derrick rose background

images derrick rose mvp ackground. derrick rose mvp ackground.

derrick rose mvp ackground.

sugaur

12-23 12:17 AM

I dont recommend going into Juarez. Even Mexicans are fleeing and there are reports of shooting and murder at the border frequently.

---

wallpaper derrick rose mvp ackground.

derrick rose mvp ackground.

Lasantha

06-15 12:59 AM

Gurus,
My employer advises me to be on H1B because of the uncertainity that comes with EAD. But I told him that my wife needs an EAD so that she can work. He said she can get one and I can be on H1. Is it possible? Also, I think I shud also get an EAD so that I am free to move around. But I don't wanna be blunt on the face and blow it all up. How would I make him understand/persuade and make him file my EAD and AP?

As always, appreciate all your help :)

As far as I know, you don't need anything from your employer to file EAD and AP. You do need a letter from them to file your I-485 but not for EAD and AP. So after they file your I-485 and get your file number you should be able to file it yourself.

---

derrick rose mvp ackground.

rvr_jcop

02-16 03:49 PM

I am working in US from Feb 2007 to till date. I was on H1-B visa This H1-B petition is valid till 30 sep,2009. I am currently on project which ends on 31 March 2009 . Before that I want to change my employer .
Some ppl suggested me Transfer H1 with extention immediately. Some said that stay with current employer have extention and then transfer .
Is there any problem now a days for H1 Transfers ?
Please give me your valuable suggestions.



Thanks...

There are about 90% chances that you will get RFE with the extension.Lets say there are about 50 to 60% cases those are getting approved without any RFE. In either case does this answer helpful to you?

I guess, NOT. You should make the decision based on your new job/employer. If you have everything in place, and you never been out of status, filed LCA according to the rules in the past, employer played by the rules, both past employer and the future, you should not have any issues with the extension.

Nobody can say do this or do that. End of the day, its all yours. PLEASE FILL UP your profile.

---

2011 derrick rose mvp ackground.

derrick rose mvp ackground.

vdlrao

01-21 03:20 PM

Person traveling with AP does not require Transit Visa if u dont plan to go outside of Frankfurt airport for what so reason.I had traveled via Frankfurt on 01/07/09.

Please do check with German consulate.

Thank you KKTexas

---

more...

derrick rose mvp ackground.

alisa

12-17 12:10 PM

My Labor was rotting in BEC, and so I moved to another role, and will now have a PD of 2007 as a new labor will be filed, Rest of the world, EB-3......

Got any predictions?????

Mine are 1 year (if legislation goes through), to 12 years (if it does not.)

---

derrick rose mvp ackground.

desi3933

08-21 11:44 AM

I know people might have answered this before. So, sorry for any redundancy. I have a query. If I travel outside of US on my valid H1B visa and when I am out of US, my 485 gets approved. What happens then? Say, I do not have AP with me. Will I have problems entering the US?

You can enter on H1 on "deferred inspection" status. Google for deferred inspection for more details.

---

more...

derrick rose mvp ackground. derrick rose mvp ackground.

geevikram

12-06 11:19 AM

If you read the post , they say 21 year old means fresh graduate (bach.), it is very high for that age with no or less experience. here in california also freshers get 50-60k start..

That depends on company, job-title. Ofcourse, this is still high for a fresher, but you can't compare 50-60K to facebook job. This kid must be extremely smart. 50-60K would be for some lucky fresher coming out of an avg university in US. Even folks for decent US univ's get close to 100K in Cali. (Depends on company and pos).

---

2010 derrick rose mvp ackground.

derrick rose mvp ackground. derrick rose mvp ackground.

sukhyani

09-04 04:19 PM

You must be right ... I was not anticipating this turn of events whatsoever as I knew what the current PD is in the September Visa Bulletin but maybe they assign me a visa number when they got my application in June.... who knows...

What was the Approval date on your I140?

---

more...

derrick rose mvp ackground.

sreeanne

10-12 12:01 PM

I filed my case on July 17th to TSC. No Checks cashed yet / No receipts.:mad:

Today USCIS supposed to release bulletin. I hope TSC/NSC moves 5 more days ahead.

I have a question though : Will USCIS releases bulletin like this once both service centers dates touched Aug 17th which is the last date of submitting 485 applications due to July visa bulletin fiasco.

I even checked Oh Law firm website and they posted still 400,000 applications were waiting to be processed.

Any thoughts about this?

---

hair derrick rose mvp ackground.

derrick rose gang. derrick

quizzer

07-26 10:22 PM

any idea when will this be taken up?

---

more...

derrick rose backgrounds

India_USA

01-31 09:18 AM

By jumping ahead with high-skilled immigrants of course! =D

Great press release IV, great to see IV getting out there. Now it's time to knock on some doors in our local districts.

Couldn't agree more!

---

hot derrick rose mvp ackground.

derrick rose mvp ackground.

desi3933

02-11 10:43 AM

Hi All,

I am in a situation that my L1B extension application is denied on 02/10/2009. My current L1B is valid till March 31st 2009. I am trying to find the options I have with me now... I have H1B approved from another employer but I have not joined them.

As per my understanding these are the options:

1) This denial is for L1B Blanket Petition, so I think I should be able to apply extension again with L1B individual petition as I believe Obama government is rejecting all L1 Blanket visa as they this people are misusing it...

2) I can join my H1 employer...

Can anyone of you please suggest if these options are correct OR is there any other better option available...

Eagerly waiting for responses...

Thanks,
Gagan Chodhry

Were you in status at the time of L1 extension? Probably not, as your H1 extension was approved with new I-94 starting Oct 1st.

You applied for L1 extension on Oct 15th.

Would you mind sharing the denial reason with us?

__________________
Not a legal advice.

---

more...


house derrick rose mother_03. tattoo

derrick rose mother_03. red

JunRN

01-26 08:40 AM

https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC

Set your Temp. Internet File setting to "automatic" to check for newer version.

---

tattoo derrick rose mvp ackground.

Background Lines or Dots:

ca_immigrant

02-11 12:08 PM

Hi Folks,

What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.

USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.

Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..

Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?

Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...

Thanks in Advance for your reply !!

---

more...


pictures derrick rose mvp ackground. derrick rose mvp ackground.

Derrick Rose MVP (by

avi101

06-29 03:41 PM

Labor and I140 (except NIW cases) are applied through employer and is employer centric (unforunately) and they have every right not to give it to you. The lawyers won't give it to you either as they can be sued by company for doing that (based on what a well known lawyer told me).

Your best bet is to petition through Freedom of Information Act (google or check immigrationportal forums for more info) for these things and you can get a copy from USCIS. People seem to have done this successfully. However, this takes time.

---

dresses derrick rose mvp ackground.

Creator on Derrick Rose.

freefly

May 1st, 2005, 12:58 PM

I think you already know the answer to this...don�t change a thing. They look very professional to me...PIN sharp, well composed and the speed is just right. By freezing the action, I think it gives the impression of an explosion of speed rather than enhancing the movement. Nice one!

P.s. Perfect use of aperture to lose the background too!
P.p.s.That has to be an "L" Lens?
Nick
http://www.all-things-photography.com (http://www.all-things-photography.com/)
http://www.panphotography.com (http://www.panphotography.com/)

---

more...


makeup derrick rose mvp ackground.

derrick rose mother_03. tattoo

tabletpc

07-29 10:59 PM

If the applicant has US degree its good to goto canand for stamping as it will be easy for them to varify degree documents.

Even i was scared...2 years back when i went to calgary for stamping. But having a US degree did help me. Later many of my frinds who din't had US degree had problems from cananda.

If u r going to canada its better to go with a approved h1B(I797) rather than directly asking them for extension.

Yes if it gets rejected...u need to take an appointment in india and return to US.

---

girlfriend Background Lines or Dots:

Derrick Rose Memphis Tigers

GCanyMinute

08-23 12:25 PM

for sure this info is gonna be useful for someone.
i hope i don't have to use it myself though :D
thanks for the help.

---

hairstyles derrick rose backgrounds

derrick rose - 213088

nomorelogins

01-28 08:52 PM

@nozerd,
could you please explain the logic/rules.
The logic is that if both parents are Indians even if kid is born in US and travels on US passport as kid they have until the age of 18 to choose.

---

eb3retro

08-30 12:38 PM

My PD is 2002 Aug


hi redhat..

welcome to IV. looks like you joined IV recently. I hope you will get answers for your questions here and will come out of this RFE mess. Please do consider abt giving IV (and yourself) a hand in the Washington Rally. All the best.

---

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.

---