kiru_99
10-31 11:34 AM
It was rejected on Sep 22nd. Lawyer got the letter long back. But he didn't get back to me infact he didn't know about rejection untill I called USCIS & found out the issue & informed him. I think he miss placed my rejection letter. He took 1000$ more from me for giving fast service.
These lawyers play with our lives.
Is your case accepted now??
These lawyers play with our lives.
Is your case accepted now??
wallpaper NEW ORLEANS - APRIL 24: Kobe
ashkam
03-23 03:35 PM
Hello gurus,
need little help from you guys. Right now i am on H1b.
I am about to file my Family based I-485, I-130, I-765, I-131. on all these forms they are asking for A# ( Alien Registration Number).
I was on F1 visa before. so i have one expired EAD card which i got during my OPT in 2005. this card has a A#.
so should i put this A# on all forms( I-485,I-130,I-765,I-131) or leave it blank.???
H1bdude1
You can give your OPT A# but once you're assigned a permanent visa number, they'll give you a different number. Your OPT A# is just a temporary number.
need little help from you guys. Right now i am on H1b.
I am about to file my Family based I-485, I-130, I-765, I-131. on all these forms they are asking for A# ( Alien Registration Number).
I was on F1 visa before. so i have one expired EAD card which i got during my OPT in 2005. this card has a A#.
so should i put this A# on all forms( I-485,I-130,I-765,I-131) or leave it blank.???
H1bdude1
You can give your OPT A# but once you're assigned a permanent visa number, they'll give you a different number. Your OPT A# is just a temporary number.
lostinbeta
11-18 04:03 PM
WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=)=)=):beam::beam::beam:
=)=)=):beam::beam::beam:
2011 KOBE BRYANT 24 jersey is one
GCwaitforever
02-07 09:12 AM
From IRS point of view, parents are considered dependents if you are taking care of them at home. You could bring them on visitor VISA mentioning that they will be here for medical treatment. You may have to show proof of Insurance etc ... in the affidavit of support. Medical exprenses are costly here. That is the only problem.
more...
hoolahoous
04-07 10:57 PM
I depends on you, how much risk you want to take ... I can tell what happened with me ....
Initially, I was working of a small consulting company and left them after few months. Although, there was nothing in the contract prohibiting me from doing this. But they filled a lawsuit against me for all fake things. I had to hire an attorney to defend myself, who was quite expensive. In end, I was forced to settle after paying like 10K, cost of lawsuit would have been huge. BTW, I did consult an attorney before leaving and there was nothing I did, which was not legal. But ultimately it just didn't make a sense to continue fighting it and spending 15-20K in attorney fees.
I do not intend to scare you or suggest if you should go ahead or not. Just that make sure you cover yourself
sounds fishy.. if there was nothing wrong from your side, you could have won and claimed all legal fee from your x employer
Initially, I was working of a small consulting company and left them after few months. Although, there was nothing in the contract prohibiting me from doing this. But they filled a lawsuit against me for all fake things. I had to hire an attorney to defend myself, who was quite expensive. In end, I was forced to settle after paying like 10K, cost of lawsuit would have been huge. BTW, I did consult an attorney before leaving and there was nothing I did, which was not legal. But ultimately it just didn't make a sense to continue fighting it and spending 15-20K in attorney fees.
I do not intend to scare you or suggest if you should go ahead or not. Just that make sure you cover yourself
sounds fishy.. if there was nothing wrong from your side, you could have won and claimed all legal fee from your x employer
sidbee
04-29 09:59 AM
I truly believe India IS a developed country.
Sorry , wont agree with you.
It does have the potential to be , and it would be if the corruption in the government ceases to exist. The amount of money Indian politicians, have in swiss banks, and other offshore banks , is amazing.
Sorry , wont agree with you.
It does have the potential to be , and it would be if the corruption in the government ceases to exist. The amount of money Indian politicians, have in swiss banks, and other offshore banks , is amazing.
more...
