tikka
07-08 09:52 PM
anything in specific?
wallpaper rose wallpapers. rose
yabadaba
11-19 05:08 PM
Looks like this is the system that USCIS has been saying they are working on to identify pending cases.
Now, what if your case is pending and your Attorney is not a AILA member or you do not use an Attorney?
maybe u should write to the ombudsman and let them know that its not fair for people who dont have aila attorneys.
Now, what if your case is pending and your Attorney is not a AILA member or you do not use an Attorney?
maybe u should write to the ombudsman and let them know that its not fair for people who dont have aila attorneys.
shirish
02-05 01:34 PM
There is a hospital in Brooklyn New York where one of my friend was given H1-B and he is doing his residency from there. I will let you know.
One of my firend is doing her residency from harbour hospital in Baltimore Maryland. I know from her there are many indian nad pakistani docs there on H1b.
One of my firend is doing her residency from harbour hospital in Baltimore Maryland. I know from her there are many indian nad pakistani docs there on H1b.
2011 Rose wallpaper 22
coopheal
02-10 02:15 PM
5 Years should be fine.
The best would be something like " As soon as some one paid a net $50000 as federal taxes over the years" can get the GC.
Or
As soon some one pays the federal tax for half a million dollars will be eligible for GC.
With a minimum of 5 years of stay in the US and on any employment visa.
All this employer sponsorship, labor, 140, 485 are BS.
This is how it is all over Europe.
In your sim city you can make these rule. However for the real world support IV initiatives for the best results.
The best would be something like " As soon as some one paid a net $50000 as federal taxes over the years" can get the GC.
Or
As soon some one pays the federal tax for half a million dollars will be eligible for GC.
With a minimum of 5 years of stay in the US and on any employment visa.
All this employer sponsorship, labor, 140, 485 are BS.
This is how it is all over Europe.
In your sim city you can make these rule. However for the real world support IV initiatives for the best results.
more...
sad_angel
05-17 11:51 PM
i filed i-130 for my husband ( he is not in the u.s ) and it has been pending for 20 months . 2 months ago they sent the file to the local office in L.A and 20 days ago they transferred the file to the NBC . is this normal plz :( ????
mirchiseth
05-11 08:58 PM
Amit's call starts at 13:00 minute of the program if you want to skip and listen directly to his message.
more...
mymyanmar@gmail.com
08-11 01:31 PM
Hi,
I am not sure this is the right thread to post my question. I recently moved to new address and as soon as I moved, I did change address using AR-11 online through USCIS website. And I did received the change address confirmation from USCIS. But in that confirmation, it's only mentioned about my wife's case status number and I didn't see any for mine.
And Aug 4, when i checked my case status online, it's said, "Document mailed to applicant". So just now I called to UCSIS customer service to find out my change of address has been updated in their system because I am afraid they might send that "document" to my old address. The CSR from USCIS told me on the phone that he cannot check my address(cos it's personal information) and the only thing I can find out is take infopass appointment. He also told me my case has been approved. I don't believe what he said was true cos I haven't done any FP yet. I did got EAD and AP approvals for both me and my wife since 2007, Sep.
So my questions are
1) Can my 485 case be approved without FP?
2) Is infopass the only way to find out my address change is updated in their system?
Any reply is highly appreciated.
My info
EB3 ROW - PD 2005, Mar
485 filed on Jul 5, 2007.
Thanks in advance,
ROW Guy
I am not sure this is the right thread to post my question. I recently moved to new address and as soon as I moved, I did change address using AR-11 online through USCIS website. And I did received the change address confirmation from USCIS. But in that confirmation, it's only mentioned about my wife's case status number and I didn't see any for mine.
And Aug 4, when i checked my case status online, it's said, "Document mailed to applicant". So just now I called to UCSIS customer service to find out my change of address has been updated in their system because I am afraid they might send that "document" to my old address. The CSR from USCIS told me on the phone that he cannot check my address(cos it's personal information) and the only thing I can find out is take infopass appointment. He also told me my case has been approved. I don't believe what he said was true cos I haven't done any FP yet. I did got EAD and AP approvals for both me and my wife since 2007, Sep.
So my questions are
1) Can my 485 case be approved without FP?
2) Is infopass the only way to find out my address change is updated in their system?
Any reply is highly appreciated.
My info
EB3 ROW - PD 2005, Mar
485 filed on Jul 5, 2007.
