dependents COS as well in the same request , with dependents currently being in India ? or if i were to apply COS for them after they are here , will it be same cost n procedure as mine (COS that was successfully processed just for myself)?
You cannot do a COS for them while they are in india. It would be better if you can apply COS for all including yourself at the sametime to avoid complications. Basically the COS for your family must be applied before your COS gets approved. I suggest you speak with a lawyer for exact interpretation of rules.
more...
jsb
10-26 11:10 AM
You guys are great. Guys like you are making this world better place to live. I wish you both good luck.
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. ....
I-140 and I-485 are always for future employment. Current employment only assures that employer has future permanent employment on your GC approval (employment on H1 is supposed to be temporary). There is nothing to stop you from working anywhere (or not working at all) until you get GC, at which time sponsoring employer is obligated to give you a job (for which he got LC and I-140 approved), and you are obligated to work for him. If AOS is not approved within 180 days, AC21 can be applied leaving no obligation to work for sponsoring employer.
BTW, I-140 is an employer filing. They are expected to pay for it. Since July 07 it is illegal for employers to ask employees to pay immigration related fees (or ask to fill a bond to work for certain period).
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. ....
I-140 and I-485 are always for future employment. Current employment only assures that employer has future permanent employment on your GC approval (employment on H1 is supposed to be temporary). There is nothing to stop you from working anywhere (or not working at all) until you get GC, at which time sponsoring employer is obligated to give you a job (for which he got LC and I-140 approved), and you are obligated to work for him. If AOS is not approved within 180 days, AC21 can be applied leaving no obligation to work for sponsoring employer.
BTW, I-140 is an employer filing. They are expected to pay for it. Since July 07 it is illegal for employers to ask employees to pay immigration related fees (or ask to fill a bond to work for certain period).
maverick_joe
05-07 01:14 PM
its not mandatory to work while on EAD but did you do a job on EAD at any point of time to get out of H1 status?
How long can one stay unemployed on EAD? my pd is Nov2005 EB-2
I got laid-off on Monday I was on H1-b. The employer has notified USICS to withdraw the H1-B. But will not be revoking any GC related stuff. Was on H1-b Laid off 485 pending 180days+ have EAD :(
Your responses will be really appreciated.ASAP
How long can one stay unemployed on EAD? my pd is Nov2005 EB-2
I got laid-off on Monday I was on H1-b. The employer has notified USICS to withdraw the H1-B. But will not be revoking any GC related stuff. Was on H1-b Laid off 485 pending 180days+ have EAD :(
Your responses will be really appreciated.ASAP
more...
onemorecame
06-25 04:18 PM
They will process applications based on receipt date. But approval will happen only if your PD is current. That means if
CASE A with PD 2003
CASE B with PD 2005
CASE C with PD 2007
Say all file in July and if dates gets retrogess some time in OCT or before to 2006.
Say for CASE A and CASE C all process is done( name check,... every thing but not approval) and CASE B is stuck in name check.
then CASE A will be approved because A process is complete and PD is current
CASE B will be pending waiting to clear name check though the PD is current
Once name check done and PD is current this will approve.
CASE C will not be approved though processing is complete PD is not current
once PD become current CASE C will approve.
This is just example to explain how it works.
Thanks samrat_bhargava_vihari
for this nice example to clear the things
CASE A with PD 2003
CASE B with PD 2005
CASE C with PD 2007
Say all file in July and if dates gets retrogess some time in OCT or before to 2006.
Say for CASE A and CASE C all process is done( name check,... every thing but not approval) and CASE B is stuck in name check.
then CASE A will be approved because A process is complete and PD is current
CASE B will be pending waiting to clear name check though the PD is current
Once name check done and PD is current this will approve.
CASE C will not be approved though processing is complete PD is not current
once PD become current CASE C will approve.
This is just example to explain how it works.
Thanks samrat_bhargava_vihari
for this nice example to clear the things
2010 Mensajes Cristianos De Amor
vroapp
12-08 08:10 AM
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
(202) 224-2541
Bunning, Jim- (R - KY)
(202) 224-4343
(202) 224-2541
Bunning, Jim- (R - KY)
(202) 224-4343
more...
paskal
12-21 11:11 AM
we will be delighted to have you folks joining in
hair mensajes de amor cristianos. mensajes de amor cristianos
forgerator
04-29 03:39 PM
The majority of people who return to their home countries do so due to family related reasons. America is still the land of opportunity and the best bet to earn big bucks.
more...
xgoogle
08-25 02:08 PM
bump
hot hair mensajes cristianos de amor. mensajes cristianos de amor. mensajes
Aah_GC
05-30 03:49 PM
Hi gurus, Please advise
I have an approved I-140 and july 485 filer, also have valid h1 till 2010.
