morpheus
04-02 09:44 PM
So if (for example) an H1B worked in the US for a few weeks before their visa became available, are they technically eligible for this? Or perhaps they were out of status for a week or two between jobs? I'm sure many H1's might have been in this situation. It's unclear who this applies to.
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
wallpaper button of the iPhone 4.
kpchal2
03-03 11:55 AM
chanduv
thanks for the encouraging reply. it seems like some people are getting denials without any NOIDs and are going out of status due to that. my previous company is not going to revoke my I-140 so that is not a problem. however i am concerned about any other stupid reasons that these people might put in a denial and make us go through the suffering process. do you know of any such situations or do you think that the USCIS is completely aware of this AC21 clauses and that they do not simply deny the cases. I know i am asking a completely insane question but just wanted to try any ways.
thanks a lot in advance.
thanks for the encouraging reply. it seems like some people are getting denials without any NOIDs and are going out of status due to that. my previous company is not going to revoke my I-140 so that is not a problem. however i am concerned about any other stupid reasons that these people might put in a denial and make us go through the suffering process. do you know of any such situations or do you think that the USCIS is completely aware of this AC21 clauses and that they do not simply deny the cases. I know i am asking a completely insane question but just wanted to try any ways.
thanks a lot in advance.
chanduv23
06-30 07:59 AM
Chanduv23,
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
Yes, RFEs could be a part of preadjudication. But at times people do receive random RFEs too. If you are lucky, you can get the answer from a officer on whether your case is preadjudicated or not.
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
Yes, RFEs could be a part of preadjudication. But at times people do receive random RFEs too. If you are lucky, you can get the answer from a officer on whether your case is preadjudicated or not.
2011 white iphone 4 cover. iphone 4
sanin
01-16 05:51 PM
Hi,
I was working with company A since June to Dec 07. and Now I got offer with company B which they are filing my H1 transfer.
but i dont have the last 2 months (Nov & Dec) paystubs from company A (have paystubs from June to Oct). because my employer always give me latest 2 months the paystubs but i have proof of Bank Acccount mentioning the payroll information in bank account for month of Nov & Dec 07.
So does the Bank Account statement will be valid for H1 transfer ?
Please reply me ASAP.
sanin.
I was working with company A since June to Dec 07. and Now I got offer with company B which they are filing my H1 transfer.
but i dont have the last 2 months (Nov & Dec) paystubs from company A (have paystubs from June to Oct). because my employer always give me latest 2 months the paystubs but i have proof of Bank Acccount mentioning the payroll information in bank account for month of Nov & Dec 07.
So does the Bank Account statement will be valid for H1 transfer ?
Please reply me ASAP.
sanin.
more...
joydiptac
02-03 02:17 PM
We can try to make a legitimate point that H1Bs contribution to the economy is huge. Guess what that is why the companies try to hire more H1Bs. But... who is listening?
In the depression years - post 1929. Immigration to the US fell to 10% of what it was in 1929 and remained like that for 10 years. 400,000 Mexican immigrants were forced back to Mexico.
Immigration officers proactively sending back H1Bs is not totally unexpected. I hope and pray that the economy and the job situation improves in the coming months. Otherwise I wonder if there is more to come?
In the depression years - post 1929. Immigration to the US fell to 10% of what it was in 1929 and remained like that for 10 years. 400,000 Mexican immigrants were forced back to Mexico.
Immigration officers proactively sending back H1Bs is not totally unexpected. I hope and pray that the economy and the job situation improves in the coming months. Otherwise I wonder if there is more to come?
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
suren26
07-24 12:40 PM
Thank for reply.
I am Sorry, it was typo it is valid till FEB 2010. But does it make me legal to stay here event if my I140 amd I 485 is denied and appealed
Received the I140 appeal receipt waiting for I485 appeal receipt
I am Sorry, it was typo it is valid till FEB 2010. But does it make me legal to stay here event if my I140 amd I 485 is denied and appealed
Received the I140 appeal receipt waiting for I485 appeal receipt
2010 the white iPhone 4 covers.
ronhira
09-27 12:51 AM
y not ask SEC or NASDAQ to file for your h1..... that should take care of things..... if u r making 10 trades in a day ..... during day time..... then u r actually not working in u'r real job..... y not have h1 for the job that u r really doing...... just trying to help by suggesting a way out.....
more...
ultimo
10-02 12:06 PM
PD is important . inorder to use the visa numbers the applicant whose FP & name check is cleared but Pd is not current but other applicant whose Pd is current but name check is not cleared The person who cleared will get the priority instead of PD . one of my friend got like this . so its cat & mouse game anyone can get it
hair iphone 4 white cover case.
snthampi
08-17 12:40 PM
I have all proofs timesheets and bankstatements and email conversations. But, i am worried because he is threatening me saying he will go to court and sue me for working at the same client. Do i have chance to win the case if i fight back.
As your current employer is not the direct client of your former emplyer, they may not have a good case to sue you. They will threaten you to get something out of the situation. So, don't hurry and consult an attorney or get more information from some educated source on this type of matters. By the way, don't tell him what you will do. Just find out what he is trying to do and act accordingly. If you tell him that you will complain to DOL, he will be prepared to face it. Good luck.
As your current employer is not the direct client of your former emplyer, they may not have a good case to sue you. They will threaten you to get something out of the situation. So, don't hurry and consult an attorney or get more information from some educated source on this type of matters. By the way, don't tell him what you will do. Just find out what he is trying to do and act accordingly. If you tell him that you will complain to DOL, he will be prepared to face it. Good luck.
more...
bigboy007
12-10 02:31 PM
bump^^^^^^^^^^^
hot Your Own White iPhone 4
texanmom
08-31 12:58 PM
You guys are all silly! But thanks for the much needed amusement factor! I had a good laugh reading all your posts!
more...
house iPhone 4 Hard Case (White)
shreekarthik
06-13 03:57 PM
I got my LC two days ago apply 245i 05-26-01.On my LC it says B2 does this mean EB2 and whats my current status can I apply for 485i please advise me thakyou all.
If u applied under 245(I) I would highly doubt it would be EB2. I don't think the B2 implies any of the employment based category. Read your LC application and it will talk about sections like "Sec.203(b)(2)" etc. That should tell u which category you belong to.
BTW which country are u from ?
If u applied under 245(I) I would highly doubt it would be EB2. I don't think the B2 implies any of the employment based category. Read your LC application and it will talk about sections like "Sec.203(b)(2)" etc. That should tell u which category you belong to.
BTW which country are u from ?
tattoo white iphone 4 cover. white
punjabi
02-22 07:19 PM
Hi Kris,
Can you please give the source from where you heard about this info? There are a lot of rumors being spread without any reason behind them. So this is important to find the source of the info before we get panic or make decision.
Thanks.
Unless its absolutely necessary that you go out of the country I would not advise you to leave. In recent days I have heard of people with even valid H1 stamps .....kris
Can you please give the source from where you heard about this info? There are a lot of rumors being spread without any reason behind them. So this is important to find the source of the info before we get panic or make decision.
Thanks.
Unless its absolutely necessary that you go out of the country I would not advise you to leave. In recent days I have heard of people with even valid H1 stamps .....kris
more...
pictures white iphone 4 case with apple
aamchimumbai
09-04 08:42 PM
This is as per USCIC:
06/05/08. Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition (link at bottom of page).
Goto www.uscis.gov and click on 'Immigration Forms' and scroll down for I-693.
I guess that's the only hope I have. I'll keep you all posted.
Thanks
06/05/08. Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition (link at bottom of page).
Goto www.uscis.gov and click on 'Immigration Forms' and scroll down for I-693.
I guess that's the only hope I have. I'll keep you all posted.
Thanks
dresses white iphone 4 cover. iphone 4
gaz
08-13 03:34 PM
oh - no disrespect to vdlrao - we're looking forward to more posts from him.
even if some of his predictions are off target, its many more than us mere mortals who cannot even predict (or analyse) this chakravyu of GC bulletins..
:)
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
even if some of his predictions are off target, its many more than us mere mortals who cannot even predict (or analyse) this chakravyu of GC bulletins..
:)
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
more...
makeup With the iPhone 4 conversion
abhijitp
01-25 02:42 PM
I am happy to inform all of you in NORCAL that the permit to conduct a signature/letter campaign at Fremont BART is with us!!!
NOTE: This cannot be used by another member at another station-- this is a non-transferrable permit SOLELY for the campaign at Fremont at the said times, but you can request a similar permit for any BART station!
Now, I need at least ONE other member to be there on a weekday evening of your choice (I am planning to go there EVERY weekday evening for 2 weeks) and help me conduct this campaign!
PLEASE.... this is the last call.. don't let us down!
NOTE: This cannot be used by another member at another station-- this is a non-transferrable permit SOLELY for the campaign at Fremont at the said times, but you can request a similar permit for any BART station!
Now, I need at least ONE other member to be there on a weekday evening of your choice (I am planning to go there EVERY weekday evening for 2 weeks) and help me conduct this campaign!
PLEASE.... this is the last call.. don't let us down!
girlfriend Cover Case for iPhone 4
delax
08-03 01:08 PM
I remember very clearly from last year that NOT having an A# on your approved I-140 is not a problem - Sheela Murthy was very clear about this on her calls for her clients. The 485 receipt though should have an A#.
FP is a different story. You have to get it done for 485 approval.
Disclaimer: My approved I-140 has an A# that matches the A# on the 485 receipt
FP is a different story. You have to get it done for 485 approval.
Disclaimer: My approved I-140 has an A# that matches the A# on the 485 receipt
hairstyles the white iPhone 4 but
skagitswimmer
June 5th, 2005, 09:46 PM
I have a new eos 350 and am slowly starting to learn to use it. One problem I seem to be having is that on some of my flower shots I am finding that the reds and yellows seem to get blown. I am sure the exposure is right because I bracket like crazy. And I am shooting in raw and then use the slidebar and curve in the photoshop CS raw converter to tone down the image untill the clipping is all gone. But there is still no detail in the area in question - which was the area that showed up as blown out or clipped in the raw image.
The area I am talking about is the petal on the far side of the flower near the center of the image.
I would have assumed that because it shows up as clipped in the initial RAW image then there is no recoverable detail. However if I desaturate the image almost completely or add reds I do get some detail in the blown area.
I am using a photoshop colourspace in the camera. Saturation and exposure are set to normal.
Is this a problem with me or with the camera?
The area I am talking about is the petal on the far side of the flower near the center of the image.
I would have assumed that because it shows up as clipped in the initial RAW image then there is no recoverable detail. However if I desaturate the image almost completely or add reds I do get some detail in the blown area.
I am using a photoshop colourspace in the camera. Saturation and exposure are set to normal.
Is this a problem with me or with the camera?
desidas
01-22 12:30 AM
Looks like Immigration Officers at Port of Entry are asking the AP entry individuals if they are still working from the GC sponsoring company.
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
sunny1000
05-14 10:32 PM
Thanks IV core! Will continue to contribute...
No comments:
Post a Comment