mirage
03-31 12:42 PM
Wow, so you're telling me be happy as somebody else is in pain now ???
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
We're much better off here in the US when you compare our compatriots suffering in Britain. Britain has enforced a lot more regulations on immigrants, much to their chagrin.
Let's grin and bear it and hope to see the 'green' light at the end of the tunnel.
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
We're much better off here in the US when you compare our compatriots suffering in Britain. Britain has enforced a lot more regulations on immigrants, much to their chagrin.
Let's grin and bear it and hope to see the 'green' light at the end of the tunnel.
wallpaper Tags : Priyanka Chopra
PD_Dec2002
06-02 08:35 PM
My interpretation of:
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the and [I]were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
IMHO, the terms "pending" and "approved" are applicable only to I-140's filed before the date of introduction [May 15th 2007]. This is because there is no comma between the two terms "pending, or approved". This leads to only two scenarios:
1. I-140 applied before May 15th 2007, but is still pending as of the effective date [which could be Oct 1st 2008].
2. I-140 applied before May 15th 2007, and is approved as of the effective date [which could be Oct 1st 2008].
Only the two scenarios above are eligible to continue/file under the old system.
Thanks,
Jayant
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the and [I]were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
IMHO, the terms "pending" and "approved" are applicable only to I-140's filed before the date of introduction [May 15th 2007]. This is because there is no comma between the two terms "pending, or approved". This leads to only two scenarios:
1. I-140 applied before May 15th 2007, but is still pending as of the effective date [which could be Oct 1st 2008].
2. I-140 applied before May 15th 2007, and is approved as of the effective date [which could be Oct 1st 2008].
Only the two scenarios above are eligible to continue/file under the old system.
Thanks,
Jayant
Macaca
09-12 04:04 PM
Michael Abramowitz: abramowitz@washpost.com *
Joel Achenbach: achenbachj@washpost.com *
N.C. Aizenman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/n.c.+aizenman/): Aizenmann@washpost.com *
Lori Aratani (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lori+aratani/)
Peter Baker: bakerp@washpost.com *
Daniel J. Balz: balzd@washpost.com *
Stephen Barr
Jeff Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/)
William Branigin
David S. Broder: davidbroder@washpost.com *
Karin Brulliard: Brulliardk@washpost.com *
Ruben Castaneda
Chris Cillizza (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/chris+cillizza)
Andrew Cockburn
Donald B. Cofman
Pamela Constable: Constablep@washpost.com *
Tim Craig: Craigt@washpost.com *
Jessica Dawson
Daniela Deane
Virgil Dickson
E. J. Dionne Jr.: postchat@aol.com (doesn't work)
Anthony Faiola: 104704.3367@compuserve.com, faiolaa@washpost.com *
Rachel Dry
Darryl Fears: fearsd@washpost.com *
Marc Fisher: marcfisher@washpost.com *
Michael A. Fletcher (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+a.+fletcher/)
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Dan Froomkin (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dan+froomkin/)
Sonya Geis
Christy Goodman: goodmanc@washpost.com *
Annie Gowen
George W. Grayson
Hamil R. Harris: harrish@washpost.com *
Jim Hoagland jimhoagland@washpost.com *
Deborah Howell: atombudsman@washpost.com 202-334-7582 (doesn't work)
Spencer Hsu: hsus@washpost.com *
David Ignatius: davidignatius@washpost.com *
S Mitra Kalita: kalitam@washpost.com *
Paul Kane
Cecilia Kang
Charles Krauthammer: letters@charleskrauthammer.com *
Howard Kurtz: kurtzh@washpost.com *
Ernesto Londo�o
Sebastian Mallaby: smallaby@cfr.org *
Tammi Marcoullier
Raymond McCaffrey
Dana Milbank: milbankd@washpost.com *
Mariana Minaya
Nick Miroff: Miroffn@washpost.com *
David Montgomery: montgomery@washpost.com *
Lisa de Moraes
Sylvia Moreno: morenos@washpost.com *
Dan Morse
Jonathan Mummolo
Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/)
Amy Orndorff
Eugene Robinson eugenerobinson@washpost.com *
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Candace Rondeaux
Robert J. Samuelson: writersgrp@washpost.com *
Marcela Sanchez: desdewash@washpost.com *
Brigid Schulte: schulteb@washpost.com *
Delphine Schrank
Ian Shapira
Michael D. Shear shearm@washpost.com *
Robin Shulman: shulmanr@washpost.com *
Sandhya Somashekhar: Somashekhars@washpost.com *
Miranda S. Spivack
Bill Turque: turqueb@washpost.com *
Jose Antonio Vargas
Theresa Vargas: vargast@waspost.com *
Daniel de Vise
William Wan
Jonathan Weisman: Weismanj@washpost.com *
Eric Weiss (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/eric+m.+weiss/)
Ovetta Wiggins (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/ovetta+wiggins/)
George F. Will georgewill@washpost.com *
Krissah Williams: williamsk@washpost.com *
Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/)
Robin Wright: wrightr@washpost.com *
Xiyun Yang: yangx@washpost.com * (doesn't work)
Joel Achenbach: achenbachj@washpost.com *
N.C. Aizenman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/n.c.+aizenman/): Aizenmann@washpost.com *
Lori Aratani (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lori+aratani/)
Peter Baker: bakerp@washpost.com *
Daniel J. Balz: balzd@washpost.com *
Stephen Barr
Jeff Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/)
William Branigin
David S. Broder: davidbroder@washpost.com *
Karin Brulliard: Brulliardk@washpost.com *
Ruben Castaneda
Chris Cillizza (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/chris+cillizza)
Andrew Cockburn
Donald B. Cofman
Pamela Constable: Constablep@washpost.com *
Tim Craig: Craigt@washpost.com *
Jessica Dawson
Daniela Deane
Virgil Dickson
E. J. Dionne Jr.: postchat@aol.com (doesn't work)
Anthony Faiola: 104704.3367@compuserve.com, faiolaa@washpost.com *
Rachel Dry
Darryl Fears: fearsd@washpost.com *
Marc Fisher: marcfisher@washpost.com *
Michael A. Fletcher (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+a.+fletcher/)
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Dan Froomkin (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dan+froomkin/)
Sonya Geis
Christy Goodman: goodmanc@washpost.com *
Annie Gowen
George W. Grayson
Hamil R. Harris: harrish@washpost.com *
Jim Hoagland jimhoagland@washpost.com *
Deborah Howell: atombudsman@washpost.com 202-334-7582 (doesn't work)
Spencer Hsu: hsus@washpost.com *
David Ignatius: davidignatius@washpost.com *
S Mitra Kalita: kalitam@washpost.com *
Paul Kane
Cecilia Kang
Charles Krauthammer: letters@charleskrauthammer.com *
Howard Kurtz: kurtzh@washpost.com *
Ernesto Londo�o
Sebastian Mallaby: smallaby@cfr.org *
Tammi Marcoullier
Raymond McCaffrey
Dana Milbank: milbankd@washpost.com *
Mariana Minaya
Nick Miroff: Miroffn@washpost.com *
David Montgomery: montgomery@washpost.com *
Lisa de Moraes
Sylvia Moreno: morenos@washpost.com *
Dan Morse
Jonathan Mummolo
Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/)
Amy Orndorff
Eugene Robinson eugenerobinson@washpost.com *
Manuel Roig-Franzia
Candace Rondeaux
Robert J. Samuelson: writersgrp@washpost.com *
Marcela Sanchez: desdewash@washpost.com *
Brigid Schulte: schulteb@washpost.com *
Delphine Schrank
Ian Shapira
Michael D. Shear shearm@washpost.com *
Robin Shulman: shulmanr@washpost.com *
Sandhya Somashekhar: Somashekhars@washpost.com *
Miranda S. Spivack
Bill Turque: turqueb@washpost.com *
Jose Antonio Vargas
Theresa Vargas: vargast@waspost.com *
Daniel de Vise
William Wan
Jonathan Weisman: Weismanj@washpost.com *
Eric Weiss (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/eric+m.+weiss/)
Ovetta Wiggins (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/ovetta+wiggins/)
George F. Will georgewill@washpost.com *
Krissah Williams: williamsk@washpost.com *
Elizabeth Williamson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/elizabeth+williamson/)
Robin Wright: wrightr@washpost.com *
Xiyun Yang: yangx@washpost.com * (doesn't work)
2011 Priyanka Chopra Wallpaper 31
vinabath
07-20 01:14 PM
I can see how it will affect many people's (including mine) spouses job prospects.
Assuming it takes longer than 12 months, what are the options here? I would like to understand what AC21 says. Is having an EAD a precondition of using the AC21 provision i.e. does it say -
"an employee after 6 months of filing 485 AND having an EAD in hand can switch jobs"
or does it say
"6 months after filing 485, the employee can switch"
thanks
To use AC21 ( to change employer) no need for EAD.
You can do it on H-1.
Assuming it takes longer than 12 months, what are the options here? I would like to understand what AC21 says. Is having an EAD a precondition of using the AC21 provision i.e. does it say -
"an employee after 6 months of filing 485 AND having an EAD in hand can switch jobs"
or does it say
"6 months after filing 485, the employee can switch"
thanks
To use AC21 ( to change employer) no need for EAD.
You can do it on H-1.
more...
jungalee43
04-30 09:53 AM
I am sad to see people posting messages on �inevitable future of CIR�, �US political system is broken�. But they don�t consider it important to contact their senators and follow IV�s instructions on making phone calls. Please understand the need of the hour and don�t waste time in making judgments or making predictions. Just follow what IV core is asking you to do.
Just call, call and call. I am starting my second round of calls.
Just call, call and call. I am starting my second round of calls.
swo
07-20 01:22 PM
It makes me laugh. Everyone screams and jumps up and down that they can't be part of a 750,000 person flood to USCIS.
And then they get that right.
And then they get all mad that they have to wait for their EADs.
I don't see how USCIS could ever make anyone happy!
And then they get that right.
And then they get all mad that they have to wait for their EADs.
I don't see how USCIS could ever make anyone happy!
more...
Green.Tech
06-01 07:46 PM
Back to the top!
2010 Priyanka Chopra Pictures
julsun
01-12 04:29 PM
Hi,
I just wanted to find out if anybody received email feedback from USCIS once they opened SR with USCIS? Do they even provide any feedback on SR???
I created the SR to check the status of my AP on Jan 8th and have bot heard anything back yet.
Thanks,
______________________________________
Filed I-485/EAD/AP - July 24th, 2007 - NSC
PD - Oct, 2005 - EB3 - ROW
I-140 approved - Dec 2006
EAD received - Oct, 07
FP done
AP - Pending
LUDS on I-140/I-485 in November and Early December (These LUDS are in addition to LUDS on I-485 when FP was done)
I did open SR for my wife's AP a week back. USCIS emailed us asking for us to fax documentation in support for request for expedited processing of AP. We did that. Called up USCIS again on Friday and they said they are still working on (although it seems SRs are to be decided on within 5 days. Thats why customer service folks told us).
I just wanted to find out if anybody received email feedback from USCIS once they opened SR with USCIS? Do they even provide any feedback on SR???
I created the SR to check the status of my AP on Jan 8th and have bot heard anything back yet.
Thanks,
______________________________________
Filed I-485/EAD/AP - July 24th, 2007 - NSC
PD - Oct, 2005 - EB3 - ROW
I-140 approved - Dec 2006
EAD received - Oct, 07
FP done
AP - Pending
LUDS on I-140/I-485 in November and Early December (These LUDS are in addition to LUDS on I-485 when FP was done)
I did open SR for my wife's AP a week back. USCIS emailed us asking for us to fax documentation in support for request for expedited processing of AP. We did that. Called up USCIS again on Friday and they said they are still working on (although it seems SRs are to be decided on within 5 days. Thats why customer service folks told us).
more...
jonty_11
07-06 01:03 PM
I see that we all are very busy fighting amongst ourselves. Did all of you get a chance to "Digg" the story so it gets maximum publicity possible? This is the only story so far that carefully analyzes the 485 fiasco and longer it runs the better it will be for us.
Please take a min and digg it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.
yes please concentrate on IV action items, Contact senators, media, and keep digging...please that is the only way we have currently...so use ur free time to Digg...please
Please take a min and digg it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.
yes please concentrate on IV action items, Contact senators, media, and keep digging...please that is the only way we have currently...so use ur free time to Digg...please
hair Priyanka Chopra Wallpapers
ilikekilo
07-20 05:57 PM
I dont understand why the democrats are hell bent on not helping the legal community and ofcourse sessions voted against us
what a shame!!1
u know what f&&& the dems...i thought when they come they will do something for us....obama never votes on issues like this....no desis should support him...in anyway..useless leaders
what a shame!!1
u know what f&&& the dems...i thought when they come they will do something for us....obama never votes on issues like this....no desis should support him...in anyway..useless leaders
more...
