factoryman
03-15 11:30 AM
through whom I filed my first year taxes in US, that you don't need to declare if your mail-in rebates, apartment referals don't cross USD 1600. I haven't read anything that this has changed.
Note: Once I got USD 400 for an apartment referal and I split it 50/50 with the friend.
I hope someone out there in a similar situation can help me out.
I have given my real estate agent several referrals and for each I receive a cash amount. I'm on an H1B visa, am I able to receive income from someone other than my employer?
I've searched the web and have been able to find out that this should be reported as taxable income, I'm just not sure if I can receive it due to my immigration status.
Any comments or tips are welcome.
Note: Once I got USD 400 for an apartment referal and I split it 50/50 with the friend.
I hope someone out there in a similar situation can help me out.
I have given my real estate agent several referrals and for each I receive a cash amount. I'm on an H1B visa, am I able to receive income from someone other than my employer?
I've searched the web and have been able to find out that this should be reported as taxable income, I'm just not sure if I can receive it due to my immigration status.
Any comments or tips are welcome.
wallpaper Aasra Suicide Prevention
rb_248
07-27 07:13 AM
I tested it. It works great. Admins must consider creating a link for this on the main page of IV. Good job.
immigrant-in-law
04-04 11:59 AM
Apologies first. Could not find a link to start a new thread but what I am mentioning below has a direct bearing on people planning/trying for H1 transfers.
**************
Is there a requirement now that an H1 transfer petition must be submitted along with a copy of the company's contract with its client and a copy of the workorder issued by the client, in the canndidate's name?
We are faced with this situation now that we are effecting a candidate's H1 transfer. Our attorney wants these documents. We have also been told that the H1 extension will be granted only till the expiration of the client work order. So if it is a 6 month position, the H1 transfer would be granted for 6 months only. Fortunately in our case it is a much longer assignment.
Has anyone of you encountered this situation or heard about it? If true, does it not mean the end of H1 transfer as we have known it?
Regards
**************
Is there a requirement now that an H1 transfer petition must be submitted along with a copy of the company's contract with its client and a copy of the workorder issued by the client, in the canndidate's name?
We are faced with this situation now that we are effecting a candidate's H1 transfer. Our attorney wants these documents. We have also been told that the H1 extension will be granted only till the expiration of the client work order. So if it is a 6 month position, the H1 transfer would be granted for 6 months only. Fortunately in our case it is a much longer assignment.
Has anyone of you encountered this situation or heard about it? If true, does it not mean the end of H1 transfer as we have known it?
Regards
2011 Veteran Suicide Prevention
EndlessWait
06-18 04:06 PM
1.Non immigrant visa number : put the number on the expired H1B stamp (in red color).Do not put the control number
2.whenever the expired visa was issued
3.whereever it was issued.
I assume you renewed your H1b eventhough you'r H1b stamp expired.
I'd got an extension within US, haven't left. Are you sure to put the old visa info. What about the new H1 approval which is valid. Shouldn't one put that info.
BTW, what is the visa no#..is it the control no# or EAC no#...
2.whenever the expired visa was issued
3.whereever it was issued.
I assume you renewed your H1b eventhough you'r H1b stamp expired.
I'd got an extension within US, haven't left. Are you sure to put the old visa info. What about the new H1 approval which is valid. Shouldn't one put that info.
BTW, what is the visa no#..is it the control no# or EAC no#...
more...
beautifulMind
11-03 08:30 PM
The CIR bill is definitely coming back. Obama has mentioned it few times that solving the current immigration problem is one of his highest priority. Now we will need to wait and see what changes they can add to the existent CIR bill to help legals. But I would think most of the bill should remain the same since they have wasted a lot of time and effort in coming up with it
digitalrain
06-24 08:13 PM
Hi, I'm in a desperate situation.I am an asylee and have filed for my LPR.My asylee relative petition has been approved for my wife.
My problem is: a have a newborn baby who resides with my wife outside US and the US Embassy did not issue him any kind of visa,since my wife went for the interview after the petition was approved.She is all set and done,but my baby got born after I've been granted asylum and couldn't file the asylee relative petition for him.The law says that babies born after the asylum decision are not eligible for derivative asylum.I read that Humanitarian Parole would be a solution for these cases,but the officer at the embassy claimed that I should file a relative petition for him ,or file for humanitarian parole here in the US.
My question is can my wife file for Humanitarian Parole at the US embassy,or is there any other way
I read that US Embassies abroad are authorized to issue humanitarian paroles.I think this is the mos inhuman decision I ever heard of and it's about my baby.
