radhagd
04-02 09:26 AM
I filed my LC using regular process in EB3 category in Dec. 2003 and then LC was thrown to backlog center and pending there for ever. then I filed another LC using PERM in EB2 category in Dec. 2006 and got it approved in Jan. 2007, then filed I140 in Feb. 2007. Now my lawyer told me my EB3 case got recruitment instruction, but our company's policy doesn't allow same person to file two I140 application. Due to I already start my EB2 I-140 application, I can not continue my EB3 case, means I will have to withdraw it (if I have not file EB2 I-140 yet, I can continue my EB3 LC, but still need to decide which one I will pursue when file I-140 for either of them later on). I was planning to get two I140 approved and then carry over my earlier PD to file EB2 485. but now things get blocked by company's policy, which even prohibited me from paying by myself. Sign! Would you guys give me any good idea to see if I have way to get my EB3 case moving forward? thank you in advance.
If you want to keep EB3 PD, the best option in your case is withdraw your EB2 140 and ask your company to file EB3 140, once it is approved, make sure you get a copy of approved I140. Find another company who is willing to do EB2 GC,file Labour. Upon approval of that Labour file EB2 140 requesting recapturing of EB3 PD. To be on safe side do not join the new company until you get Eb2 140 approved and join later at your conveniance.
If you want to keep EB3 PD, the best option in your case is withdraw your EB2 140 and ask your company to file EB3 140, once it is approved, make sure you get a copy of approved I140. Find another company who is willing to do EB2 GC,file Labour. Upon approval of that Labour file EB2 140 requesting recapturing of EB3 PD. To be on safe side do not join the new company until you get Eb2 140 approved and join later at your conveniance.
akred
04-10 12:44 AM
Try Wells Fargo or Chase. They have been quite good about lending me money for a couple of rental properties.
Also ask them for rebates as they are eager to get business.
Another one I came across was Penfed.org. They may work for you since you seem to be borrowing for a primary residence.
Also ask them for rebates as they are eager to get business.
Another one I came across was Penfed.org. They may work for you since you seem to be borrowing for a primary residence.
HRPRO
02-10 09:31 AM
Do you have a legal reference for the > 50 miles rule ? In my case it is just 10 miles (moved from one town to next town). So I guess I am fine ?
Krish,
it is not all black and white, if your previous LCA covers the new work location, you should be fine, else a new LCA is required.
HRPRO
Krish,
it is not all black and white, if your previous LCA covers the new work location, you should be fine, else a new LCA is required.
HRPRO
sukhyani
04-18 05:33 PM
Can we not create a poll the way we have done in the past where we can see a chart?
more...
vrbest
08-17 05:13 PM
I just came back this afternoon (1:30 PM EST) via Dubai...Atlanta..from Chennai.. Just showed AP document and passport.. no questions asked...
Airline just verified AP at Chennai and Dubai to ensure I travel with valid documentation to USA.
sanjay02: Dependents may need to produce Primary Applicant's 485 receipt just incase they ask.. Not sure if it really matters as there is no primary or dependent on AP document mentioned.
Hope this helps!
I just wanted to confirm that it is ok to travel on AP via Dubai from Emirates without H1B stamp. Has anyone done this recently and can you share your experience? Thanks.
- gchopes
Airline just verified AP at Chennai and Dubai to ensure I travel with valid documentation to USA.
sanjay02: Dependents may need to produce Primary Applicant's 485 receipt just incase they ask.. Not sure if it really matters as there is no primary or dependent on AP document mentioned.
Hope this helps!
I just wanted to confirm that it is ok to travel on AP via Dubai from Emirates without H1B stamp. Has anyone done this recently and can you share your experience? Thanks.
- gchopes
wellwishergc
03-01 04:15 PM
Logiclife,
That makes perfect sense.
My question is - Is it possible that all clauses related to illegal immigration will be striked off, while legal will go through? To my understanding, the main objective of this bill is to solve the issue of illegal immigration. Legal immigration is just an additional section.. My fear again is - will the whole bill be discarded just because of the contentious illegal immigration aspects in the bill?.. Is there a way to pass the legal immigration relief measures without a bill?.. something like an amendment to the existing law?
Thanks for taking the interest and posting the comment.
What you mean is change the content of the webfax,not the format.
Anyways, the current draft of Specter bill would lead to numbers flowing downward(unused numbers due to 7% or 10% per country limit). When they flow downwards from EB2, EB3 and EB4, they go to EB5 where there is no mention of per country limit(by omission).
You know what this means? After all the gains, the country limit on India and China will cause the overflow of all visa numbers to EB5(Unskilled labor, gardeners, cooks, maids) WHERE THERE IS NOT COUNTRY LIMIT and unlimited demand. And over there, in absence of no country limit, immigrants from Mexico will consume all EB5 unskilled numbers and there wont be anything like "UNUSED" numbers.(read the thread posted by STUCKLABOR for that analysis and legalese. : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=241 )
Coming back to proposals of Specter, the idea that there is so much relief that we dont need to worry about this or that...here is the thing...Current markup is a proposal. Not even a final version of Judiciary committee markup. From there you lose some things when it goes to the full floor of senate and then A LOT OF THINGS when the hawks from the HOUSE of REPS like Tancredos and Smiths slither their tentacles on the Senate version in the CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. That's the reason we dont want to lose one thing even if we are gaining 10 things because those 10 things might be reduced to 2 by the time its negotiated in the conference committee between the house and the senate.
However, if you want to provide more input on this issue, you are most welcome to email Sandeep who is leading the content-prep team that writes these webfaxes and letters. His email is sandeep@immigrationvoice.org
Thanks for taking interesting and sharing your view.
--logiclife.
That makes perfect sense.
My question is - Is it possible that all clauses related to illegal immigration will be striked off, while legal will go through? To my understanding, the main objective of this bill is to solve the issue of illegal immigration. Legal immigration is just an additional section.. My fear again is - will the whole bill be discarded just because of the contentious illegal immigration aspects in the bill?.. Is there a way to pass the legal immigration relief measures without a bill?.. something like an amendment to the existing law?
Thanks for taking the interest and posting the comment.
What you mean is change the content of the webfax,not the format.
Anyways, the current draft of Specter bill would lead to numbers flowing downward(unused numbers due to 7% or 10% per country limit). When they flow downwards from EB2, EB3 and EB4, they go to EB5 where there is no mention of per country limit(by omission).
You know what this means? After all the gains, the country limit on India and China will cause the overflow of all visa numbers to EB5(Unskilled labor, gardeners, cooks, maids) WHERE THERE IS NOT COUNTRY LIMIT and unlimited demand. And over there, in absence of no country limit, immigrants from Mexico will consume all EB5 unskilled numbers and there wont be anything like "UNUSED" numbers.(read the thread posted by STUCKLABOR for that analysis and legalese. : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=241 )
Coming back to proposals of Specter, the idea that there is so much relief that we dont need to worry about this or that...here is the thing...Current markup is a proposal. Not even a final version of Judiciary committee markup. From there you lose some things when it goes to the full floor of senate and then A LOT OF THINGS when the hawks from the HOUSE of REPS like Tancredos and Smiths slither their tentacles on the Senate version in the CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. That's the reason we dont want to lose one thing even if we are gaining 10 things because those 10 things might be reduced to 2 by the time its negotiated in the conference committee between the house and the senate.
However, if you want to provide more input on this issue, you are most welcome to email Sandeep who is leading the content-prep team that writes these webfaxes and letters. His email is sandeep@immigrationvoice.org
Thanks for taking interesting and sharing your view.
--logiclife.
more...
Singer
10-21 11:10 PM
I am a vocalist based in the US for the last 13 years. I have performed around the world at World music festivals, television shows, radios, various clubs, private events, for stars like P... S.... and D.... B.... and for organizations such as UN, UNESCO, UNDP, NDI, Schomburg Center, etc.I have always been legal and on several P1/O1 artist visas), I have applied on December 2006 for a EB1-EA green card
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
Cloakendagger
06-15 12:36 PM
Also you could shoot up the small band market. Thats how I got started. I was managing bands then they asked me to build their websites. Go to a local club or venue on local band night and hand out your card.
The nice thing about bands is that are willing to push the limites on what one can do with flash and webdesign in general.
Cloak
The nice thing about bands is that are willing to push the limites on what one can do with flash and webdesign in general.
Cloak
more...
overseas
08-25 10:11 PM
wizkid732,
My case is in background check a.k.a extended review. I tried all the means without any success. Infopass, Ombudsman and senator told me that there is no time limit for these kind of cases. Few unlucky cases gets stuck in this and yes the wait will be very painful if you wait. Best thing is followup every 3 months or so and only think about it on the day or two you followed up.
