Redian新闻
>
Re: 疫苗的事一出,带娃海归的都傻了吧 (转载)
avatar
Re: 疫苗的事一出,带娃海归的都傻了吧 (转载)# Joke - 肚皮舞运动
m*k
1
Have you EVER been arrested, cited, charged, or detained for any reason by
any law enforcement official (including but not limited to any U.S.
immigration official or any official of the U.S. armed forces or U.S. Coast
Guard)?
这个在485表格需要些speeding ticket吗?
avatar
z*m
2
【 以下文字转载自 Returnee 讨论区 】
发信人: LiuQiangDong (qqq), 信区: Returnee
标 题: Re: 疫苗的事一出,带娃海归的都傻了吧 (转载)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Jul 22 22:47:21 2018, 美东)
老婆都换了,旧儿子打了假疫苗,新老婆高兴死了
avatar
t*t
3
no
avatar
n*4
4
难道以后新儿子就不打疫苗了?

【在 z*m 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Returnee 讨论区 】
: 发信人: LiuQiangDong (qqq), 信区: Returnee
: 标 题: Re: 疫苗的事一出,带娃海归的都傻了吧 (转载)
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Jul 22 22:47:21 2018, 美东)
: 老婆都换了,旧儿子打了假疫苗,新老婆高兴死了

avatar
m*k
5
谢谢你的回复。
只是我看到以前也有人讨论这个。http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/EB23/32668479.html
有人说要写,有人说不用。但是还没找到结论。有没有人交的新表,有类似的情况

【在 t*****t 的大作中提到】
: no
avatar
H*g
6
新老婆高兴死了 还得买个新新老婆才有新新儿子

【在 n****4 的大作中提到】
: 难道以后新儿子就不打疫苗了?
avatar
r*v
7
就这个事情问过公司律师(140、485都得用公司指定的Fragomen)。
律师回复的原话是:“Minor traffic violations do not need to be disclosed. ”
然后我向律师指出,"However, after carefully reading the latest I-485 form (
updated in 2017) which we submitted, I found that the usual wording of “
excluding traffic violation” is removed from Part 8 Question 25, compared
to older versions of I-485 forms. Could you please confirm that it is
Fragomen’s legal advice that I and my wife should both answer “No” to
both Question 25 and 27 in Part 8 of the I-485 forms, even if we have minor
traffic violations?
"
接着律师回复我:“Minor traffic violations do not need to be included on the
I-485. Kind regards, ”
至此,我决定不再折腾了,回答“Thank you very much for the confirmation.”。
我会保留和律所email交流的证据一辈子,以便将来(不太可能发生)需要证明不是故
意撒谎写no的情况。
以上不作为我给任何人的“法律意见”。
avatar
r*9
8

新儿子来美国打疫苗啊

【在 n****4 的大作中提到】
: 难道以后新儿子就不打疫苗了?
avatar
w*t
9
我的律师说面试的时候要at least mention

minor

【在 r****v 的大作中提到】
: 就这个事情问过公司律师(140、485都得用公司指定的Fragomen)。
: 律师回复的原话是:“Minor traffic violations do not need to be disclosed. ”
: 然后我向律师指出,"However, after carefully reading the latest I-485 form (
: updated in 2017) which we submitted, I found that the usual wording of “
: excluding traffic violation” is removed from Part 8 Question 25, compared
: to older versions of I-485 forms. Could you please confirm that it is
: Fragomen’s legal advice that I and my wife should both answer “No” to
: both Question 25 and 27 in Part 8 of the I-485 forms, even if we have minor
: traffic violations?
: "

avatar
B*6
10
要,然后附上说明
avatar
y*g
11
面试过的表示填表时不需要,面试时提一句,结果面试官根本不care
相关阅读
logo
联系我们隐私协议©2024 redian.news
Redian新闻
Redian.news刊载任何文章,不代表同意其说法或描述,仅为提供更多信息,也不构成任何建议。文章信息的合法性及真实性由其作者负责,与Redian.news及其运营公司无关。欢迎投稿,如发现稿件侵权,或作者不愿在本网发表文章,请版权拥有者通知本网处理。