cintia dicker gallery

images cintia dicker photo 7

cintia dicker sélectionnés

saimrathi

08-22 03:10 PM

sukhwinderd, any idea what the address will be of Legal & Regulatory Affairs Unit
Motor Vehicle Commission if I was applying in PA? Any ideas for H4 DL renewal in similar fashion?

---

wallpaper cintia dicker sélectionnés

Fashion: Cintia Dicker

Lollerskater

09-24 01:34 PM

Sheesh.

I'm a PD: Jun 06 EB3-ROW. I just received 2 yrs EAD. Let's hope this doesn't mean the cutoff dates won't move.

---

Cintia Dicker Brazilian model

paskal

03-15 12:28 AM

In 1996 I joined a residency on J-1
1999-2001 i did a fellowship
2001-2003 another fellowship- needed special permission from ECFMG

2003 started a waiver job and I'm still in the same job in my 4th year.
Good job in a very nice metropolitan area.

Home residency requirement is 2 years
The new Conrad law is certainly better and should make things somewhat easier.

---

2011 Fashion: Cintia Dicker

Lily Cole, Cintia Dicker,

Mulnop

08-04 04:36 PM

Where you get it???

---

more...

cintia dicker ftv cintia

psn1975

11-05 08:06 PM

Hi

I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).

My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to Case received and pending.
What is even more surprising is that it also says On April XX, 2008, we received this I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER... This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.

I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.

As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.

Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?

Thanks!

---

Cintia Dicker Picture amp; Photo

gkdgopi

08-30 05:01 PM

Congratulations! Enjoy the moment.

---

more...

Cintia Dicker

kpkrind

05-04 03:33 PM

4. Assuming that my understanding in point-2 is correct what is the process to convert back to H1?

Ans : File New H1 again ( techinacally old one as you are not counted in Quota)

My wife's status was changed from h1 to h4, however her h1 is expiring in Oct'09. Lets suppose she gets a job offer in Feb'10, does she have to apply for a fresh h1 or can she convert to H1 on which she was working earlier? My question is how long will she not be counted against the quota?

Also, can any new employer file for her H1 or does it have to be a employer who has held her H1 previously?

---

2010 Cintia Dicker Brazilian model

cintia dicker photo 7

Madhuri

07-11 06:00 PM

I can make some calls.
Please help people, this is our next action item after the flower campaign.

Spend less time discussing who to send flowers to next, and more helping on the immediate task at hand!

I challenge you!

:D

---

more...

Cintia Dicker too

fionaapple20

11-27 03:56 PM

My questions that I posted in a similar thread:

- Can one be unemployed and just wait out the 180 days before invoking AC21? Can a person be unemployed before the 180 days elapse? What happens if person is unable to find a job before 180 days?

- Can one transfer to another employer on H1 (but let USCIS know after 180 days have elapsed)? Can the person find a new job, change H1s and then wait for 180 days to send in a letter to USCIS?

---

hair Lily Cole, Cintia Dicker,

cintia dicker nude photo shoot

485Mbe4001

08-14 12:46 PM

I dont think that is the case, i am a direct employee and i have experienced tremendous delays, infact every application from my company (which is a large multinational) has been delayed, so i am guessing its more to do with the lawyers(large, high cost firm) or just good old luck. Infact all of my friends/batch mates who were consultants have their green cards and some have their citizenships too. My theory was that if a company is sponsoring(paying all the money) you are relaxed and initially dont worry about the delays, if its coming out of your pocket you doublecheck everything and are proactive...just a thought

This is just my theory. When you don't have much information, you get to think of many theories and here is mine. I believe USCIS is approving direct employees of an organization. For example, they may be giving preference to Microsoft employee, rather than an employee of Patel and Patel INC. I know I may be wrong, but I am just pondering. How can someone explain a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 08/01/2007 has much preference over a person with PD 05/03/2006 with RD 07/20/2007? Am I missing something here? :confused::confused:

People may post their answers, proving that I am wrong.

---

more...

just like Cintia Dicker,

vjkypally

09-14 04:48 PM

Seeing the interest for this Poll I think most 2004 cases are already approved. Remaining should be cleared this month or next month for sure.

---

hot cintia dicker ftv cintia

cintia dicker 2011.

mnq1979

05-21 12:36 PM

well i have not used AC21, jsut changed the employer, so you mean to say i have to send the letter from the employer who originally sponsered me? right?

---

more...


house Cintia Dicker

Cintia Dicker Sexy Bikini in

jonty_11

07-23 04:49 PM

I'm going to ask my employer/lawyer for the receipt as I have to go out of country in the second week of October. But you never know, these guys don't care about your life.. They might still not give it to you... (Yeah, everyone knows I-485 is OUR application and they do not have a legal right to hold our receipt notices, but we are at their mercy for atleast 180 days)
well if u dont have receipt hance no EAD/AP, you are at their mercy forever.

---

tattoo Cintia Dicker Picture amp; Photo

/s1600/cintia-dicker-2011-

GCProbs

09-15 07:10 PM

Hi All,

I need an advise from IV folks..

here is my situation..

I've got my I-485 approved through company A (Future Employment) on 09-2010 (Case details: PD 06 I-140 AD 02 I-485 RD 07-2007 AD 09-2010). I've never worked for the Company A and my GC-sponsoring company is about to close any time. Since 01-2008 I've been working for company B in same/similar field and did not file AC-21. If I want to continue working for company B, do I have to file AC-21? Please let me know if I need to concern about any thing in future.


Since GC-Sponsoring company is going to close any time... So I cannot return back to that company...


Please advise me...

---

more...


pictures Cintia Dicker

Cintia Dicker

crazylad

05-10 08:17 AM

My H1 sponsor informed me that the check he submitted along with my application on was encashed on Wednesday 5/7 - Non-masters non-premium processing:)

---

dresses cintia dicker 2011.

cintia dicker photo 99

baleraosreedhar

06-28 06:18 PM

Hi Gurus,

I have a question regarding the Labour and I 140, I have joined company A with a promise of approved labour.

My company has filed for my I140 and it got approved.

I have asked for a copy of my Labour and I 140, the company representative says, these documents are Employer Centric, so they cannot give me those documents.

I am really shocked to hear this, As these documents are related to my GC, I thought they should be with me,or alteast a copy of it, but that i snto the case.

I would like to know if any of you guys had faced this problem, or is the reason given by the representative a genuine one.

Thanks

---

more...


makeup Cintia Dicker too

Cintia Dicker

eb3retro

06-09 08:37 AM

Hi all,

I have come to texas on a B1 to the client location. I stayed with my colleague who has a apartment here. When we left to office ( my first day ) .I made a mistake leaving my passport and others in apartment. .

I have applied and got a new passport .

I have applied for I-94 by filing I-102 . The processing dates are very slow for this . I only have a reciept of this and nothing.

I am leaving 3july next month...what need to be done....i dont even have a VISA.

And what needs to be done for B1 VISA.

I emailed the chennai US embassy but couldnt get any reply............



PLEAASE...HELP:(:confused:

is this in dallas or houston?

---

girlfriend /s1600/cintia-dicker-2011-

Cintia Dicker attends the SI

sivaramakrishna

06-17 04:28 PM

When you move to a different place you have to file AR-11 form and send it to USCIS...thats all you got to do.

When you change your address online(using AR-11 form) , you don't have to send any docs to USCIS.

---

hairstyles just like Cintia Dicker,

Cintia Dicker knows how to

jonty_11

02-09 12:45 PM

Yes we have to keep focused and not give up this fight. With so much taxes and spending we have pumped into the economy, dont u guys think u deserve better.

---

ingegarcia

10-05 02:04 PM

I have some friends that won the lottery in January/06, enter to the USA got their EAD, SSN, and couple of months later they got their green card by mail.: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.

---