govindk
11-01 12:48 PM
I guess USCIS is counting 90 days from the notice date though USCIS website clearly state that the 90 days are from filing. I called USCIS several times and every time i got the answer that the system is not allowing them to file service request as 90 days are not completed.
My lawyers also replied and said that the USCIS is counting 90 days from notice date.
Service Center - NSC
Filed - July 26th
RD - July 27th
Notice Date - Aug 31st
FP - Oct 10th
LUD on 485 - Oct 18th
No LUD on AP/EAD yet.
My lawyers also replied and said that the USCIS is counting 90 days from notice date.
Service Center - NSC
Filed - July 26th
RD - July 27th
Notice Date - Aug 31st
FP - Oct 10th
LUD on 485 - Oct 18th
No LUD on AP/EAD yet.
wallpaper Jennifer Lopez
jay75
08-04 12:55 PM
EB3 I - I140 pending , applied on 8/9/2007...sorry for the typo from the subject
prem_goel
09-07 06:49 PM
the intent of Green card is to hire an immigrant since they did not file any suitable US Citizen. If your company has received a number of resumes and they are suitable for your position, then I don't believe the company and for that matter even you should move forward. I would suggest wait for a while if that's possible, and conduct the PERM process again once the market improves.
2011 Jennifer López ya presentó su
mrajatish
03-24 04:31 PM
I like the idea - any takers, I am ready to work with that person.
more...
gcdreamer05
09-01 09:37 AM
hi sharadara,
Try to talk to someone in spain consultate or someone who knows spain visa rules.
For example a person on h4 visa in US cannot work, so it depends on what visa type you are going to be going for in Spain and does that visa type allow you to work.
If it allows you to work, then you can do telecommute and work and make money.
So the country of residence and your visa type dictates the same.
This forum has lot of folks who work in US/Canada, but not many from spain, i would try googling for some other forums or contact the spain consulate for help.
Thanks
Dreamer05
Try to talk to someone in spain consultate or someone who knows spain visa rules.
For example a person on h4 visa in US cannot work, so it depends on what visa type you are going to be going for in Spain and does that visa type allow you to work.
If it allows you to work, then you can do telecommute and work and make money.
So the country of residence and your visa type dictates the same.
This forum has lot of folks who work in US/Canada, but not many from spain, i would try googling for some other forums or contact the spain consulate for help.
Thanks
Dreamer05
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.
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.
more...
leoindiano
04-06 12:52 PM
How about this?
If a company located outside of united states, it cannot apply for more than 300 H1B's? I heard WIPRO and INFOSYS applied 6000 each this year
If a company located outside of united states, it cannot apply for more than 300 H1B's? I heard WIPRO and INFOSYS applied 6000 each this year
2010 Interview/Entrevista: Jennifer
gc2
12-03 03:15 PM
why would you ask about unemployment for a GC application based on employment category or so i assume.
more...
Hey Ram GC
04-08 11:45 AM
webm: what is the status of your application ( 485), is your NC, SC or fingurprints all clear. Did you speak to any IO about any update on your case as your PD is current ( 01 Oct).
hair jennifer lopez love deluxe
starseed
07-21 05:49 PM
I did read some other posts re: this, but I'm not too sure how to go about it, what to say to them, etc? Should it be in writing, by phone? Plus the state of CA is so overwhelmed with budget issues, do you think they'd want to devote time to it? :confused:
more...
GCard_Dream
04-06 01:38 PM
Thanks god_bless_you for you response. So it appears that I either have to have a valid H1 or EAD on hand in order to work.
If you are extending the H1B, however, there is a grace period of 200 some day where you can work without a valid H1B while the H1B extension is pending. Isn't there a grace period if you are changing from H1B to EAD? From what you are saying, there isn't.
If you are extending the H1B, however, there is a grace period of 200 some day where you can work without a valid H1B while the H1B extension is pending. Isn't there a grace period if you are changing from H1B to EAD? From what you are saying, there isn't.
hot Jennifer Lopez and Sarah
raju_abc
07-23 11:18 AM
Pittsburg ?? what state CA or PA ?? since there is no "h", I assume you are talking about pittsburg in CA ...
Its Pittsburgh , PA
Its Pittsburgh , PA
more...
house phenomenal middot; Jennifer
optimist578
11-24 08:02 PM
I forgot to mention that I also have a valid h1b visa. I don't intend to use my EAD. So in that case if I go back to f1, what will happen to my PD and 485 application?
or is it better to fall back on EAD and continue with education? Please advice!
Optimist578 - can you please let us know what you find out from your attorney?
thanks a lotsxk
I am planning to pursue my studies part-time, while working fulltime on H1B or EAD. If you move to F1 visa, you will have to forego your immigration application. To apply for immigration later will require you to start all over again. It is unbelievable !! :mad:
So, depending upon your age and other factors, you should consider studying part-time or wait till you get your GC.
------------------------
EB3 March 2003
AOS RD: June 22 '07
EAD, AP Received
or is it better to fall back on EAD and continue with education? Please advice!
Optimist578 - can you please let us know what you find out from your attorney?
thanks a lotsxk
I am planning to pursue my studies part-time, while working fulltime on H1B or EAD. If you move to F1 visa, you will have to forego your immigration application. To apply for immigration later will require you to start all over again. It is unbelievable !! :mad:
So, depending upon your age and other factors, you should consider studying part-time or wait till you get your GC.
------------------------
EB3 March 2003
AOS RD: June 22 '07
EAD, AP Received
tattoo slightest love of retro,
chanduv23
08-03 11:58 PM
Please navigate to the following threads and do the action items
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11694&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11962
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11694&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11962
more...
pictures jennifer lopez love album
factoryman
06-19 05:56 PM
go to forum. Click on my name in the user currently online. My profile will come up.
Then click on 'Find all posts by factoryman'., or something like that. The tile of the post is 'Final Word on Adult Vaccination'
Only one MMR is recommended by CDC and these recom. are current till Sep 2007.
Ok I found the link of yesterday. (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=86250&postcount=133)
Center for Disease Control (CDC) USA – Oct 2006 to Sep 2007
Recommended adult immunization schedule
Vaccine – Age Group – Dose(s)
TDAP- (all ages) – 1 dose Td booster every 10 years
MMR – (19-49) – 1 OR 2 doses
MMR – (50-64) – 1 dose
Varicella - (19-49) – 1 OR 2 doses
Varicella – (50-64) – 1 dose
Straight from Horse's Mouth (http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/2007adult-schedule.pdf)(the CDC link is not working):
same rules apply to medical center. If you donot have MMR how can they give one shot and then give the medical report when another dose is pending next month.
Does that mean those who get MMR shot at medical center have one more pending ...but got their report in advance????
Then click on 'Find all posts by factoryman'., or something like that. The tile of the post is 'Final Word on Adult Vaccination'
Only one MMR is recommended by CDC and these recom. are current till Sep 2007.
Ok I found the link of yesterday. (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=86250&postcount=133)
Center for Disease Control (CDC) USA – Oct 2006 to Sep 2007
Recommended adult immunization schedule
Vaccine – Age Group – Dose(s)
TDAP- (all ages) – 1 dose Td booster every 10 years
MMR – (19-49) – 1 OR 2 doses
MMR – (50-64) – 1 dose
Varicella - (19-49) – 1 OR 2 doses
Varicella – (50-64) – 1 dose
Straight from Horse's Mouth (http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/2007adult-schedule.pdf)(the CDC link is not working):
same rules apply to medical center. If you donot have MMR how can they give one shot and then give the medical report when another dose is pending next month.
Does that mean those who get MMR shot at medical center have one more pending ...but got their report in advance????
dresses house jennifer lopez hair
donelson
January 7th, 2005, 03:28 PM
I picked up the 105 Micro Nikkor about a month ago to use with my D100, and while I haven't taken a lot of pictures with it, yet, I've been happy with the ones I have taken. I did quite a bit of research before I bought it and determined that this would be a little better for my needs than the 60mm. Hope this helps.
Don :)
I take macro photographs of gems and jewelry to be sold on the Internet. Currently, I use a coolpix 5000 and get some pretty good photos from it. I use a light box and different light sources (fluorescent & incandescent) to capture color and color-changes in the gems.
I just bought a d70 and now need a good macro lens for it. I tried the promaster 100mm macro (I think it is the vivitar lens) and it didn't work to well for me. My 1:1 macro images are all under exposed and not as clear as I have seen. They are actually blurry when blown up 100% on my monitor. I use a good tripod and stopped down to f22 to increase depth of field. If I pull back a bit, the images get better, but then I don't have the magnification I need.
I take the photos on extra white laser printer paper and most of the time, use indirect 5000K fluorescent lighting in a light box. I don't understand why my 1:1 photos seem to be underexposed. The white paper looks gray and the gem is dark and dull. Photos taken with my coolpix 5000 look great. The background is white, and the gems are lively.
After my disappointment with the cheap promaster lens, I made the decision to purchase the Nikon 105 Micro, but when I called to order it (from expresscamera.com), they asked me why I was purchasing a 35mm lens for my digital camera. They suggested the Sigma 105mm EX DG lens and wanted to sell it to me for $650. They said that this sigma lens was better than the Nikon for digital cameras and that the Nikon would also take underexposed photos. This could be that they just didn�t want to sell me the Nikon lens for $500 and wanted to sell me a $400 sigma lens for $650.:mad:
I need a lens that will allow me to blow the photos up to 100% on my monitor and they will be clear and the gem needs to look like a gem and not a dark crystal.
Don :)
I take macro photographs of gems and jewelry to be sold on the Internet. Currently, I use a coolpix 5000 and get some pretty good photos from it. I use a light box and different light sources (fluorescent & incandescent) to capture color and color-changes in the gems.
I just bought a d70 and now need a good macro lens for it. I tried the promaster 100mm macro (I think it is the vivitar lens) and it didn't work to well for me. My 1:1 macro images are all under exposed and not as clear as I have seen. They are actually blurry when blown up 100% on my monitor. I use a good tripod and stopped down to f22 to increase depth of field. If I pull back a bit, the images get better, but then I don't have the magnification I need.
I take the photos on extra white laser printer paper and most of the time, use indirect 5000K fluorescent lighting in a light box. I don't understand why my 1:1 photos seem to be underexposed. The white paper looks gray and the gem is dark and dull. Photos taken with my coolpix 5000 look great. The background is white, and the gems are lively.
After my disappointment with the cheap promaster lens, I made the decision to purchase the Nikon 105 Micro, but when I called to order it (from expresscamera.com), they asked me why I was purchasing a 35mm lens for my digital camera. They suggested the Sigma 105mm EX DG lens and wanted to sell it to me for $650. They said that this sigma lens was better than the Nikon for digital cameras and that the Nikon would also take underexposed photos. This could be that they just didn�t want to sell me the Nikon lens for $500 and wanted to sell me a $400 sigma lens for $650.:mad:
I need a lens that will allow me to blow the photos up to 100% on my monitor and they will be clear and the gem needs to look like a gem and not a dark crystal.
more...
makeup house Jennifer Lopez - Love-
AgentM
07-17 07:22 PM
The WAR ain't over YET.
Don't get carried away with these small victories, you will be stuck with EAD for the rest of your lives.
Don't forget the main goal, "Increase of the VISA numbers".
Don't get carried away with these small victories, you will be stuck with EAD for the rest of your lives.
Don't forget the main goal, "Increase of the VISA numbers".
girlfriend jennifer lopez love deluxe
jcrajput
07-21 03:51 PM
We are planning to travel India and getting stamped at Mumbai (H1, H4). After taking an appointment, how to send papers to Mumbai consulate from USA? I heard that someone has to go personally to submit the papers. Also, should we send papers to VFS or US Consulate?
Can anyone please guide or help?
Thank you so much.
Jignesh
Can anyone please guide or help?
Thank you so much.
Jignesh
hairstyles Jennifer Lopez L#39;Oreal Makeup
CatsintheCraddle
05-04 03:31 PM
Thanks for the reply. You're right, emotion or logic has nothing to do with USCIS:):)http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
I don't have the letter with me but the denial is based on a law pertaining to me only submitting a partial answer to their request. How true that is is up to debate as my cosponsor says no but really, it doesn't matter what we say when the USCIS say something different.
We will not be getting a lawyer, we cannot afford that right now but we will probably file for the motion to reopen my case. I have a somewhat good understanding of what I need to do but not sure how successful we will be. Hopefully, they will accept our fee waiver form becuase we probably won't be sending them money. We would still like to know if anyone has tried to have their case reopened and how long it took and how it went.
I don't have the letter with me but the denial is based on a law pertaining to me only submitting a partial answer to their request. How true that is is up to debate as my cosponsor says no but really, it doesn't matter what we say when the USCIS say something different.
We will not be getting a lawyer, we cannot afford that right now but we will probably file for the motion to reopen my case. I have a somewhat good understanding of what I need to do but not sure how successful we will be. Hopefully, they will accept our fee waiver form becuase we probably won't be sending them money. We would still like to know if anyone has tried to have their case reopened and how long it took and how it went.
indian1103
05-01 10:03 AM
akhil, It was regular. Hope am this lucky with my 485 too.
go_guy123
10-23 02:02 PM
Glad to see this law. Also this law gives me hope for recapture. No one knew about this law was in transit and without any hitches this one passed all the way. So for those who feel that recapture cannot pass can rethink their position based on this new fact.
Yes very true....actually thanks to organizations like IV a lot of lawmakers now understand the EB backlog. There is not a major opposition to EB reform.
It is the CIR that is holding this back.
Yes very true....actually thanks to organizations like IV a lot of lawmakers now understand the EB backlog. There is not a major opposition to EB reform.
It is the CIR that is holding this back.
No comments:
Post a Comment