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
2010 Kobe Bryant Jersey: adidas
Steven-T
July 9th, 2004, 09:33 AM
Do any equipment savy forum members have any views on the Nikon Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5 - 5.6D IF AF Zoom lens positive, negitive or otherwise? Target camera will be my D70. Thanks in advance.On 1.5x sensor, the 28mm becomes 42mm 35mm-camera equivalent. That's definitely not wide enough. To me, attaching a wide-range and large lens to my camera, and carrying it in hiking, rain forest, desert, etc is not preferred unless you packed inside the backpack and take it out only when taking pictures. Then I would prefer two lenses, something of 18-35mm, and 70-200mm. That's was my Nikon days for 25+ years prior to changing over to canon one month ago.
Steven
Steven
more...
minimalist
09-16 04:34 PM
about so much uproar and fighting about not letting illegal immigrants have healthcare.
Dems even explicitly stated in the bill that no illegals will be eligible for the benefit.
They must be laughing inside because after the CIR, there will be not many illegals left.
Anyway just an observation.
Immigration Reform will follow 'Health Care' Bill. But the real hurdle for 'Health Care reform' is inclusion of Illegal Immigrants in the bill. No one can dare say that loud that they want to 'include' illegal immigrants because that will hurt any chances of passing the Health Care bill.
So, if they start the CIR discussions out in the public, the 'illegal immigrants' turning into 'legal' and hence eligible for 'health care' issue will be the highlight of ALL NEWS channels. That will do damage to health care. I'm sure unless & until health care reform is through, they can't get any details of CIR out to public.( I'm sure CIR includes Amnesty at the least )
That said, 'Donkeys' are bound to loose in next year mid-term if Obama does not live up to their pre-poll promises. Remember, Hispanics & other minorities are the edge for 'Donkeys' while some independents can weigh in either ways.
So, bottom line is CIR will pass after health care. But, I'll not bet too much on provisions for 'legal immigrants'. Since we are the only dog bone that 'Donkeys' have got to gain any required support for CIR. We need to work hard to get our provisions on the first draft and do everything possible to be included in the final version of the bill.
My ramblings anyways....
Dems even explicitly stated in the bill that no illegals will be eligible for the benefit.
They must be laughing inside because after the CIR, there will be not many illegals left.
Anyway just an observation.
Immigration Reform will follow 'Health Care' Bill. But the real hurdle for 'Health Care reform' is inclusion of Illegal Immigrants in the bill. No one can dare say that loud that they want to 'include' illegal immigrants because that will hurt any chances of passing the Health Care bill.
So, if they start the CIR discussions out in the public, the 'illegal immigrants' turning into 'legal' and hence eligible for 'health care' issue will be the highlight of ALL NEWS channels. That will do damage to health care. I'm sure unless & until health care reform is through, they can't get any details of CIR out to public.( I'm sure CIR includes Amnesty at the least )
That said, 'Donkeys' are bound to loose in next year mid-term if Obama does not live up to their pre-poll promises. Remember, Hispanics & other minorities are the edge for 'Donkeys' while some independents can weigh in either ways.
So, bottom line is CIR will pass after health care. But, I'll not bet too much on provisions for 'legal immigrants'. Since we are the only dog bone that 'Donkeys' have got to gain any required support for CIR. We need to work hard to get our provisions on the first draft and do everything possible to be included in the final version of the bill.
My ramblings anyways....
hair Los Angeles Lakers 24 Kobe
I_need_GC
09-09 11:33 PM
Just because you entered on AP doesn't mean you have lost you h1b, it just puts it to sleep. if ur wife is on h4 she can stay on h4 as long as you are employed by the h1b sponsoring employer. To reactivate your h1b you need to resenter the us using your h1b visa stamp, if you don't have an h1b visa stamp you would need to get it stamped at a consulate
more...
santb1975
09-23 09:20 PM
I am still waiting for the receipt numbers. Could take a couple more weeks
hot Kobe Bryant 24 Wallpaper. kobe
sheela
10-12 02:45 PM
please, poll your PD here
more...
house 21: Kobe Bryant #24 of the
amsgc
09-10 12:08 AM
You should request your new employer to do Premium Processing on your H-1B petition.
You will get a response from USCIS in 2 weeks and you will know for sure whether it has been approved/rejected or if USCIS needs more evidence. If it is approved, you will also know whether it was approved with Change of status (i.e. I94 attached), or whether you are required to leave the country and re-enter on a H-1B visa.
If new evidence needs to be submitted, then you will get a response within two weeks of submitting additional evidence.
The fee for Premium processing is $1000. Note that the beneficiary of the petition (you in this case) is legally allowed to pay the fee for premium processing. But, only the petitioner (your future employer) can file the application for Premium processing.
As far as I know - you are considered in a period of authorized stay as long as your petition for change of status/extension of stay is pending with the USCIS. You will begin to accrue unlawful presence from the day the petition is denied, if that were to happen.
The lawyers on this forum can advise you better.
i don't know what to do right now.i stayed over april 2009 which is the end of my i-94 because i have a pending petition of immigrant as a nurse.And my lawyer said i am allowed to stay until october 2009. But now the problem is I was filed as H1b by another employer so is it possible that they will approve me here?My lawyer said that when i received already the notice of receipt i can stay here while waiting for the approval.And when my approval comes with 1-94 on it i don't have to leave the US but when it has been approved without i-94 i will leave the US for consular processing asap and re-enter here as h1 status.HELP i really don't know what to believe anymore!at the moment i am waiting for my notice of receipt in h1b visa.I only have until oct to get a result for the approval!please advice me what is the best I can do!THANKS:)
You will get a response from USCIS in 2 weeks and you will know for sure whether it has been approved/rejected or if USCIS needs more evidence. If it is approved, you will also know whether it was approved with Change of status (i.e. I94 attached), or whether you are required to leave the country and re-enter on a H-1B visa.
If new evidence needs to be submitted, then you will get a response within two weeks of submitting additional evidence.
The fee for Premium processing is $1000. Note that the beneficiary of the petition (you in this case) is legally allowed to pay the fee for premium processing. But, only the petitioner (your future employer) can file the application for Premium processing.
As far as I know - you are considered in a period of authorized stay as long as your petition for change of status/extension of stay is pending with the USCIS. You will begin to accrue unlawful presence from the day the petition is denied, if that were to happen.
The lawyers on this forum can advise you better.
i don't know what to do right now.i stayed over april 2009 which is the end of my i-94 because i have a pending petition of immigrant as a nurse.And my lawyer said i am allowed to stay until october 2009. But now the problem is I was filed as H1b by another employer so is it possible that they will approve me here?My lawyer said that when i received already the notice of receipt i can stay here while waiting for the approval.And when my approval comes with 1-94 on it i don't have to leave the US but when it has been approved without i-94 i will leave the US for consular processing asap and re-enter here as h1 status.HELP i really don't know what to believe anymore!at the moment i am waiting for my notice of receipt in h1b visa.I only have until oct to get a result for the approval!please advice me what is the best I can do!THANKS:)
tattoo Kobe Bryant 24 Wallpaper. kobe
mdipi
11-18 03:05 PM
haha! sucking up to the mod...i see...i understand...
more...
pictures LAKERS KOBE BRYANT #24 HAT
java_jaggu
06-20 04:29 PM
logiclife, I am not sure whether we can file the 485 on our own with a letter from the employer. The letter from the employer is part of the "Initial Evidence" required to file the 485 petition. Here is a snippet from the immigration-law website talking about the importance of submitting the initial evidence at the time of filing. There is a high possibility that your I-485 petition will get denied(without an RFE) if you don't submit it without a letter from the employer.
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
dresses Los Angeles Lakers 24 Kobe
capriol
06-03 03:48 PM
Sure, the USCIS will ofcourse remind certain people to apply for the Travel documents: Why not?
After all (1) $305 from pre-July 30, 2007 (I485) applicants (and many, many of such applicants) will count to make the USCIS (and the US) "rich." (2) Keeping the chain of advance parole and EAD's will prevent this country from giving permanency to the "foreigners." Goodness, gracious, we are taking away their jobs...remember....
After all (1) $305 from pre-July 30, 2007 (I485) applicants (and many, many of such applicants) will count to make the USCIS (and the US) "rich." (2) Keeping the chain of advance parole and EAD's will prevent this country from giving permanency to the "foreigners." Goodness, gracious, we are taking away their jobs...remember....
more...
makeup That next day, May 19, Kobe
qualified_trash
08-30 12:05 PM
When you are applying for the PERM, who decides the requirements? Your employer who sponsors you, or the job itself?
Be wise. When we talk about whether we use MS+2 or BS+5, it doesn't mean we tailor the requirements. It's the issue of which is more important, the academic studies or the working experience.
You are right. The issue is which is more important, the academic studies or the working experience.
And, that is decided by the job that needs to be done, NOT by the employer who sponsors you.
If you were an employer sponsoring someone's Greencard, you would first write down the job decription and then decide if it falls under EB2 or EB3, not the other way around.
cheers,
QT
Be wise. When we talk about whether we use MS+2 or BS+5, it doesn't mean we tailor the requirements. It's the issue of which is more important, the academic studies or the working experience.
You are right. The issue is which is more important, the academic studies or the working experience.
And, that is decided by the job that needs to be done, NOT by the employer who sponsors you.
If you were an employer sponsoring someone's Greencard, you would first write down the job decription and then decide if it falls under EB2 or EB3, not the other way around.
cheers,
QT
girlfriend JANUARY 24: Kobe Bryant
anda007
07-11 12:22 PM
Kindly send me a template of letter to the senator and address of them
I am going to send cards and letter.
If you do not agree with this idea, I apologise.
I did not send the flowers, bcos IV told me. I sent it, bcos I felt it right !!!
I am going to send cards and letter.
If you do not agree with this idea, I apologise.
I did not send the flowers, bcos IV told me. I sent it, bcos I felt it right !!!
hairstyles 20: Kobe Bryant #24 of the
greencardvow
07-18 06:12 PM
Did you change your address. Sometimes they send denial at the old address. Also you need a lawyer now with the print out of the page where it lists pending. This forum cant help with this situation as an appeal is needed in your case.
EB3 with PD June 2001 and I-485 was applied with RD of Oct 2002.
The online case tracking system has the status of case received and pending
Meanwhile, a call to USCIS revealed about the I-485 denial in Nov, 2005.
The I-485 was denied in Nov 2005 and we were not notified by USCIS and my attorney also did not get any denial notice.
How can the case be denied with out any notice? Do we have precedence on this level by USCIS?
I did a FP appt in Jan 2006 though.
I have been asked to refile I-485 now.
EB3 with PD June 2001 and I-485 was applied with RD of Oct 2002.
The online case tracking system has the status of case received and pending
Meanwhile, a call to USCIS revealed about the I-485 denial in Nov, 2005.
The I-485 was denied in Nov 2005 and we were not notified by USCIS and my attorney also did not get any denial notice.
How can the case be denied with out any notice? Do we have precedence on this level by USCIS?
I did a FP appt in Jan 2006 though.
I have been asked to refile I-485 now.
neerajvir
07-13 09:06 AM
And fowarded to others that are affected.
srini1976
03-22 08:56 PM
This is from murthy.com
TRAGIC ACCIDENT - We regret to inform you that four students from Andhra Pradesh, India died and one is critically injured in a fatal car accident which took place in Missouri. Our condolences go out to the families of those who did not survive.
TANA, along with the local Telugu Association of St. Louis, is raising funds to care of things related to this accident and to help the families back home. Please visit and donate online at www.tana.org/donate. Select donation choice - Team Square.
TRAGIC ACCIDENT - We regret to inform you that four students from Andhra Pradesh, India died and one is critically injured in a fatal car accident which took place in Missouri. Our condolences go out to the families of those who did not survive.
TANA, along with the local Telugu Association of St. Louis, is raising funds to care of things related to this accident and to help the families back home. Please visit and donate online at www.tana.org/donate. Select donation choice - Team Square.
0 comments:
Post a Comment