I would really appreciate any help
(This is what I found on the internet)
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR NSC CONFERENCE CALL
REFUGEE/ASYLEE ISSUES
FEB. 28 2008
5) I-730 CASE or HUMANITARIAN PAROLE? What can be done for the
beneficiary spouse of an I-730 Asylee Relative petition if she gets
pregnant and has a child (from the petitioner, of course) after the
petitioner was granted asylum �therefore this new child is not considered
a derivative- but before she completes the Visa 92 process at the US
Embassy. Does the US Embassy have the authority to parole the
newborn child for him to join the rest of the family in the US?
Answer: If the child was in utero at the time of the asylum grant the
regulations provide benefit to that child as a derivative under 208.21(b). If
the child was not in utero and the relationship with the child was after the
asylum grant, then a I-730 petition can not be filed on behalf of this child.
The U.S. Embassy does have the authority to grant a humanitarian parole
and that would need to be addressed with the U.S. Embassy.
My problem is: a have a newborn baby who resides with my wife outside US and the US Embassy did not issue him any kind of visa,since my wife went for the interview after the petition was approved.She is all set and done,but my baby got born after I've been granted asylum and couldn't file the asylee relative petition for him.The law says that babies born after the asylum decision are not eligible for derivative asylum.I read that Humanitarian Parole would be a solution for these cases,but the officer at the embassy claimed that I should file a relative petition for him ,or file for humanitarian parole here in the US.
My question is can my wife file for Humanitarian Parole at the US embassy,or is there any other way
I read that US Embassies abroad are authorized to issue humanitarian paroles.I think this is the mos inhuman decision I ever heard of and it's about my baby.
I would really appreciate any help
(This is what I found on the internet)
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR NSC CONFERENCE CALL
REFUGEE/ASYLEE ISSUES
FEB. 28 2008
5) I-730 CASE or HUMANITARIAN PAROLE? What can be done for the
beneficiary spouse of an I-730 Asylee Relative petition if she gets
pregnant and has a child (from the petitioner, of course) after the
petitioner was granted asylum �therefore this new child is not considered
a derivative- but before she completes the Visa 92 process at the US
Embassy. Does the US Embassy have the authority to parole the
newborn child for him to join the rest of the family in the US?
Answer: If the child was in utero at the time of the asylum grant the
regulations provide benefit to that child as a derivative under 208.21(b). If
the child was not in utero and the relationship with the child was after the
asylum grant, then a I-730 petition can not be filed on behalf of this child.
The U.S. Embassy does have the authority to grant a humanitarian parole
and that would need to be addressed with the U.S. Embassy.
more...
thirumalkn
07-26 05:11 PM
Thanks for the info vxg. Thanks for sharing.
So, did you notify USCIS at any stage about your promotion ?
My duties increased, in past i was doing more tech work now i mostly manage people who do the same tech work but as i said it's all subjected to the lawyer and employer.
So, did you notify USCIS at any stage about your promotion ?
My duties increased, in past i was doing more tech work now i mostly manage people who do the same tech work but as i said it's all subjected to the lawyer and employer.
2010 suicide prevention
puskeygadha
07-17 09:11 AM
has there been any update from fragemon
more...
eb3retro
09-09 05:23 PM
can you show me a single post in IV that states that they have travelled after applying for AP, and come back with an AP. May be I missed it.
the rule states that you have to be present in the country when you apply for AP. It does not say anything on where you need to be when it is approved. There are many cases where the applicant left the US to have the document mailed or taken along with someone to the person out of the US. The applicants on return were not asked anything. It was business as usual.
the rule states that you have to be present in the country when you apply for AP. It does not say anything on where you need to be when it is approved. There are many cases where the applicant left the US to have the document mailed or taken along with someone to the person out of the US. The applicants on return were not asked anything. It was business as usual.
hair for Suicide Prevention,
jliechty
May 16th, 2005, 07:47 PM
My humble opinion: the first one is the best. The second and fourth have too much large stuff in the foreground (edit: looking again, the fourth isn't too bad, maybe about as good as the first). The second and fifth shots have too much shadow in the foreground, so the eye prefers the lighter portions of the frame (which incidentally doesn't make the photos seem as deep). The third one is a good shot, but doesn't seem to have enough depth for this assignment, partly (I assume) because the background actually wasn't that far off, though using a wider lens than ~36mm (effective) might help.
My other humble opinion: wait for the birds to get out of... oops, those aren't birds. Clean your sensor! ;)
My other humble opinion: wait for the birds to get out of... oops, those aren't birds. Clean your sensor! ;)
more...
imv116
06-06 05:36 PM
Hi S.Hoosier,
Subject to the AC21 restrictions, like what? Could you please elaborate?
Yes, you should be able to use AC21 to change employment (subject to the AC21 restrictions).
Subject to the AC21 restrictions, like what? Could you please elaborate?
Yes, you should be able to use AC21 to change employment (subject to the AC21 restrictions).
hot Prevention Workers Info on
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
more...
house Suicide prevention for
arihant
05-23 09:17 PM
Commend your initiative
tattoo Suicide prevention expert Dr.
neha_garg123
01-07 09:04 PM
I did my MBA in one of the premium university in USA.
My OPT was ending in May 2008, However since I was in cap-gap, I got a new I-20 from my school till 30-Sep-2008 and I continued working on my I-20 with my previous employer.
I applied for H1-B in FY 2008 under master quota from a small consulting company B.
My case went into RFE so I left USA on 30-Sep-2008.
I got a approved petition on 23-Nov 2008 . I went to New Delhi consulate for H1-B stamping. However I got a Blue 221 G slip. I never submitted any document as the consultant who applied for my visa , needs lots of time to process the documents. In the mean time I got another offer from one of the fortune 500 companies in USA. I am just exploring the possibility of H1-B transfer in this case. Ofcourse they will file a new H1-B application but would I be cap-exempt in this case?
Thanks,
Neha
My OPT was ending in May 2008, However since I was in cap-gap, I got a new I-20 from my school till 30-Sep-2008 and I continued working on my I-20 with my previous employer.
I applied for H1-B in FY 2008 under master quota from a small consulting company B.
My case went into RFE so I left USA on 30-Sep-2008.
I got a approved petition on 23-Nov 2008 . I went to New Delhi consulate for H1-B stamping. However I got a Blue 221 G slip. I never submitted any document as the consultant who applied for my visa , needs lots of time to process the documents. In the mean time I got another offer from one of the fortune 500 companies in USA. I am just exploring the possibility of H1-B transfer in this case. Ofcourse they will file a new H1-B application but would I be cap-exempt in this case?
Thanks,
Neha
more...
pictures for Suicide Prevention.
gcphul
12-14 03:14 PM
Hi Sam,Munnabhai
Yes i am planning to start fresh GC and h1-extensio, The reason i am expecting to reject bcoz mine LC-sub and on top of 1,2,3 Mentioned RFE's. Case me Dham Nahi hai.
Yes i am planning to start fresh GC and h1-extensio, The reason i am expecting to reject bcoz mine LC-sub and on top of 1,2,3 Mentioned RFE's. Case me Dham Nahi hai.
dresses Suicide Prevention Poster U.S.
d100763
06-22 09:26 PM
VDAMINATOR!
THAT BRA LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DRAWN WITH PHOTOSHOP!
You p0rn lover...
Touch�...:smirk:
THAT BRA LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DRAWN WITH PHOTOSHOP!
You p0rn lover...
Touch�...:smirk:
more...
makeup a suicide prevention aide,
eb3retro
04-11 09:05 PM
always efiled, never went for finger printing..follow my previous posts for more updates.
girlfriend Suicide Prevention Month
Munna Bhai
07-12 11:47 AM
any more help??
hairstyles lil wayne quotes,
sdrblr
09-24 09:09 PM
I won't be surprised if they pull a quick July 07 or something on those lines to collect more money for filing and renewal of EAD/ AP
a_yaja
05-03 10:44 AM
Hi Guys,
My experience with driver's license renewal in Ohio with EAD/expired-H1 was a pleasant surprise.
All I said was that I was a green card applicant, showed them my I-485 application receipt, and got a license valid for 4 years.
Smooth. What a surprise.
Hey - can you please tell me where you applied for the 4 yr DL. I have always got my DL extended only till I-94 expiry or of late - till my EAD expiry. I renew my DL in Columbus. Can you please share your experience as to where you got your DL renewed?
My experience with driver's license renewal in Ohio with EAD/expired-H1 was a pleasant surprise.
All I said was that I was a green card applicant, showed them my I-485 application receipt, and got a license valid for 4 years.
Smooth. What a surprise.
Hey - can you please tell me where you applied for the 4 yr DL. I have always got my DL extended only till I-94 expiry or of late - till my EAD expiry. I renew my DL in Columbus. Can you please share your experience as to where you got your DL renewed?
Gravitation
06-22 10:01 AM
There are not enough numbers in the house to pass CIR. It may be pushed in Senate for political reasons and may pass easily, but there's no such hope -whatsoever- in the House.
If CIR is to ever pass, 2009 is the best year.
So, there's no hope of passing in what could the best possible year for CIR! Am I the only one to whom it all sounds very ominous?
If CIR is to ever pass, 2009 is the best year.
So, there's no hope of passing in what could the best possible year for CIR! Am I the only one to whom it all sounds very ominous?
No comments:
Post a Comment