rajeshiv
06-21 03:16 PM
Hi,
The doctor I went for Medical exam, he is not placing the 693 and supplement to 693 in the sealed cover. He is using his own form that I filled when I first went there and placing that form in the sealed cover.
Please suggest will INS accept any form other then 693?
I want to make sure what are the forms that need to be in sealed cover before I argue with the doctor.
I appreciate for your inputs.
Sorry to start a new thread.
Thanks
Raj..
The doctor I went for Medical exam, he is not placing the 693 and supplement to 693 in the sealed cover. He is using his own form that I filled when I first went there and placing that form in the sealed cover.
Please suggest will INS accept any form other then 693?
I want to make sure what are the forms that need to be in sealed cover before I argue with the doctor.
I appreciate for your inputs.
Sorry to start a new thread.
Thanks
Raj..
wallpaper emma watson hairstyles. About emma watson, the sweet
GC4US
04-24 12:27 AM
Does anyone,please could help me with the following query?
If my I-140 is not approved yet, is Uscis touching my I-485 application....in other words is I-485 being processed (not approved, only processed)even if I-140 is not approved?( I applied concurrently in August 2007, and my priority date is current, Eb3 ROW).
I would highly appreciate your reply!
Thanks in advance.
If my I-140 is not approved yet, is Uscis touching my I-485 application....in other words is I-485 being processed (not approved, only processed)even if I-140 is not approved?( I applied concurrently in August 2007, and my priority date is current, Eb3 ROW).
I would highly appreciate your reply!
Thanks in advance.
mzafar125
10-21 12:19 AM
Hello folks. I hope someone can help me out on this issue. I applied for my wife's EAD back in July 2007. The EAD was processed in two weeks and we received the card. However, my wife's middle initial was incorrect and we sent it back to USCIS with an explaination concerning the mistake. USCIS stated that it would take anywhere from 2 months to 6 months to process the correction. Last week I received a letter from USICS stating that I need to submit a completed I-90 form. A I-90 form is used to replace a green card. We just applied for our adjustment of status in 6/2007 and are not permanent residents at this point. Getting the EAD has become a nightmare for us. Do I try and write a letter back to USCIS stating that they are asking for the wrong form. I tried to call them but they said to respond to the letter sent. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Any help/advice would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Thanks!
2011 Do You Prefer Emma Watson#39;s
kirupa
07-08 12:09 PM
Hey Jason,
You can't use lines, but you can use text instead. For a line, use an underscore _ or - or | or \ or / or >, and so on. for a circle, you can use an 'o'.
You can't use lines, but you can use text instead. For a line, use an underscore _ or - or | or \ or / or >, and so on. for a circle, you can use an 'o'.
more...
gclabor07
09-04 02:30 PM
The dates open up on weekdays between 10:30pm and 11:00pm EST. I've scheduled appointments a couple of times at 10:45pm.
minimalist
08-11 02:35 PM
She should be able to go and get stamped now. But she will have to wait until about 10 days before october 1st to enter US using that stamp.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
more...
goel_ar
01-12 11:32 AM
Does anyone knows good immigration attorney in NYC?
2010 Emma Watson
Blog Feeds
09-24 03:20 AM
From TPMMuckraker: Late Update: AILA spokesman George Tzamaras confirms to TPMmuckraker that, according to an extensive search of the group's membership database, no one from South Carolina by the name Joe Wilson or Addison Wilson has ever been a member.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/american-immigration-lawyers-association-confirms-joe-wilson-was-never-a-member.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/american-immigration-lawyers-association-confirms-joe-wilson-was-never-a-member.html)
more...
emnasty600
09-13 05:17 PM
I was entered into the United States when I was 8 years old. I was entered on the plane with a fake passport and ever since I've been using my real name. I used my real name for school and college. I'm currently here illegally. I want to start my process of application for citizenship but there is a problem. My lawyer told me to marry under the name i entered with and so i did. Before we started the application he realized i was finger printed under my real name so if i were to apply my finger prints would show already in the system. So the only solution is to change my fake name to my real name (which doesnt have a visa) on the marriage license. How do i go about doing so? and will i still be able to obtain a green card? I reside in massachusetts.
hair Emma Watson
minimalist
11-21 11:10 AM
I recall that USCIS was planning to issue 2 year AP and 2 year EAD. I see that the 2 year EAD has been implemented. ANy idea, if and when the 2 year AP implementation is expected?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
raysaikat
07-20 11:03 AM
I finally got my BC from India, now my lawyer tells me that it should have Mothers maiden name, Is that right? I cannot find any info which says that.
Birth certificates formats are entirely local. In India each state; maybe even each district has its own format. Your lawyer may have seen some that has this information, or s/he simply does not believe you that what you got is the genuine one. In any case, USCIS does not (and cannot) require any specific format.
Birth certificates formats are entirely local. In India each state; maybe even each district has its own format. Your lawyer may have seen some that has this information, or s/he simply does not believe you that what you got is the genuine one. In any case, USCIS does not (and cannot) require any specific format.
hot emma watson 2011 hair.
CCC
06-01 01:33 PM
As i understand it it may take upto 6 mons and may even take upto a year. Is that a safe bet? to I am planning on a vacation in Dec and i hate to be in limbo. My wife's I-140 has been approved and we are in the worldwide category.
So what do you guys think, should i just go ahead and book the tickets now or should i wait to see what happens in Oct? I would like your opinions however contrary :D
So what do you guys think, should i just go ahead and book the tickets now or should i wait to see what happens in Oct? I would like your opinions however contrary :D
more...
house Emma Watson Haircut Short
immigration1234
09-24 02:17 PM
We have filed for our I-485 application.
I came to know from one of my friends that we do not receive our EAD after 90 days of receiving the receipt no
we can go to nearest immigration office to get it.
Is this the right span of time or we need to wait for more time.
How does this work.
Thanks in advance.
I came to know from one of my friends that we do not receive our EAD after 90 days of receiving the receipt no
we can go to nearest immigration office to get it.
Is this the right span of time or we need to wait for more time.
How does this work.
Thanks in advance.
tattoo emma watson short haircut 2011
ziggy7bs
03-12 10:00 AM
LC was approved in 08-20-07 but I-140 was not filed within 180 days according to new rules. has any body have this problem? will DOL or USCIS let it slip. please help.
more...
pictures 2011 new haircut? emma watson
Blog Feeds
11-19 08:10 AM
Lots of activity to report. Congressional Hispanic Caucus leaders met this week with President Obama who said he wants a vote during the Lame Duck and would work the phones to round up votes. Harry Reid tweeted today that he'll offer the DREAM Act as a standalone bill which will hopefully help bring along a few of the "procedural" no voters from last September who indicated they like the DREAM Act but didn't believe in tacking it on to a budget bill. In the mean time, advocacy groups are apparently still arguing about the final language including answering whether college...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/stage-being-set-for-dream-act-vote.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/stage-being-set-for-dream-act-vote.html)
dresses emma watson haircut
lkapildev
07-17 01:30 PM
My attorney filed I-140 on July 5th. No receipt yet. No news also.
He said he cannot send it to TSC, instead he mailed it to NSC. Is that the standard filing place?
Do you have a notice for your standalone I-140 filed at NSC on or after July5th.
He said he cannot send it to TSC, instead he mailed it to NSC. Is that the standard filing place?
Do you have a notice for your standalone I-140 filed at NSC on or after July5th.
more...
makeup Emma Watson Hot
hebron
09-15 12:56 PM
Would the receipt notice of H1-B extension contain the case number that I can use to check the status on USCIS website?
girlfriend Emma Watson#39;s chic, pixie
LOL123
11-24 09:48 AM
We filed our 485 on July 2nd 2007 at Nebraska office � EB3 � July 7, 2001
- The case was shifted to Texas and we received notices from Texas office with receipt date of August 27.
- Our date is now current however processing at Texas is still stuck at June 27, 2007.
- Does this mean our RD is now 08/27/07 even though it was recd. at Nebraska on 07/02/07??
- The case was shifted to Texas and we received notices from Texas office with receipt date of August 27.
- Our date is now current however processing at Texas is still stuck at June 27, 2007.
- Does this mean our RD is now 08/27/07 even though it was recd. at Nebraska on 07/02/07??
hairstyles emma watson haircut.
cantonsale10@gmail.com
09-29 10:29 PM
I meant the Last Updated Date and not the case status . Sorry for the confusion
designserve
03-03 04:08 PM
I believe working on 1099 is allowed when you have the full time work on H1B going.
Macaca
08-05 07:42 AM
A Polarized, and Polarizing, Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301949.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com), August 5, 2007
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.
Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.
It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.
But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."
That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.
But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.
To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.
The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.
In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.
So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.
But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.
But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.
The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.
And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.
It's no wonder the approval ratings of Congress are so dismal.
No comments:
Post a Comment