johnamit
07-18 09:47 AM
this window of opportunity to file 485 till August 17th will provide some interim benefits to most of us but we are destined to see long long wait before 485 approval. So I suggest we keep doing our efforts to get achieve other goals like recapture of unused visa number and things of that nature. We need a course of action to raise our voice which could include interaction with congresswoman, rally, letters from Hitech industry leaders and other things of this nature. I am hoping Core will come up with a plan soon.
wallpaper monthly calendar template word
monicasgupta
12-31 11:02 AM
thanks for the reply but I agree my h1 stamp is expired but h1 is valid till 2009
dpsg
03-28 05:48 PM
I agree although absolute aim is getting GC , But It is too vague to put as a clearly defined objective.
Whereas asking for "current Priority Date for every category above EB3" clearly defines our goal.I think categories below EB3 is beyond the scope of this forum.
It is more complicated/different and there are forums which knows the issues clearly and are adressing them
Whereas asking for "current Priority Date for every category above EB3" clearly defines our goal.I think categories below EB3 is beyond the scope of this forum.
It is more complicated/different and there are forums which knows the issues clearly and are adressing them
2011 June 2011 Simple calendar word
Maverick_2008
04-16 03:51 PM
Is it true even for principal applicant? If 140 is denied, isn't your EAD invalidated? In other words, if 140 (immigration petition) is denied, there is nothing to adjust your status on and so even 485 becomes invalid.
Folks, please enlighten me, if I'm missing anything here.
Maverick_2008
No.
Her EAD is tied to her 485 not to your 140. As long as the 485 status is pending, her EAD is valid. Even if the 485 is rejected, if it is something that can be fixed thru an MTR, then filing an MTR and changing the status back to pending is still fine. It is not necessary to stop using the EAD for that brief period.
Folks, please enlighten me, if I'm missing anything here.
Maverick_2008
No.
Her EAD is tied to her 485 not to your 140. As long as the 485 status is pending, her EAD is valid. Even if the 485 is rejected, if it is something that can be fixed thru an MTR, then filing an MTR and changing the status back to pending is still fine. It is not necessary to stop using the EAD for that brief period.
more...
HopeSprings
07-17 03:45 PM
Murthy is a she...and I would but I'm not single. ;)
I don't want to start a battle of words here but it would be great if we could refrain from using such language in this forum.
Administrator, please make sure that we maintain the sanctity of the forum.
I don't want to start a battle of words here but it would be great if we could refrain from using such language in this forum.
Administrator, please make sure that we maintain the sanctity of the forum.
Rajwaitingon140
12-18 12:21 AM
Buddy
When I took VISA and entered into Mexico and asked Mexican Immigration Officer please stamp my passport as I entered in Mexico, but he said if you are in Mexico for less than 72 hours then you don't need to take VISA or special permission if your stay is going to more than 72 hours then you need to take visiting VISA...I took it because I was going with my entire family...but I knew my collegues went to Mexico for stamping..without taking any Mexico VISA..hope this helps..if you need any additional info please let me know.
Thanks
Raj
I am planning to visit Mexico (not for H1 stamping - plan to use AP), I had called up their consulate in Philly and was told that they are not issuing visas at that location until Jan first week. The person I spoke to suggested that I go to the consulate in New York. I tried calling the consulate in NY, however, I could not get to speak with anyone there. They had an automated message that lists the things required for the stamping, the visa fee ($36), etc.,
However, no info if I have to schedule an appointment, how long they require to process the application.
Does anyone here have an experience with the Mexican tourist visa stamping?
Thanks in advance.
When I took VISA and entered into Mexico and asked Mexican Immigration Officer please stamp my passport as I entered in Mexico, but he said if you are in Mexico for less than 72 hours then you don't need to take VISA or special permission if your stay is going to more than 72 hours then you need to take visiting VISA...I took it because I was going with my entire family...but I knew my collegues went to Mexico for stamping..without taking any Mexico VISA..hope this helps..if you need any additional info please let me know.
Thanks
Raj
I am planning to visit Mexico (not for H1 stamping - plan to use AP), I had called up their consulate in Philly and was told that they are not issuing visas at that location until Jan first week. The person I spoke to suggested that I go to the consulate in New York. I tried calling the consulate in NY, however, I could not get to speak with anyone there. They had an automated message that lists the things required for the stamping, the visa fee ($36), etc.,
However, no info if I have to schedule an appointment, how long they require to process the application.
Does anyone here have an experience with the Mexican tourist visa stamping?
Thanks in advance.
more...
msyedy
12-20 09:36 AM
Masti Gai..
Dont make fun of him. He is not sure.. that is it. You have labor for H1 and green card.
Pradeep .. You need to take i-797 and the greencard labor and I-140 papers
with you.
All these legal question can be answered by a Lawyer than this forum.
Ask a lawyer... you will be satisfied
Dont make fun of him. He is not sure.. that is it. You have labor for H1 and green card.
Pradeep .. You need to take i-797 and the greencard labor and I-140 papers
with you.
All these legal question can be answered by a Lawyer than this forum.
Ask a lawyer... you will be satisfied
2010 2011 calendar template.
GCAmigo
07-23 04:41 PM
My PERM was filed last November & Audit was replied in Feb'08.. still no no news..
more...
ChainReaction
07-31 12:23 PM
I have a question, if H4 use EAD for employment and is allowed to keep her H4 status , how come a H1b who still work full time for his sponsor employer looses his H1B status when he finds a part-time job using EAD ?
hair July 2011 Simple calendar word
go_guy123
01-11 09:47 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
more...
NikNikon
July 15th, 2004, 11:13 AM
Awesome shot! Nice work. :cool:
hot As these Word templates are on
Suva
07-27 03:23 PM
One of the stupid questions!!!
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
more...
house june 2011 calendar template.
vxg
07-25 05:48 PM
So, did you have to redo PERM for the manager's position or did your older PERM fly?
No i did not do PERM i got my labor from BEC after a long two year wait and i happily kept it. I think a lot depends upon how you lawyer and employer handles it. My lawyer says even now i can change job and get promoted if job responsibilities are similar.
No i did not do PERM i got my labor from BEC after a long two year wait and i happily kept it. I think a lot depends upon how you lawyer and employer handles it. My lawyer says even now i can change job and get promoted if job responsibilities are similar.
tattoo March 2011 Image
r_mistry
01-18 12:13 PM
You can stay out side for 3 years in a 5 year period.
So i guess i'm good till July, 09 to move to Canada if needed.
Thanks!!!
So i guess i'm good till July, 09 to move to Canada if needed.
Thanks!!!
more...
pictures Photo Calendar Template
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
dresses june 2011 calendar template.
gclongwaytogo
10-18 03:47 PM
Just thought of starting this thread as i couldn't see any.
July 3rd Filer.
Reciept notice received on October 11th.
Waiting for EAD.
FP Not Done
July 3rd Filer.
Reciept notice received on October 11th.
Waiting for EAD.
FP Not Done
more...
makeup Calendar Template: free online
GlobalCitizen
07-26 09:05 AM
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife�s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife�s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife�s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife�s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
girlfriend May 2011 Simple calendar word
dummgelauft
03-31 12:42 PM
For once, I like what Grassley is doing.
hairstyles 2011 calendar template.
mhtanim
09-20 11:26 PM
Thanks for the info. how about areas like simivalley, santa clarita, do you get houses for 300 to 350 and
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
House prices in California have fallen significantly this year. However, they are still out of reach for most of the first time buyers. Simi Valley and Santa Clarita are nice places to live but still quite expensive. You may be able to find a townhouse for the range that you have mentioned. Please browse www.realtor.com and run some searches by cities to get an idea.
Remember, it's very difficult to get a loan nowadays. The lender will now check how much you really make. The general rule for qualifying a loan is that you need to make at least 1/3rd per year of the house that you are buying. For example: if you make $50K a year, you can qualify for a mortgage up to $50K*3=$150K and not more than that.
Good luck on your search.
And also around bay area- san roman, liver moore are they good neighbourhood. Also which has more jobs in datawarehousing is it LA or bayarea.
House prices in California have fallen significantly this year. However, they are still out of reach for most of the first time buyers. Simi Valley and Santa Clarita are nice places to live but still quite expensive. You may be able to find a townhouse for the range that you have mentioned. Please browse www.realtor.com and run some searches by cities to get an idea.
Remember, it's very difficult to get a loan nowadays. The lender will now check how much you really make. The general rule for qualifying a loan is that you need to make at least 1/3rd per year of the house that you are buying. For example: if you make $50K a year, you can qualify for a mortgage up to $50K*3=$150K and not more than that.
Good luck on your search.
franklin
06-01 07:21 PM
Just in case not all new members are Indian, I suggest this poll which covers ALL nationalities
cool_desi_gc
09-28 07:18 PM
My name(s) were mispeld as well...My lawyer talked to USCIS and sorted it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment