windingroad
04-07 04:56 PM
My understanding is that one needs a US degree for stamping in Canada.
Is that still the case ?
Is that still the case ?
wallpaper Wonder Woman vs Catwoman
Kitiara
10-08 08:22 AM
All of them are very well done, but BBatPA's just appeal to me the most. :)
paskal
07-14 12:01 PM
why is there not an EB3 Philipenes with backlogs?
that would free up EB3 ROW and allow spillover
Clearly Philipenes has enough applicants to have backlog issues???
that would free up EB3 ROW and allow spillover
Clearly Philipenes has enough applicants to have backlog issues???
2011 catwoman anne hathaway cartoon
indyanguy
09-09 11:38 AM
I would like to hear from people who have actually done this recently. My co. is planning to apply for a Software Developer position in EB2 and was wondering if anyone got it approved this year. My co. was able to do it for a colleague of mine under this title back in 2006 and I understand a lot has changed since then.
The downsides of this plan are:
1. Economy is bad
2. Software Developer does not qualify for EB2 (I believe there was an initiative taken to limit EB2s to Manager and above)
Also, Software Developer does not fall under Job Zone 5 in ONET.
Any help? Thanks for reading
The downsides of this plan are:
1. Economy is bad
2. Software Developer does not qualify for EB2 (I believe there was an initiative taken to limit EB2s to Manager and above)
Also, Software Developer does not fall under Job Zone 5 in ONET.
Any help? Thanks for reading
more...
pappu
09-23 01:32 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1999333595666035699&hl=en
Voice of America coverage. (in Hindi)
Voice of America coverage. (in Hindi)
guesswho
04-10 01:55 AM
I though there is already an option where you could apply in PERM requesting transfer of the non-perm application to PERM (as against a new PERM application). That way you can keep the old PD.
more...
aditik
07-20 08:49 PM
I know I have read it on the USCIS website...I'll get it for you
Hi
This is what is mentioned on the I-765 form.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765.pdf
Check page number 9. It speaks about Interim EAD, and this document expires on 08/31/08. If they have stopped issuing Interim EADs how come it says the opposite on this document. Just wondering:confused:
Hi
This is what is mentioned on the I-765 form.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765.pdf
Check page number 9. It speaks about Interim EAD, and this document expires on 08/31/08. If they have stopped issuing Interim EADs how come it says the opposite on this document. Just wondering:confused:
2010 wallpaper catwoman. wallpaper
JunRN
08-14 03:14 PM
If it was received but no checks cashed yet, I would re-file.
more...
maddipati1
04-23 04:23 PM
i was in the same situation. entered US with H1 visa. passport expiry in few months, so got I-94 for few months. got the new passport. drove to San Ysidro, crossed border and came back immediately. got the new I-94.
i have EAD/AP and lawyer suggested that i don't really need to get new I-94. but, since i have been using only H1 and not used EAD/AP so far, wanted to have a clean record.
parked behind jack in the box($5), walked outside on the bridge (no elevators) with 8 years worth of my immi dox, every doc i have so far. after exiting the bridge on Mexico side, took the other bridge towards left side to cross the road. after getting off this bridge u will see traffic going in to US. walked parallel to that towards US on footpath. found the lines of people going in and joined them.
only hiccup was, while coming back, just joined the lines going in, but didn't go to CBP office, where they issue the new I-94.
so, had to go back and go to the CBP office. The board outside CBP office reads 'PERMITS' in English and Spanish. Went in (hardly any line to wait) and got the new I-94. the officer at my window has no clue about what to do, literally nothing, may be under training. the officer sitting next to him, knows exactly what to do. so he helped issuing new I-94 and stamping on the new passport. then paid $6 at the cashier window across the hall. then joined the lines back.
the IO was very friendly and was reading out loud abt my company name, visa status etc, while i was explaining why i am there. then the usual baggage security check and back. if its not for the hiccup, it would only take an hour total.