I work for company X and have an offer from company Y.
What are my best options now
1. Transfer H1 to Y - if yes what impact would this have on my GC processing?
should the new H1-B Job code match with my Labor Certification?
2. Use EAD - the complication here is my desi employer filed my labor
as an IT Manager which i am not and i am not sure the new employer would
give me the matching offer letter.
Thanks,
Krishna:confused:
Krishna - H1B and EAD are your work permits, so do not confuse it with AC21. Eitherway, if you are leaving your employer after 180 days of 485 application receive date - you are using AC21. Good luck.
I have an approved I-140 and july 485 filer, also have valid h1 till 2010.
I work for company X and have an offer from company Y.
What are my best options now
1. Transfer H1 to Y - if yes what impact would this have on my GC processing?
should the new H1-B Job code match with my Labor Certification?
2. Use EAD - the complication here is my desi employer filed my labor
as an IT Manager which i am not and i am not sure the new employer would
give me the matching offer letter.
Thanks,
Krishna:confused:
Krishna - H1B and EAD are your work permits, so do not confuse it with AC21. Eitherway, if you are leaving your employer after 180 days of 485 application receive date - you are using AC21. Good luck.
more...
house pictures mensajes cristianos
ajju
10-15 02:21 PM
agree.. 90 days is too much.. esp when just dates need to be extended.. In the first place.. it should be non-expiring .. something like valid with I-485 Receipt... and then when accepting EAD employer can check the I-485 status that its still pending... and any change will send email to the employer about 485 current status...
But then my dear.. where's the money...
Guess people can't even take PUN any more... Got negative and abusive remarks for this.. atleast have guts/courtesy to leave name/handle...
But then my dear.. where's the money...
Guess people can't even take PUN any more... Got negative and abusive remarks for this.. atleast have guts/courtesy to leave name/handle...
tattoo mensajes cristianos de amor.
Eternal_Hope
05-11 11:20 AM
I second that. Use their tool to send your own letters.
We are already discussing this on the "Media Drive" thread.
Use one of our IV template letters and send it to the Media.
Let's do this today!
It is just a TOOL to write to senators! No one force you to use their template, and you can and SHOULD write you letter!
We are already discussing this on the "Media Drive" thread.
Use one of our IV template letters and send it to the Media.
Let's do this today!
It is just a TOOL to write to senators! No one force you to use their template, and you can and SHOULD write you letter!
more...
pictures mensajes cristianos de amor.
a.j.2048
09-05 12:34 AM
Are people being bumped off now either for protection or revenge? Doesn't make sense that so many would die out of grief.
Why isn't AP under curfew when so many are dying?
Why isn't AP under curfew when so many are dying?
dresses Mensajes Cristianos De Amor
BMS1
08-21 02:16 PM
So, once you have finished the security check, your I485 is approved, unless CIS wants to interview you. You said only a small percentage, wow, I hope I don't get called for interview.
How long did you wait after your biometrics to get your 485 got approved?
There were twobiometrics. One was with initial application (probably Nov/Dec 2005) and another was in May 2007 when the first one expired (FP is valid for 15 months).
How long did you wait after your biometrics to get your 485 got approved?
There were twobiometrics. One was with initial application (probably Nov/Dec 2005) and another was in May 2007 when the first one expired (FP is valid for 15 months).
more...
makeup mensajes cristianos de amor.
andy garcia
11-08 01:48 PM
Do you mean EB based AOS alone is 655K? 1.3 million is I-130 petition which is different from AOS.
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
girlfriend mensajes cristianos de amor. mensajes cristianos de amor
eb3retro
02-24 03:49 PM
To whom it may concern, please, help us. Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
hairstyles wallpaper MENSAJES CRISTIANOS DE AMOR; mensajes cristianos de amor. mensajes
sen
10-19 10:54 AM
Some of my friends who used AC21 moved to jobs having salary more than 50% of their current one. All got their GCs approved and didn't have any issues. But from what i read from multiple sites, the salary should never go below the one that's mentioned in LCA.
hopein07
03-14 10:21 AM
Here is a good link with info about licensing in Canada. All the best !!!
http://www.canamglobal.com/secureserver/category.asp?catid=56#APPLYINGFORLICENCETOPRACTISE
http://www.canamglobal.com/secureserver/category.asp?catid=56#APPLYINGFORLICENCETOPRACTISE
eb3_nepa
04-13 09:56 AM
People on here mentioned that there was a special provision for a a further 3 month wait for the director of immigration studies to examine it. Is that true?
Now is 90 days a normal wait time, or is there something special in this bill?
Now is 90 days a normal wait time, or is there something special in this bill?
No comments:
Post a Comment