hoosier07
07-18 02:59 PM
Hello guys,
First of all thank you very much for your answers in advance.
I am currently on H1-B (valid till 2010) and recently applied for PERM LC. I work for a non-profit organization and the category is EB-2. Nationality: Turkey.
I was planning to go for my GC but my plans have recently changed. I am planning to get married in 2009 Summer (earlier is not possible). I have done my research and found out that if I receive my GC before I get married, it will be very difficult to get my spouse here.
I am expecting to get the LC in about 4 months. Then, most probably I can file I-140 and I-485 concurrently as the visa numbers will be available for my case. However, I am not planning to do it anymore due to the reasons mentioned above.
So, here are my questions:
Now, the new rule tells that LC certification must be used within 180 days. So, can I just file I-140 while single and even though my visa numbers are current for I-485 (Can I seperate I-140 and I-485 and save I-1485 for after marriage - Summer 2009). Does it matter for the purposes of I-140, if I am single - and then add my spouse to I-485 in the US (She will be on H-4 with me here)?
I am not planning to change my job. So, would my I-140 have an expiration date?
Do you have any other suggestions? Thank you!
First of all thank you very much for your answers in advance.
I am currently on H1-B (valid till 2010) and recently applied for PERM LC. I work for a non-profit organization and the category is EB-2. Nationality: Turkey.
I was planning to go for my GC but my plans have recently changed. I am planning to get married in 2009 Summer (earlier is not possible). I have done my research and found out that if I receive my GC before I get married, it will be very difficult to get my spouse here.
I am expecting to get the LC in about 4 months. Then, most probably I can file I-140 and I-485 concurrently as the visa numbers will be available for my case. However, I am not planning to do it anymore due to the reasons mentioned above.
So, here are my questions:
Now, the new rule tells that LC certification must be used within 180 days. So, can I just file I-140 while single and even though my visa numbers are current for I-485 (Can I seperate I-140 and I-485 and save I-1485 for after marriage - Summer 2009). Does it matter for the purposes of I-140, if I am single - and then add my spouse to I-485 in the US (She will be on H-4 with me here)?
I am not planning to change my job. So, would my I-140 have an expiration date?
Do you have any other suggestions? Thank you!
wallpaper tribal tattoos - hibiscus
gc_relief
04-27 02:56 PM
Reason syill not known and waiting for the denial notice..
Priority date is Nov'20 2007
My I-140 receipt date is Feb'20 2009..
Does the date impact my h1 extension??
Priority date is Nov'20 2007
My I-140 receipt date is Feb'20 2009..
Does the date impact my h1 extension??
dealsboy
11-02 10:20 AM
Do we have to worry about expired I 94 if we are using EAD ?
2011 Tribal Tattoo Unframed
surabhi
05-21 11:56 AM
see my seond posting below from murthy.com forum. You should be able to port the PD
good luck
good luck
more...
Mera_Bharat_Mahan
02-28 07:07 PM
I am not sure why you all are all so worried about finger printing. No one is getting their GC anytime soon. PD for both EB2 and EB3 is either unavailable or in 2001. Even if FP takes a little while, don't worry.
I have a friend who never got finger printed till he got his GC. So relax.
I have a friend who never got finger printed till he got his GC. So relax.
vxg
11-02 02:16 PM
Sent the all the existing I 94's and Passport.
Guys,
my RFE response reached VSC on Oct 31st and online status says
Current Status: Response to request for evidence received, and case processing has resumed.
Anyone with idea on how long approx it will take to get approval. Have to travel by end of Nov and USCIS delay is resulting in really expensive air fare.
Let's keep all of us updated on these RFE on AP.
Guys,
my RFE response reached VSC on Oct 31st and online status says
Current Status: Response to request for evidence received, and case processing has resumed.
Anyone with idea on how long approx it will take to get approval. Have to travel by end of Nov and USCIS delay is resulting in really expensive air fare.
Let's keep all of us updated on these RFE on AP.
more...
GCVivek
05-13 08:26 PM
Diversity lottery numbers are deemed invalid due to computer glitch.
2010 Crow Tattoo Bird Tribal Celtic
GCBy3000
07-17 03:35 PM
Congratulations. You are very very lucky looking at the big UUUUUUUU for EB2 from next month.
more...
logiclife
05-14 04:37 PM
Guys,
The timing of this visa bulletin is suspicious. Right at the nick of time, when the senate is discussing increasing EB quotas, this news comes in. Plus they are saying that there will be forward movement, in the EB cut-off dates in the coming months to rhyme with the current negotatitions in Congress on CIR/ SKIL.