.
i have EAD/AP and lawyer suggested that i don't really need to get new I-94. but, since i have been using only H1 and not used EAD/AP so far, wanted to have a clean record.
parked behind jack in the box($5), walked outside on the bridge (no elevators) with 8 years worth of my immi dox, every doc i have so far. after exiting the bridge on Mexico side, took the other bridge towards left side to cross the road. after getting off this bridge u will see traffic going in to US. walked parallel to that towards US on footpath. found the lines of people going in and joined them.
only hiccup was, while coming back, just joined the lines going in, but didn't go to CBP office, where they issue the new I-94.
so, had to go back and go to the CBP office. The board outside CBP office reads 'PERMITS' in English and Spanish. Went in (hardly any line to wait) and got the new I-94. the officer at my window has no clue about what to do, literally nothing, may be under training. the officer sitting next to him, knows exactly what to do. so he helped issuing new I-94 and stamping on the new passport. then paid $6 at the cashier window across the hall. then joined the lines back.
the IO was very friendly and was reading out loud abt my company name, visa status etc, while i was explaining why i am there. then the usual baggage security check and back. if its not for the hiccup, it would only take an hour total.
.
hair hair Catwoman Wallpaper wallpaper catwoman. wallpaper catwoman.
solaris27
10-02 09:51 AM
you can apply .
You don't need to be a US citizen or Permanent resident to qualify for student loans .
You don't need to be a US citizen or Permanent resident to qualify for student loans .
more...
magician7989
09-05 04:49 PM
Does anybody know if Egyptians also have a backlog. Does that also mean that an egyptian with a later priority date can be accepted before an Indian because of the quotas. We need a change in the immigration system. I filed my I-485 in July w no receipt yet. Does that mean I can also expect a long wait.
hot Batman Catwoman Wallpaper by
neoklaus
11-01 01:44 PM
EB3(ROW)
NSC ( I 485, EAD, AP)
Receipt: Aug.16
RN: Oct.1
FP(notice): Oct.22
FP: Nov.9
EAD: me+child:Oct.24
wife- not yet
AP: nothing
NSC ( I 485, EAD, AP)
Receipt: Aug.16
RN: Oct.1
FP(notice): Oct.22
FP: Nov.9
EAD: me+child:Oct.24
wife- not yet
AP: nothing
more...
house Catwoman is
mohitb272
03-20 06:25 PM
Anyone???
tattoo Wacky Wallpaper Wednesday
jsb
05-20 07:18 AM
Your mention of 30 miles maximum, I believe, refers to distance to your work place. It is a lot of distance to commute at rush time. Nevertheless, Ferederick County is your best bet, where a small SFH or a good size TH can be found for your price.
BTW, why do you need "Lots of Indians". Don't you want to be part of the main stream if you have decided to live here?
I want to purchase an house in Washington DC/MD/VA. My office is close to Rockville. Please recommend the best place to buy an house based on the following criteria.
1> Very good school district
2> Low property tax
3> Very low crime rate
4> Rental value should be same as mortgage amount+insurance+PMI+property tax
5> Property values should be in 300K range max
6> Lot of Indians
9> Maximum distance to DC should not exceed 30 miles
10> Close to shopping places
BTW, why do you need "Lots of Indians". Don't you want to be part of the main stream if you have decided to live here?
I want to purchase an house in Washington DC/MD/VA. My office is close to Rockville. Please recommend the best place to buy an house based on the following criteria.
1> Very good school district
2> Low property tax
3> Very low crime rate
4> Rental value should be same as mortgage amount+insurance+PMI+property tax
5> Property values should be in 300K range max
6> Lot of Indians
9> Maximum distance to DC should not exceed 30 miles
10> Close to shopping places
more...
pictures wallpaper catwoman. wallpaper catwoman. wallpaper catwoman. lazycis
rameshk
03-03 04:32 PM
Who is the laywer? can share his contact information with us please?
Thanks,
Hi,
I've been an infrequent visitor to this site in the past, but it has helped me substantially especially when I've been frustrated with the GC situation - I feel the need to share this, hoping that it might help others. I'm posting in this forum because this is the place people tend to ask questions of lawyers. I'll try to keep this simple so that its easy to understand.
Me: EB2 PD March 2005 for first job. I-140 approved 2006. Promoted to different tile in 2007 Jan, second EB2 filed in March 2007.
Wife: EB2 PD Feb 2007.
During the 'fiasco' of 2007, because I did not have an approved PERM for my new job title, we filed for 485's and 140s through my wife with me as the dependent (Having an AP is worth it when traveling overseas, especially if you anticipate traveling for emergencies and don't have the luxury of checking in for an appointment with the consulate to get a visa renewal - also removes the stress of another interview). Neither of us applied for EADs because we were more secure on the H1 visas - your status is immediately screwed if you switch to EAD and your 485 is denied.
In 2008, I received an RFE on my 2nd PERM application (which was addressed by my company - I have no clue what it was about). In 2009, I received an RFE on my 485 application through my wife, we replied to it through a very good lawyer.
Last year, my original LC PD became current! However, our 485s were tied to my wife's application. After speaking to many lawyers, we understood that there were the following options:-
1. Withdraw the earlier 485s, file completely new ones based on my PD (supposedly the safest from GC point of view, because it leaves no room for confusion. Downside is processing time, app getting lost, losing AP/EAD from earlier 485 etc)
2. File another completely new set of parallel 485s, and leave it to UCSIS to figure out that they needed to pick one with the earlier PD (overkill and confusing as well. UCSIS now deals with 4 485 applications, and chances that they will get confused magnify. High processing time as well)
3. Send a letter requesting that the 485 applications be reviewed based on my PD as opposed to my wife's. (Upside is that its potentially the fastest, is approved by the UCSIS, and you can track it by calling up. Downside is that they may simply don't respond because its not really a legal document that's being sent. Then you get stuck just running for Infopass, SR, Congressman etc)
I have to say that choosing the right lawyer to handle your case is possibly the most important thing you can do. What some of us don't know is that while the earlier stages of the GC process are applications made by the company, the 485 application is an individual application, and you are legally allowed to do so through any lawyer you wish to. In our case, we chose the law firm we trusted, even though it was more expensive. They recommended option 3, and we went with it. That was 4 months ago.
On Saturday (2/25) we received email saying that the card were in processing. This afternoon we got our cards in the mail - a nice surprise.
Moral of the story:-
1. Do your homework, get multiple opinions - no one will care about your GC app like you do.
2. When you move and update the AR-11, make sure you update the address for pending cases as well - this will ensure they mail your GC to the correct place.
3. Don't do anything illegal :)
4. Hire the best lawyer you can if your case is not straightforward. Our lawyer was always willing to talk to us at a few hours notice, was very prompt, and was proactive in checking up on UCSIS updates, bulletins etc.
Best wishes.
Thanks,
Hi,
I've been an infrequent visitor to this site in the past, but it has helped me substantially especially when I've been frustrated with the GC situation - I feel the need to share this, hoping that it might help others. I'm posting in this forum because this is the place people tend to ask questions of lawyers. I'll try to keep this simple so that its easy to understand.
Me: EB2 PD March 2005 for first job. I-140 approved 2006. Promoted to different tile in 2007 Jan, second EB2 filed in March 2007.
Wife: EB2 PD Feb 2007.
During the 'fiasco' of 2007, because I did not have an approved PERM for my new job title, we filed for 485's and 140s through my wife with me as the dependent (Having an AP is worth it when traveling overseas, especially if you anticipate traveling for emergencies and don't have the luxury of checking in for an appointment with the consulate to get a visa renewal - also removes the stress of another interview). Neither of us applied for EADs because we were more secure on the H1 visas - your status is immediately screwed if you switch to EAD and your 485 is denied.
In 2008, I received an RFE on my 2nd PERM application (which was addressed by my company - I have no clue what it was about). In 2009, I received an RFE on my 485 application through my wife, we replied to it through a very good lawyer.
Last year, my original LC PD became current! However, our 485s were tied to my wife's application. After speaking to many lawyers, we understood that there were the following options:-
1. Withdraw the earlier 485s, file completely new ones based on my PD (supposedly the safest from GC point of view, because it leaves no room for confusion. Downside is processing time, app getting lost, losing AP/EAD from earlier 485 etc)
2. File another completely new set of parallel 485s, and leave it to UCSIS to figure out that they needed to pick one with the earlier PD (overkill and confusing as well. UCSIS now deals with 4 485 applications, and chances that they will get confused magnify. High processing time as well)
3. Send a letter requesting that the 485 applications be reviewed based on my PD as opposed to my wife's. (Upside is that its potentially the fastest, is approved by the UCSIS, and you can track it by calling up. Downside is that they may simply don't respond because its not really a legal document that's being sent. Then you get stuck just running for Infopass, SR, Congressman etc)
I have to say that choosing the right lawyer to handle your case is possibly the most important thing you can do. What some of us don't know is that while the earlier stages of the GC process are applications made by the company, the 485 application is an individual application, and you are legally allowed to do so through any lawyer you wish to. In our case, we chose the law firm we trusted, even though it was more expensive. They recommended option 3, and we went with it. That was 4 months ago.
On Saturday (2/25) we received email saying that the card were in processing. This afternoon we got our cards in the mail - a nice surprise.
Moral of the story:-
1. Do your homework, get multiple opinions - no one will care about your GC app like you do.
2. When you move and update the AR-11, make sure you update the address for pending cases as well - this will ensure they mail your GC to the correct place.
3. Don't do anything illegal :)
4. Hire the best lawyer you can if your case is not straightforward. Our lawyer was always willing to talk to us at a few hours notice, was very prompt, and was proactive in checking up on UCSIS updates, bulletins etc.
Best wishes.
dresses Catwoman Wallpapers | Comic
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
makeup Catwoman Wallpaper by
pooja_34
01-15 07:07 AM
I e-filed my AP application on Dec 29 at TSC and got the approval email yesterday ... Got approved in 2 weeks.
girlfriend Catwoman
newuser
05-13 09:09 AM
Still waiting - 06/05/2011 NSC
hairstyles wallpaper catwoman. Wallpapers Movies Catwoman; Wallpapers Movies Catwoman
waitnwatch
07-06 12:59 AM
I just received this RFE on my spouse's I-485 application. It states that while the applicant's name is spelt **i**** on the application it is spelt **ee**** on the birth and marriage registration certificate. The RFE states that they require some sort of document to show that name was officially changed. In a following note the RFE states that the document (I would assume the green card) that the USCIS will issue will be issued in the name on the birth certificate instead of on I-485 application if sufficient proof of registration of name change is not provided. Only a copy of the passport will not be treated as sufficient proof and supporting documentation that the name was registered with authority has to be provided for the USCIS to accept the name change.
Did anyone face this type of issue. What did you do. Any information would be appreciated as I have no clue about how to deal with this. I will ofcourse consult a lawyer at the beginning of next week but would like some advice.
Did anyone face this type of issue. What did you do. Any information would be appreciated as I have no clue about how to deal with this. I will ofcourse consult a lawyer at the beginning of next week but would like some advice.
ash0210
11-18 11:49 AM
Guys/Gals...
We are keeping on discussing, letting out our frustrution in the forum but I feel that "best bet" to come out of this "GC Trap" is to have Premium Processing of I-485 (as I mentioned in my earlier post) by paying extra money to USCIS and/or increase EB visa's to expedite our "stucked" PD's...
We are keeping on discussing, letting out our frustrution in the forum but I feel that "best bet" to come out of this "GC Trap" is to have Premium Processing of I-485 (as I mentioned in my earlier post) by paying extra money to USCIS and/or increase EB visa's to expedite our "stucked" PD's...
nogc_noproblem
04-15 12:51 PM
9 Years, with one employer!!! immmm..
If the employer is good it is ok, what if not?
I don�t know how many of our most productive life time is going to be stagnated because of this GC wait.
Lunch Time (EST), on the lighter note�.
Tourists in the Museum of Natural History ...
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
If the employer is good it is ok, what if not?
I don�t know how many of our most productive life time is going to be stagnated because of this GC wait.
Lunch Time (EST), on the lighter note�.
Tourists in the Museum of Natural History ...
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
No comments:
Post a Comment