Leo07
12-10 06:46 PM
I want to shout very loud....but, I'm in office....so I can only shout here... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHA .... Just took a breath .. Shouting continues... ... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H so is our life:)
hot Desi Girl Priyanka Chopra
ramus
07-18 09:33 PM
Very well said... I hope at least 50 % of member think like you do.. Then we will have strong IV..
I started off with a one time contribution many months ago, and then signed up for $20 monthly contributions.
Today, when I saw the action item for the new funding drive and that the recurring contribution request had gone up to $50, I couldn't initially bring my stingy self to changing my contribution from $20 to $50.
Then I asked myself, If I were offered a green card today, at an additional 'premium' fee (Besides the filing, attorney fees), how much would I be willing to pay? probably, $2, 3, 4, 5, or even upto $10000. That being the case why was I being a miser about spending $50 a month supporting a great organization like IV.
With that thought, I immediately went ahead and signed up for the $50 a month contribution and cancelled my old $20 subscription on Paypal.
I am single and don't have a family to support like most of you do, but this $50 a month will go a long way. We have seen IV get results. From what has gone on in the last few months, up until last night, we know that IV is the only organization that really works for our interest. Oh, Shusterman, ILW, Murthy might all be good attorneys but they don't push our interests like IV does.
With that, I would request all of you to join hands and work with IV in bringing a revolutionary change to the employment immigration system.
Thank you all, in advance.
20,000 members of which at least 15,000 are real (not non-immigrant trolls).
If all sign up for $50 a month, IV would generate $750,000 a month. That kind of money = serious lobbying efforts = we get our green cards well before it is time to retire
I started off with a one time contribution many months ago, and then signed up for $20 monthly contributions.
Today, when I saw the action item for the new funding drive and that the recurring contribution request had gone up to $50, I couldn't initially bring my stingy self to changing my contribution from $20 to $50.
Then I asked myself, If I were offered a green card today, at an additional 'premium' fee (Besides the filing, attorney fees), how much would I be willing to pay? probably, $2, 3, 4, 5, or even upto $10000. That being the case why was I being a miser about spending $50 a month supporting a great organization like IV.
With that thought, I immediately went ahead and signed up for the $50 a month contribution and cancelled my old $20 subscription on Paypal.
I am single and don't have a family to support like most of you do, but this $50 a month will go a long way. We have seen IV get results. From what has gone on in the last few months, up until last night, we know that IV is the only organization that really works for our interest. Oh, Shusterman, ILW, Murthy might all be good attorneys but they don't push our interests like IV does.
With that, I would request all of you to join hands and work with IV in bringing a revolutionary change to the employment immigration system.
Thank you all, in advance.
20,000 members of which at least 15,000 are real (not non-immigrant trolls).
If all sign up for $50 a month, IV would generate $750,000 a month. That kind of money = serious lobbying efforts = we get our green cards well before it is time to retire
more...
house Priyanka Chopra Wallpapers.
Guest007
09-10 03:35 PM
Contributed $100 from google
Conf# 812974609196537
Conf# 812974609196537
tattoo Priyanka Chopra
desi3933
08-04 03:43 PM
I'm not getting what's your point. All I am telling this guy and others that I need some statistics and why it is important to me. People who like my point will write them and people who will not like my point but still have the problem will modify the letter accordingly and people who should not care since they are not affected should just ignore this thread and move....
My best wishes are with you.
Go ahead and send your letter, that includes line like Being stuck in a green card process keeps us bonded with 1 employer, job type etc.
Please keep us posted on updates. Thanks! ;)
My best wishes are with you.
Go ahead and send your letter, that includes line like Being stuck in a green card process keeps us bonded with 1 employer, job type etc.