IV should not step behind in their legislation efforts. Even, if visa bulletin dates are current today, they might retrogress later, when the I-485 application starts to process (Current I-485 processing time shows applications processing as of Sept. 10, 2006, which is 8 months before). No one knows, if eight months from now, the cut-off dates will retrogress further or advance, due to the BEC closing out in Sept. 2007 and PERM applications processed from March 2005 onwards.
No one is scaling back. I dont really think there is any conspiracy to this and I think this is really good news.
However the core group is still committed to getting retrogression issue addressed by congress. In fact, I am right now in DC and I am attending a briefing event tommorow. Aman was here last week thurs and Friday and will be here again next week. We are continuing efforts regardless of this big jump because we know that dates can move in reverse direction as it has in the past. In Oct 2005, EB3 dates took a huge movement backwards into 1998 and such reverse movements can happen again this year in October or in last quarter of fiscal year 2007. So we are taking this with cautious optimism and continuing our work with this.
The timing of this visa bulletin is suspicious. Right at the nick of time, when the senate is discussing increasing EB quotas, this news comes in. Plus they are saying that there will be forward movement, in the EB cut-off dates in the coming months to rhyme with the current negotatitions in Congress on CIR/ SKIL.
IV should not step behind in their legislation efforts. Even, if visa bulletin dates are current today, they might retrogress later, when the I-485 application starts to process (Current I-485 processing time shows applications processing as of Sept. 10, 2006, which is 8 months before). No one knows, if eight months from now, the cut-off dates will retrogress further or advance, due to the BEC closing out in Sept. 2007 and PERM applications processed from March 2005 onwards.
No one is scaling back. I dont really think there is any conspiracy to this and I think this is really good news.
However the core group is still committed to getting retrogression issue addressed by congress. In fact, I am right now in DC and I am attending a briefing event tommorow. Aman was here last week thurs and Friday and will be here again next week. We are continuing efforts regardless of this big jump because we know that dates can move in reverse direction as it has in the past. In Oct 2005, EB3 dates took a huge movement backwards into 1998 and such reverse movements can happen again this year in October or in last quarter of fiscal year 2007. So we are taking this with cautious optimism and continuing our work with this.
hair Tribal Bird Tattoo Designs
Blog Feeds
03-12 08:40 PM
I've been impressed by Senator Graham's willingness to help move forward immigration reform, but this is really pathetic. Graham reported on his meeting today with President Obama and Senator Schumer. Most of it sounds good until you get to this lovely part:I expressed, in no uncertain terms, my belief that immigration reform could come to a halt for the year if health care reconciliation goes forward. For more than a year, health care has sucked most of the energy out of the room. Using reconciliation to push health care through will make it much harder for Congress to come together...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/graham-pass-health-care-and-well-kill-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/graham-pass-health-care-and-well-kill-immigration-reform.html)
more...
chanduv23
03-14 02:18 PM
My project got over 2 weeks back and I have an EAD. I am looking for jobs and the market is very tight.
So my suggestion - just don't relax because U can safely move jobs on EAD. Keep trying hard. AFAIK there is no difference in the interviewing process so keep trying hard for jobs
So my suggestion - just don't relax because U can safely move jobs on EAD. Keep trying hard. AFAIK there is no difference in the interviewing process so keep trying hard for jobs
hot tribal back tattoo designs for
uscis_prob
08-15 06:44 PM
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the response. I consulted attorney murthy, who advised me to file I-140 & I-485 again , explaining all the facts.
Attorney just put all the documents of denial, the MTR and the new I-140 application along with 485 with a cover letter that the denial was what we consider is erroroneous, so refiling with a copy of labor. I have to wait and see what happens.
Its rather a tense moment as I am on my 7th year extension.
Thanks for the response. I consulted attorney murthy, who advised me to file I-140 & I-485 again , explaining all the facts.
Attorney just put all the documents of denial, the MTR and the new I-140 application along with 485 with a cover letter that the denial was what we consider is erroroneous, so refiling with a copy of labor. I have to wait and see what happens.
Its rather a tense moment as I am on my 7th year extension.
more...
house Tribal phoenix ird tattoo.
gmail
07-22 03:14 AM
Quoting the AC21 memo:
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
It is not withdrawn. I-140 was approved in April, 9 months after I-140/485 were filed. However the old employer would withdraw it if he knows. Most US employers don't have too much a clue of GC. He'd love to see me getting into trouble.
