phillyag
07-20 02:17 PM
I'm confused - what is the point of applying for AP if you aren't also applying for EAD?
Yes, I believe you can apply for EAD yourself
I believe one can travel on AP. For current employer EAD is only needed when I do not have H1 status.
If i am correct.
Yes, I believe you can apply for EAD yourself
I believe one can travel on AP. For current employer EAD is only needed when I do not have H1 status.
If i am correct.
wallpaper Free Best Friends quotes for
GotGC??
06-21 09:22 AM
Any idea what constitutes a "simple, str forward" case? At 485 stage, what are the things that could potentially make it a more complicated case?
Although that the rule..I dont think USCIS actively follows it. The reason for that being the ombudsman report that states that the adjudicating officers pick low hanging fruit first (simple strforward cases) and that is reflected on where people have been getting their 485 approved within 90 days (which the ombudsman's report states is uscis's goal). right now the processing date is holding at 9 months. maybe to dissuade people from continously calling the NSC 1800 number.
Although that the rule..I dont think USCIS actively follows it. The reason for that being the ombudsman report that states that the adjudicating officers pick low hanging fruit first (simple strforward cases) and that is reflected on where people have been getting their 485 approved within 90 days (which the ombudsman's report states is uscis's goal). right now the processing date is holding at 9 months. maybe to dissuade people from continously calling the NSC 1800 number.
malibuguy007
09-16 01:38 PM
House Judiciary Committee MembersBelow or go to the thread mentioned above
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
2011 house est friends forever
Bpositive
01-03 01:23 PM
I am trying to get a handle on recent 221g processing times..it seems like a routine exercise and we are submitting the requested information..however, if it is delayed for too long, we may use advance parole..
more...
nomorelogins
11-08 03:18 PM
The statistics they have provided might be correct but useless for any PD date information. Applications include all kinds of 485s, AP, EAD and renewals.
If USCIS really wanted to provide statistics they should have provided how many EB based 485s they have (further dividing them by PD year and country), and same thing for family based. Clubbing these two together is stupid.
I agree. given that they process close to 600K green cards per year, we should all be current by this report.
If USCIS really wanted to provide statistics they should have provided how many EB based 485s they have (further dividing them by PD year and country), and same thing for family based. Clubbing these two together is stupid.
I agree. given that they process close to 600K green cards per year, we should all be current by this report.
KVHTMBA
01-11 01:12 PM
Good to see this bill and it will be great if it is passed even with less than 60% allocation from the lottery program. I don’t think they would completely eliminate lottery program and the lottery program might have their own advocacies. As mentioned in this thread they might have the lottery program for many reasons. I am hoping for the bill to pass as it is :-)
Regarding satyasrd’s question I think section 2 . line #15 thru #19 in the bill (I copied the text below) helps who obtain the advanced degree in USA before 01/05/2011 (preceding the date of the petition) and obtain the degree within 5 years you should be good to go. Others please correct me if I am wrong.
15 ‘‘(ii)(I) obtained such degree within
16 the United States during the 5-year period
17 preceding the date on which the petition
18 filed under section 204(a)(1)(F) for
19 classification under this subparagraph is filed;
Regards,
KVHTMBA
Regarding satyasrd’s question I think section 2 . line #15 thru #19 in the bill (I copied the text below) helps who obtain the advanced degree in USA before 01/05/2011 (preceding the date of the petition) and obtain the degree within 5 years you should be good to go. Others please correct me if I am wrong.
15 ‘‘(ii)(I) obtained such degree within
16 the United States during the 5-year period
17 preceding the date on which the petition
18 filed under section 204(a)(1)(F) for
19 classification under this subparagraph is filed;
Regards,
KVHTMBA
more...
BPforGC
07-15 10:24 AM
I am in Houston and if you plan to organize a rally, I am in.
I believe by the end of this fiasco, Emilio Gonzalez will resign. This will definitely get more attention and lead to more reforms in EB category.
Guys, its plain and simple. Without techies and scientists like us, they know, that US cannot be world's technological superpower. Period.
I believe by the end of this fiasco, Emilio Gonzalez will resign. This will definitely get more attention and lead to more reforms in EB category.
Guys, its plain and simple. Without techies and scientists like us, they know, that US cannot be world's technological superpower. Period.
2010 hot cute est friends forever
mchundi
05-17 08:40 PM
Mchundi,
I understand your anxiety. To answer your questions:
There is no chance of having any single set of provisions "become law immediately."
Unfortunately, we have to let this current round of discussions on CIR play out. What should we root for? That amendments to the current CIR that basically gut the bill fail. If the bill survives these amendments then we stand a good chance of succeeding in our efforts.
For strategic reasons, we cannot disclose everything we know about behind the scenes agreements.
Hang in there!
best,
Berkeleybee
Thanks,
I am not even sure if this bill is good for me. (I am EB-2 2003 PD, I140 approved, India, 8th Year H1-B). I am sure this is good for people who r just stepping into the process.
I know u guys r doing a good job shuttling between work and D.C. This is the closest we have ever come with the lawmakers (that i know). If only we had this cohesion during S-1932 days we would have got something. Hope it works out well for us.
--MC
I understand your anxiety. To answer your questions:
There is no chance of having any single set of provisions "become law immediately."
Unfortunately, we have to let this current round of discussions on CIR play out. What should we root for? That amendments to the current CIR that basically gut the bill fail. If the bill survives these amendments then we stand a good chance of succeeding in our efforts.
For strategic reasons, we cannot disclose everything we know about behind the scenes agreements.
Hang in there!
best,
Berkeleybee
Thanks,
I am not even sure if this bill is good for me. (I am EB-2 2003 PD, I140 approved, India, 8th Year H1-B). I am sure this is good for people who r just stepping into the process.
I know u guys r doing a good job shuttling between work and D.C. This is the closest we have ever come with the lawmakers (that i know). If only we had this cohesion during S-1932 days we would have got something. Hope it works out well for us.
--MC
more...
Green_Print
08-01 01:10 PM
I would say some imagination fused with wishful thinking :D
Is it just your imagination or did you base this on any source.
Is it just your imagination or did you base this on any source.
hair A Friends Forever Ecard!
chapper
11-11 03:29 PM
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/338/workinprogress2xj2.th.jpg (http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=workinprogress2xj2.jpg)
more...
hopein07
03-14 12:29 PM
Don't ignore Dubai. It is a boom town and will give red carpet welcome to your wife because she is a US trained doc. I know of a few Indian docs who were on J1 visa and never got waiver jobs went to work in Dubai instead because with US degree they can practise there without any major issues. Dubai is good for IT folks too with the internet city. You may want to google and find more about Dubai's requirements.
hot quotes on est friends forever
vishwak
08-05 10:08 AM
The following message from murhy forum over 3 years ago is still true. Correct? I cannot mail the renewed parole to my wife if she stays beyond the expiry of current parole.
--
It is not permissable for an individual to leave the United States during the validity of one Advance Parole document and return upon the validity of a second Advance Parole document.
In such circumstances and after such travel, the USCIS may deem that the adjustment of status application has been abandoned.
---
Hello......I'm in same situation couple of months back and I got below feedback from Attorney..which might help you.
Thank you for your inquiry.
You cannot return to the US with an Advance Parole (AP) that was approved
while you were gone. You must have the AP in hand when you leave the US if
you want to use that AP to return. Therefore, you cannot travel with just
the AP receipt number.
As per this message your wife should come back US on Old Unexpired AP.
--
It is not permissable for an individual to leave the United States during the validity of one Advance Parole document and return upon the validity of a second Advance Parole document.
In such circumstances and after such travel, the USCIS may deem that the adjustment of status application has been abandoned.
---
Hello......I'm in same situation couple of months back and I got below feedback from Attorney..which might help you.
Thank you for your inquiry.
You cannot return to the US with an Advance Parole (AP) that was approved
while you were gone. You must have the AP in hand when you leave the US if
you want to use that AP to return. Therefore, you cannot travel with just
the AP receipt number.
As per this message your wife should come back US on Old Unexpired AP.
more...
house hot friends forever wallpapers
gc007
11-19 01:24 PM
I have recently returned using AP. I had 3 APs and the officer took one and returned 2 back to me. Both were stamped and the officer told me that for my next trip I can use the 2 APs with me. And also that I need not submit any AP on my next trip back.
tattoo Best friends forever
sr123
02-11 10:13 AM
As per my understanding, the retrogression problem is due to the lack of suffucient number of visas.This number is specified by the law. Now that is what needs fixing and that has come from legislation from congress(and last I heard courts should not and cannot legislate.)
Courts or judiciary comes in only when the law is not being implemented correctly. So even if the law is lacking in some way the courts have to go by the law. The only cases where courts strike down laws are when they are against the basic structure of the constitution.
So what we need to find out is whether an existing law is being violated, then we have a case otherwise not. I dont think USCIS is violating a law. If anyone else finds information about any violation then we can pursue law suit option.
Courts or judiciary comes in only when the law is not being implemented correctly. So even if the law is lacking in some way the courts have to go by the law. The only cases where courts strike down laws are when they are against the basic structure of the constitution.
So what we need to find out is whether an existing law is being violated, then we have a case otherwise not. I dont think USCIS is violating a law. If anyone else finds information about any violation then we can pursue law suit option.
more...
pictures quotes on est friends
gc_buddy
01-08 08:08 PM
Ok, Noted. That's what my company few years back advised few of our assoicates to do when they did not surrender I -94
Embassies do not handle these matters. Departure and arrival records are maintained by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Here is the link for instructions on what to do if you did not surrender the I-94:
http://help.cbp.gov/cgi-bin/customs.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=752&p_created=1077641280&p_sid=RGQ8g3Hh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9OCZwX3Byb2RzPTAmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9 jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX 3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PUktOTQ*&p_li=&p_topview=1
Embassies do not handle these matters. Departure and arrival records are maintained by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Here is the link for instructions on what to do if you did not surrender the I-94:
http://help.cbp.gov/cgi-bin/customs.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=752&p_created=1077641280&p_sid=RGQ8g3Hh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9OCZwX3Byb2RzPTAmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9 jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX 3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PUktOTQ*&p_li=&p_topview=1
dresses Best Friends Forever Quotes
gcseeker2002
02-20 03:16 PM
I was looking at the flcdatacenter website for Perm labors filed in 2006, and here are the numbers of total perm filed :
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
more...
makeup quotes for est friends
Appu
04-06 10:33 PM
If the Senate passes an immigration bill, it will be vastly different from the measure the House passed on Dec. 16. The two versions would have to be reconciled if a bill is to get to the president to sign. A bill can be virtually rewritten at this stage.
That's the whole point. There are a lot of moderate republicans who would vote with the dems in the senate on the legalization provisions. If they can get 60+ votes, that would send a strong signal to the house - they would then negotiate away from the Sensenbrenner position. On the other hand, if Kyl and Sessions and Cornyn are all allowed to chip away at the senate bill and weaken the vote in the senate then the final bill will probably end up much closer to the Sensenbrenner version. When Reid says the WH should intervene, he is probably not baiting, just seeking help.
That's the whole point. There are a lot of moderate republicans who would vote with the dems in the senate on the legalization provisions. If they can get 60+ votes, that would send a strong signal to the house - they would then negotiate away from the Sensenbrenner position. On the other hand, if Kyl and Sessions and Cornyn are all allowed to chip away at the senate bill and weaken the vote in the senate then the final bill will probably end up much closer to the Sensenbrenner version. When Reid says the WH should intervene, he is probably not baiting, just seeking help.
girlfriend quotes for est friends
eb3retro
02-24 03:49 PM
To whom it may concern, please, help us. Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
crap..who are you.???
hairstyles pictures quotes for friends in
chanduv23
06-12 02:30 PM
Because this year's greencards are expired. New quota starts in October. So he should apply labor by then so that he gets his greencard on Oct 1, 2009 by overnight FedEx at 9.00 AM.
As KI am born in October - will I have any special consideration :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
As KI am born in October - will I have any special consideration :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
adiboss007
04-10 04:42 PM
its funny. everyone is talking about recession, weak dollar, foreclosures, job cuts , etc etc. but the number of h-1b applications continues to rise each year (last year it was 123k, this year it is 163k).
isn't this a funny and/or strange statistic ? :confused:
anyway, i wish all applicants the best. i was in the same position last year and i know how it feels. hopefully, uscis is better prepared to handle this volume, after last years experience.
-a
isn't this a funny and/or strange statistic ? :confused:
anyway, i wish all applicants the best. i was in the same position last year and i know how it feels. hopefully, uscis is better prepared to handle this volume, after last years experience.
-a
AXM
12-12 04:34 PM
My question is if the AP has an expiration date, does the officer's parole stamp supercedes that or not? thanks
AM
AM
No comments:
Post a Comment