pappu
06-16 09:22 PM
Good comparison. if you have more informatiion, do add to this thread.
COMPARISON OF ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS VERSUS CONSULAR PROCESSING
The purpose of this page is to address the advantages and disadvantages of Adjustment of Status and Consular Processing. There are various factors that need to be considered, including the procedures, the cost, the time and the risks involved in each process.
I. TIME
Generally, Adjustment of Status Applications take about 12-15 months to be approved by the INS. In most cases, Consular Processing takes approximately 6 to 9 months, depending on which US Consulate is chosen.
II. CONSULATE NOTIFICATION
The decision to consular process often turns on the issue of whether the overseas consulate will accept an application without notification from the INS via the National Visa Center (NVC). At present only a handful of Consulates will accept such an application. The usual course calls for the INS to send notice of the approval of the I-140 to the NVC in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which then notifies the particular consulate.
From time to time, an I-824 is required in order to Consular Process. In these scenarios, Consular processing takes in excess of one year and is almost never a good option. Because some consulates are realizing that the I-824 processing times at the Service Centers are unreasonably lengthy, several Consulates have opted to allow consular processing in their discretion without the requirement of the notification from the NVC. Under this process, the AC I-140 (attorney certified I-140), the attorney directly sends the Consulate a certified copy of the I-140 approval notice.
There are a few things to keep in mind if you choose the AC I-140 process. First, not all consulates recognize it. Second, some Consulates may later switch to an approach where they demand the I-824. Third, some of the consulates who do accept ACI-140 do so only on grounds of hardship, such as the aging out of a child.
III. 180 DAY PORTABILITY RULE
Persons whose I-485s have been pending at the INS for 180 days or longer are ordinarily eligible to transfer to a new employer without abandoning their I-485 Adjustment of Status Application. The rules surrounding the 180 Day Portability are new and can be complex. However, the Portability rule can provide great relief to employees who are concerned that future lay-offs or Reductions In Force may cause their permanent Residency Applications to fail. Because of several liberalized I-485 rules, it usually a poor choice to opt for Consular Processing.
IV. LOCAL ISSUES
Each consulate has its own nuances. Most U.S. Consulates require police certificates for all applicants 16 years or older covering all periods that they have resided in a foreign country. This requirement does not exist in the case of adjustment of status. The consular officers also require a certified copy of any military records, whereas this is not required in adjustment of status applications. The consulate in Manila will only accept birth certificates issued by the National Statistics Office. A person who does not have all the documents at the time of the interview will need to appear for a second interview.
In all cases however, the medical exams have to be completed by a designated doctor in that country. In London, the medical exams are completed the same day as the interview. However, in Johannesburg, Chennai, and Mumbai, the medical exams have to be completed at least two weeks before the interview. Essentially, this means the employee will need to spend approximately three weeks overseas or will require two trips overseas.
In most cases, interview notices are generated approximately 30 days prior to the actual interview. As a practical matter, families need to depart the U.S. immediately upon receipt of an interview notice in order to have plenty of time to complete the medical exam.
In addition to the general procedural differences between the two processes, there are more stringent requirements in consular processing. For example, it is generally easier to obtain waivers of certain medical grounds for exclusion, such as HIV, if you are Adjusting.
V. COSTS
Another issue that should be analyzed is the cost associated with each process. The major monetary difference is travel costs. Plainly, you only need to pay for a flight overseas if you are Consular processing. This can be burdensome and costly where there are several family members.
Another factor that may indirectly affect the costs to the employer and employee is the time that will be required to be spent outside of the United States. During the adjustment of status process, a person can continue their employment in the United States while the case is processing. In consular processing cases, they are required to be out of the U.S. for approximately a month, assuming no problems arise in their case. If problems do arise in their case, they may need to stay overseas longer than anticipated. Alternatively, they could, in most cases, come back to the U.S. but would need to travel to the consulate again for a follow-up interview. Obviously, this adds to additional time away from work and additional expenses. In addition, for employees who have school age children, this would require the child's absence from school.
VI. RISKS
The major factor in deciding whether to choose adjustment of status or consular processing is the risk involved. By far, consular processing is much more risky than the adjustment of status process. First, consular processing provides less opportunity for attorney assistance. In the adjustment of status process, the attorneys prepare the application and file it with the INS. If the INS has a Request for Additional Evidence or any issues in the case, the information is sent to the attorney at which time the attorney can review the issues with the client and submit a response. In consular processing, the consulates do not allow the person to be represented by an attorney during the interview. Sometimes the attorney can stay in the waiting room and address any questions that the applicant has, but is not allowed to actually represent them at the interview.
Second, consular processing involves a personal interview whereas the adjustment of status does not. Of course, any time that there is a personal interview, there is more risk that the applicant will say something unfavorable to his case. It also provides the officer with more time to go in depth into the applicant's immigration history or any issues of excludability. For example, if the employee's job title or job duties have changed at all since the filing of the labor certification then there is more of a chance that the consulate will focus on this issue and could deny the application. In contrast, in adjustment of status the INS does not delve into the exact job duties, (e.g. specific tools, utilities, software) but rather focuses on the job title, salary, and whether there is a continued offer of employment.
Third, consular officers sometimes work with a mindset of distrust because they are accustomed to seeing fraudulent cases. Keep in mind that Manila, Mumbai, and Chennai are high fraud posts.
Fourth, anyone who has been unlawfully present in the United States and is subject to the 3/10 year bar would immediately trigger that bar once he departed the U.S. Clearly, a person in this situation should not even consider consular processing as such as decision would be fatal.
Finally, and most importantly, a denial of a visa at a Consulate post cannot be appealed.
VII. EMPLOYMENT FOR SPOUSES
Spouses can obtain employment authorization while their Application for Adjustment of Status is pending at the INS. They are ineligible for work authorization while their Consular Processing Application is pending.
VIII. CONCLUSION
In sum, consular processing can be advantageous in some situations. However, the decision to do consular processing should be made on a case-by-case basis based upon the particular consulate and the facts of each case. Ordinarily, Adjustment of Status is the better approach.
COMPARISON OF ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS VERSUS CONSULAR PROCESSING
The purpose of this page is to address the advantages and disadvantages of Adjustment of Status and Consular Processing. There are various factors that need to be considered, including the procedures, the cost, the time and the risks involved in each process.
I. TIME
Generally, Adjustment of Status Applications take about 12-15 months to be approved by the INS. In most cases, Consular Processing takes approximately 6 to 9 months, depending on which US Consulate is chosen.
II. CONSULATE NOTIFICATION
The decision to consular process often turns on the issue of whether the overseas consulate will accept an application without notification from the INS via the National Visa Center (NVC). At present only a handful of Consulates will accept such an application. The usual course calls for the INS to send notice of the approval of the I-140 to the NVC in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which then notifies the particular consulate.
From time to time, an I-824 is required in order to Consular Process. In these scenarios, Consular processing takes in excess of one year and is almost never a good option. Because some consulates are realizing that the I-824 processing times at the Service Centers are unreasonably lengthy, several Consulates have opted to allow consular processing in their discretion without the requirement of the notification from the NVC. Under this process, the AC I-140 (attorney certified I-140), the attorney directly sends the Consulate a certified copy of the I-140 approval notice.
There are a few things to keep in mind if you choose the AC I-140 process. First, not all consulates recognize it. Second, some Consulates may later switch to an approach where they demand the I-824. Third, some of the consulates who do accept ACI-140 do so only on grounds of hardship, such as the aging out of a child.
III. 180 DAY PORTABILITY RULE
Persons whose I-485s have been pending at the INS for 180 days or longer are ordinarily eligible to transfer to a new employer without abandoning their I-485 Adjustment of Status Application. The rules surrounding the 180 Day Portability are new and can be complex. However, the Portability rule can provide great relief to employees who are concerned that future lay-offs or Reductions In Force may cause their permanent Residency Applications to fail. Because of several liberalized I-485 rules, it usually a poor choice to opt for Consular Processing.