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
It is not withdrawn. I-140 was approved in April, 9 months after I-140/485 were filed. However the old employer would withdraw it if he knows. Most US employers don't have too much a clue of GC. He'd love to see me getting into trouble.
tattoo tribal bird tattoos 3,
Prashanthi
08-21 01:54 PM
I received an RFE from USCIS 10 days after the date on the letter and need to respond in 33 days.
I came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006. This Company A had applied for my labor and I140 and both of them were approved through them. I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. I joined Company C in April 2007(change of H1) and been with them since. Company C would not do my GC.
During the July 2007 fiasco, Company A agreed to give me an offer letter that I submitted with my 485 application and my attorney (a good reputed one) mentioned in the application that I was working for company C.
I got an RFE now stating that I did not send my sealed medical exam which I had done and we have a scan of what was sent. They also want �a current letter of employment attesting to your offer of proposed employment. This letter should be written on the company�s official letterhead and cite the date you will begin working, whether the position is temporary or permanent , a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and offered salary�
Is this RFE bad? What might have triggered this RFW? Now my attorney suggests that since I had filed 485 through company A and I did not really invoke AC21 that I should give a new offer letter from Company A (they are willing to give one). My question is if I do that will there be further questions? The company I work for is a bigger one and Company A is really a body shopper, so I want to go with the letter from the current company. Also since it more than 2 years since I applied for 485 can I say I invoked AC 21? When can I disassociate myself from company A as I do not want to lose my current job.
I would like the attorneys or the members valuable help. Please do offer your opinions. Thank you all in advance.
__________________
The RFE is not unusual, they are sending RFE's on all pending I-485 applications in an attempt to pre-process the applications and have them ready before the priority date becomes available.
Even though the beneficiary does not have to be working for the GC sponsoring company and the offer of employment can be a future offer, i always advice my clients to work for the sponsoring employer, if possible, otherwise the USCIS might raise the issue of the validity of the job offer, they have done this in the past. I also always advice clients to do AC-21 whenever they can, rather than depend on future employment.
It is difficult to predict what the Officers decision will be and what factors he will look at, and your attorney is not wrong in his response, however if you were my client i would advice you to use AC-21. The USCIS has not indicated that AC-21 has to be invoked as soon as you join the new employer, no deadline for invoking AC-21. However, you should have a GC sponsor at all times to keep your GC alive. In your case, company A was your sponsor until the time that company C has agreed to be your sponsor and invoke AC-21.
It is also good to invoke AC-21 because at the time of filing for citizenship they will see if you worked for your sponsoring employer for at least 6 months after getting the GC and if you did not, they will ask why dint you.
I came to US through Company A in June 2007 and was with them until Dec 2006. This Company A had applied for my labor and I140 and both of them were approved through them. I joined Company B in Jan of 2007(change of H1) and was with them until April of 2007. I joined Company C in April 2007(change of H1) and been with them since. Company C would not do my GC.
During the July 2007 fiasco, Company A agreed to give me an offer letter that I submitted with my 485 application and my attorney (a good reputed one) mentioned in the application that I was working for company C.
I got an RFE now stating that I did not send my sealed medical exam which I had done and we have a scan of what was sent. They also want �a current letter of employment attesting to your offer of proposed employment. This letter should be written on the company�s official letterhead and cite the date you will begin working, whether the position is temporary or permanent , a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and offered salary�
Is this RFE bad? What might have triggered this RFW? Now my attorney suggests that since I had filed 485 through company A and I did not really invoke AC21 that I should give a new offer letter from Company A (they are willing to give one). My question is if I do that will there be further questions? The company I work for is a bigger one and Company A is really a body shopper, so I want to go with the letter from the current company. Also since it more than 2 years since I applied for 485 can I say I invoked AC 21? When can I disassociate myself from company A as I do not want to lose my current job.
I would like the attorneys or the members valuable help. Please do offer your opinions. Thank you all in advance.
__________________
The RFE is not unusual, they are sending RFE's on all pending I-485 applications in an attempt to pre-process the applications and have them ready before the priority date becomes available.
Even though the beneficiary does not have to be working for the GC sponsoring company and the offer of employment can be a future offer, i always advice my clients to work for the sponsoring employer, if possible, otherwise the USCIS might raise the issue of the validity of the job offer, they have done this in the past. I also always advice clients to do AC-21 whenever they can, rather than depend on future employment.
It is difficult to predict what the Officers decision will be and what factors he will look at, and your attorney is not wrong in his response, however if you were my client i would advice you to use AC-21. The USCIS has not indicated that AC-21 has to be invoked as soon as you join the new employer, no deadline for invoking AC-21. However, you should have a GC sponsor at all times to keep your GC alive. In your case, company A was your sponsor until the time that company C has agreed to be your sponsor and invoke AC-21.
It is also good to invoke AC-21 because at the time of filing for citizenship they will see if you worked for your sponsoring employer for at least 6 months after getting the GC and if you did not, they will ask why dint you.
more...
pictures Print Crow Tattoo Bird Tribal
gc_check
03-10 07:55 AM
I guess I should agree with Jerrome because I am going to India 2 weeks from now and My friend who recently had been to India mentioned the same. I have asked the same question to my immigration lawyer, I will post it when I get a reply.
In mean time I have another question, My flight is from Chicago to Delhi, but I have to take a loacl flight from Miami to Chicago, all my international baggage check in's are at the Miami. My question here is should I surrender the I-94 at Miami since I am doing all my International baggage check in's or should it be in Chicago.
Please let me know if anybody had this situation.
-Success.
Submit the I-94 when you board the flight that leave USA, in your case, Chicago, Not Miami, It is always not advisable to sumbit when you are boarding a connecting, non-Internation flight. For example, what if the International flight is cancelled or you missed, you will be in US, but have already returned your I-94 Also always have copies of all the I-94 for records.
In mean time I have another question, My flight is from Chicago to Delhi, but I have to take a loacl flight from Miami to Chicago, all my international baggage check in's are at the Miami. My question here is should I surrender the I-94 at Miami since I am doing all my International baggage check in's or should it be in Chicago.
Please let me know if anybody had this situation.
-Success.
Submit the I-94 when you board the flight that leave USA, in your case, Chicago, Not Miami, It is always not advisable to sumbit when you are boarding a connecting, non-Internation flight. For example, what if the International flight is cancelled or you missed, you will be in US, but have already returned your I-94 Also always have copies of all the I-94 for records.
dresses tribal lower back tattoo
vin13
10-26 03:35 PM
Thanks all who replied to my thread. I am contacting Air France regarding this transit crap. I will post my experience on this forum, when I get answer from Airline.
One thing is for sure, I will never again travel by Air france, BA and Lufthansa.
I do not see why anyone should not travel on Air France or Lufthansa. You are not changing airports at Paris or Frankfort. So there is no requirement for a visa. It seems to be a simple one.
One thing is for sure, I will never again travel by Air france, BA and Lufthansa.
I do not see why anyone should not travel on Air France or Lufthansa. You are not changing airports at Paris or Frankfort. So there is no requirement for a visa. It seems to be a simple one.
more...
makeup ird tribal tattoo on back of
drirshad
03-13 04:31 PM
03/13/2009: Senate Bill, S. 577 to Punish Immigration Sharks Defrauding and Victimizing Immigrants and Related Parties
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
Senate Dianne Feinstine from California, cosponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced this bill in the Senate yesterday. The full text of the bill is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``�1041. Schemes to defraud aliens
``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully and knowingly executes a scheme or artifice, in connection with any matter that is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws or any matter the offender willfully and knowingly claims or represents is authorized by or arises under Federal immigration laws, to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Here is the background for this bill: The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would prevent and punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud aliens in connection with Federal immigration laws. Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to wilfully and knowingly defraud or obtain or receive money or anything else of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises; and to wilfully, knowingly, and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative in any matter arising under Federal immigration law. Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to use task forces currently in existence to detect and investigate individuals who are in violation of the immigration fraud crimes as created by the bill. The act would also work to prevent immigration fraud by requiring that Immigration Judges issue warnings about unauthorized practice of immigration law to immigrants in removal proceedings, similar to the current law that requires notification of pro bono legal services to these immigrants; requiring the Attorney General to provide outreach to the immigrant community to help prevent fraud; providing that any materials used to carry out notification on immigration law fraud is done in the appropriate language for that community; and requiring the distribution of the disciplinary list of individuals not authorized to appear before the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, currently maintained by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, EOIR. Unfortunately, the need for Federal action to prevent and prosecute immigration fraud has escalated in recent years as citizens and non-citizens attempt to navigate the immigration legal system. Thus far, only States have sought to regulate the unauthorized practice of immigration law. Since immigration law is a federal matter, I believe the solution to such misrepresentation and fraud should be addressed by Congress. By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Vincent Smith, a Mexican national who has resided in California since 1975. His wife is an American citizen, and they live with their 6 U.S. citizen children in Palmdale, CA. Mr. Smith would likely have received a green card at least two different times during his stay in California. However, in attempting to get legal counsel, Mr. Smith hired someone whom he thought was an attorney, but was not. As a result, Mr. Smith was charged more than $10,000 for processing his immigration paperwork, which was never filed. Mr. Smith now has no legal status and faces removal proceedings. Another victim of immigration fraud is Raul, a Mexican national, who came to the United States in 2000. He also married a U.S. citizen, Loraina, making him eligible to apply for a green card. Raul and his wife went to Jose for legal help. Jose's business card said he had a ``law office'' and that he was an ``immigration specialist.'' But Jose was not a specialist and charged Raul $4,000 to file a frivolous asylum petition. While Raul thought he was going to receive a green card, he was instead placed into removal proceedings. From California to New York, there are hundreds of stories like these. Many immigrants are preyed on because of their fears--others on their hope of realizing the American dream. They are charged exorbitant fees for the filing of frivolous paperwork that clog our immigration courts and keep families and businesses waiting in limbo for years. Law enforcement officials say that many fraudulent ``immigration specialists'' close their businesses or move on to another part of the state or country before they can be held accountable. They can make $100,000 to $200,000 a year and the few who have been caught rarely serve more than a few months in jail. Often victims of such crimes are deported, sending them back to their home countries without accountability for the perpetrator of the fraud. Most recently, hundreds of immigrants were exploited by Victor M. Espinal, who was arrested for allegedly posing as an immigration attorney. Nearly 125 of Mr. Espinal's clients attended the New York City Bar Association's free clinic to address their legal and immigration options. According to prosecutors, Mr. Espinal falsely claimed on his business cards that he was licensed and admitted to the California bar as well as the bar in the Dominican Republic. Organizations such as the Los Angeles Country Bar Association, National Immigration Forum, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association have been documenting this exploitation for many years.
girlfriend Phoenix+ird+tattoo+
cherupally
09-17 05:46 PM
But if your form is signed with today's date then doctor might want you to take blood work again as they are no longer invalid if they are more than 1 yr old.
Again this are grey areas.There are no concrete answers.
I was not sure about this. I guess medicals are valid for 15months (if I am not wrong). But again, I just sent the medicals with new I-693 form with old results (like old wine in the new bottle :) ). Its just that the Doctor forgot to fill couple of check boxes, so I hope they accept it.
Again this are grey areas.There are no concrete answers.
I was not sure about this. I guess medicals are valid for 15months (if I am not wrong). But again, I just sent the medicals with new I-693 form with old results (like old wine in the new bottle :) ). Its just that the Doctor forgot to fill couple of check boxes, so I hope they accept it.
hairstyles The Eagle – A powerful ird
.JPG "Tribal Bird Tattoos Designs")
arnet
11-22 06:31 PM
hey nivasch, can you use H1 to work if you didnt use it to enter at port of entry? can you please explain your experience? thanks.
Arnet
Arnet
needhelp!
02-12 07:24 PM
Unbelievable!
At these places, we have run into several IV members who say things like: "OH THANK YOU, I have been wanting to write this letter.... now where do I need to sign???"
At these places, we have run into several IV members who say things like: "OH THANK YOU, I have been wanting to write this letter.... now where do I need to sign???"
d15photographer
August 13th, 2006, 02:31 PM
on aug 9, nikon anounced the "D80" http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond80/
im thinking about making the jump from my pentax ist ds to nikon... i just started photography and think i sould swich to nikon while i still can. i have a few sd cards and think it would be ether the d50 or d80, would it be wourth spending the extra $200 or $400 on the d80. i like the 10mp, the Multiple-exposures capabilities, 100iso ect.
any thoughts
im thinking about making the jump from my pentax ist ds to nikon... i just started photography and think i sould swich to nikon while i still can. i have a few sd cards and think it would be ether the d50 or d80, would it be wourth spending the extra $200 or $400 on the d80. i like the 10mp, the Multiple-exposures capabilities, 100iso ect.
any thoughts
No comments:
Post a Comment