Mercedes Ml 500 Amg

images Mercedes Benz Ml500.

Bulbs Mercedes ML350 ML500

zCool

04-01 06:02 PM

I am waiting for 13 yrs! So frustration should not be excuse for law-breaking..
Every criminal has some sob story in the back-end that can be used to justify murder, robbery etc etc..
Anyways..
You want help.. here goes..
THERE IS NO LABOR SUBSTITUTION as of June 16 2007.
If your old sub labor was used by someone else.. AND his GC is not approved yet THEN your company can revoke that 140 and get your 140 approved that way. IF on the other hand that original beneficiary got 485 filed and AC21 invoked then you are plain out of luck.
I don't know what the heck this company B is talking abt, sending other labor etc.. I think they are pulling some stunt.. and basically lying!
If you have an option.. change and work for a good employer.. GC and all will happen in due time..

---

wallpaper Bulbs Mercedes ML350 ML500

The E55 AMG was basically fun

satishku_2000

08-03 04:43 PM

I understand everyone is anxious but this is simple language. I am sure you can 'decipher' it


I am not sure whether you got a chance to read the whole thread. :) In normal circumstances there is no need to decipher...:)

---

Mercedes ML 63 AMG. sport cars

chanduv23

12-08 10:48 AM

Dear brothers and sisters,

We are running a funding drive with a targetted amount for our lobbying efforts.

A lot of people have contributed and contributions are still coming in.

Thanks to all those who are showing a wonderful gesture by their contributions.

If you have not yet contributed, please do so now and post details on this thread where contributions are being tracked

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905

Participating actively in grassroots efforts is very essential. Changes do not come overnight, they come only with a lot of effort through grassroots efforts. Please join us and start actively participating in grassroots efforts.
Persistence and perserverence is the key here and it is very essential that everyone start participating actively. IV is your/our organization. IV is nothing but you and me.

Hiding behind closets and taking a back seat and remaining dormant does not help our cause, it only hinders all the hard work and effort that all the dedicated members are doing.

Remember, changes do not happen easily and one must not assume that things will happen automatically. Things can and will happen only when we make it happen and by remaining dormant we cannot achieve what we want to achieve.

We urge all the guests to become members now and join their State Chapters. We also request the dormant members, not to remain dormant and aloof. We request the fence sitters to jump the fence now.

Everyone in the community has to come forward and contribute towards the efforts.

Yours,
Chandrakanth - IV Volunteer

---

2011 The E55 AMG was basically fun

Mercedes ML 500 in Musical Highlights III

RDB

09-02 11:09 PM

That's the only logical thing to do right now, sending original EAD might be a bit risky.....i will update after my info pass appointment.

---

more...

Mercedes ML55 AMG ML500

Stan09

07-17 11:35 AM

Anyhow, this is not the point. The point is - except but official fees employer MAY request reimbursement for H1B. My employer charges me with $4000 for h1B expenses (and those 1500 are not included into this amount). And I have not seen bodyshoppers stupid enough to include this provision into contract _without_ making special references as to which court and under which state law will be used to resolve possible conflicts. Bodyshoppers are very smart in everything that concerns money.

---

Labels: Mercedes Benz, Sedan,

shanti

02-23 12:07 PM

I filed my labor three years ago with a requirement of BS + a minimum of a one year experience (I had 4 years of US experience and 6 ys experience abroad at that time -feb 2005-).
Now that I filed I-485 more than 180 days ago and I have a job offer that pays double of what is mentioned in the Labor (which the lawyer said is not a problem) , I still have an issue and is the following: in the description mentions as requirement "BS + minimum of 5 ys experience".
My lawyer said that although I have been in U.S. working with same position and same job title for 7 ys, that to be same or similar they should require similar experience than what was required at the moment my labor was filed: ie, BS + not more than 2 years experience,... Is this true? Did anyone experience this? The employer is a big corporation and cannot change that the job description to match the minimum years of experience. The duties are 90% similar and the job title is exactly the same.

The lawyer said that after labor was filed three years ago, that we could not count from that moment on an increased experience, with that I mean the minimum years of experience of the job in 2005 was 1 (although my resume on my labor showed 10 ys of experience) and he said that we cannot say that in 2005 was a minimun one year so you could gain experience on the job and convert it into a job with a minimumn of 4 years being same or similar). HE said that the experience clock was stopped on the labor filing date ie I cannot increase the minimun experience to make a job same or similar.

Did anyone hear anything similar?

Thanks and have a great weekend!

---

more...

2010 Mercedes-Benz E-Class AMG

dealsnet

11-05 10:49 AM

Your I-485 filing without the dependants is unfortunate. This senario, you need to be in H1 all the time till your PD is current and they are eligible to apply for I-485. Means you can't work on EAD, it will cancel your H1. Always on H1, otherwisw dependents will be out of status. (BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN AOS- your case)


Situation - During the month of July, I filed my 485 when all categories were current. Got my receipt too. Missed wife's application because her papers were not ready. Now priority dates have retrogressed again.

Saving grace - Our H1/H4 are in order with many long years left on them.

Question - Can I file my wife 485 now as a dependent, even though "my" PD is not current yet. The core point is that, does the concept of PD applies to the dependent 485 applications too?

---

2010 Mercedes ML 63 AMG. sport cars

Mercedes Benz Ml500.

maverick_neo

07-21 12:49 AM

All :

this discussion is covered in more detail on this thread.

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10693

Please follow it there. It will help answer so many of your questions.

Sorry techbuyer....to steal your thunder :)

You are wrong, thread you mentioned covers people < 180 days, whereas this thread covers >180 days. Sorry to steal your thunder :)

---

more...

Baumuster 164 175 ML 500

jonty_11

07-16 05:10 PM

I think people out here have nothing to do. Please concentrate on the cor eissues... and participate in IV campaigns..High FIVE for one...

When new processign dates come out you will know have patience.

---

hair Mercedes ML 500 in Musical Highlights III

Motor ML500 ML55 AMG NEW

Sakthisagar

04-28 10:05 AM

I agree US having fair consideration for illegals because of political reasons(VOTES to be specific)

but the author comparing India & Mexico having strict rules.. common...

India have borders open for Bangladesh and whoever crosses the border, with out any shame

the present ruling party kaangress is giving Ration Card and Voters Id.

Mexico we all know how tuff the law is and what they do.

So Please do not compare apples with oranges.. whoever is the author.

Now Texas, Utah, the list goes on, Hope at least because of this CIR will come to the floor soon!

here there is no legals and illegals now, no one should be allowed to do divide and rule policy.

now Legal and Illegals are almost the same on immigration thing at least.

Hispanics made us hostage so go with the flow.

---

more...

on Mercedes-Benz ML 500

logiclife

08-02 02:20 PM

1)Is it safe and legal to travel with Visa stamping till august 2006 from company A , with 221 (g) stamped in his passport (when he went for
visa for company B), with proper H1B documents valid till 2009 from company
C?

No Safe as he will be questioned at port of entry

2)Will there be questions at the port of entry ?

A Lot
3)Will there be any issues because of the 221(g)
stamping in the passport (company B visa)?
Yes.
4)Any chance he wont be let inside U.S ?
90%
5)Can he show them the h1b approvals for company C ?
No..as it will confusing for immigration officer with so many 797 forms.
6)Any tips to handle the officer at POE?
Can try with chinese or african-american.Little liberal
7)If every thing goes smooth, will his new I-94 be
valid till june 2009 (date on his company C petition)
or just another 4 weeks (company A petition)?
Just 4 weeks
8)If by any chance if he is deported, will it affect
his future prospects in the U.S?

Yes.. He may not not reenter US for next 10 Yrs.

I am Immigration Lawyer.Better Talk to the Attorney.

You probably meant to say that you are NOT an immigration lawyer. Correct?

---

hot Mercedes ML55 AMG ML500

MERCEDES ML55 AMG R500 00

GC092003

10-09 02:06 PM

I have a hard time to adjust my photo to designated spec. I shrunked to 62kb but they did not take it and if I make it lesser, it won't be 320 x 240 pixels but less. I use regular digital camera. anybody help me how to do?

---

more...

house Mercedes Benz ML500 1899

ML350 ML500 ML63 AMG W164

anilvt

07-17 12:05 AM

Anyone?

---

tattoo Labels: Mercedes Benz, Sedan,

2012 Mercedes Benz ML 63 AMG

ultrasparc

09-01 08:13 PM

My PD is in Apr 2002, EB3. I filed for EAD renewal on Jun 23 2008. Got approval on Aug 13 2008. got EAD for 1 year in mail instead of 2 year.

I called USCIS they told me use EAD and file new I9 form with employer based on this 1 year EAD. Then re-file new I765 form with USCIS with cover letter explaining why I should get two year EAD; plus send orginal EAD back. if USCIS find any error on their side they will correct it and send new EAD cards.

I am scared to send orignal EAD back.. just in case employer ask for EAD card again!!

Is this procedure sounds right? Any one have any experience with this process?

---

more...

pictures 2010 Mercedes-Benz E-Class AMG

the ML 500, ML 63 AMG ML

InTheMoment

06-29 01:01 AM

Yabadaba,

I am in a similar situation with no new stamp or I-94 while last entry into the US from Canada at a land border crossing. This is the date/place that I had mentioned in my I-485.

See

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=158111

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=145094&page=1&pp=15&highlight=canada

http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=165295

There is a mighty good probabilty that we will get an RFE to
establish proof of inspection of entry into the US

So...start getting together any proofs for that:D that said it is fairly easy to take care RFE



PART 3

Place of Last Entry Into the United States (City/State)

What should i put over here? I did not get an arrival stamp when i came back from canada last month after stamping. all the immigration officer did was tear the bottom portion of the h1b approval and staple it to the passport. he said that was my I-94

---

dresses MERCEDES ML55 AMG R500 00

2011 Mercedes Ml Amg. 03 2011

jay75

08-30 05:09 PM

What is Sub-Labor?
I field my GC thru Very good company.

I am not understanding why its happend

Well..Why don't give more details? folks in this thread asked all details and try to help you.

---

more...

makeup Baumuster 164 175 ML 500

Mercedes Benz ML500 1899

paskal

11-10 06:32 PM

to everyone willing to contribute to the efforts
please hold on, i will get back to you once the structure of the new work groups is finalized. remember to complete your profile!

---

girlfriend 2012 Mercedes Benz ML 63 AMG

Mercedes Benz ML 500,

rocket

01-08 03:40 PM

why are we assuming that the parents are illegals?? as far as I know, it has not been reported anywhere in the media that the parents were here illegally. if it has, please post relevant links.

as for being a legal resident, do the rules state that you need to be a legal resident for immigration benefits or tax benefits?

For IRS purposes, 180 days or more on a valid non immig. worker status and you are a legal resident.....

it has been reported that way everywhere.http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/06/first.baby.ap/index.html and contracts/contest rules don't state why they just state the terms of the contest.

---

hairstyles on Mercedes-Benz ML 500

2012 Mercedes Benz ML 63 AMG

pthoko

05-31 11:22 AM

My PD is current. Still I am not discontinuing my 50.00 per month contribution that I have been doing since january.

Great Thank YOU, Guys like you have no match!!! :)

---

Pineapple

12-26 01:05 PM

Given that many have spent 10 years, or almost a third of their lives here, they can hardly be called "aliens". Also, given that nothing is permanent, I propose the following term:

Non-permanent, resident, non-alien :D

---

go_guy123

08-24 04:52 PM

ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)

Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta

As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).

Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.

In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.

At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8

Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.

Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10

�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�

Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:

1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�

It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.

---