Thanks in advance,
ROW Guy
2010 Red Rose Wallpapers
jojet
09-28 09:25 PM
i am in the same boat.aos application reached nebraska july 2nd.checks not cashed.not in the system.clueless.
more...
cox
May 21st, 2007, 10:27 AM
Sounds like you found the "sensor", really a filter or glass over the sensor. When you remove the lens, you see the mirror. Put the camera in bulb mode and lock the shutter open, and that's the "sensor". Ensure that you have plenty of battery power (or are hooked up to the AC/DC adapter) before you stick anything into the sensor cavity. If the shutter closes while you have something in the cavity, the shutter will break, and you will need an expensive repair.
I have to clean my cameras often, since I shoot outdoors and change lenses many times a day. I have found that compressed air takes care of most problems, and a $10 bulb, like Mark mentioned, is the best way to go for field work. If you are willing to put a little more $$ into it, get an oil-less diaphragm compressor for an airbrush, ~$100. The other nice thing about air is that you don't put anything in the shutter cavity.
DO NOT use "canned air", these little cans with compressed air in them. They contain isobutane and other hydrocarbon propellants which can "spit" out of the can and leave spots on the sensor that will require a liquid cleaning to remove.
Liquid cleaning is more complicated. The Eclipse solution is (I have heard, I don't use it...) clean methanol. A lot of people use these with 'pec' pads with success. I use clean, high grade isopropanol, electronics swabs, and follow up with distilled DI water and the air compressor. This is a delicate process that I don't recommend experimenting with. If you want to learn how to do this, find someone who is willing to tech you using his camera. ;) Mark probably gets his money's worth from the camera shop. The only issue is finding a good shop.
I have to clean my cameras often, since I shoot outdoors and change lenses many times a day. I have found that compressed air takes care of most problems, and a $10 bulb, like Mark mentioned, is the best way to go for field work. If you are willing to put a little more $$ into it, get an oil-less diaphragm compressor for an airbrush, ~$100. The other nice thing about air is that you don't put anything in the shutter cavity.
DO NOT use "canned air", these little cans with compressed air in them. They contain isobutane and other hydrocarbon propellants which can "spit" out of the can and leave spots on the sensor that will require a liquid cleaning to remove.
Liquid cleaning is more complicated. The Eclipse solution is (I have heard, I don't use it...) clean methanol. A lot of people use these with 'pec' pads with success. I use clean, high grade isopropanol, electronics swabs, and follow up with distilled DI water and the air compressor. This is a delicate process that I don't recommend experimenting with. If you want to learn how to do this, find someone who is willing to tech you using his camera. ;) Mark probably gets his money's worth from the camera shop. The only issue is finding a good shop.
hair high definition wallpaper
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-26 10:02 PM
As listed if there is so many address .... is the just the place where we filed the 140 that counts ?
Does it make a difference where the labor is approved ?
Or
Just the place where the 140 was approved ?
Confused .....
I guess this for from July 1st to July 31st after that it is different Right ?
Does it make a difference where the labor is approved ?
Or
Just the place where the 140 was approved ?
Confused .....
I guess this for from July 1st to July 31st after that it is different Right ?
more...
sivakumar
01-08 04:41 PM
not true. You can be approved only if your PD is current.
PD has nothing to do with approval and neither does biometrics. Once you have the reciept date of I-485 that becomes crucial. If that is after what USCIS is procesing then you have to wait like me :).
You should keep watching the processing date every month ( it changes usually around midddle of month). If your I-485 reciept date is before the uscis processing date and it has been more than 30 days you can call them to find status of your case.
PD has nothing to do with approval and neither does biometrics. Once you have the reciept date of I-485 that becomes crucial. If that is after what USCIS is procesing then you have to wait like me :).
You should keep watching the processing date every month ( it changes usually around midddle of month). If your I-485 reciept date is before the uscis processing date and it has been more than 30 days you can call them to find status of your case.
hot and HD Rose wallpaper.
GCNirvana007
10-04 06:08 PM
I've been living in the US for almost 4.5 years now. Last year I was flying from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and the security officer checking the Photo Id./boarding pass at LAX airport asked me the most intelligent question of the century.
"What's the purpose of your visit to Las Vegas?":confused:
I would expect this kind of question at immigration check for international arrivals and not on domestic departures. May be took his job too seriously.
I thought of saying "Gambling, booze and girls" but just answered "Sightseeing" and he let me go :D
I also had a similar experience in Canada where an officer asked the purpose of visit to Canada in spite of showing my Canadian PR card :)
:p:p Thats hilarious
Also a p**** sent me a red for posting this - what a loser
"What's the purpose of your visit to Las Vegas?":confused:
I would expect this kind of question at immigration check for international arrivals and not on domestic departures. May be took his job too seriously.
I thought of saying "Gambling, booze and girls" but just answered "Sightseeing" and he let me go :D
I also had a similar experience in Canada where an officer asked the purpose of visit to Canada in spite of showing my Canadian PR card :)
:p:p Thats hilarious
Also a p**** sent me a red for posting this - what a loser
more...
house Butterfly On Rose HD Wallpaper
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.
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.
tattoo Widescreen Rose Wallpapers for
mhkumar
03-25 02:23 PM
Everyone please create your own account at http://www.whitehouse.gov/OpenForQuestions/ (search with keyword immigration), and vote for all the questions favoring legal immigration so that those question will get more attention.
more...
pictures Rose Wallpaper
dhirajs98
01-13 10:31 AM
Receipt date is July 2nd, 2007.
Unfortunately, its the company lawyer and I cannot use a different lawyer's services.
Don't use other lawyer .. just consult them. You can setup a phone call with them by going to their website. Take the advise and ask your company lawyer to do that.
Unfortunately, its the company lawyer and I cannot use a different lawyer's services.
Don't use other lawyer .. just consult them. You can setup a phone call with them by going to their website. Take the advise and ask your company lawyer to do that.
dresses HD Impressive Rose Wallpaper
wahab_be
02-07 07:13 PM
UK requires an advance parole while coming back to the US. We recently travelled to India on an expired H1 and H4 visa (I have H1 extention approved but the passport has the old expired visa) via London. We did not had any issues. But while coming back we were re-routed to Frankfurt as we did not had the transit visa.
I recommend going via Frankfurt. You can double check the transit visa requirements with German Embassy as well.
I recommend going via Frankfurt. You can double check the transit visa requirements with German Embassy as well.
more...
makeup rose wallpaper hd.
Anders �stberg
May 2nd, 2005, 02:38 PM
Thanks Brent!
I'll experiment a bit the next time, it's just practice runs so far so I can afford some misses.
I'll experiment a bit the next time, it's just practice runs so far so I can afford some misses.
girlfriend HQ background wallpapers of a
Prashanthi
09-08 03:36 PM
My company lawyers have been preparing for the last 5 months to file for my PERM application. After completing the recruitment stage and getting ready to file, they for some reason have come to the conclusion that the high number of resumes received could land the company in trouble for this case plus future applications.
Has anybody seen this before. Is there any precedence that a company that receives large number of resumes for the position might cause issues? Even if they have done the due diligence to review all resumes and interview candidates that they deemed fit? Still not finding anybody worthwhile?
Any comments/ assistance would be most appreciated.
Thanks
I would still file, as long as everything has been done properly, so that in case of an audit a proper response can be given. IT jobs usually have special requirements for the job, they require a combination of hardware and software skills for the job. The employer might receive several resumes, the question is if any of them qualify for the job. If you recieve qualified resumes you obviously cannot proceed. I have noticed even in this market that it is still difficult to find candidates who have a certain combination of skill sets, especially if several years of experience is required in the use of these skills. If this is a non-IT job then obviously the job has to be evaluated and the resumes have to be evaluated to see if their are any special requirements and if the applicants qualify.
Has anybody seen this before. Is there any precedence that a company that receives large number of resumes for the position might cause issues? Even if they have done the due diligence to review all resumes and interview candidates that they deemed fit? Still not finding anybody worthwhile?
Any comments/ assistance would be most appreciated.
Thanks
I would still file, as long as everything has been done properly, so that in case of an audit a proper response can be given. IT jobs usually have special requirements for the job, they require a combination of hardware and software skills for the job. The employer might receive several resumes, the question is if any of them qualify for the job. If you recieve qualified resumes you obviously cannot proceed. I have noticed even in this market that it is still difficult to find candidates who have a certain combination of skill sets, especially if several years of experience is required in the use of these skills. If this is a non-IT job then obviously the job has to be evaluated and the resumes have to be evaluated to see if their are any special requirements and if the applicants qualify.
hairstyles rose wallpaper hd. rose
feedfront
09-14 02:06 PM
Gr8 idea. I'm in..
amitga
04-28 03:20 PM
Eco Factory - Reid: "The Energy Bill is Ready... I don't have an Immigration Bill." (http://www.ecofactory.com/news/reid-energy-bill-ready-i-dont-have-immigration-bill-042810)
zinc
07-17 06:57 PM
Great job Guys...way to go. We can accomplish a lot if we work together.
All the best to all!!!
Thanks for making a purchase with Google Checkout! Immigration Voice will process your order shortly.
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:21 GMT-07:00
Google Order #9502434335xxxxx
Shipping Status Qty Item Price
Not yet shipped 1 Contribute 100
All the best to all!!!
Thanks for making a purchase with Google Checkout! Immigration Voice will process your order shortly.
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:21 GMT-07:00
Google Order #9502434335xxxxx
Shipping Status Qty Item Price
Not yet shipped 1 Contribute 100
0 comments:
Post a Comment