telugu_power
03-02 07:13 PM
I always wonder these ARAVAS deserve GC?
Because where ever they will make lot of fuss there and cause so many troubles to hosting country...
Srilanka they made a beautiful country as almost ash because of their perverted intensions..And Singapore they will never go with country's best interests...and Malaysia....
And even in India see the support to LTTE (Openly)
Also all most all these ARAVAs are blue collar cheap labor, I don�t know how a considerable number of Tamils getting h1b
Actually USCIS needs to think about them to avoid future problems...
Because where ever they will make lot of fuss there and cause so many troubles to hosting country...
Srilanka they made a beautiful country as almost ash because of their perverted intensions..And Singapore they will never go with country's best interests...and Malaysia....
And even in India see the support to LTTE (Openly)
Also all most all these ARAVAs are blue collar cheap labor, I don�t know how a considerable number of Tamils getting h1b
Actually USCIS needs to think about them to avoid future problems...
wallpaper Gold Coast Titans NRL Team
xyz
06-14 07:33 PM
Interesting findings in the USCIS Ombudsman report - 2007.
http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=22650&linkid=162321
From the report:
Employment-Based (EB) Green Card Applications
(Annual Report pp. 32-37)
In FY 06, over 10,000 visas were lost because of slow processing of EB cases, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards. As of May 2007, the
State Department estimated that 40,000 EB visas may be lost in FY 07 if USCIS does not increase the
processing rate for green card applications. The Ombudsman attributes the slow rate of adjudications to inaccurate statistics and inefficient USCIS management of its workload. The problem will become significant in the coming fiscal year if there is a dramatic increase in EB green card applications, and a significant backlog is likely to develop if this problem goes unaddressed.
http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=22650&linkid=162321
From the report:
Employment-Based (EB) Green Card Applications
(Annual Report pp. 32-37)
In FY 06, over 10,000 visas were lost because of slow processing of EB cases, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards. As of May 2007, the
State Department estimated that 40,000 EB visas may be lost in FY 07 if USCIS does not increase the
processing rate for green card applications. The Ombudsman attributes the slow rate of adjudications to inaccurate statistics and inefficient USCIS management of its workload. The problem will become significant in the coming fiscal year if there is a dramatic increase in EB green card applications, and a significant backlog is likely to develop if this problem goes unaddressed.
luvschocolates
06-29 11:16 PM
The first I -797 notice that I got, states that they received my I-485 application on July 16, 2007. On the website for USCIS status update, it states that they received my application on September 8, 2007.
According to my understanding, one does not have to submit the $340 application fee for a work permit if they received the notice AFTER July 30, 2007. This is where it gets confusing.
Here's the problem...if they say on my paper notice that they received the application on July 16, 2007, then I would have to pay the $340.00 - correct?
But if the website states that they received it on September 8, 2007, then I would not have to pay the fee.
I need a job, plain and simple. I have been in this country for 6 years and have not had a single paycheck. I get room and board for taking care of an elderly disabled person and that's it. Any money I do get is from the kindness of friends and family or maybe babysitting for a friend etc.
I cannot afford the fee, but I don't want to take the time to fill out and submit the application if I have to pay.
How do I determine which notice to follow? Should I assume I have to pay the $340 and try to do so by borrowing the money from someone and if it wasn't necessary will they give it back? Or do I just go ahead and submit the application without the money and hope it gets approved? Does a work permit usually get approved or am I wasting my time?
If it is approved, do I get a social security number or what? I can't open a bank account nor change my driver's license without a social security number so I'm feeling really stuck.
Any suggestions?
According to my understanding, one does not have to submit the $340 application fee for a work permit if they received the notice AFTER July 30, 2007. This is where it gets confusing.
Here's the problem...if they say on my paper notice that they received the application on July 16, 2007, then I would have to pay the $340.00 - correct?
But if the website states that they received it on September 8, 2007, then I would not have to pay the fee.
I need a job, plain and simple. I have been in this country for 6 years and have not had a single paycheck. I get room and board for taking care of an elderly disabled person and that's it. Any money I do get is from the kindness of friends and family or maybe babysitting for a friend etc.
I cannot afford the fee, but I don't want to take the time to fill out and submit the application if I have to pay.
How do I determine which notice to follow? Should I assume I have to pay the $340 and try to do so by borrowing the money from someone and if it wasn't necessary will they give it back? Or do I just go ahead and submit the application without the money and hope it gets approved? Does a work permit usually get approved or am I wasting my time?
If it is approved, do I get a social security number or what? I can't open a bank account nor change my driver's license without a social security number so I'm feeling really stuck.
Any suggestions?
2011 Preston Campbell Gold Coast
NikNikon
September 8th, 2004, 08:19 PM
Well I've run a test shooting one subject with my D70 on each available white balance setting and uploaded the results to the gallery (sorry for taking up space but curiosity was killing me). Turns out the gallery read my EXIF data correctly on 2 out of the 6 pics uploaded, "Incandescent" & "Cloudy". All others read cloudy, so I'm not sure if the discrepancy is with the camera or the gallery. When I read the data on my PC they all read "manual white balance" so that's no help. Anyway, the following links contain the results:
#1 (Incandescent)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10038/sort/1/cat/last7/page/1
*2 (Flourescent)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10037/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1
#3 (Direct Sunlight)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10036/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1
#4 (Flash)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10035/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1
#5 (Cloudy)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10034/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1
#6 (Shade)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10033/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1
#1 (Incandescent)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10038/sort/1/cat/last7/page/1
*2 (Flourescent)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10037/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1
#3 (Direct Sunlight)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10036/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1
#4 (Flash)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10035/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1
#5 (Cloudy)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10034/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1
#6 (Shade)
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/10033/sort/1/size/medium/cat/last7/page/1