ozone123
07-16 09:25 PM
Just posted this reply at http://www.numbersusa.com/helpform
Hello,
I happened to come across your fax initiative "Ask your Members of Congress to oppose the SKIL Act H-1B increases".
Seems like you have got many facts wrong.
I'm surprised that an advocacy group as yours would try to make statements that would dilute your own credibility.
Below are some corrections,
"(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies."
The above statement is a matter of perspective. People can still come on visitor visas and have babies here.In any case, I personally do know of people who have gone back to their own countries to have their babies.
"(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers."
The above statement in COMPLETELY incorrect.
Everyone on H1-B is required to pay federal, state, medicaid, Social Security and other taxes that any other native employee would pay.
On the other hand, H1-B employees dont stand to gain from the Social Security when they relocate back to their country after 6 years.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
This is incorrect too.H1-B requires labor clearance and specific skills, even for h1-b transfers.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
You got to be kidding.There is no such thing.
I would appreciate it if you can quote any official source of this info.
Well,I'm sure that the well versed senators and congressmen will be aware of these facts, and you are only losing you own credibility with them.
The trust will be out soon.
Sincerely.
XXXXX
Hello,
I happened to come across your fax initiative "Ask your Members of Congress to oppose the SKIL Act H-1B increases".
Seems like you have got many facts wrong.
I'm surprised that an advocacy group as yours would try to make statements that would dilute your own credibility.
Below are some corrections,
"(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies."
The above statement is a matter of perspective. People can still come on visitor visas and have babies here.In any case, I personally do know of people who have gone back to their own countries to have their babies.
"(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers."
The above statement in COMPLETELY incorrect.
Everyone on H1-B is required to pay federal, state, medicaid, Social Security and other taxes that any other native employee would pay.
On the other hand, H1-B employees dont stand to gain from the Social Security when they relocate back to their country after 6 years.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
This is incorrect too.H1-B requires labor clearance and specific skills, even for h1-b transfers.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
You got to be kidding.There is no such thing.
I would appreciate it if you can quote any official source of this info.
Well,I'm sure that the well versed senators and congressmen will be aware of these facts, and you are only losing you own credibility with them.
The trust will be out soon.
Sincerely.
XXXXX
wallpaper Sexy Rihanna 2011 Hairstyles
pkak
07-13 01:16 AM
i believe the argument that this sudden jump was made to help eb2 china is pure hogwash.
Scanning the FLC database, 5978 Indian Labor applicants with Level III/IV wage rates benefit with this jump, vs 761 Labor applicants from China.
Assuming one labor approval generates 2.5 AOS applications, and dividing the total AOS applications by 2 (attrition, I-140 denials, EB3 cases etc), approx 15K Indians benefit, vs <2K people from China.
Add to this 04/01/2004-03/27/2005 Indian applicants whose labor cases were adjudicated by Backlog Centers (approx 6000 Level III/IV applications , assuming same ball-park as 5853 similar India applicants certified in Fiscal year 2006), approx 7.5K more Indian�s will benefit.
Scanning the FLC database, 5978 Indian Labor applicants with Level III/IV wage rates benefit with this jump, vs 761 Labor applicants from China.
Assuming one labor approval generates 2.5 AOS applications, and dividing the total AOS applications by 2 (attrition, I-140 denials, EB3 cases etc), approx 15K Indians benefit, vs <2K people from China.
Add to this 04/01/2004-03/27/2005 Indian applicants whose labor cases were adjudicated by Backlog Centers (approx 6000 Level III/IV applications , assuming same ball-park as 5853 similar India applicants certified in Fiscal year 2006), approx 7.5K more Indian�s will benefit.
pappu
12-18 09:27 AM
Hello Everyone,
Can we have the conference call again on Wednesday, 12/20/2006 at 9.00 PM EDT. Also, let me know if you think its a good idea to create an NJ yahoo group so we can all get notified instead of checking back in here every now and then.
Thanks,
Varsha
Hello Varsha,
Pls organize the conf call and PM everyone in the group. If you like you can start a thread on the main forum to announce this call so that memebers can attend. We need members to actively participate in state chapters. It is very easy to feel frustrated with retrogression and complain but in order to fix the problem we all need to work on it.
Can we have the conference call again on Wednesday, 12/20/2006 at 9.00 PM EDT. Also, let me know if you think its a good idea to create an NJ yahoo group so we can all get notified instead of checking back in here every now and then.
Thanks,
Varsha
Hello Varsha,
Pls organize the conf call and PM everyone in the group. If you like you can start a thread on the main forum to announce this call so that memebers can attend. We need members to actively participate in state chapters. It is very easy to feel frustrated with retrogression and complain but in order to fix the problem we all need to work on it.
2011 rihanna haircuts 2010. rihanna
johnwright03
07-01 09:38 AM
06/30/2007: Potential EB Visa Number Exhaution in July and Probable Actions of State Department or USCIS
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
more...
ita
01-31 06:18 PM
Thank you very much for the response. I sent you a PM .
Now do we need to have the pay stubs for all the time to show you are in status or does the W2 amount be sufficient?
Thank you.
>> how do we know what our H1 LCA amount is?
Your employer should provide you a copy of LCA for H1. In addition, your employment letter should mention salary, along with employment terms, and job profile.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Now do we need to have the pay stubs for all the time to show you are in status or does the W2 amount be sufficient?
Thank you.
>> how do we know what our H1 LCA amount is?
Your employer should provide you a copy of LCA for H1. In addition, your employment letter should mention salary, along with employment terms, and job profile.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
ajthakur
07-15 02:39 PM
I am truthful to IV members. I dont understand the reason for such a statement. Also there is nothing fishy here. Stop being a detective please. I dont feel comfortable sharing the reasons why I quit my employer in August. That something private. That shouldnt imply there is anything fishy.
Please be truthful to the IV members.
If I were you, I would have suffer for 6 months and then carry over the EB-2 PD with a good employer using either EAD or H1B, their is something fishy i can smell here...and folks here are not getting the true information.
Please be truthful to the IV members.
If I were you, I would have suffer for 6 months and then carry over the EB-2 PD with a good employer using either EAD or H1B, their is something fishy i can smell here...and folks here are not getting the true information.
more...
ilamurughu
10-29 07:38 AM
PD Oct 2003
LC approved - Oct 2006
I-140 approved - Oct 2006 (PP)
485 - Pending - RD 08/02/2007
LC approved - Oct 2006
I-140 approved - Oct 2006 (PP)
485 - Pending - RD 08/02/2007
2010 Rihanna has made some great
mbawa2574
02-15 04:31 PM
Well, I do have a vested interest in maintaining status quo, at least with regard to the per country caps. :)
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
:mad:
But, working in one of the Valley companies, I see a lot of people from India and China who just don't mix with rest of the people, say, from Poland or Germany or France or Iran. US (the whole government, including USCIS) likes the idea of 'Melting pot' when it comes to immigration. When you melt a lot of metals with each other, you don't end up with a fragmented alloy, since you've capped the amount of each metal in your pot. That is how you get 'Little Italy's and 'China Town's and the latest one in San Jose, CA: 'Saigon Business district'
:mad:
more...
brick2006
11-11 03:06 AM
he cant act on immigration when the economy is down and ppl are losing their jobs..so we are in a sinking boat...
better to wait and watch!!!
better to wait and watch!!!
hair Rihanna Short Hairstyles
virald
07-18 09:49 AM
What is meant by "Rejected" here?
-FedEx not accepted on July 2nd
-They took the packet and in 2-3 days they opened it and returned back some after inputting in their database
-Packet is still with them but they generated a rejection notice that was sent to lawyer/candidate
-Rejection email was sent to lawyer/candidate
OR
-USCIS's July 2nd bulletin just said all applications received would be returned/rejected and Greg's thought is that the whole pile must be kept somewhere with the action planned "to be rejected" and nobody is taking action on it and USCIS has to be made aware about that or in their yesterday's UPDATE they forgot to touch about this. ( To me this is internal processing matter of USCIS)
Well to be honest with you, I was 1 million % convinced that we all should be OK because yesterday's press release very clearly mentions " All properly filed cases would be accepted" until I stumbled on Greg's blog. Now I am confused as well.
I contacted my attorney but so far no reply. Will update all of you.
I don't think so that we have to refile as it does not make sense. Plus even those who are rejected would have proof of filing )FedEx and rejection notice and through Motion to reopen case can be resurrected. Pls keep everybody updated as and when your attorney advises you.
Thanks
Rejection means -- packets opened, and, returned as reject because dates not current.
I am also convinced that, if one has not gotten the package back, the person should be okay. But, just want to get the confirmation that we will be okay proactively rather than waiting.
I'll post as soon as I find out from my lawyer.
-FedEx not accepted on July 2nd
-They took the packet and in 2-3 days they opened it and returned back some after inputting in their database
-Packet is still with them but they generated a rejection notice that was sent to lawyer/candidate
-Rejection email was sent to lawyer/candidate
OR
-USCIS's July 2nd bulletin just said all applications received would be returned/rejected and Greg's thought is that the whole pile must be kept somewhere with the action planned "to be rejected" and nobody is taking action on it and USCIS has to be made aware about that or in their yesterday's UPDATE they forgot to touch about this. ( To me this is internal processing matter of USCIS)
Well to be honest with you, I was 1 million % convinced that we all should be OK because yesterday's press release very clearly mentions " All properly filed cases would be accepted" until I stumbled on Greg's blog. Now I am confused as well.
I contacted my attorney but so far no reply. Will update all of you.
I don't think so that we have to refile as it does not make sense. Plus even those who are rejected would have proof of filing )FedEx and rejection notice and through Motion to reopen case can be resurrected. Pls keep everybody updated as and when your attorney advises you.
Thanks
Rejection means -- packets opened, and, returned as reject because dates not current.
I am also convinced that, if one has not gotten the package back, the person should be okay. But, just want to get the confirmation that we will be okay proactively rather than waiting.
I'll post as soon as I find out from my lawyer.
more...
varshadas
02-23 05:56 PM
Guys I am down with flu. Not sure if I will be able to attend. Will drop by if I feel better.
hot rihanna haircut short.
gc_aspirant_prasad
06-22 04:46 PM
My attorney didnt ask for DL copies, but did require color copies of passport.
Guess, its different with each lawyer based on their experience.
Guess, its different with each lawyer based on their experience.
more...
house Rihanna Haircuts 2009 - Page 2
seahawks
06-10 05:49 PM
sent, also forwarded to friends.
tattoo Rihanna gorgeous pixie hair
McGuffin
03-06 04:25 PM
I don't think I'll be able to make this one, I'll give it a shot though.
more...
pictures This Rihanna#39;s Short Hairstyle
anilsal
12-26 04:10 PM
You have pretty much written my hit list. I could not have put it in better words.
Just to add I work for a bank and to open an account within bank I had to go through a long paper process, whereas any outsider (Citizen/GC) can get it in 5 min online.
But as a bank employee I do understand that while we at bank would love to open all accounts online (less cost and all) the US government has restrictions under Know your customer requirement, that prevents us from doing so. So while most of the business understand that they are losing business they are pretty much restricted by the laws of the land.
there are two ways out of it:
1. Support legislative action for getting GC faster, for that support IV.
2. Make the immigrant group a huge economic success that the business has incentive to provide it better services.
But the whole mortgage industry is providing home loans to illegals. Now how did they work around it? Of course the competition defined it.
Just to add I work for a bank and to open an account within bank I had to go through a long paper process, whereas any outsider (Citizen/GC) can get it in 5 min online.
But as a bank employee I do understand that while we at bank would love to open all accounts online (less cost and all) the US government has restrictions under Know your customer requirement, that prevents us from doing so. So while most of the business understand that they are losing business they are pretty much restricted by the laws of the land.
there are two ways out of it:
1. Support legislative action for getting GC faster, for that support IV.
2. Make the immigrant group a huge economic success that the business has incentive to provide it better services.
But the whole mortgage industry is providing home loans to illegals. Now how did they work around it? Of course the competition defined it.
dresses Rihanna Sassy Pixie Haircut
pappu
04-05 11:52 AM
One more day to go before the end of this campaign.
Here is another incentive to make these call:
I will donate $ 5 to IV, for each member that makes these call from now on till end of the day tomorrow. I know, your hourly billing rates are way higher :) but this is what I can do for now.
I already called all the people on the list, it was easy. Office staff members were patient and friendly. Show me what you got!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=56064#post56064
Please join this campaign
Here is another incentive to make these call:
I will donate $ 5 to IV, for each member that makes these call from now on till end of the day tomorrow. I know, your hourly billing rates are way higher :) but this is what I can do for now.
I already called all the people on the list, it was easy. Office staff members were patient and friendly. Show me what you got!
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=56064#post56064
Please join this campaign
more...
makeup Rihanna-short-hairstyle are
sundevil
06-12 11:51 AM
Cantwell is a Democrat though. If Republicans only get a limited number of amendments would they not try to push this over to Democrat side and ask that it become one of the Democrat's amendment? If they do that it will pretty much be shoved under the table, seeing how democrats feel about High-Skilled immigrants.