IV. LOCAL ISSUES
Each consulate has its own nuances. Most U.S. Consulates require police certificates for all applicants 16 years or older covering all periods that they have resided in a foreign country. This requirement does not exist in the case of adjustment of status. The consular officers also require a certified copy of any military records, whereas this is not required in adjustment of status applications. The consulate in Manila will only accept birth certificates issued by the National Statistics Office. A person who does not have all the documents at the time of the interview will need to appear for a second interview.
In all cases however, the medical exams have to be completed by a designated doctor in that country. In London, the medical exams are completed the same day as the interview. However, in Johannesburg, Chennai, and Mumbai, the medical exams have to be completed at least two weeks before the interview. Essentially, this means the employee will need to spend approximately three weeks overseas or will require two trips overseas.
In most cases, interview notices are generated approximately 30 days prior to the actual interview. As a practical matter, families need to depart the U.S. immediately upon receipt of an interview notice in order to have plenty of time to complete the medical exam.
In addition to the general procedural differences between the two processes, there are more stringent requirements in consular processing. For example, it is generally easier to obtain waivers of certain medical grounds for exclusion, such as HIV, if you are Adjusting.
V. COSTS
Another issue that should be analyzed is the cost associated with each process. The major monetary difference is travel costs. Plainly, you only need to pay for a flight overseas if you are Consular processing. This can be burdensome and costly where there are several family members.
Another factor that may indirectly affect the costs to the employer and employee is the time that will be required to be spent outside of the United States. During the adjustment of status process, a person can continue their employment in the United States while the case is processing. In consular processing cases, they are required to be out of the U.S. for approximately a month, assuming no problems arise in their case. If problems do arise in their case, they may need to stay overseas longer than anticipated. Alternatively, they could, in most cases, come back to the U.S. but would need to travel to the consulate again for a follow-up interview. Obviously, this adds to additional time away from work and additional expenses. In addition, for employees who have school age children, this would require the child's absence from school.
VI. RISKS
The major factor in deciding whether to choose adjustment of status or consular processing is the risk involved. By far, consular processing is much more risky than the adjustment of status process. First, consular processing provides less opportunity for attorney assistance. In the adjustment of status process, the attorneys prepare the application and file it with the INS. If the INS has a Request for Additional Evidence or any issues in the case, the information is sent to the attorney at which time the attorney can review the issues with the client and submit a response. In consular processing, the consulates do not allow the person to be represented by an attorney during the interview. Sometimes the attorney can stay in the waiting room and address any questions that the applicant has, but is not allowed to actually represent them at the interview.
Second, consular processing involves a personal interview whereas the adjustment of status does not. Of course, any time that there is a personal interview, there is more risk that the applicant will say something unfavorable to his case. It also provides the officer with more time to go in depth into the applicant's immigration history or any issues of excludability. For example, if the employee's job title or job duties have changed at all since the filing of the labor certification then there is more of a chance that the consulate will focus on this issue and could deny the application. In contrast, in adjustment of status the INS does not delve into the exact job duties, (e.g. specific tools, utilities, software) but rather focuses on the job title, salary, and whether there is a continued offer of employment.
Third, consular officers sometimes work with a mindset of distrust because they are accustomed to seeing fraudulent cases. Keep in mind that Manila, Mumbai, and Chennai are high fraud posts.
Fourth, anyone who has been unlawfully present in the United States and is subject to the 3/10 year bar would immediately trigger that bar once he departed the U.S. Clearly, a person in this situation should not even consider consular processing as such as decision would be fatal.
Finally, and most importantly, a denial of a visa at a Consulate post cannot be appealed.
VII. EMPLOYMENT FOR SPOUSES
Spouses can obtain employment authorization while their Application for Adjustment of Status is pending at the INS. They are ineligible for work authorization while their Consular Processing Application is pending.
VIII. CONCLUSION
In sum, consular processing can be advantageous in some situations. However, the decision to do consular processing should be made on a case-by-case basis based upon the particular consulate and the facts of each case. Ordinarily, Adjustment of Status is the better approach.
wallpaper Exercise Bike Man clip art
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
Toxic'
May 19th, 2005, 12:11 AM
Hello,
I want to make it clear that I have read the manual that came with my D70... But I seem to be having an issue that I'm not exactly sure of the cause whereas I haven't altered any of the settings since I purchased/recieved it... unless I did something without realizing it.
One of the very first pic's I took with my D70 was of the moon. As you can see from my attached (cropped) image, "in my honest opinion anyway", I think they came out awesome rather decent for being taken "handheld" via a Sigma 300 mm kit lens...
Anyway... I took maybe a half dozen Moon'shots over the following couple of nights and everyone of them was "in focus" and relatively clear as the attached image... I proceeded to take other shots of various subjects over the following couple of weeks until one night the sky was crystal clear and there was a 3/4 Moon. I attempted to take the picture the exact way I took them the first couple of nights, with everything at its "default" settings (unless as I said I changed something without knowing)... What I found has left me bewildered. I can aim at & focus the Moon in crystal clear within the center brackets and then proceed to press the shutter release... only now "every single shot" will in the end, be nothing more than a gaint fuzzy snowball. I've even attempted taking a shot via the "Timer Release" feature whilest the D70 is mounted to a Tripod on solid ground, and its always the same thing. The image in the viewfinder is as "crystal clear" as I could ever hope for, yet when the picture is actually taken its a giant fuzzy snowball.
As I stated above, I've gone through the manual while looking at the camera in hand but I in no way remember ever changing anything where as this is my very first "fully adjustable" camera of anykind, digital or otherwise...
Any help would be truely appreciated...
Toxic'
I want to make it clear that I have read the manual that came with my D70... But I seem to be having an issue that I'm not exactly sure of the cause whereas I haven't altered any of the settings since I purchased/recieved it... unless I did something without realizing it.
One of the very first pic's I took with my D70 was of the moon. As you can see from my attached (cropped) image, "in my honest opinion anyway", I think they came out awesome rather decent for being taken "handheld" via a Sigma 300 mm kit lens...
Anyway... I took maybe a half dozen Moon'shots over the following couple of nights and everyone of them was "in focus" and relatively clear as the attached image... I proceeded to take other shots of various subjects over the following couple of weeks until one night the sky was crystal clear and there was a 3/4 Moon. I attempted to take the picture the exact way I took them the first couple of nights, with everything at its "default" settings (unless as I said I changed something without knowing)... What I found has left me bewildered. I can aim at & focus the Moon in crystal clear within the center brackets and then proceed to press the shutter release... only now "every single shot" will in the end, be nothing more than a gaint fuzzy snowball. I've even attempted taking a shot via the "Timer Release" feature whilest the D70 is mounted to a Tripod on solid ground, and its always the same thing. The image in the viewfinder is as "crystal clear" as I could ever hope for, yet when the picture is actually taken its a giant fuzzy snowball.
As I stated above, I've gone through the manual while looking at the camera in hand but I in no way remember ever changing anything where as this is my very first "fully adjustable" camera of anykind, digital or otherwise...
Any help would be truely appreciated...
Toxic'
2011 To use any of the clipart
sparky_jones
10-01 08:22 PM
Yes, being able to produce a complete file with all the paperwork is a pre-requisite for self-represenation. However, if and when you decide to "pull out your G-28", how will you go about making sure that USCIS updates their records to ensure no further correspondence is sent to the attorney? Are you aware of a standard procedure to do that?
Thanks!
I already pllued all of my paperwork from attorney.
You must have at least a copy of all your filing paperwork from Labor Filing till today. This is required when you are filing anything new or responding any RFE, you sould match each and everything on the USCIS records when you are submitting any new paper work as a part of RFE/new application etc.
So, better have a copy of all paprework before..
I dont intend to change my employer/lawyer but just got all original approvals and copy of each and every paperwork from my attorney till date about my GC.. just to be safe..
I can pull out my G28 and be on my own at any time, but still save my ongoing pending petitions..
Thanks!
I already pllued all of my paperwork from attorney.
You must have at least a copy of all your filing paperwork from Labor Filing till today. This is required when you are filing anything new or responding any RFE, you sould match each and everything on the USCIS records when you are submitting any new paper work as a part of RFE/new application etc.
So, better have a copy of all paprework before..
I dont intend to change my employer/lawyer but just got all original approvals and copy of each and every paperwork from my attorney till date about my GC.. just to be safe..
I can pull out my G28 and be on my own at any time, but still save my ongoing pending petitions..
more...
miguy
07-19 09:38 AM
Does anyone know if it is easier to get medical residency on EAD as opposed to H1/J1 or are you considered in the same boat as H1/J1 applicants?
thanks
thanks
needinfo80
09-11 10:21 AM
Hi Chirupally,
I had similar RFE where USCIS wanted doctor's original signature.
Doctor's filled out a new form (latest version) with all the information from the old form.No test were done again.But they signed the new form with OLD date.
Did your doctor sign the form with new date?
Also,are you including the old original form that you received in sealed envelope with RFE?I am include the ONLY the new sealed envelope that has latest form as the doctor discarded the old form.
I had similar RFE where USCIS wanted doctor's original signature.
Doctor's filled out a new form (latest version) with all the information from the old form.No test were done again.But they signed the new form with OLD date.
Did your doctor sign the form with new date?
Also,are you including the old original form that you received in sealed envelope with RFE?I am include the ONLY the new sealed envelope that has latest form as the doctor discarded the old form.
more...
ghost
06-20 03:20 PM
AC 21 will come into effect 6 months after you apply for your Adjustment of Status (485). You can apply for your 485 only when the visa numbers are available for your PD (EB2 currently for India is Jan 2003)
GCwaitforever, Are you certain that Supers***(with approved 140) can change employers without any impact, by using AC 21 provisions?
The answer to your first question is yes. You can change employers without any impact, by using AC 21 provisions.
GCwaitforever, Are you certain that Supers***(with approved 140) can change employers without any impact, by using AC 21 provisions?
The answer to your first question is yes. You can change employers without any impact, by using AC 21 provisions.
2010 exercise clip art
helpfriends
04-15 11:23 AM
L1A non-immigrant visa. Thank you
more...
quizzer
10-24 06:00 PM
Is there any way IV can take up the NSC I140 processing times with USCIS???
Why is there a huge discrepancy between TSC and NSC wrt I140
Also the processing times NSC publsihes are not right.
for eg: My EB2 is pending from Dec 2006 and the latest update is Feb 2007.
i know there are a lot of people like me.
Thanks
Why is there a huge discrepancy between TSC and NSC wrt I140
Also the processing times NSC publsihes are not right.
for eg: My EB2 is pending from Dec 2006 and the latest update is Feb 2007.
i know there are a lot of people like me.
Thanks
hair Free exercise clipart can also
kumarr
01-01 05:00 PM
Congrats! Very happy for you :)
more...
wizpal
08-12 10:46 AM
with your efforts. I hope you don't get banned...
what makes u think that he would be banned for asking such questions - if IV is busy may be some senior members can answer.
what makes u think that he would be banned for asking such questions - if IV is busy may be some senior members can answer.
hot Fitness in the Park
Gravitation
09-11 10:05 AM
If you are on H1B status your employer has to cancel your visa once they lay you off. You need to transfer your H1 before they cancel it, otherwise you will be out of status.
This is a common misconception. You can extend your H1B even if the previous one has been canceled. The only time you cannot transfer H1B visa (and have to apply for new one) is when you went out of US for over one year. Check out the H1B faq on immigration.com.
This is a common misconception. You can extend your H1B even if the previous one has been canceled. The only time you cannot transfer H1B visa (and have to apply for new one) is when you went out of US for over one year. Check out the H1B faq on immigration.com.
more...
house exercise equipment, exercise
eb3retro
04-13 04:09 PM
Thanks a lot for the reply.
I have talked with lawyer regarding this.
She has the following to Say:
a) Ac21 is perfectly legal thing and many of her clients are traveling on AP under AC21 and do not have any issue.
b) CBP officers know about this and there is nothing to worry.
c) If the CBP officer is getting two suspicious they can't deport me. They have to parole me and then run a case or check on me. Where my lawyer can talk with them and make thenm understand that everything is OK
d) she assures me that there is nothing to worry and I can go and come back hassle free.
Do you people think all of these statements are correct?
Thanks a lot.
pls tell me how much different it is from what I have response for your original query..
I have talked with lawyer regarding this.
She has the following to Say:
a) Ac21 is perfectly legal thing and many of her clients are traveling on AP under AC21 and do not have any issue.
b) CBP officers know about this and there is nothing to worry.
c) If the CBP officer is getting two suspicious they can't deport me. They have to parole me and then run a case or check on me. Where my lawyer can talk with them and make thenm understand that everything is OK
d) she assures me that there is nothing to worry and I can go and come back hassle free.
Do you people think all of these statements are correct?
Thanks a lot.
pls tell me how much different it is from what I have response for your original query..
tattoo To use any of the clipart
Heart
10-08 12:51 PM
Thanks to you all, I will update after talking to an attorney.
more...
pictures Selected Clipart:
BMS1
09-19 01:09 AM
Thankfully there is a concept called pre-adjudication which makes any retrogression wait run parallel to all the other delays combined like RFE,security/name check etc. So the total wait time is just one of the all the above waits that happens to be the longest. They just do not add up.
dresses Running Exercise clip art
jungalee43
01-11 03:27 PM
Nice to know and good luck to all of you. Hope it helps.
more...
makeup Preggo Exercise, anyone?
gchopes
04-04 10:32 AM
Hi all,
We just had a baby this past weekend. I will be getting the birth certificate of the baby this week for passport application. However, I understand that the SSN card will come only 60-90 days later. The issue is we need to travel to India after 60 days. Can we apply for the US passport without SSN (or getting a letter from SSN office that the SSN is in-process)? Also, would you recommend a PIO or a visa to India if we need to travel in the next 60 days?
Thanks,
gchopes
We just had a baby this past weekend. I will be getting the birth certificate of the baby this week for passport application. However, I understand that the SSN card will come only 60-90 days later. The issue is we need to travel to India after 60 days. Can we apply for the US passport without SSN (or getting a letter from SSN office that the SSN is in-process)? Also, would you recommend a PIO or a visa to India if we need to travel in the next 60 days?
Thanks,
gchopes
girlfriend To use any of the clipart
radhagd
01-05 09:24 AM
Well, I won't blame you guys for your decision if things do not work out. I know that it is very difficult to predict , I am going to go with EB2 06 .Just wanted to know what you would do if you were in my shoes.
If I am you I would go with EB3 I140 and once it gets approve get a copy
of approval and wait until Eb2 date crosses 2004 and find a desi consultant
file labour under Eb2 and file I140 port my PD to EB2 .After filing 485 you
can join desi company at that time.
If I am you I would go with EB3 I140 and once it gets approve get a copy
of approval and wait until Eb2 date crosses 2004 and find a desi consultant
file labour under Eb2 and file I140 port my PD to EB2 .After filing 485 you
can join desi company at that time.
hairstyles Tags: exercise , clipart
aruny5
10-26 02:25 PM
Thanks all who replied to my thread. I am contacting Air France regarding this transit crap. I will post my experience on this forum, when I get answer from Airline.
One thing is for sure, I will never again travel by Air france, BA and Lufthansa.
One thing is for sure, I will never again travel by Air france, BA and Lufthansa.
hoolahoous
03-11 07:07 PM
please do report the outcome.
dc2007
07-25 10:55 AM
I didn't find what I am looking for.
I already have a lawyer and the ONLY reason I want to file myself is because I am fed up in chasing lawyers, my company etc. They don't respond in time and anyways I am preparing all my documents my self and guiding lawyer also.
So, I am thinking to file myself.
I already have a lawyer and the ONLY reason I want to file myself is because I am fed up in chasing lawyers, my company etc. They don't respond in time and anyways I am preparing all my documents my self and guiding lawyer also.
So, I am thinking to file myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment