sanjay
06-11 10:13 PM
hara aam jaada khaoge to gas ho jayega. waise hi bahut gas hai paadu sucksena ko.
I don't know if the words used above were intentional or some one being sarcastic but club first three words and you get a complete different meaning in Hindi.
Guys, a request though, don't use foul words in public forum.
I don't know if the words used above were intentional or some one being sarcastic but club first three words and you get a complete different meaning in Hindi.
Guys, a request though, don't use foul words in public forum.
wallpaper everything went better than expected. Holyloly#39;d by shavid at 9/28/2010
chisinau
08-01 11:21 PM
What do you mean???
qplearn
12-18 05:54 PM
you are right, and it would be nice, however
it's clear our funds are not exactly astronomical.
so let's concentrate on building them up first along with our membership.
then we can sit back and worry about how much more is really needed....
For instance, I am sure maintaining this web site must cost money. How much more money is needed for our main cost drivers until March (for instance) --- by which time we are hoping some action will be taken?
Adding more members will always help because it produces a bigger impact on senators/ house reps
it's clear our funds are not exactly astronomical.
so let's concentrate on building them up first along with our membership.
then we can sit back and worry about how much more is really needed....
For instance, I am sure maintaining this web site must cost money. How much more money is needed for our main cost drivers until March (for instance) --- by which time we are hoping some action will be taken?
Adding more members will always help because it produces a bigger impact on senators/ house reps
2011 Everything went better than
waitnwatch
07-06 10:58 AM
Did any of you guys read the USCIS ombudsman report in detail. It talks about FBI namechecks in some detail and specifically mentions that the namechecks are less detailed than what USCIS already does through it's available databases. In fact the FBI checks fewer things than what the USCIS already checks and so the ombudsman believes that the FBI name check is a waste of time and should be done away with.
Nevertheless USCIS still keeps the FBI name check and I believe that is for purely political reasons where they can conveniently pass the buck if something untoward happens.
Therefore harping on the FBI namecheck issue for the weekend processing may not be a good idea.
Nevertheless USCIS still keeps the FBI name check and I believe that is for purely political reasons where they can conveniently pass the buck if something untoward happens.
Therefore harping on the FBI namecheck issue for the weekend processing may not be a good idea.
more...
dhesha
09-08 11:49 AM
I think, we should try to make a law that says to give the citizenship after 5 years from the day when I-1485 was filed (and not when it was approved). This will benefit majority of us who have waited forever after filing I-1485 and does not deserve to spend another 5 years if they wish to take Citizenship.
haddi_No1
06-26 10:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501945.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
more...
amitjoey
05-21 01:50 PM
I just came across this thread. Is this campaign still on?
You are welcome to call- If you did not do it earlier.
You are welcome to call- If you did not do it earlier.
2010 Everything went better than
Libra
09-12 01:39 PM
thank you EAD, hope you can make it to DC rally too.
more...
docp
04-30 02:44 PM
anything with window media player
hair everything went better than
matreen
10-17 01:58 AM
Guys,
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
chintu25
09-11 04:40 PM
Singhsa
I am in
:mad::mad::mad:
I am in
:mad::mad::mad:
hot Everything went better than
nixstor
07-06 10:46 AM
looks like there main purpose was to deny us filing 485 application....i cannot believe they could go to such lengths to prevent high loads of work which they feared.
It was better for them to work 1 weekend 24/7 (nonstop) rather than working everyday for 8 hours (which is what our application may have caused them to do)
I have reiterated this again and again. There is no way USCIS was going to accommodate all of us as per the original VB. We will form the biggest hump on the back of USCIS and it will probably 20 yrs for every one to come out of the system. Remember, how much math we did on how many years EB2 India /Eb3 india/china will take? Thats what they see as well. Why would they want so many applications backlogged. The only way they can disallow filings is by saying that there are no visa numbers available on day one. You have to have a visa number available at the time of 485 filing. They cleared out all the old PD's. Believe me, If the original bulletin was not current, they would have done the same in 90 days with some numbers gone waste. It was a bad situation for both agencies. I am not saying that they have not goofed up. they goofed up big time and I can clearly see the lack of communication on issue like this which effects so many people. We can use this as an opportunity to show case our root cause or we can use this in a detrimental way that will screw our nuts and bolts for 10 more years.
It was better for them to work 1 weekend 24/7 (nonstop) rather than working everyday for 8 hours (which is what our application may have caused them to do)
I have reiterated this again and again. There is no way USCIS was going to accommodate all of us as per the original VB. We will form the biggest hump on the back of USCIS and it will probably 20 yrs for every one to come out of the system. Remember, how much math we did on how many years EB2 India /Eb3 india/china will take? Thats what they see as well. Why would they want so many applications backlogged. The only way they can disallow filings is by saying that there are no visa numbers available on day one. You have to have a visa number available at the time of 485 filing. They cleared out all the old PD's. Believe me, If the original bulletin was not current, they would have done the same in 90 days with some numbers gone waste. It was a bad situation for both agencies. I am not saying that they have not goofed up. they goofed up big time and I can clearly see the lack of communication on issue like this which effects so many people. We can use this as an opportunity to show case our root cause or we can use this in a detrimental way that will screw our nuts and bolts for 10 more years.
more...
house went better than expected
snathan
05-23 09:15 AM
If you have made a contribution and posted on this thread or on the thread we had before your name should be on the list. We do not have an automatic way of updating this list once someone had made a contribution through paypal at this time. Every night I go through this thread, update numbers and names. I could have made a manual error and missed some names but once people have brought that to my attention I have been double checking and responding back to them. I know I am behind on verifying one or two contributions but I will catch up. I work long hours,take classes and I live 80 miles away from where I work. I wish I had more than 24 hours in my day. If you could help us with maintaining an accurate list that would be awesome.
Hope I answered your query :)
Actually I paid $100 and not $50. It was two $50 on the same day.
Hope I answered your query :)
Actually I paid $100 and not $50. It was two $50 on the same day.
tattoo EVERYTHING WENT BETTER THAN
Keeme
03-05 11:45 AM
Our cases are with NSC. EB2. PD: Mar -06
i responded to RFE last year. then case processing resumed.
We saw LUD on all 3 cases on Friday. I called up IO at NSC and she told that
LUD was because they applied biometrics to your cases. I told her i did not get 2nd FP
notice ,we did not give any FPs. She said they have our new FPs in the system and applied
the same.
i am not sure what she is talking about???
One possible reason could be, they might have reused our FPs given during EAD renewals few months back. But does it make sense to anyone? did anyone face the same experience?
Thanks.
Could be true ! That was my first thought and counted months since filing I-485. Its more than 19 month now . The Finger prints expires in 15 months.
Considering they are running late and all these LUDs are for renewing your finger prints for next 15 months , why there are so many RFEs for people who don't have their PDs current ?
i responded to RFE last year. then case processing resumed.
We saw LUD on all 3 cases on Friday. I called up IO at NSC and she told that
LUD was because they applied biometrics to your cases. I told her i did not get 2nd FP
notice ,we did not give any FPs. She said they have our new FPs in the system and applied
the same.
i am not sure what she is talking about???
One possible reason could be, they might have reused our FPs given during EAD renewals few months back. But does it make sense to anyone? did anyone face the same experience?
Thanks.
Could be true ! That was my first thought and counted months since filing I-485. Its more than 19 month now . The Finger prints expires in 15 months.
Considering they are running late and all these LUDs are for renewing your finger prints for next 15 months , why there are so many RFEs for people who don't have their PDs current ?
more...
pictures EVERYTHING WENT BETTER THAN
beppenyc
03-08 02:30 PM
beppenyc, any particular reason that ur interested in the guest worker program?
Yes, I worked in the restuarant business. Let me know if i can partecipate or not.
Thanks
Yes, I worked in the restuarant business. Let me know if i can partecipate or not.
Thanks
dresses Everything went better than
skv
06-25 12:21 PM
Got approved just now. Labor filed EB3 on 23rd Feb Govt job. Thinsg are moving ... Best of luck to all !!!
-M
It's awesome. Good news! Enjoy very moments....:-)
-M
It's awesome. Good news! Enjoy very moments....:-)
more...
makeup everything went better than
losthope
06-11 08:11 PM
Great Details!! Everything is possible...someone has to sacrifice for people to listen
I would like to bring another point . What is the stand from the immigration attorney on recapturing visa number? Can't they do something on pushing on this? They made allot of money from immigration petition filing
I would like to bring another point . What is the stand from the immigration attorney on recapturing visa number? Can't they do something on pushing on this? They made allot of money from immigration petition filing
girlfriend Everything went better than
vdlrao
06-11 07:25 AM
anyone wants to guess as to when EB3(I) will reach 2003 Dec. I know it is long long time away but it has to reach that date some time in the future.
Dont worry good days ahead. I am presuming that at some point of time in the next two to three years all the EB categories will be cleared off with no backlogs.
Dont worry good days ahead. I am presuming that at some point of time in the next two to three years all the EB categories will be cleared off with no backlogs.
hairstyles EVERYTHING WENT BETTER THAN
tdasara
07-05 11:17 PM
Can anyone post the email of the reporter?
a1b2c3
08-16 08:13 PM
Thanks for posting the doc. What is the source of this doc?
Desertfox
04-30 05:30 PM
I sincerely hope that your interpretation is correct!
For all those who are upset with the House hearing, please take it easy. Please do not expect the hearing to discuss the details of each and every GC applicant's case. The objective of the hearing was to bring the folks involved in visa bulletins and GC processing, and make them all publically say and agree that Lofgren-Sensenbrenner bill will not flood the country with new people on the borders but at the same time since the federal agencies did not do their job properly, so it would make sense to recapture the visa numbers, and that's it.
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
For all those who are upset with the House hearing, please take it easy. Please do not expect the hearing to discuss the details of each and every GC applicant's case. The objective of the hearing was to bring the folks involved in visa bulletins and GC processing, and make them all publically say and agree that Lofgren-Sensenbrenner bill will not flood the country with new people on the borders but at the same time since the federal agencies did not do their job properly, so it would make sense to recapture the visa numbers, and that's it.
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
No comments:
Post a Comment