Kyl: CIR can be finished in a few days
Sen. Kyl (R-Az), one of the architects of the Senate�s CIR announced today that the Senate CIR can be finished in a few days. On CNN this morning he mentioned that the Senate Republican leadership is crafting a few necessary amendments and will take them to the Majority Leader. It is expected that the Cantwell amendment, albeit in a revised form, will be one of the amendments. The NY Times has a similar report.
Kyl: CIR can be finished in a few days
Sen. Kyl (R-Az), one of the architects of the Senate�s CIR announced today that the Senate CIR can be finished in a few days. On CNN this morning he mentioned that the Senate Republican leadership is crafting a few necessary amendments and will take them to the Majority Leader. It is expected that the Cantwell amendment, albeit in a revised form, will be one of the amendments. The NY Times has a similar report.
girlfriend Rihanna Short Hair CLIVE DAVIS
nosightofgc
01-19 07:29 AM
Very interesting. When we applied for 485/EAD/AP, our lawyer specifically asked for color passport copies of the first few pages. I went ahead and made copies of all pages. Am I in trouble?
Color photocopy of passport, immigration documents, currency notes, etc. (a list of 8-10 items) are totally illegal in USA. You may face legal consequences. I have color copiers both photo and laser. User manual clearly states that.
I am not sure why B/W copy could be illegal. Most of univerisities recommend students to keep a photocopy of immigration documents safely. See these sites
http://www.beloit.edu/~oie/int_students/f-1_maintain_status.html.
http://www.isso.cornell.edu/immigration/f1/f1.php
http://www.beloit.edu/~oie/int_students/f-1_maintain_status.html
http://iso.truman.edu/index.php?type=current&id=f1
These photocopies are supposed to be kept safely and seperately from originals and supposed be used for requesting replacement while originals are lost. These photocopies are not supposed to be shown to anybody else otherwise. Trying showing photocopies to govt. officials such as police, dmv, immigration officers, etc. - there will be questions on this. But when requesting replacement of a lost I20 or a lost passport by providing a photocopy of original, question related to photocopy (B/W) will not be asked.
Color photocopy of passport, immigration documents, currency notes, etc. (a list of 8-10 items) are totally illegal in USA. You may face legal consequences. I have color copiers both photo and laser. User manual clearly states that.
I am not sure why B/W copy could be illegal. Most of univerisities recommend students to keep a photocopy of immigration documents safely. See these sites
http://www.beloit.edu/~oie/int_students/f-1_maintain_status.html.
http://www.isso.cornell.edu/immigration/f1/f1.php
http://www.beloit.edu/~oie/int_students/f-1_maintain_status.html
http://iso.truman.edu/index.php?type=current&id=f1
These photocopies are supposed to be kept safely and seperately from originals and supposed be used for requesting replacement while originals are lost. These photocopies are not supposed to be shown to anybody else otherwise. Trying showing photocopies to govt. officials such as police, dmv, immigration officers, etc. - there will be questions on this. But when requesting replacement of a lost I20 or a lost passport by providing a photocopy of original, question related to photocopy (B/W) will not be asked.
hairstyles rihanna hairstyles curly
3d Nirvana
02-27 09:39 PM
nice BLUE! That was exactly the site I was looking for. :)
intheyan
06-29 05:39 PM
Hi Am100 and Ramee,
Congrads to you both and also really happy to see 2004 aprrovals.:)
Congrads to you both and also really happy to see 2004 aprrovals.:)
k3GC
11-11 01:01 PM
I think this letter looks good, let us send it. There is no hassle in doing that.
Questions
1. Do we all need to send a copy? Is this like a campaign we are doing?
2. Do we need to send this as IV? Is that possible? Who should we talk to about that?
3. Has somebody sent such letters before the the DOS Visa Office etc. and got anything - may be they can shed some light. I know of folks who have done the the 7001 form DHS | CIS Ombudsman - Case Problems (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0497.shtm). I dont think this falls under that.
My 2 cents is - this is not a campaign, we are asking for a formal answer / clarification and if we can send this as from IV may be we will get an answer.
Questions
1. Do we all need to send a copy? Is this like a campaign we are doing?
2. Do we need to send this as IV? Is that possible? Who should we talk to about that?
3. Has somebody sent such letters before the the DOS Visa Office etc. and got anything - may be they can shed some light. I know of folks who have done the the 7001 form DHS | CIS Ombudsman - Case Problems (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0497.shtm). I dont think this falls under that.
My 2 cents is - this is not a campaign, we are asking for a formal answer / clarification and if we can send this as from IV may be we will get an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment