txh1b
08-18 12:21 PM
To be safe, do it even if you get an attached I-94 as you began working. You never know what sort of a minor infraction can lead to a huge trouble later on. Good luck!
wallpaper Abstract Wallpaper
rahulpaper
11-09 10:04 AM
We have a very similar case as yours...No FP and RFE on AP....
our 485 is NSC>CSC>NSC ...hence it is slow...my lawyer asked to wait for another month (60 from notice days)
RFE on AP is processed at NSC>CSC...
which means my 485 is back in NSC and AP is still at CSC....no connection between two applications.
our 485 is NSC>CSC>NSC ...hence it is slow...my lawyer asked to wait for another month (60 from notice days)
RFE on AP is processed at NSC>CSC...
which means my 485 is back in NSC and AP is still at CSC....no connection between two applications.
xbohdpukc
03-26 04:24 PM
Don't listen to those who would tell you that you need 5 years after your degree was awarded. TALK TO A FREAKING LAWYER.
2011 Art, Abstract wallpapers
Appu
04-06 10:33 PM
If the Senate passes an immigration bill, it will be vastly different from the measure the House passed on Dec. 16. The two versions would have to be reconciled if a bill is to get to the president to sign. A bill can be virtually rewritten at this stage.
That's the whole point. There are a lot of moderate republicans who would vote with the dems in the senate on the legalization provisions. If they can get 60+ votes, that would send a strong signal to the house - they would then negotiate away from the Sensenbrenner position. On the other hand, if Kyl and Sessions and Cornyn are all allowed to chip away at the senate bill and weaken the vote in the senate then the final bill will probably end up much closer to the Sensenbrenner version. When Reid says the WH should intervene, he is probably not baiting, just seeking help.
That's the whole point. There are a lot of moderate republicans who would vote with the dems in the senate on the legalization provisions. If they can get 60+ votes, that would send a strong signal to the house - they would then negotiate away from the Sensenbrenner position. On the other hand, if Kyl and Sessions and Cornyn are all allowed to chip away at the senate bill and weaken the vote in the senate then the final bill will probably end up much closer to the Sensenbrenner version. When Reid says the WH should intervene, he is probably not baiting, just seeking help.
more...
xyzgc
10-13 11:10 PM
how abt dressing up as a mickey? they'll love u for it..;)
rheoretro
09-25 05:22 PM
I got denied by discover credit card due to not having a green card.
They said, it is just their policy that they won't give credit cards to
people who don't have green cards.
I could't co-sign my friends student loan application as i did't have a green card. They said, i have to be Permanent legal resident to co-sign.
Though i have a mortgage now, my first mortagage application got denied on same grounds.
Apparently fannie mae guildelines stipulates that H1B(foriegn investment) needs to put 60% down to get a mortgage loan.
But most of the lenders do mortgages anyways even for the people who does't have a ssn:).
Discover Card is a bit picky...I applied a second time around and they approved it.
Student loans - federal loans require full citizenship.
They said, it is just their policy that they won't give credit cards to
people who don't have green cards.
I could't co-sign my friends student loan application as i did't have a green card. They said, i have to be Permanent legal resident to co-sign.
Though i have a mortgage now, my first mortagage application got denied on same grounds.
Apparently fannie mae guildelines stipulates that H1B(foriegn investment) needs to put 60% down to get a mortgage loan.
But most of the lenders do mortgages anyways even for the people who does't have a ssn:).
Discover Card is a bit picky...I applied a second time around and they approved it.
Student loans - federal loans require full citizenship.
more...
dilbert_cal
07-05 08:35 PM
My f^$%@ desi employer did not provide me the letter. I was eligible to file I-485 in june itself. Now, If I want to change my employer and port my PD, how can I do that? I don't have I-140 approval copy and my company and his attorney will not provide it to me. I have the receipt#. Can anyone here has port PD using the I-140 receipt #. Please post your reply and save me from a blood suc^#@ monoster. I have lost my sleep .....completely...please help me.
I'm not sure if you can do a PD transfer just based on receipt #. You may try the FOIA route - but please be aware that it will take about a year plus to get a copy of your 140. Now depending on your PD, you can take a guess and go ahead - either do FOIA and get a copy OR just wait until PD is current for you again.
I'm not sure if you can do a PD transfer just based on receipt #. You may try the FOIA route - but please be aware that it will take about a year plus to get a copy of your 140. Now depending on your PD, you can take a guess and go ahead - either do FOIA and get a copy OR just wait until PD is current for you again.
2010 Blue abstract Wallpapers
krithi
03-22 12:39 PM
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I am in the same boat and travelled twice, no questions asked about employment.
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I am in the same boat and travelled twice, no questions asked about employment.
more...
sledge_hammer
05-14 04:35 PM
Only 215 votes for EB2 India?
Assuming an equal number for EB3 India, EB2 China, and EB3 China, we have a total of 856 people who have applied for PD?
We have more than 8000 members, so are we to assume the 7000 and odd members are ROW?
Something doesn't add up.
Can ROW people please have a poll for yourselves?
Assuming an equal number for EB3 India, EB2 China, and EB3 China, we have a total of 856 people who have applied for PD?
We have more than 8000 members, so are we to assume the 7000 and odd members are ROW?
Something doesn't add up.
Can ROW people please have a poll for yourselves?
hair Abstract Lines Background
texcan
08-01 05:55 PM
Join state chapter to be upto date.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasiv
Is there a real need of seperate group other than IV.
Just curious.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasiv
Is there a real need of seperate group other than IV.
Just curious.
more...
santa123
09-05 12:12 AM
LOL at this thread:D
hot 3D Abstract Wallpapers
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
house 3d abstract wallpaper.
deba
09-09 10:28 PM
Nothing surprising here. I have yet to hear about one desi employer who has not exploited H1b. The system is set up to favor the employer. Employees hardly have a choice. Those in favor of increasing the quota should also lobby for complete portability without any penalty to keep the system fair.
Deb
Contrib $600 so far + $300 for rally
EB2 India PD 03/05
I140 09/07
I485 07/07
Deb
Contrib $600 so far + $300 for rally
EB2 India PD 03/05
I140 09/07
I485 07/07
tattoo abstract graphic art wallpaper
paskal
12-21 11:11 AM
we will be delighted to have you folks joining in
more...
pictures abstract wallpaper art gallery
furiouspride
08-13 08:18 PM
I have heard for short term consulting projects, they are supposed to provide the duration of a project and say, it is for 3 months, h1 gets approved for 3 months
Next project, get a new h1, so, if you add that up, they can collect 600 Mil
and the client will most likely go belly up :D
Next project, get a new h1, so, if you add that up, they can collect 600 Mil
and the client will most likely go belly up :D
dresses Abstract Wallpapers
mk58581
06-07 12:13 AM
Thx a lot. I was so scared abt tht. I already have a job luckily my previous employer dind't cancel my H1 so used it and joined in a new firm
But these people started sendin' mails and callin' me so was jst scared will i have to loose tht money for nuthin' as well movin' from PHX to NY coseted me almost like $15000 more over tension in findin' a new job i was totally screwed for the past 2 months...
Thanks a lot again i will contact DOL @ the earliest
But these people started sendin' mails and callin' me so was jst scared will i have to loose tht money for nuthin' as well movin' from PHX to NY coseted me almost like $15000 more over tension in findin' a new job i was totally screwed for the past 2 months...
Thanks a lot again i will contact DOL @ the earliest
more...
makeup Abstract Wallpapers
.jpg "3d abstract wallpaper.")
Joybose
08-14 02:58 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Hey, which service center, Texas or Nebraska.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Hey, which service center, Texas or Nebraska.
girlfriend Abstract Wallpaper Screensaver
deardar
09-10 10:30 AM
you are fortunate to fall in hand of such employer!
hairstyles Abstract Wallpaper for Spring
vin13
07-01 02:10 PM
I am not sure if this is what you are looking for...please check this. It says someone on "Parole" may be eligible non-citizen.
Source:Completing the FAFSA 07-08/The Application Questions(14-31) (http://studentaid.ed.gov/students/publications/completing_fafsa/2007_2008/ques2-1.html)
Citizenship status. You can receive federal student financial aid only if you are a U.S. citizen or an eligible noncitizen. If you have changed from a noncitizen to a citizen and have not informed the SSA, contact the SSA to update your status. Otherwise, the SSA may report that you are not a citizen, and you will have to provide citizenship documentation before receiving aid.
For financial aid purposes, an eligible noncitizen is one of the following:
A U.S. permanent resident who has a Permanent Resident Card (I-551 or I-151)
A conditional permanent resident (I-551C)
A noncitizen with an Arrival-Departure Record (I-94) from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (specifically, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) showing any one of the following designations: "Refugee," "Asylum Granted," "Parole" (the I-94 must confirm 'paroled for a minimum of 1-year and status' has not expired), or "Cuban-Haitian Entrant"
If you are neither a citizen nor an eligible noncitizen, you are not eligible for federal student aid; for example, you are not eligible if you are in the U.S. on one of the following:
An F-1, F-2, or M-1 student visa
A J-1 or J-2 exchange visitor visa
A B-1 or B-2 visitor visa
A G series visa (pertaining to international organizations)
An H series or L series visa (allowing temporary employment in the U.S.)
A "Notice of Approval to Apply for Permanent Residence" (I-171 or I-464)
An I-94 stamped "Temporary Protected Status"
However, you may be eligible for state or institutional aid and may therefore wish to complete the FAFSA to apply for that aid. If you are completing a paper FAFSA, fill in oval C. On FAFSA on the Web, indicate that you are not a citizen by using the drop down menu. Please note, however, that if you do not have a Social Security number, the processor will not process your FAFSA. If you are in this situation, you should contact your school for information on how to proceed.
Source:Completing the FAFSA 07-08/The Application Questions(14-31) (http://studentaid.ed.gov/students/publications/completing_fafsa/2007_2008/ques2-1.html)
Citizenship status. You can receive federal student financial aid only if you are a U.S. citizen or an eligible noncitizen. If you have changed from a noncitizen to a citizen and have not informed the SSA, contact the SSA to update your status. Otherwise, the SSA may report that you are not a citizen, and you will have to provide citizenship documentation before receiving aid.
For financial aid purposes, an eligible noncitizen is one of the following:
A U.S. permanent resident who has a Permanent Resident Card (I-551 or I-151)
A conditional permanent resident (I-551C)
A noncitizen with an Arrival-Departure Record (I-94) from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (specifically, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) showing any one of the following designations: "Refugee," "Asylum Granted," "Parole" (the I-94 must confirm 'paroled for a minimum of 1-year and status' has not expired), or "Cuban-Haitian Entrant"
If you are neither a citizen nor an eligible noncitizen, you are not eligible for federal student aid; for example, you are not eligible if you are in the U.S. on one of the following:
An F-1, F-2, or M-1 student visa
A J-1 or J-2 exchange visitor visa
A B-1 or B-2 visitor visa
A G series visa (pertaining to international organizations)
An H series or L series visa (allowing temporary employment in the U.S.)
A "Notice of Approval to Apply for Permanent Residence" (I-171 or I-464)
An I-94 stamped "Temporary Protected Status"
However, you may be eligible for state or institutional aid and may therefore wish to complete the FAFSA to apply for that aid. If you are completing a paper FAFSA, fill in oval C. On FAFSA on the Web, indicate that you are not a citizen by using the drop down menu. Please note, however, that if you do not have a Social Security number, the processor will not process your FAFSA. If you are in this situation, you should contact your school for information on how to proceed.
summitpointe
01-31 02:02 PM
There is a high possibility that you will get an RFE and you will need to reply for the RFE.
Service centers does not consider three year degree course from India as degree equivalent from here. They want minimum four year degree. This may upset you. You may need to talk with your Attorney and look for an alternative to stay in US.
Service centers does not consider three year degree course from India as degree equivalent from here. They want minimum four year degree. This may upset you. You may need to talk with your Attorney and look for an alternative to stay in US.
chapper
11-09 08:14 PM
Can we do the same here - or something similar to that extent as demonstrated in UK - is it advisable.
Legal immigrants no matter where they are from should be treated equally without divisions within this group or special classifications for certain sections of the group.
Legal immigrants no matter where they are from should be treated equally without divisions within this group or special classifications for certain sections of the group.
No comments:
Post a Comment