ShrutiJadhav
04-07 12:07 PM
Hello All,
The officer at the SSN issuing center told me since my passport and the stamped I-94 have my maiden I will get an SSN also in the maiden name and not my married name.
However I had already filed for my EAD (form I-765) before getting this information with my married name which I need to change to the maiden name. I have received an appointment letter for biometrics/finger printing (FP) . What should be done now? Should I wait and tell the officer during the FP about this name change that I need or how should I go about it?
Thanking you in anticipation.
Regards,
Shruti
The officer at the SSN issuing center told me since my passport and the stamped I-94 have my maiden I will get an SSN also in the maiden name and not my married name.
However I had already filed for my EAD (form I-765) before getting this information with my married name which I need to change to the maiden name. I have received an appointment letter for biometrics/finger printing (FP) . What should be done now? Should I wait and tell the officer during the FP about this name change that I need or how should I go about it?
Thanking you in anticipation.
Regards,
Shruti
wallpaper Pink Rose
joeglen3
08-08 11:10 PM
My I-140 was approved April 30,2007. The appoval letter indicated that not yet elligible for change of status. The I-485 was returned together with the checks we paid. Please clarify and what can I do next other than waiting?
Euclid
02-11 12:21 PM
Hi,
My OPT was approved and I received the approval notice. But the card itself
has been lost in mail. I have applied for a replacement card.
I am aware of something called the "I-9 receipt rule" wherein the receipt for
the replacement of a lost document can be used in place of the document itself
for a period of 90 days.
Does this apply to my case? In other words, can I use the receipt of the replacement
request to work for upto 90 days?
Thanks in advance!
PS: I am aware that I cannot start working based on the approval notice itself.
My OPT was approved and I received the approval notice. But the card itself
has been lost in mail. I have applied for a replacement card.
I am aware of something called the "I-9 receipt rule" wherein the receipt for
the replacement of a lost document can be used in place of the document itself
for a period of 90 days.
Does this apply to my case? In other words, can I use the receipt of the replacement
request to work for upto 90 days?
Thanks in advance!
PS: I am aware that I cannot start working based on the approval notice itself.
2011 pink roses
andycool
01-24 11:18 AM
Is it possible to upgrade a pending I-485 (EB3 I-140) with a newly approved EB2 I-140?
Is there any USCIS mandated procedure to do that?
I think it will be taken care automatically, ( since your A number on I 485 and new I 140 will be the same )
Thanks
Is there any USCIS mandated procedure to do that?
I think it will be taken care automatically, ( since your A number on I 485 and new I 140 will be the same )
Thanks
more...
ns521
02-11 08:12 AM
I applied for I-485, I-140,and EAD almost 2 months ago..The package was received by USCIS but no receipts yet, no checks are cashed yet...We called and they said it may take 3 months to issue receipts...what should I expect?Receipts and approval of EAD in a month given that they usually honor the 3 months period to approve EAD?or nothing is guaranteed!!
Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
more...
gman
06-13 10:36 PM
I have my Perm approved and my PD became current so i'm able to file I-485 but i have a couple of questions.
My fiancee was in US on J1 with 2 year HRR that is not up until Jan 15, 2008. She has been back to the US twice since she left (Jan 15, 2006) on B1/B2 visa. We plan to get married. When should we do it for her to be able to come to the US under my I-485 when her 2year HRR is up.
Please advise. I just sent an e-mail to my attorney but she's on vacation until Jun 19... I guess i'm too anxious to find out what my options are.
Congratulations to anyone who is able to file.
My fiancee was in US on J1 with 2 year HRR that is not up until Jan 15, 2008. She has been back to the US twice since she left (Jan 15, 2006) on B1/B2 visa. We plan to get married. When should we do it for her to be able to come to the US under my I-485 when her 2year HRR is up.
Please advise. I just sent an e-mail to my attorney but she's on vacation until Jun 19... I guess i'm too anxious to find out what my options are.
Congratulations to anyone who is able to file.
2010 Beautiful pink roses
Sravanthimps
01-24 12:27 AM
Hi Frens,
can someone help me.
I am applying for H1 visa to the US. I got my passport in my graduation. So i donot have the ECNR clearance. So please can someone tell me if I will have a problem before applying or should I get it done now and then apply. I however have the Canadian visa stamped on the passport.
Thanks in advance
Sravanthi
can someone help me.
I am applying for H1 visa to the US. I got my passport in my graduation. So i donot have the ECNR clearance. So please can someone tell me if I will have a problem before applying or should I get it done now and then apply. I however have the Canadian visa stamped on the passport.
Thanks in advance
Sravanthi
more...
ilikekilo
04-12 01:53 PM
I had started my anual subscribtion this Friday (4/10/09). How long does it take to be admitted into the donors forum? I have sent the email with details that same day itself. I have not yet recieved a reciept or any RFEs. Hope there is no backlog:D:D:D
I think it takes a few days to confirm the sub....thnks
I think it takes a few days to confirm the sub....thnks
hair Hanging Pink Roses
kernel_flash
01-21 03:24 AM
Here is my first official entry
Made in hurry !!!!
Preview
http://megaswf.com/view/74494201d407c983ec7ffcd16de342e0.html
Cheers
Kernel
Made in hurry !!!!
Preview
http://megaswf.com/view/74494201d407c983ec7ffcd16de342e0.html
Cheers
Kernel
more...
ajaysri
03-01 12:42 PM
I have changed to a new employer and have mailed AC21 documentation to the nebraska service center at the following address using FEDEX.
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508-1225
It is 2 weeks now that the mail has been delivered. So far I have not seen any soft LUD's on either my pending I-485 or approved I-140 cases.
- Would the LUD's be seen at all on these? How many days after sending the docs would you see the LUD typically?
- Is there any way we can call and confirm that the new employer details are applied on my I-485 case?
Thanks
Sri
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508-1225
It is 2 weeks now that the mail has been delivered. So far I have not seen any soft LUD's on either my pending I-485 or approved I-140 cases.
- Would the LUD's be seen at all on these? How many days after sending the docs would you see the LUD typically?
- Is there any way we can call and confirm that the new employer details are applied on my I-485 case?
Thanks
Sri
hot Roses-Hot Pink Rose 50 cm
Blog Feeds
11-12 04:10 PM
The Immigration Policy Center has released a new report entitled FOCUSING ON THE SOLUTIONS - Employment Verification: Repairing our Broken Immigration System which discusses the future of the E-Verify program. IPC makes a number of helpful recommendations including the following: 1. Comprehensive immigration reform - No mandatory E-Verify unless it is incorporated in to comprehensive reform legislation. 2. Apply to new hires only 3. Data accuracy: Every effort must be made to ensure that the data accessed by employers is accurate, continuously updated, and subject to review. 4. Documentation: The documents that workers are required to present must be documents...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/the-immigration-policy-center-has-released-a-new-report-entitled-focusing-on-the-solutions---employment-verification-repairi.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/the-immigration-policy-center-has-released-a-new-report-entitled-focusing-on-the-solutions---employment-verification-repairi.html)
more...
house pink roses | site index
sri2005_05
11-09 09:51 PM
Hi,
My i-94 is going to expire next february .My h1b is valid until feb 2011.May i know how to apply for i-94 extension..Is it easy to get it?
My i-94 is going to expire next february .My h1b is valid until feb 2011.May i know how to apply for i-94 extension..Is it easy to get it?
tattoo bridal bouquet-pink roses
Blog Feeds
03-29 07:50 AM
Bumping this story up from the comments. For those of you who have not heard about this, a 95 year old World War II veteran recently has been challenged on his long held belief that he's a US citizen. The story has caught fire on the web and now has more than 20,000 comments. While an elderly veteran may not be the typical subject of a story like this, the general storyline is not actually as rare as you might think. One of my first cases as an immigration lawyer involved a young dental school graduate who only discovered he...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/03/wwii-vet-fights-over-his-citizenship.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/03/wwii-vet-fights-over-his-citizenship.html)
more...
pictures stock photo : Pink roses
richclarity
09-25 02:40 PM
Hi,
I am currently a dependent E-1 on my wife's visa and currently have a valid EAD which will expire mid-2010.
We are about to file I-140 and I-485 and my question is, should I also file for a new EAD at the same time even if its still 8 months from expiry? I'm not sure what the difference is between an EAD under the E-1 visa, or an EAD when filing the I-485, or if it doesn't matter at all.
Hopefully someone can help. Thanks!
I am currently a dependent E-1 on my wife's visa and currently have a valid EAD which will expire mid-2010.
We are about to file I-140 and I-485 and my question is, should I also file for a new EAD at the same time even if its still 8 months from expiry? I'm not sure what the difference is between an EAD under the E-1 visa, or an EAD when filing the I-485, or if it doesn't matter at all.
Hopefully someone can help. Thanks!
dresses pink roses
munnu77
05-21 02:44 PM
go to indian consulate and change ur name
more...
makeup Pink roses amp; peonies!
GCnightmare
08-13 12:43 AM
My AP was approved on 06/25/07 but there is an LUD on it on 08/12/07. Can somebody tell me what it can be? Thanks
girlfriend 20 pink roses arranged with a
garybanz
12-27 11:17 AM
If your 140 is approved the chances of 485 denial are quite remote. however most attorneys recommend that you try to stay on H1 as much as possible
hairstyles rings and pink roses
gccovet
06-16 12:46 PM
TSC 485 processing date says Aug 17,2007.
Does it mean, they reviewed almost all cases before Aug 16,2007?
My receipt date is Aug 13,2007. Notice date is Oct 10,2007.
So wondering whether they touched my case or still not?
Means, they reviewd all cases wherever the VISA dates were allocated/available. As you are from India, you have thousands of cases ahead of you.
GCCovet
Does it mean, they reviewed almost all cases before Aug 16,2007?
My receipt date is Aug 13,2007. Notice date is Oct 10,2007.
So wondering whether they touched my case or still not?
Means, they reviewd all cases wherever the VISA dates were allocated/available. As you are from India, you have thousands of cases ahead of you.
GCCovet
aroranuj
07-28 03:20 PM
My I-140 was denied by TSC early last year. We sent in an MTR/Appeal on the denial. The case was sent over by the TSC to AAO. We received an RFE from the AAO on the appeal a couple of months back. We responded back to the RFE within the required time frame.
My attorney just informed me this week that the case has been transferred back to the USCIS from the AAO. Can anyone please tell me if this means that my case has been approved or denied? Also how long can the USCIS sit on it before adjudicating? I'm assuming that the AAO has passed a decision, thats why they have sent it back to USCIS....
PLEASE HELP!!!
My attorney just informed me this week that the case has been transferred back to the USCIS from the AAO. Can anyone please tell me if this means that my case has been approved or denied? Also how long can the USCIS sit on it before adjudicating? I'm assuming that the AAO has passed a decision, thats why they have sent it back to USCIS....
PLEASE HELP!!!
STAmisha
08-29 12:26 PM
My spouse is on H4 currently. Have applied for H1 in April 2007 and got the H1 aproved. So the new H1 starts on Oct 2007. However, we applied for 485 and got our EAD's (No recept number, No finger printing etc).
Can my spouse use EAD to start job? we dont want use that new H1 currently. What are the implications if we use EAD? Will the H1 (and my H1) be effected?
Can my spouse use EAD to start job? we dont want use that new H1 currently. What are the implications if we use EAD? Will the H1 (and my H1) be effected?
No comments:
Post a Comment