Chris Rock
08-11 03:16 PM
If there is a non-controversial immi. law change attempt I will donate $500. I will also bring my friends and the total may exceed $2000. We all willing to donate but only if we know that there is good chance of passing.
If there is an attempt to push ideas like recapture, forget it. It will not pass in this economy. I do not want to waste my money and time on those kind of ideas.
IMHO. Not to find fault with anyone. Please do not mistake me.
If there is an attempt to push ideas like recapture, forget it. It will not pass in this economy. I do not want to waste my money and time on those kind of ideas.
IMHO. Not to find fault with anyone. Please do not mistake me.
wallpaper mirror aviator sunglasses for
drirshad
07-04 09:35 PM
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
bmoni
04-09 06:43 PM
Thanks Papu !!!! thats great....
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
2011 Cartoon SunGlasses(China
tikka
07-02 08:20 PM
I put in $100 today to fight for our cause
for your contribution:)
for your contribution:)
more...
drirshad
08-07 07:26 AM
Guys does RD change every time we get a I-485 notice. The first receipt I got shows correct RD as July 02, 2007 then the second notice that was send Oct 07 to say my case has been transferred to Lincoln has an RD of Sep 08, 2007 does this RD change every time the receipt notice is sent. Does it matter if it changes.
meimmi
03-10 04:25 PM
Yes, for e-file you need to send the supporting docs by mail. In my case, I sent the copy of I-485 ASC biometrics notice which has mention of the receipt # and A # as proof of my AOS pending, copy of I-94, copy of the e-filing confirmation (Printout). You do not need to send photo as that will be taken during fingerprinting. The separate fingerprint is needed for e-file only. They take print of 1 finger. If you send your EAD papers with I-485, the 485 fingerprnt covers all I think. I do not think we need to go for fingerprint again for EAD renewal, though with USCIS that may be possible. ;)
more...
malaGCPahije
03-17 10:53 AM
Nov 2004. EB3 - I
2010 Ray Bans Aviator Sunglasses
vin13
11-12 03:26 PM
Guys
So are we having a conference call or have we decided that we should individually write letter that has already been drafted.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
So are we having a conference call or have we decided that we should individually write letter that has already been drafted.
Contact your congressman and use the draft to help get clarrification/resolution. If they cannot help resolve, but can get an appointment with a higher official then one of us can go meet them. Some of us are willing to fly/drive.. at our own expense to meet the official.
I know atleast 3 members including me who would be meeting lawmakers of our respective constituencies. When we meet the lawmakers we plan to discuss about our provisions in the CIR(Recapture, country cap,...) and then in the interim we would request them to help us resolve the quarterly spillover.
more...
mdcowboy
06-10 07:42 PM
sent it to my friends too..this bill is ridiculous!:mad:
hair mirror aviator sunglasses for
feedfront
09-17 09:58 AM
Anyone received RFE letter? I've not received it yet.
more...
sat0207
04-27 09:18 AM
Hey read this link very informative http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/security_checks_42506.pdf
hot mirror aviator sunglasses-
uma001
10-01 10:04 AM
Although they promise a lot of things on paper, we generally skip reading the fine print. Fine print generally would include this clause (language will be a bit different)...
Same thing in company's point of view, if they invest in endless lawyer fees, filing fees, humongous paperwork and easily these days GC process take 5-35 years and during/after this time, What is the guarantee that you will still stick with the company - after all this investment of time & money? Companies need visible & predictable ROIs.
It is the age of cost cutting. If you don't like it, just quit it & start a company on your own and show them how to run it by sponsoring GCs left & right.
f your skills are in high demand, they will make you the king. If supply is high for your skills, they will go for someone cheaper..
Green card processing costs only $12000 max..Its not a big deal for such big companies.They just dont want to do the favor.
getting green card itself takes min 10 years. so you r going to stick on to this company until that time. is that not a gaurantee. working for 10 years with same company.
you know y consulting companies file green card immediately. they do that becos the employee will stay with the company for a while.American companies do not realize this.
one of my friend came back to compny as a consultant. now they are paying two times more than what they were oaying him as full time employee. is that not an expense to the company...why they r paying him that much now , instead they should have filed his green card.
Same thing in company's point of view, if they invest in endless lawyer fees, filing fees, humongous paperwork and easily these days GC process take 5-35 years and during/after this time, What is the guarantee that you will still stick with the company - after all this investment of time & money? Companies need visible & predictable ROIs.
It is the age of cost cutting. If you don't like it, just quit it & start a company on your own and show them how to run it by sponsoring GCs left & right.
f your skills are in high demand, they will make you the king. If supply is high for your skills, they will go for someone cheaper..
