txh1b
08-16 05:57 PM
I would say you have to mention it during the interview if asked. Discuss with your attorney.
wallpaper JUSTIN BIEBER KISSING SELENA
sam_hoosier
06-25 12:59 PM
I called AAA. They said its free for Premium members only. I'm Plus member and price is $25 for 6 photos.
Yep, thats what I paid ;) And while its true that we are spending a lot of money on our GC process, saving a few dollars here or there always helps.
I hope the members who are indifferent towards saving money on photographs are actively contributing to the IV cause.:p
Yep, thats what I paid ;) And while its true that we are spending a lot of money on our GC process, saving a few dollars here or there always helps.
I hope the members who are indifferent towards saving money on photographs are actively contributing to the IV cause.:p
arukala
01-30 12:33 AM
Thank You so much TwinkleM for your answers
-Ravi
-Ravi
2011 Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
sam_hoosier
12-11 12:39 PM
Does anybody know what is the current fee for H1B transfer (from one employer to another), and how long does it take.
$ 320 filing fees + $ 1500 employer fees = $ 1820
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f56e4154d7b3d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
$ 320 filing fees + $ 1500 employer fees = $ 1820
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f56e4154d7b3d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
more...
prem_goel
07-07 01:17 AM
My lawyer who handled my H-1b transfer told me that. I find it logical as well. If you are the beneficiary of an approved H-1B petition, then why can't you go back to that status whenever you want. So I think its correct. however she did mention that she handled the case of a person who was on EAD for about an year. i am assuming his old H-1B petition must've been valid when they filed again.
harsh
12-30 02:08 PM
elanegeng and curiosity_76 welcome to Alabama state chapter. Nice to know that there are people in alabama stuck in retro. For a while I was getting alone in here :). I am in Huntsville. Where are you in bama curiosity_76?
Lets stay in touch. We can share our contact information so that we can get in touch with others when we have to meet lawmakers or other important events.
Lets stay in touch. We can share our contact information so that we can get in touch with others when we have to meet lawmakers or other important events.
more...
Ann Ruben
02-24 02:59 PM
Raama,
There is both good news and bad news about the situation you describe. The good news is that shoplifting merchandise with a full retail value of less than $200 in NJ is classified as a "disorderly persons offense" for which the maximum sentence of imprisonment is 6 months. Under US immigration law, your friend's wife is not inadmissible because she qualifies for the "petty offense exception". The "petty offense exception" applies as long as there is ONLY ONE conviction for which the maximum sentence is less than one year, and the actual sentence was for a term of imprisonment of less than 6 months. Accordingly, the shoplifting conviction you describe does not provide a basis to deny the H-4 visa application.
Now for the bad news. Though your wife's friend may not have been taken into custody by the police, she was arrested, charged, and convicted of a crime as those terms are defined by US immigration law. In completing the required visa application forms, she must answer "yes" to the question which asks whether she has ever been arrested, cited, charged, etc. She should be prepared to provide a court certified final disposition to the consul as well as a legal opinion letter citing and attaching the relevant statutes. The consular officer will most likely request an additional FBI clearance, and will not issue the visa until the FBI has confirmed no additional criminal history. This process can take anywhere from a few days to many months.
Hope this helps,
Ann
There is both good news and bad news about the situation you describe. The good news is that shoplifting merchandise with a full retail value of less than $200 in NJ is classified as a "disorderly persons offense" for which the maximum sentence of imprisonment is 6 months. Under US immigration law, your friend's wife is not inadmissible because she qualifies for the "petty offense exception". The "petty offense exception" applies as long as there is ONLY ONE conviction for which the maximum sentence is less than one year, and the actual sentence was for a term of imprisonment of less than 6 months. Accordingly, the shoplifting conviction you describe does not provide a basis to deny the H-4 visa application.
Now for the bad news. Though your wife's friend may not have been taken into custody by the police, she was arrested, charged, and convicted of a crime as those terms are defined by US immigration law. In completing the required visa application forms, she must answer "yes" to the question which asks whether she has ever been arrested, cited, charged, etc. She should be prepared to provide a court certified final disposition to the consul as well as a legal opinion letter citing and attaching the relevant statutes. The consular officer will most likely request an additional FBI clearance, and will not issue the visa until the FBI has confirmed no additional criminal history. This process can take anywhere from a few days to many months.
Hope this helps,
Ann
2010 opi lackjustin bieber
h4hopeful
05-30 06:51 PM
the reason she was denied is because she is young
SHe is young and already has a family of her own? Are you sure that was the reason for denial? How many members besides her and her husband did you try to sponsor?
SHe is young and already has a family of her own? Are you sure that was the reason for denial? How many members besides her and her husband did you try to sponsor?
more...
kdprasad
07-08 07:19 PM
Any Drive in Minneapolis???
hair Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
eb_retrogession
03-26 08:02 PM
It is the policy of Immigration Voice NOT to criticize anybody's opinions or views by any media outlet. We beleive that everyone is entitled to their position on any given issue.
We have received very critical remarks from certain journalists about offensive messages sent by writers referencing Immigration Voice. IV has a dedicated media relations team that responds to relevant articles, as appropriate and ONLY such responses will be considered official communications from IV. If you want to join the effort, please send a note to sunil@immigrationvoice.org and your help would be a welcome.
However, we request that any personal responses, especially with offensive language, not to reference IV that will show us in a bad light.
Thank You for your understanding.
We have received very critical remarks from certain journalists about offensive messages sent by writers referencing Immigration Voice. IV has a dedicated media relations team that responds to relevant articles, as appropriate and ONLY such responses will be considered official communications from IV. If you want to join the effort, please send a note to sunil@immigrationvoice.org and your help would be a welcome.
