div_bell_2003
01-06 01:55 PM
Interesting read since my lawyer had informed me specifically that the CBP officer at POE is not supposed to lift one copy of advanced parole, he's supposed to stamp it and hand it back over to me and make a copy for his own records. They have also told me that if a CBP officer looks to lift a copy, we should politely ask him/her if there is any specific reason he needs an original and can't make a copy.
On the same note, if every time they lift a copy, then how can one make more than say 2 trips on one AP ? I have seen lots of people using AP for business travel and they do make more trips.
You need both copies of the AP. The IO will keep one copy and stamp the other one and return it. When I got back to the USA in December 2008, my POE was Miami. My lawyer had told me to take both copies of the AP with me.
When I was in the Secondary room, there was another person who had only one copy of the AP. The IO asked him for the other copy. The dude told the IO that he had only one copy and the lawyer had told him that one copy is enough (you could see that he was nervous). The IO sarcastically told him to change his lawyer. The dude then said that he was not planning on traveling anytime before the expiry of the AP and said that the IO could keep the copy he had submitted. The IO again wryly told him that things don't work that way. He told the dude to take a seat and he wold see what he could do (the IO was actually polite all the time to this dude - even thought he sounded sarcastic at times - especially when he said "I would not waste any more money on this lawyer"). To make a long story short, I saw him get his stamped AP back and we left the room at around the same time).
My advise to you is - take both the copies - you will not regret it.
On the same note, if every time they lift a copy, then how can one make more than say 2 trips on one AP ? I have seen lots of people using AP for business travel and they do make more trips.
You need both copies of the AP. The IO will keep one copy and stamp the other one and return it. When I got back to the USA in December 2008, my POE was Miami. My lawyer had told me to take both copies of the AP with me.
When I was in the Secondary room, there was another person who had only one copy of the AP. The IO asked him for the other copy. The dude told the IO that he had only one copy and the lawyer had told him that one copy is enough (you could see that he was nervous). The IO sarcastically told him to change his lawyer. The dude then said that he was not planning on traveling anytime before the expiry of the AP and said that the IO could keep the copy he had submitted. The IO again wryly told him that things don't work that way. He told the dude to take a seat and he wold see what he could do (the IO was actually polite all the time to this dude - even thought he sounded sarcastic at times - especially when he said "I would not waste any more money on this lawyer"). To make a long story short, I saw him get his stamped AP back and we left the room at around the same time).
My advise to you is - take both the copies - you will not regret it.
wallpaper Alcohol-wallpaper,
jayleno
06-19 09:32 AM
I applied for my 485/AP/EAD last year. Got my AP and EAD.
Last week I applied for renewal of my EAD and AP. They sent back both of my applications saying they need a 485 reciept notice. I have attached an explanation saying I did not get my 485 reciept notice and I gave the reciept number. Also attached last years approved EAD stub and EAD reciept notice with the EAD application. I have attached last years AP reciept notice with AP application as proof of my 485 application.
I dont know why they could not check with my A# or SSN. Sometimes they are moody or Some of them are crazy.
I think your attoney/employer put their address on the 485 app and they should have it. Lot of insecure consulting companies(you know what I mean) do that and make us believe that our 485 reciept notice was lost in the mail.
Last week I applied for renewal of my EAD and AP. They sent back both of my applications saying they need a 485 reciept notice. I have attached an explanation saying I did not get my 485 reciept notice and I gave the reciept number. Also attached last years approved EAD stub and EAD reciept notice with the EAD application. I have attached last years AP reciept notice with AP application as proof of my 485 application.
I dont know why they could not check with my A# or SSN. Sometimes they are moody or Some of them are crazy.
I think your attoney/employer put their address on the 485 app and they should have it. Lot of insecure consulting companies(you know what I mean) do that and make us believe that our 485 reciept notice was lost in the mail.
pd_recapturing
12-13 02:43 PM
My sincere advice - if u are here currently on a visa then forget about applying for GC..! Complete your education and get ur degree. Then - PACK UR BAGS AND GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY OR just go back home.! This GC is bussiness is honestly not worth it anymore.!! Sorry if i sound frustrated or disheartening but I'm only being practical & realistic.!
I second it. rkat's every word is right. Please do not make your education decision just based on GC EB2 or EB3
I second it. rkat's every word is right. Please do not make your education decision just based on GC EB2 or EB3
2011 girly alcohol variety icons
h1techSlave
04-10 02:34 PM
I went thru the tracker to see how many are there before Jan 2004 EB3-I. And the news is not good.
Out of the total cases of 27, 389 (All-no filtering), 757 is before Jan 2004 for EB3-I. That's a % of 2.764%.
Now, let us extrapolate this figure to find out the total remaining EB3-I cases. If we take that there are 400,000 pending EB cases, the count of Eb3-I prior to Jan 2004 would be: 400,000 * 2.764 = 11, 056 cases.
With a country quota of 3000 visas, it would take 11056/3000 = 3.69 years to clear this backlog.
Now a word on the potential visa date movement. I have noticed that there are many PDs in the latter months of 2003 - there are very few people with PDs before June 2003. This points to a very strong possibility of the DOS setting the EB3-I visa date as June/July/August 2003 in the coming months.
Out of the total cases of 27, 389 (All-no filtering), 757 is before Jan 2004 for EB3-I. That's a % of 2.764%.
Now, let us extrapolate this figure to find out the total remaining EB3-I cases. If we take that there are 400,000 pending EB cases, the count of Eb3-I prior to Jan 2004 would be: 400,000 * 2.764 = 11, 056 cases.
With a country quota of 3000 visas, it would take 11056/3000 = 3.69 years to clear this backlog.
Now a word on the potential visa date movement. I have noticed that there are many PDs in the latter months of 2003 - there are very few people with PDs before June 2003. This points to a very strong possibility of the DOS setting the EB3-I visa date as June/July/August 2003 in the coming months.
more...
nousername
03-31 05:47 PM
Your 180 days start from the day your I-94 expired. And yes, 2 weeks or 4 weeks over stay will make a difference. Next time when you enter the country or at the Visa office they might ask you the reason.
You did nit clarify if your partner is a US citizen, PR or visa holder. That might help in giving you some additional advise.
You did nit clarify if your partner is a US citizen, PR or visa holder. That might help in giving you some additional advise.
raj2007
02-20 08:43 PM
Thank you for advice. i did not realize the issue was so complex. I did call uscis after i got married before i sent in my OAS papers and asked them how can i maintain legal status after my j-1 expires. they said that since i came legally, haven't broken any rules and got married before status expiration - i maintain "somewhat legal status"(i do not have j-1 2 year mandatory homecoutry stay either). My wife is US citizen.
So i thought even thought period from 10/01 to 11/26 (receipt for receiving both i-485 and i-130) can be considered out of status - after that i can be considered a resident alien which would mean that it is still a legal status.
Your status is fine once you files I-485, but travelling can be risky.
So i thought even thought period from 10/01 to 11/26 (receipt for receiving both i-485 and i-130) can be considered out of status - after that i can be considered a resident alien which would mean that it is still a legal status.
Your status is fine once you files I-485, but travelling can be risky.
more...
apb
08-17 10:03 PM
See all of you in rally !.
And you will there with your friend...//wink.. correct.
And you will there with your friend...//wink.. correct.
2010 Alcohol md wallpaper
sobers
02-21 03:59 PM
good job, eb3_nepa!!
While you're at it, why don't you also copy and paste all the articles/news stories that support skilled worker immigration that are on this site, and send them across too.
That will help them tremendously, since congressional staffers are often pressed for time and cannot gather all the supporting information by themselves.
Thanks! Keep it up!
While you're at it, why don't you also copy and paste all the articles/news stories that support skilled worker immigration that are on this site, and send them across too.
That will help them tremendously, since congressional staffers are often pressed for time and cannot gather all the supporting information by themselves.
Thanks! Keep it up!
more...
jonty_11
07-05 12:46 PM
Maybe politicians involved - only when powerful politicians are involved such things happen - USCIS/DOS does not do such things on its own.
How about the fact that it was related to CIR to shut up the Legals asking for Ammendments in CIR, ,,,,as CIR fell apart, they took away our bait too.....
It seems too simple, but only makes sense...
Remember this has never happenned before in the history of VBs
How about the fact that it was related to CIR to shut up the Legals asking for Ammendments in CIR, ,,,,as CIR fell apart, they took away our bait too.....
It seems too simple, but only makes sense...
Remember this has never happenned before in the history of VBs
hair Alcohol wallpaper, Alcohol wallpaper scrap, Alcohol wallpaper greetings,
sanjay02
08-04 03:00 PM
Dude whats the consulting company name? If you want to land your employer in soup send his details to Dept of labor at "info@dol.gov"
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
hot alcohol wallpaper. alcohol
srikondoji
09-14 07:21 PM
Guys,
Post a link to the recorded radio interview. I want to listen tonight.
--sri
Post a link to the recorded radio interview. I want to listen tonight.
--sri
more...
house alcohol wallpaper.
lj_rr
07-23 10:38 PM
Is that what you did? I think there are better spots.
tattoo Jagermeister Logo Wallpaper
calboy78
11-10 01:55 PM
Hi friends,
My brother in NJ got his new passport at NY Indian consulate (since old one was expiring soon). They gave new passport which was valid for only one year - saying that they need valid unexpired visa-stamp to give 10 year validity passport.
They said that they will NOT accept
- valid unexpired EAD
- valid unexpired AP
- valid 485 receipt
- even valid unexpired H1 approval notice (my brother still has H1 in addition to AP)
...Now it is so absurd that, even if my bro went for visa stamping (which he isn't planning), he will not probably be issued 3 yr visa as passport is valid for very short duration. A chicken and egg problem.
In addition why do Indian consulate worry about our visa status for determining passport validity duration ? If they do care then at least they must accept the legal documents (ead/ap/485 receipt/h1 approval notice) to make a decision.
I will appreciate if anyone has a solution to this problem. All answers appreciated.
I am so sad (and mad) that lawmakers of our country are still haunting us while we are away from our country and trying to contribute to its progress.
My brother in NJ got his new passport at NY Indian consulate (since old one was expiring soon). They gave new passport which was valid for only one year - saying that they need valid unexpired visa-stamp to give 10 year validity passport.
They said that they will NOT accept
- valid unexpired EAD
- valid unexpired AP
- valid 485 receipt
- even valid unexpired H1 approval notice (my brother still has H1 in addition to AP)
...Now it is so absurd that, even if my bro went for visa stamping (which he isn't planning), he will not probably be issued 3 yr visa as passport is valid for very short duration. A chicken and egg problem.
In addition why do Indian consulate worry about our visa status for determining passport validity duration ? If they do care then at least they must accept the legal documents (ead/ap/485 receipt/h1 approval notice) to make a decision.
I will appreciate if anyone has a solution to this problem. All answers appreciated.
I am so sad (and mad) that lawmakers of our country are still haunting us while we are away from our country and trying to contribute to its progress.
more...
pictures Alcohol, Wallpaper
GKBest
08-03 08:25 PM
You can always file Motion to open the denied case.You also need to go through the reasons for denial , which you will be knowing soon in USCIS response.Without knowing the reason for denial , it will be pure speculation suggesting future course of action.You can continue to work untill your case is being adjudicated.
From the way I understand if the case is denied, you cannot work but you are authorized to stay if your appeal has been decided in your favor. However, some lawyers say that you can work with the H1 employer since the decision is not yet final. So which one is correct?
From the way I understand if the case is denied, you cannot work but you are authorized to stay if your appeal has been decided in your favor. However, some lawyers say that you can work with the H1 employer since the decision is not yet final. So which one is correct?
dresses Absolut Vodka PSP Wallpaper
ksairi
08-18 08:06 PM
USCIS will accept any applicaiton filed at a wrong service center uptil Aug 29th. If an applicant has not filed a form as per the direct filing instructions that became effective July 30th, still USCIS will accept any application filed at wrong locaiton as per their press release for direct filing that came sometime in June.
That's great
That's great
more...
makeup Alcohol Drunkard Graphics
Photoman
March 26th, 2004, 08:22 AM
I have just joined this forum and collected my D70 last night. Used for the first time tonight took about 200 photo's with my SB-80DX flash.
I had to use camera on A or S priority with flash set on Auto. Quite a backward step after TTL metering with the F100.
The only Nikon flashes which provide full interaction with the D70 are the SB-800 & SB-600. Only these provide auto zoom head function, ISO from camera and TTL metering.
Hope this helps.PM
SB-26 will be a problem. You cannot use TTL flash mode with any Nikon digital camera. It would be like going back to an old thyristor auto flash. Only the DX series flashes work with the digitals.
I had to use camera on A or S priority with flash set on Auto. Quite a backward step after TTL metering with the F100.
The only Nikon flashes which provide full interaction with the D70 are the SB-800 & SB-600. Only these provide auto zoom head function, ISO from camera and TTL metering.
Hope this helps.PM
SB-26 will be a problem. You cannot use TTL flash mode with any Nikon digital camera. It would be like going back to an old thyristor auto flash. Only the DX series flashes work with the digitals.
girlfriend alcohol wallpaper. dmx install alcohol pro; dmx install alcohol pro
sammyb
04-20 06:53 AM
any luck with PIMS pre-verification ... please share ...
I got this from different website(not sure if I can quote here).
Before going /planning for a perticular consualte, you can email the consulate with a i797 copy asking them to check if it exists in their system. If it doesn't then they will request concerned athorities to make it available in system so that you won't get stuck with PIMS delay. So far I have heard mexico/canada consualte responding to emails positively.
I will be mailing(canada consulate) them soon. Will keep you updated if i hear anything from them. if it works..its indeed a good options for us.:D
I got this from different website(not sure if I can quote here).
Before going /planning for a perticular consualte, you can email the consulate with a i797 copy asking them to check if it exists in their system. If it doesn't then they will request concerned athorities to make it available in system so that you won't get stuck with PIMS delay. So far I have heard mexico/canada consualte responding to emails positively.
I will be mailing(canada consulate) them soon. Will keep you updated if i hear anything from them. if it works..its indeed a good options for us.:D
hairstyles alcohol wallpaper. Wallpaper Alcohol photos and
rjgleason
June 4th, 2004, 08:31 PM
I immediately thought of the Seinfeld Episode: Bubble Boy
greenhorn
12-09 01:55 PM
When does the H-1 B fiscal year start? Is it April? So for example, people apply in April 2007 for the 2007 fiscal year and start working from April 2007?
In this case of transfer from non profit to for profit, is the priority date portable after I-140 approval?
This is a different question. Is the government job also regarded as cap exempt non profit?
Thank you very much for your help! Our immigration gods bless you!
Best,
I am surprised some one in an earlier post said they switched from a non-profit to a for-profit, without being counted against the cap.
I work for an NPO too and here is what i know:
If u have always worked for a non-profit on ur H1, transferring from a non-profit to a for-profit does require that u are subject to the H1B quota. So u will need to make sure the h1B quota is available before u switch. And that can be tricky.. because though, the quota opens in Apr, from what i understand, u would have to wait until October of that year to start working. You would have to find an employer who would be willing to file for an H1 for u by Apr/May before the H1 quota fills up, and wait until October for u to start work.
Only institutions of higher education, non-profit entities affiliated to such institutions or non-profit research / governmental research organizations that fall under certain sections of USC,under the Higher Education Act of 1965 qualify for the H1B cap exemption. You would have to check with ur prospective employer to find out if they qualify if u want to switch to another non-profit.
As for the priority date after 1-140 approval, i don't see any reason why it would not be portable.. but u would have to check on that.
In this case of transfer from non profit to for profit, is the priority date portable after I-140 approval?
This is a different question. Is the government job also regarded as cap exempt non profit?
Thank you very much for your help! Our immigration gods bless you!
Best,
I am surprised some one in an earlier post said they switched from a non-profit to a for-profit, without being counted against the cap.
I work for an NPO too and here is what i know:
If u have always worked for a non-profit on ur H1, transferring from a non-profit to a for-profit does require that u are subject to the H1B quota. So u will need to make sure the h1B quota is available before u switch. And that can be tricky.. because though, the quota opens in Apr, from what i understand, u would have to wait until October of that year to start working. You would have to find an employer who would be willing to file for an H1 for u by Apr/May before the H1 quota fills up, and wait until October for u to start work.
Only institutions of higher education, non-profit entities affiliated to such institutions or non-profit research / governmental research organizations that fall under certain sections of USC,under the Higher Education Act of 1965 qualify for the H1B cap exemption. You would have to check with ur prospective employer to find out if they qualify if u want to switch to another non-profit.
As for the priority date after 1-140 approval, i don't see any reason why it would not be portable.. but u would have to check on that.
GCVictim
05-07 11:57 AM
Me and my wife got soft LUD on 485 files. the date was 03/19/2009. we are Jul 07 filers. PD was May 07