Green card processing costs only $12000 max..Its not a big deal for such big companies.They just dont want to do the favor.
getting green card itself takes min 10 years. so you r going to stick on to this company until that time. is that not a gaurantee. working for 10 years with same company.
you know y consulting companies file green card immediately. they do that becos the employee will stay with the company for a while.American companies do not realize this.
one of my friend came back to compny as a consultant. now they are paying two times more than what they were oaying him as full time employee. is that not an expense to the company...why they r paying him that much now , instead they should have filed his green card.
more...
house Cartier Aviator Sunglasses For
anurakt
12-30 11:51 PM
Add St.Louis --- www.myilaaka.com
tattoo Ray Ban Aviator Sunglasses
senthil1
12-22 11:14 AM
I know many of my friends who were not paid in bench. All of them received green card without any problem. But only difference is they were in unpaid bench anywhere between 2 to 6 months. I do not know anyone who was in unpaid bench for 1 year or more. Most INS officiers are sympathic towards many violations. Recently one of my friend's wife forgot to renew H4 and she was Visa overstay for about 8 months. She applied change of status explainig the situation her H4 was extended with validity date from original expiry date.
I wasn't goofin off, by choice. I had no option but wait and pray that my employer would find a job for me. I had every reason to bother at his stage, because I invested so much time and money to file my GC. Natually, I am bothered because you never know what USCIS would ask; they are always ready to pull the carpet underneath you. What if IO ask me to prove that I am not out of status ? would I be able to show the proof? No! I can't...
I wasn't goofin off, by choice. I had no option but wait and pray that my employer would find a job for me. I had every reason to bother at his stage, because I invested so much time and money to file my GC. Natually, I am bothered because you never know what USCIS would ask; they are always ready to pull the carpet underneath you. What if IO ask me to prove that I am not out of status ? would I be able to show the proof? No! I can't...
more...
pictures ray ban sunglasses aviator
NKR
10-19 08:02 PM
Question 18 should be helpful to your situation with RD.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
Thanks, then i do not know what to make out of what is in my status "we received the case in Oct at NSC" though it was applied in Aug at TSC.
I do hope that what is in this document is true.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
Thanks, then i do not know what to make out of what is in my status "we received the case in Oct at NSC" though it was applied in Aug at TSC.
I do hope that what is in this document is true.
dresses Ray Ban Aviator Sunglasses
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/chertoff_murthy.html
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
more...
makeup Ray-Ban Aviator Sunglasses
karanp25
07-14 06:41 PM
Do you see any LUD change on your I-140 after you changed employers?
Paper copy: Today
Email notification: last week
Paper copy: Today
Email notification: last week
girlfriend free clipart sunglasses. free
prem_goel
07-12 08:15 PM
Spillover happens quarterly, but the visas are allocated in the last quarter! This is because the retrogressed countries are allocated their regular quota every quarter and the extra visas must be allocated based on the priority date, irrespective of the country! It would be difficult to allocate in the earlier quarters to achieve this!
So looking at the demand data used for determining Aug bulletin,
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
how far do you think it'll progress next month?
So looking at the demand data used for determining Aug bulletin,
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
how far do you think it'll progress next month?
hairstyles Ray Ban Aviator Sunglasses
Rajeev
12-14 01:59 PM
I am from Park Ridge NJ. I will join the conference today.
feedfront
10-05 03:10 PM
Hi Guys,
My attorney sent the response last week and it was delivered to the Dallas, TX. I am little concerned that my attorney actually sent the response to a courier address rather than the PO Box for TSC that they ask you to send. So far I have not seen any updates on my case.
Vgayalu: After how many days did you see an update after you sent the response to the RFE.
Ask your attorney to call USCIS for confirmation. Did he add return receipt also? It should not be any issue once you get the confirmation. Good Luck!
My attorney sent the response last week and it was delivered to the Dallas, TX. I am little concerned that my attorney actually sent the response to a courier address rather than the PO Box for TSC that they ask you to send. So far I have not seen any updates on my case.
Vgayalu: After how many days did you see an update after you sent the response to the RFE.
Ask your attorney to call USCIS for confirmation. Did he add return receipt also? It should not be any issue once you get the confirmation. Good Luck!
kartikiran
03-18 01:24 PM
Its more than 6 yrs now, since I started my GC process.
__________________
PD Date: 03/25/2002 EB3
I140 aprvd from TSC: 06/2006
485 filed @ TSC: June 29th 2007.
__________________
PD Date: 03/25/2002 EB3
I140 aprvd from TSC: 06/2006
485 filed @ TSC: June 29th 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment