diptam
08-12 03:21 PM
The answer is "No" - my employer is also not willing to sign that form. They are saying that its against their policy to push Ombudsman or CIS for a I-140 which is pending for 15 months.
They are saying that the only thing they can do for me is "opening a service request" after 60 days of "Processing Date Update" Now Processing Date update is stuck @ Mar 22nd 2007 for last 4 months , so they are happy they are not obligated to do that either.
This is a huge Pain because 140 is actually employer petition and we are beneficiaries.
Lonedesi - Please advise, I'm ready to mail just the letter to CIS Ombudsman.
Hi Lonedesi and team,
I wish, I could move forward on this, unfortunately my employer a financial firm , will not sign or support the DHS Form 7001 due to legality, instead I can just send the letter by E-mail or mail to Ombudsman's office ?
Does it make sense ? Please advise.
Thank you!
They are saying that the only thing they can do for me is "opening a service request" after 60 days of "Processing Date Update" Now Processing Date update is stuck @ Mar 22nd 2007 for last 4 months , so they are happy they are not obligated to do that either.
This is a huge Pain because 140 is actually employer petition and we are beneficiaries.
Lonedesi - Please advise, I'm ready to mail just the letter to CIS Ombudsman.
Hi Lonedesi and team,
I wish, I could move forward on this, unfortunately my employer a financial firm , will not sign or support the DHS Form 7001 due to legality, instead I can just send the letter by E-mail or mail to Ombudsman's office ?
Does it make sense ? Please advise.
Thank you!
wallpaper lavori di tattoo fantasy ,
ANGEL
07-29 08:26 PM
Hello,
I am just showing you my ignorance but what is it about.My wife works in DC right now and very active in fighting for our cause,she is a nurse.She has few correspondence with few senators and congressman but it will be great if there is a bigger force behind it all.please let me know how we can help.I too am tired of waiting in a limbo,the uncertainty is too much and by the day I get so discouraged and sometimes on the verge of giving up.
I am just showing you my ignorance but what is it about.My wife works in DC right now and very active in fighting for our cause,she is a nurse.She has few correspondence with few senators and congressman but it will be great if there is a bigger force behind it all.please let me know how we can help.I too am tired of waiting in a limbo,the uncertainty is too much and by the day I get so discouraged and sometimes on the verge of giving up.
sparky_jones
09-10 09:45 AM
Looks like last night's particle accelerator experiement sent us back in time!:D
2011 childcathelong: tattoo piede
inskrish
08-17 03:12 AM
Looking at the recent approvals looks like USCIS does the following:
1. Pick up x number of files using a random algorithm.
2. Arrange these files in a random order using the same random algorithm
followed in step 1.
3. Randomly pick any file arranged in step 2.
4. Toss a coin.
5. On odd dates if it is heads,approve the file. On even dates if it is tails
approve it.
6. If file is not approved in step 5 put it on the shelf to be picked up
in step 1 in next cycle.
For Disclaimers: on step (1), x is also a random number, and the coin used on step (4) by USCIS may sometimes have neither tail nor head..:D
1. Pick up x number of files using a random algorithm.
2. Arrange these files in a random order using the same random algorithm
followed in step 1.
3. Randomly pick any file arranged in step 2.
4. Toss a coin.
5. On odd dates if it is heads,approve the file. On even dates if it is tails
approve it.
6. If file is not approved in step 5 put it on the shelf to be picked up
in step 1 in next cycle.
For Disclaimers: on step (1), x is also a random number, and the coin used on step (4) by USCIS may sometimes have neither tail nor head..:D
more...
chocolate
06-05 08:44 AM
Till the new bill becomes law you'll be ok.
Those of you who got LC approved recently, did you apply to Chicago or Atlanta?
Thanks for the input. My labor was stuck in BEC. It was approved last september . I sent all the documents to my employer to file 140/485/ead/ap.He is still going back and forth on filing. MY h1extension got an rfe and he wants to wait for it to get approved and then file. I hope i wont retire before that. I am only 28 yrs short of that.When will we know the decision to the bill. I hope it passes so that he files my next stages.Can i file it with my h1 extension application pending.
Those of you who got LC approved recently, did you apply to Chicago or Atlanta?
Thanks for the input. My labor was stuck in BEC. It was approved last september . I sent all the documents to my employer to file 140/485/ead/ap.He is still going back and forth on filing. MY h1extension got an rfe and he wants to wait for it to get approved and then file. I hope i wont retire before that. I am only 28 yrs short of that.When will we know the decision to the bill. I hope it passes so that he files my next stages.Can i file it with my h1 extension application pending.
skgs2000
04-29 11:48 PM
I thnk we should list email/phones/fax besides each name here as well. It makes it easier. for sure, fones, letter, faxes all will help for sure !
more...
snathan
05-15 10:13 PM
Shan - I totally understand your frustration and where you are coming from. I had the same level of aggression when i first started participated in IV activities and I am sure, a lot of people want to pursue things in an aggressive manner.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
I totally agree with you on this. But I am not talking about the MTR. I am talking about the fee issues. Why do we need to pay if its their mistake. I dont think we are talking about the fee waiver with congress men's office or anyone else.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
I totally agree with you on this. But I am not talking about the MTR. I am talking about the fee issues. Why do we need to pay if its their mistake. I dont think we are talking about the fee waiver with congress men's office or anyone else.
2010 Tattoos-Tiger Tattoos3
9years
09-13 02:08 PM
I am not promoted. I believe my case is based on my MS + couple of years exp. All these details are what ever I know. Please seek expert attorney advice. I think attorney knows better based on our situation.
more...
delhirocks
07-21 03:57 PM
There are no US embassies on US soil..I think you meant USCIS local office and are alluding to "interim" EADs. USCIS discontinued that practice last year.
I thought if we dont get the EAD after 90 days, we can walk into the US Embassy in the city nearer to us and get the EAD on the spot(more like a driver's license).:eek:
I thought if we dont get the EAD after 90 days, we can walk into the US Embassy in the city nearer to us and get the EAD on the spot(more like a driver's license).:eek:
hair Stelle sfumate su piede
nivasch
03-09 05:07 PM
From Visa bulletin for Schedule A Workers (Q..)
===============================
Schedule A Workers: Employment First, Second, and Third preference Schedule A applicants are entitled to up to 50,000 �recaptured� numbers.
=======================
So from now on words those 50k can be use for us?:confused:
-----------------------
EB3_NEPA, I'm pretty sure that's how it works. They first use the regular EB3 numbers available.
===============================
Schedule A Workers: Employment First, Second, and Third preference Schedule A applicants are entitled to up to 50,000 �recaptured� numbers.
=======================
So from now on words those 50k can be use for us?:confused:
-----------------------
EB3_NEPA, I'm pretty sure that's how it works. They first use the regular EB3 numbers available.
more...
Humhongekamyab
02-18 04:27 PM
Mine too is the same. I hope we are not from the same company. I remember, I had to fight asking my employer to file the labor since they were delaying without giving any reason and they did filed a bunch of labors on the same day.
No we are not. I work for a company which has only filed two PERM since it was incorporated. Nice to know our priority date is same. Stay in touch - let's see if they approve our applications around the same time. All the best.
No we are not. I work for a company which has only filed two PERM since it was incorporated. Nice to know our priority date is same. Stay in touch - let's see if they approve our applications around the same time. All the best.
hot Immagini tatuaggi stella piede
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
more...
house makeup Japanese Dragon Tattoos
meridiani.planum
04-01 07:02 PM
Who are we to investigate how the USCIS is functioning?
paying customers.
paying customers.
tattoo immagine tatuaggio tribale
dante1271
08-20 09:08 PM
I got my CA DL after moving from Missouri 4 years ago. they only ask for my out of state DL and SSN card. luckily my SSN card doesnt contain the "valid for work ..." stuff, only my name and ss number. I renewed my DL this year and got 5 years renewal by just showing only my DL to DMV...
Howz DL procedure in CA for 485 guys? I do not have H1B any my I-94 expired long time back. I have out of state licensce that expires in 2011 only. If I want to take CA DL, will it be a easy process? For how many years they give DL for 485 guys?
Howz DL procedure in CA for 485 guys? I do not have H1B any my I-94 expired long time back. I have out of state licensce that expires in 2011 only. If I want to take CA DL, will it be a easy process? For how many years they give DL for 485 guys?
more...
pictures dramas tattoos fantasy
little_willy
09-11 04:56 PM
Thats the only thing hadn't happened so far......and now we have it...People are blaming IV now...I hope this is not true.
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/124475663/last-page/
Ignore these kind of posts. If you check his profile, he just joined yesterday and this is his only post. Many ppl who were banned from IV paint this false image of the core, but we all know better than that. Ignore and move on.
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/124475663/last-page/
Ignore these kind of posts. If you check his profile, he just joined yesterday and this is his only post. Many ppl who were banned from IV paint this false image of the core, but we all know better than that. Ignore and move on.
dresses hot Spiderman+tattoo+chest
makemygc
07-06 01:15 PM
Today.. 12:00 EST:)
SKD's next question should be, what was he wearing when you talked to him? Hope he was not in his sleepwear..just waking up from his beautiful dreams.:o
SKD's next question should be, what was he wearing when you talked to him? Hope he was not in his sleepwear..just waking up from his beautiful dreams.:o
more...
makeup lavori di tattoo fantasy ,
saimrathi
08-10 03:25 PM
Congrats!! Please contribute to IV!
All 6 of our checks got cleared today below are the details
I-485/131/765 recd date: 2nd july 07
I-485/131/765 notice date: 06th Aug 07
Service Center send : NSC
I-140 approved : on 31-May-06, TSC
Got Recipts : NO
All 6 of our checks got cleared today below are the details
I-485/131/765 recd date: 2nd july 07
I-485/131/765 notice date: 06th Aug 07
Service Center send : NSC
I-140 approved : on 31-May-06, TSC
Got Recipts : NO
girlfriend tags: tattoo. VOTA
priti8888
07-24 12:23 AM
mine too PD March 21 2003.... phew.. got stuck in BEC and then retrogression.. long wait.. and now 485 filed with long wait for EAD:)may be But hey, life is always that way, who knows what is next:)
March 2003!!??u were current in June.
If u applied 485 in June 07 u might have already been alloted a visa number...Call uscis to find out...A nicer IO may give u some details abt your case
March 2003!!??u were current in June.
If u applied 485 in June 07 u might have already been alloted a visa number...Call uscis to find out...A nicer IO may give u some details abt your case
hairstyles sfumate su piede » tattoo
bpatel23
06-02 09:24 AM
Hi my son is going to turn 21 on June 6th, we had applied for EB3 labor certificate on in July and the priority date is july 19, 2005. The I-140 was applied and approved in a month, therefore he will turn 21 next month on the 6th because the subtraction of one month from his age due to delay by USCIS in processing the I-140. My question is that is there any sort of help for EB retrogression for the children affected, and may get aged-out. As well as any other way that my son can apply for his I-485.
Thanks
Thanks
Madhuri
10-21 12:23 PM
Just emailed and will also send a snail mail tonight.
gimme_GC2006
02-09 10:27 PM
The first bulletin with Eb1 and Eb2 spill over.
Last year:
Mar 2008- India Eb2 U
Apr 2008- India-Eb2 01 Dec 03
This year may be:
Mar 2009- India Eb2 15 Feb 04
Apr 2009- India Eb2 28 Feb 05 (My PD :))
Lets make the EB2 date to 28 Dec 05..tthat will cover my PD :D:D:D
Last year:
Mar 2008- India Eb2 U
Apr 2008- India-Eb2 01 Dec 03
This year may be:
Mar 2009- India Eb2 15 Feb 04
Apr 2009- India Eb2 28 Feb 05 (My PD :))
Lets make the EB2 date to 28 Dec 05..tthat will cover my PD :D:D:D
No comments:
Post a Comment