Please keep us posted on updates. Thanks! ;)
more...
pictures Priyanka Chopra, Priyanka
HRPRO
05-09 02:06 PM
Can someone on EAD start a S-Corp or LLC? IF SO WHICH ONE IS BETTER S-CORP OR LLC? PLEASE ADVISE
You can. LLC is def easier to manage
You can. LLC is def easier to manage
dresses Priyanka Chopra Profile and
sriramkalyan
07-05 07:36 PM
Looks like some one upset with Donor only calls..
Lot of members got use to Free Food ..
Lot of members got use to Free Food ..
more...
makeup priyanka chopra wallpapers
PD_Dec2002
03-18 07:17 AM
Having said that, since we are non-resident aliens (i.e the ones without green card or US citizenship) will not get a stimulus package?
An overwhelming chunk of all of us are considered resident aliens from IRS's perpective so you are eligible. In fact, I would think every single one of us on this forum is a resident alien since we all fit IRS's definition of a "resident alien" as per their "substantial preference test". The following is copy-paste from IRS:
Topic 851 - Resident and Non–Resident Aliens
You are considered a resident alien if you met one of two tests for the calendar year.
The first test is the "green card test." If at any time during the calendar year you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States according to the immigration laws, and this status has not been rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned, you are considered to have met the green card test.
The second test is the "substantial presence test". For the purposes of this test, the term United Stated includes the following areas:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The territorial waters of the United States.
The seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas that are adjacent to U.S. territorial waters and over which the United States has exclusive rights under international law to explore and exploit natural resources. The term does not include U.S. possessions and territories or U.S. airspace.
To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count all of the days you were present in the current year, and one–third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and one–sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. Do not count any day you were present in the United States as an "exempt individual" or commute from Canada or Mexico to work in the United States on more than 75% of the workdays during your working period.
For more information, see the IRS guidance: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
Regards,
Jayant
P.S.: Since taxes are inevitable, here's hoping we soon pass the first "green card test" as well. :)
An overwhelming chunk of all of us are considered resident aliens from IRS's perpective so you are eligible. In fact, I would think every single one of us on this forum is a resident alien since we all fit IRS's definition of a "resident alien" as per their "substantial preference test". The following is copy-paste from IRS:
Topic 851 - Resident and Non–Resident Aliens
You are considered a resident alien if you met one of two tests for the calendar year.
The first test is the "green card test." If at any time during the calendar year you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States according to the immigration laws, and this status has not been rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned, you are considered to have met the green card test.
The second test is the "substantial presence test". For the purposes of this test, the term United Stated includes the following areas:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The territorial waters of the United States.
The seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas that are adjacent to U.S. territorial waters and over which the United States has exclusive rights under international law to explore and exploit natural resources. The term does not include U.S. possessions and territories or U.S. airspace.
To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count all of the days you were present in the current year, and one–third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and one–sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. Do not count any day you were present in the United States as an "exempt individual" or commute from Canada or Mexico to work in the United States on more than 75% of the workdays during your working period.
For more information, see the IRS guidance: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
Regards,
Jayant
P.S.: Since taxes are inevitable, here's hoping we soon pass the first "green card test" as well. :)
girlfriend Priyanka Chopra
nivasch
03-09 10:43 AM
indio0617,
U really give us min.. to min.. update, Thank you so much
Nivas
U really give us min.. to min.. update, Thank you so much
Nivas
hairstyles complete Priyanka Chopra
vikasgarg24
07-21 07:05 AM
Friend
I recently got a aloan from BOA on EAD without any probem.
The Loan officer was fully aware the visa sattus. Dont know how he maneged but for me I didn't face any problem in financing from BOA.
If you still face problem send me a private message an I will pass his informations so that you will be on right loan offcer hands who understand visa status etc.
I recently got a aloan from BOA on EAD without any probem.
The Loan officer was fully aware the visa sattus. Dont know how he maneged but for me I didn't face any problem in financing from BOA.
If you still face problem send me a private message an I will pass his informations so that you will be on right loan offcer hands who understand visa status etc.
dba9ioracle
09-10 03:17 PM
If you are seeing Light at the end of the tunnel (visa recapture), beware, It could be another train (almight uscis can ruin anything) approaching from other side of the tunnel.
belmontboy
05-13 11:05 PM
� I-140 filed 05/04/2007
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
was ur first MTR denied in error?
as per you, your I-140 was never denied.
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
was ur first MTR denied in error?
as per you, your I-140 was never denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment