clif
07-26 01:17 PM
How are the dates mentioned in the following press release (on July 20th) to be interpreted:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes20Jul07.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes20Jul07.pdf
wallpaper Kino Der Toten Map Tips
god_bless_you
06-20 03:27 PM
I have EB2 i-140 approved with PD Dec. 05. I am planning to change the employer.. was just waiting to see if CIR gonna help.. but looks like its not. If I change job now, I will have to do labor, i140 once again!! might be able to maintain PD. .. my question is... I believe that in Octo. 06, new quota for GC will be available. What are the guesses that the PD will become current (at least for Eb2 India) in Octo 06?? Some educated guesses are highly appreciated.
if changing Employer is benificial to you in any way -- financially or peace of mind,, go for it,
save more and keep options open ...
DO NOT RELY ON GC PROCESS!!
if changing Employer is benificial to you in any way -- financially or peace of mind,, go for it,
save more and keep options open ...
DO NOT RELY ON GC PROCESS!!
ebizash
10-05 02:50 PM
Great!! It is very good for IV's and our future!
2011 this map is a layout of kino
sareesh
03-31 09:54 AM
I just called Halifax and they told me that I am not eligible for Visa in Halifax,
eventhough I had H1B visa stamp on old passport from first company (expired over an year). They consider my appoint as new H1B and I cannot attend Halifax or Quebec City.
I will cancel my appoint.
Thanks,
SG.
eventhough I had H1B visa stamp on old passport from first company (expired over an year). They consider my appoint as new H1B and I cannot attend Halifax or Quebec City.
I will cancel my appoint.
Thanks,
SG.
more...
logiclife
09-25 12:07 PM
Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
smuggymba
09-30 03:04 PM
mods - please delete
more...
vishwak
03-09 12:41 PM
Hi All,
Please advise me on status below.
My wife currently working on EAD, previusly she is on H1B and here employer cancelled H1B when she took permanent.
Before coming to EAD, she travelled abrod and got I-94 till Sep-2010.
My Question is: Does she needs to get new I-94 after Sep-2010. I believe if she goes out of country she gets I-94 when travelling with AP...is this correct?? Can someone please tell me necessary steps to take care to maintain status when on EAD.
Thanks,
Vishwa.
Please advise me on status below.
My wife currently working on EAD, previusly she is on H1B and here employer cancelled H1B when she took permanent.
Before coming to EAD, she travelled abrod and got I-94 till Sep-2010.
My Question is: Does she needs to get new I-94 after Sep-2010. I believe if she goes out of country she gets I-94 when travelling with AP...is this correct?? Can someone please tell me necessary steps to take care to maintain status when on EAD.
Thanks,
Vishwa.
2010 ops zombies kino der toten
Googler
02-14 05:22 PM
Great ruling. The analysis is totally applicable to AOS. Moreover, the government admitted that it was wrong in recent memo.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
Good point about the recent memo -- happily there are multiple pdfs of it floating around so they can't make that language disappear -- and and immigration judge granting AOS. Those two points should do.
About "name check" nowhere found in laws -- i.e no language in some obscure subsection -- I just want to make sure that the interpretation is ironclad for AOS, we know it is for naturalization.
Yep, I *love* the "unlikely event" part.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
Good point about the recent memo -- happily there are multiple pdfs of it floating around so they can't make that language disappear -- and and immigration judge granting AOS. Those two points should do.
About "name check" nowhere found in laws -- i.e no language in some obscure subsection -- I just want to make sure that the interpretation is ironclad for AOS, we know it is for naturalization.
Yep, I *love* the "unlikely event" part.
more...
GCBy3000
07-17 03:35 PM
Congratulations. You are very very lucky looking at the big UUUUUUUU for EB2 from next month.
hair kino der toten map layout.
glus
09-24 09:00 AM
Usually it comes to lawyer.
more...
imneedy
03-24 04:00 PM
Attorney saying she did fallow up with USCIS but she got response back that since they (USCIS) already approved my case she can only do proting when I file 484 under EB2 category.
Can you ask her to do inter-filing for I-485? I thought lawyer just need to send a letter to link new I-140 to your existing I-485 application.
Can you ask her to do inter-filing for I-485? I thought lawyer just need to send a letter to link new I-140 to your existing I-485 application.
hot kino der toten map layout.
JunRN
05-16 02:49 PM
For my spouse,
We have applied for I 485 after our visit to India.
1. First I 94 was taken at the airport and got the new one while we came back and one of the requirement is the copy of I 94
How and where can I get a copy (I never made a copy of that).
Note: Spouse passport has stamping but the requirement is copy of I 94
any help or suggestoins where can we get a copy. We have applied for states Id's in two different states where they made copies of I 94 but at that time I never though of making copies of it.
You should have a I-94 when she came back here in the US. Did she misplace it? The I-94 when she came back should be enough for the RFE. The old ones don't matter for I-485.
We have applied for I 485 after our visit to India.
1. First I 94 was taken at the airport and got the new one while we came back and one of the requirement is the copy of I 94
How and where can I get a copy (I never made a copy of that).
Note: Spouse passport has stamping but the requirement is copy of I 94
any help or suggestoins where can we get a copy. We have applied for states Id's in two different states where they made copies of I 94 but at that time I never though of making copies of it.
You should have a I-94 when she came back here in the US. Did she misplace it? The I-94 when she came back should be enough for the RFE. The old ones don't matter for I-485.
more...
house kino der toten map layout.
samcam
05-19 11:19 AM
Welcome to our newest member biju...
3870 and counting!! Come join us!
30 more to go to reach today's goal of 3900 members..
3870 and counting!! Come join us!
30 more to go to reach today's goal of 3900 members..
tattoo maps kino der toten. The
gsvisu
07-15 06:26 PM
I agree. Everyone wants to sit in front of computer & IV forum and watch what good can come to them of this. Everyone needs to roll-up their sleeves, contact friends, spread awareness etc.
Everyone needs to take active particpation. I sent many emails and contacted press on Thursday.
Everyone needs to take active particpation. I sent many emails and contacted press on Thursday.
more...
pictures kino der toten map layout,
prem_goel
07-06 12:48 AM
Please update your profile so that I and others can help you effectively.
Can you share the link where you read that adding F1 to I-485 application is allowed? I am pretty sure that being on F-1 visa the intent to immigrate is not recognized. (Think about it, we would have all the students applying for Green cards then:)
You need to share your priority date as well as when you applied for 485. Assuming your 485 has been pre-adjudicated like a lot of people, I would think an RFE would only be triggered if you have any service records update (like address change on 485, I-140 withdrawl etc). Else they'll just wait for your dates to get current and once it is, they'll simply allot you a visa number.
Secondly, please recognize that once you lose your H-1b status, you will not be able to add your wife to 485 through AOS, but she will have to go through Consular Processing (UNLESS YOUR WIFE OBTAINS HER OWN H-1B or L-1).
Can you share the link where you read that adding F1 to I-485 application is allowed? I am pretty sure that being on F-1 visa the intent to immigrate is not recognized. (Think about it, we would have all the students applying for Green cards then:)
You need to share your priority date as well as when you applied for 485. Assuming your 485 has been pre-adjudicated like a lot of people, I would think an RFE would only be triggered if you have any service records update (like address change on 485, I-140 withdrawl etc). Else they'll just wait for your dates to get current and once it is, they'll simply allot you a visa number.
Secondly, please recognize that once you lose your H-1b status, you will not be able to add your wife to 485 through AOS, but she will have to go through Consular Processing (UNLESS YOUR WIFE OBTAINS HER OWN H-1B or L-1).
dresses black ops zombies kino der
sledge_hammer
06-29 11:37 AM
^^^^
more...
makeup One giant pro for this map?
a_yaja
06-26 03:10 PM
Could you please point out the section where it says dual intent for H1 will be removed ?
You will have to prove that you will come back to your home country after the end of the H1B. Look at page 237 of the new bill. It has the following:
(c) CLARIFYING THE IMMIGRANT INTENT PROVISION.� Subsection (b) of
14 section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b))
15 is amended�
16
17 (1) by striking the parenthetical phrase �(other than a
18 nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section
19 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any
20 provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of
21 such section) " in the first sentence; and
22
23 (2) by striking �under section 101(a)(15)" and inserting in its
24 place �under the immigration laws.".
You will have to prove that you will come back to your home country after the end of the H1B. Look at page 237 of the new bill. It has the following:
(c) CLARIFYING THE IMMIGRANT INTENT PROVISION.� Subsection (b) of
14 section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b))
15 is amended�
16
17 (1) by striking the parenthetical phrase �(other than a
18 nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section
19 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any
20 provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of
21 such section) " in the first sentence; and
22
23 (2) by striking �under section 101(a)(15)" and inserting in its
24 place �under the immigration laws.".
girlfriend kino der toten map layout.
desi3933
03-02 10:37 AM
Thanks SL & Lost in GC process,
Sorry for not being clear in C & D. I am in US. The question I meant to ask is about the the time that I am not physically present in US i.e. If I went for vacction in India for a month, can that one month be included in my H1B1 extension since I was not physically present in US. In other words I would file for 1.1 year extension as opposed to 1 year
One the same topic, a friend of mine got a three year extension post 6 years of H1B. When asked, his lawyer informed, if you have an approved I140 then you are elegible for 3 years extension as opposed to 1 year. Is this true. Can some refer to the right CFR's
Thanks
Senthil
If you have approved I-140 and your PD is not current, your employer can seek 3 year extension for H-1B under section 104(c) of AC21. In this case, the H-1B petition must request three years, and also include a LCA covering such period of extension sought.
____________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
Sorry for not being clear in C & D. I am in US. The question I meant to ask is about the the time that I am not physically present in US i.e. If I went for vacction in India for a month, can that one month be included in my H1B1 extension since I was not physically present in US. In other words I would file for 1.1 year extension as opposed to 1 year
One the same topic, a friend of mine got a three year extension post 6 years of H1B. When asked, his lawyer informed, if you have an approved I140 then you are elegible for 3 years extension as opposed to 1 year. Is this true. Can some refer to the right CFR's
Thanks
Senthil
If you have approved I-140 and your PD is not current, your employer can seek 3 year extension for H-1B under section 104(c) of AC21. In this case, the H-1B petition must request three years, and also include a LCA covering such period of extension sought.
____________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
hairstyles is the first map that ties
delhirocks
06-29 12:55 PM
My documents will reach attorney on Monday and he promised to file before July4.
Good lawyer...mine is taking 6-7 business days after submission atleast. Though, I did not fill any forms, I filled a questionairre and she will use that to fill the forms, that might delay things a little.
Good lawyer...mine is taking 6-7 business days after submission atleast. Though, I did not fill any forms, I filled a questionairre and she will use that to fill the forms, that might delay things a little.
chanduv23
02-14 03:58 PM
We want widespread support from all Physicians.
If you are a resident, fellow, preparing for USMLE, practicing, j1 waiver everyone, please join the IV Physicians group. We need a lot of support for this bill.
Please spread the message and get your organizations to participate actively in this campaign.
Please post you pledge for support on this thread
If you are a resident, fellow, preparing for USMLE, practicing, j1 waiver everyone, please join the IV Physicians group. We need a lot of support for this bill.
Please spread the message and get your organizations to participate actively in this campaign.
Please post you pledge for support on this thread
vallabhu
10-24 12:50 PM
Talk to a lawyer I think if you have approved GC you dont to wait for Priority date You have to add her within 6 months.
No comments:
Post a Comment