However, we request that any personal responses, especially with offensive language, not to reference IV that will show us in a bad light.
Thank You for your understanding.
more...
nomorelogins
01-28 08:52 PM
@nozerd,
could you please explain the logic/rules.
The logic is that if both parents are Indians even if kid is born in US and travels on US passport as kid they have until the age of 18 to choose.
could you please explain the logic/rules.
The logic is that if both parents are Indians even if kid is born in US and travels on US passport as kid they have until the age of 18 to choose.
hot Justin and Selena Kiss and
kalyan
07-07 05:10 AM
U r lucky that you have the EAD.
My H1B transfer was denied with I-140 approved . worked for more than 6 years in US. I moved back to India and started working here
Washington and DOS wants Legal immigrants out ( they cannot and could'nt do any thing to illegals-- ) and wants companies to hire people graduating from the university of Mc Donalds, Burger King, KFC and those zeroes needs to be trained and trained
US business'es has to serious think about this otherwise, their counter parts elsewhere in the world will be more competitive
My H1B transfer was denied with I-140 approved . worked for more than 6 years in US. I moved back to India and started working here
Washington and DOS wants Legal immigrants out ( they cannot and could'nt do any thing to illegals-- ) and wants companies to hire people graduating from the university of Mc Donalds, Burger King, KFC and those zeroes needs to be trained and trained
US business'es has to serious think about this otherwise, their counter parts elsewhere in the world will be more competitive
more...
house makeup dresses selena gomez
tinamatthew
07-20 09:37 PM
Hi,
I am planning to change my residence after 2 months. By that time my AOS would be applied. Will it be a problem if I change my residence (different city but same state) after AOS is applied?
:confused:
Signed up for 50$ recurring
Of course you can move, just make sure you send in AR-11within 10 days of moving. The lawyer has a good point though. I changed my address using AR-11 (because lawyer put wrong town and zip!!!) informed USCIS, they wrote back to say it had been done and kept sending receipts to the wrong address, which was none existent!! Check out the link below
"all non-U.S. citizens who move within the United States and its territories must submit a Form AR-11 within 10 days after completing the change of address"
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9d686c854523d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
I am planning to change my residence after 2 months. By that time my AOS would be applied. Will it be a problem if I change my residence (different city but same state) after AOS is applied?
:confused:
Signed up for 50$ recurring
Of course you can move, just make sure you send in AR-11within 10 days of moving. The lawyer has a good point though. I changed my address using AR-11 (because lawyer put wrong town and zip!!!) informed USCIS, they wrote back to say it had been done and kept sending receipts to the wrong address, which was none existent!! Check out the link below
"all non-U.S. citizens who move within the United States and its territories must submit a Form AR-11 within 10 days after completing the change of address"
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9d686c854523d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
tattoo justin bieber selena gomez
tampacoolie
06-30 05:30 PM
:eek: right on the money. You hit the selfish lawyers head with nail here. There is no way that USCIS can reject your case. job well done.
more...
pictures -and-selena-gomez-kissing-
sk2006
08-19 01:37 PM
Thanks dealsnet and intheyan,
BTW I called USCIS and the guy told me that My case is approved and I should not worry. ADIT is related to fingure prints/photos and since I did it in september last year I shold be OK.
I asked don't you send 'card production ordered' email?
He said he did not know that but my case is approved.
BTW I called USCIS and the guy told me that My case is approved and I should not worry. ADIT is related to fingure prints/photos and since I did it in september last year I shold be OK.
I asked don't you send 'card production ordered' email?
He said he did not know that but my case is approved.
dresses justin bieber selena gomez
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
makeup Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
gsc999
01-08 10:29 AM
Heights of stupidity , does the child play with toys or its parents, why do they care about legality of parents !!
----
Albaman & gcseeker:
I am not an expert on this issue but per my understanding Contract law states that minors can't enter into a "valid" contract except for "necessities." Therefore, the need of their guardian's status. Also, these babies will get the $25K bond money when they become adults. I haven't read the Ts&Cs but am pretty sure about that
----
Albaman & gcseeker:
I am not an expert on this issue but per my understanding Contract law states that minors can't enter into a "valid" contract except for "necessities." Therefore, the need of their guardian's status. Also, these babies will get the $25K bond money when they become adults. I haven't read the Ts&Cs but am pretty sure about that
girlfriend Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
anilsal
10-30 11:51 PM
Also since you are a dentist and are working in the medical field, I am just wondering as to whether you have been able to inform other medical professionals, affected by retrogression and skilled immigration issues, about the efforts undertaken by IV.
Anyway, sorting out your original issue via an attorney takes immediate precedence.
Anyway, sorting out your original issue via an attorney takes immediate precedence.
hairstyles Selena Gomez Justin Bieber
nashim
08-11 09:56 AM
please add year 05, 06, 07 and 08 too.
Maverick1
08-13 11:17 AM
OCI's can work without visa. ALL PIO's are eligible for OCI.
Beg to differ. All PIOs are not eligible for OCI. There are different requirements for OCI than PIO.
Say for example you are still on H1 or GC and your minor child is a citizen of USA by birth, your child is not eligible for OCI. They will be eligible for OCI when they are a major or when you become a US citizen.
Beg to differ. All PIOs are not eligible for OCI. There are different requirements for OCI than PIO.
Say for example you are still on H1 or GC and your minor child is a citizen of USA by birth, your child is not eligible for OCI. They will be eligible for OCI when they are a major or when you become a US citizen.
trueguy
08-11 11:48 AM
Bump
No comments:
Post a Comment