On the other hand I heard about about few cases where USCIS has told that the application is in extended review but issued the card within a month or so. So I think sometimes they just say that to reduce the enquires temporarily and I hope yours is one of those cases.
My case is in background check a.k.a extended review. I tried all the means without any success. Infopass, Ombudsman and senator told me that there is no time limit for these kind of cases. Few unlucky cases gets stuck in this and yes the wait will be very painful if you wait. Best thing is followup every 3 months or so and only think about it on the day or two you followed up.
On the other hand I heard about about few cases where USCIS has told that the application is in extended review but issued the card within a month or so. So I think sometimes they just say that to reduce the enquires temporarily and I hope yours is one of those cases.
glus
07-22 04:50 PM
If you go to this site: http://www..com/usa-immigration-trackers/i485-tracker1/
you will see that people that got USCIS I485 receipts, are those whose forms reached USCIS on Jun 25th. That would mean that as of last week USCIS was entering in the cases that came in in the end of Jun. They are not doing July filers yet....
My best bet is that they will begin doing July filers in the middle of next week (7/25) or even later and we will start seeing checks cleared by that date....
you will see that people that got USCIS I485 receipts, are those whose forms reached USCIS on Jun 25th. That would mean that as of last week USCIS was entering in the cases that came in in the end of Jun. They are not doing July filers yet....
My best bet is that they will begin doing July filers in the middle of next week (7/25) or even later and we will start seeing checks cleared by that date....
more...
Sreenuuk
08-07 09:30 AM
Admins Please delete the thread.
casinoroyale
01-31 02:18 PM
Ok, this is a tough'ie.
You might be ok, but let me explain. There 2 rules that play-in in this scenario. One is " last action ", the other is " effectve date of your new I-797 ". If the start/effective date of your new I-797 is later than your last action i.e your entry in the USA, then technically your new I-94 which you got from your new I-797 will kick-in from its effective date making your stay in USA legal till its end. Now, if the start/effective date of your new I-797 started before you entered USA using your OLD I-797 (concequently got short I-94 validity) that will control your legal stay period ( as per last action rule ).
That being said, this is very tricky situation, though arguably valid as per different memo's of USCIS. So it is in your best interest, either to go with this interpretation and do nothing if the first case that i explained above is true or play safe and go out of country and enter back US using your new I-797.
Consult a lawyer before you take any step.
Thanks.
You might be ok, but let me explain. There 2 rules that play-in in this scenario. One is " last action ", the other is " effectve date of your new I-797 ". If the start/effective date of your new I-797 is later than your last action i.e your entry in the USA, then technically your new I-94 which you got from your new I-797 will kick-in from its effective date making your stay in USA legal till its end. Now, if the start/effective date of your new I-797 started before you entered USA using your OLD I-797 (concequently got short I-94 validity) that will control your legal stay period ( as per last action rule ).
That being said, this is very tricky situation, though arguably valid as per different memo's of USCIS. So it is in your best interest, either to go with this interpretation and do nothing if the first case that i explained above is true or play safe and go out of country and enter back US using your new I-797.
Consult a lawyer before you take any step.
Thanks.
more...
tomCT
03-28 08:53 AM
I think this would be an easy and effective ammendment request. The USCIS considers BS + 5years equivalent to Masters(advanced degree).
As per Spectors/Frists bills, the Advanced Degree holders with 3 years exp in related field will have no numerical limts. First of all, can we interpret advanced degree as (BS + 5 years) ?
If not, is it possible to request these senotors to add that? It would be easy to add compared to requesting them of removing the country quota.
I belive most of the EB3 candidates have 5 years of experience. tHE REST OF THEM MAY BE ATLEAST 3 + YEARS EXPERIENCE WHICH THEY MAY THEN NEED TO WAIT ONLY 2 OR 3 YEARS TO REACH THAT 5 YR MARK).
The advanced degree is already interpreted by DOL as BS + 5 years.
Its interpreted by USCIS as BS + 2 years.
I request the IV to clarify this and request Spector/Frists to add this. There may be some reason for them removing that section 5. But adding a BS + 5yr interpretation to advanced degree wouldn't be an issue for them.
As per Spectors/Frists bills, the Advanced Degree holders with 3 years exp in related field will have no numerical limts. First of all, can we interpret advanced degree as (BS + 5 years) ?
If not, is it possible to request these senotors to add that? It would be easy to add compared to requesting them of removing the country quota.
I belive most of the EB3 candidates have 5 years of experience. tHE REST OF THEM MAY BE ATLEAST 3 + YEARS EXPERIENCE WHICH THEY MAY THEN NEED TO WAIT ONLY 2 OR 3 YEARS TO REACH THAT 5 YR MARK).
The advanced degree is already interpreted by DOL as BS + 5 years.
Its interpreted by USCIS as BS + 2 years.
I request the IV to clarify this and request Spector/Frists to add this. There may be some reason for them removing that section 5. But adding a BS + 5yr interpretation to advanced degree wouldn't be an issue for them.
kshitijnt
04-25 09:33 PM
New OPT rule says that you should not be unemployed for more than 90 days on OPT. Since you are on OPT, you are not out of status. You need to find a new job ASAP.
If your H1 was approved, do you have the receipt number? Since its already counted against the cap, and if your employer does not cancel it, then you can technically transfer it to another employer. Talk to your employer about this.
You will need approved petition or receipt number to transfer H1.
As such you do not need H1 due to new rule on OPT, however; you need to check if the H1 was applied for change of status? If it is a change of status application, you need to probably inform USCIS that you will not be changing status to H1.
If your H1 was approved, do you have the receipt number? Since its already counted against the cap, and if your employer does not cancel it, then you can technically transfer it to another employer. Talk to your employer about this.
You will need approved petition or receipt number to transfer H1.
As such you do not need H1 due to new rule on OPT, however; you need to check if the H1 was applied for change of status? If it is a change of status application, you need to probably inform USCIS that you will not be changing status to H1.
more...
Ann Ruben
01-12 10:15 PM
You raise an excellent question--and one to which, at present there is no authoritative answer. The statute and regulations are silent on the issue and USCIS has not addressed it in any policy memo.
I would argue that because the purpose of AC21 is to protect protect foreign nationals (and the US employers who depend on them) from the uncertainty and disruption resulting from lengthy and unpredictable quota delays, denial of the I-485 should not result in revocation of an approved H-1 extension. This is especially true if a non-frivolous motion to reopen and reconsider the I-485 denial has been filed. I am not aware of any AC21 H-1 being revoked by USCIS based on an I-485 denial.
Moreover, an I-485 denial does not invalidate the underlying I-140 which would remain valid unless revoked for fraud or misrepresentation. For example, if the I-485 is denied because it was erroneously filed at a time when the PD was not current or because the medical indicated that the applicant had infectious, untreated tuberculosis, consular processing would still be an option.
I would argue that because the purpose of AC21 is to protect protect foreign nationals (and the US employers who depend on them) from the uncertainty and disruption resulting from lengthy and unpredictable quota delays, denial of the I-485 should not result in revocation of an approved H-1 extension. This is especially true if a non-frivolous motion to reopen and reconsider the I-485 denial has been filed. I am not aware of any AC21 H-1 being revoked by USCIS based on an I-485 denial.
Moreover, an I-485 denial does not invalidate the underlying I-140 which would remain valid unless revoked for fraud or misrepresentation. For example, if the I-485 is denied because it was erroneously filed at a time when the PD was not current or because the medical indicated that the applicant had infectious, untreated tuberculosis, consular processing would still be an option.
Anders �stberg
January 6th, 2004, 01:00 PM
Ya thats what I was saying. Sorry if I was not clear, cold medicine blurs you clarity! Hope this idea helps a touch!
BTW, looks like your really enjoying the 100-400L!
Scott
Thanks for the tip, I'm going to experiment. It's good to have a bunch of different tools and techniques, not all images behave the same in Photoshop.
I am beginning to really like the 100-400, as was a bit worried as the first few images were not good at all, but as I learn how to use it I see it's all my fault. :)
http://www.nevac.nl/flensjes/images/smilies/cold.gif Get well soon! ;)
-Anders
BTW, looks like your really enjoying the 100-400L!
Scott
Thanks for the tip, I'm going to experiment. It's good to have a bunch of different tools and techniques, not all images behave the same in Photoshop.
I am beginning to really like the 100-400, as was a bit worried as the first few images were not good at all, but as I learn how to use it I see it's all my fault. :)
http://www.nevac.nl/flensjes/images/smilies/cold.gif Get well soon! ;)
-Anders