as_rudra
01-22 08:19 AM
I have verified that with my attorney. The officer should not have asked you to enter on AP. You could have entered on H1 or AP and it was up to you. This is a good example of the fact that some immigration officers do not know the rules well. If your H1 is still good, you can leave and re-enter showing H1 and you should be fine.
G
Thats correct. I came back from India yesterday and i used H1 but my wife used her AP to enter at the POE.
G
Thats correct. I came back from India yesterday and i used H1 but my wife used her AP to enter at the POE.
wallpaper EVO compaq 621 ruby red.
Almond
08-09 06:50 PM
I called today to help a friend who has been stuck in namecheck status for almost a year and a half and spoke to an immigration officer who calmly explained to me that the name check isn't done only nationally but also "internationally" meaning, not only do they do a background check on you in the US, they also look you up in your country of origin. In all my time reading about this I have never heard her version before, so I had assumed the namecheck was only done at the national level. No wonder it's taking so long, with the FBI waiting for a response from those countries. :(
pop
01-20 08:40 AM
Because you still need a visa to enter the USA (though you have an H-1B approval) and application for the visa abroad is not always easy.
2011 1 compaq 621 ruby red.
7software
09-15 05:24 PM
I would like to give update on visa availability. My PD is 03/06- EB2. Opened SR for me and my spouse on 08/30/10
1. For me, letter by USPS came stating that, I485 is at USCIS local office and will notify about decision in 30 days
2. Spouse got below response by email (On 09/13/2010)
"The status of this service request is:
Your I-485 application is waiting for a visa number to become available. When it becomes available, it will be assigned to an adjudicator to make a decision on the case.
If you have not heard from the service within 30 days after your number becomes available, you can make an Info pass appointment to visit the Customer Service Division,
at the District office"
On 09/14/10 we took infopass and spoke to customer service representative. She told that visa Numbers are not available any more and also checked validity of finger prints in system.
Told us that they are expired (Till now we gave 2 times, one in sept 07, 2nd one in may 09 (FP are valid for for 15m)) - I guess we need to give 3 rd time soon.
She told that dates for FP at ASC center are not available and will try to send us ASAP when Visa Numbers are available.
1. For me, letter by USPS came stating that, I485 is at USCIS local office and will notify about decision in 30 days
2. Spouse got below response by email (On 09/13/2010)
"The status of this service request is:
Your I-485 application is waiting for a visa number to become available. When it becomes available, it will be assigned to an adjudicator to make a decision on the case.
If you have not heard from the service within 30 days after your number becomes available, you can make an Info pass appointment to visit the Customer Service Division,
at the District office"
On 09/14/10 we took infopass and spoke to customer service representative. She told that visa Numbers are not available any more and also checked validity of finger prints in system.
Told us that they are expired (Till now we gave 2 times, one in sept 07, 2nd one in may 09 (FP are valid for for 15m)) - I guess we need to give 3 rd time soon.
She told that dates for FP at ASC center are not available and will try to send us ASAP when Visa Numbers are available.
more...
pmb76
07-14 06:08 PM
I was Just watching CNN and was reporting a part of Lou Dobbs episode,
Tom Tancredo saying people overstay on H-1B after its "5 year" Expiration.
I think he do not even have a clue about H-1 B programme.
Sometimes I wonder how these bozos get elected to office. These congressmen who misread the law, how can they get away with making such false statements over mainstream national media ? What is particularly appalling is , why haven't we heard any outbursts from media or other government quarters challenging his statements. What a mess...
Tom Tancredo saying people overstay on H-1B after its "5 year" Expiration.
I think he do not even have a clue about H-1 B programme.
Sometimes I wonder how these bozos get elected to office. These congressmen who misread the law, how can they get away with making such false statements over mainstream national media ? What is particularly appalling is , why haven't we heard any outbursts from media or other government quarters challenging his statements. What a mess...
nojoke
11-25 10:52 PM
Exactly!
So then we all need to agree that the person foreclosing has no right to blame the lender. It is people like you and me whose tax money will be used to bail out banks that have the right to blame them AND the borrower! :)
100% with you. What is so irritating is that these guys (both bank and the individuals) are getting away with 'nobody saw this coming'. I have been begging my friends not to get into this mess for years. If I can see this, I am sure the banking professionals, economist would have seen this too. They just wanted to make money (greedy %&*^%^&*). Probably they thought the government will bail them out since all the banks are doing it anyway. After this mess is cleaned out, no one will again talk about flipping house for a long long time:D
So then we all need to agree that the person foreclosing has no right to blame the lender. It is people like you and me whose tax money will be used to bail out banks that have the right to blame them AND the borrower! :)
100% with you. What is so irritating is that these guys (both bank and the individuals) are getting away with 'nobody saw this coming'. I have been begging my friends not to get into this mess for years. If I can see this, I am sure the banking professionals, economist would have seen this too. They just wanted to make money (greedy %&*^%^&*). Probably they thought the government will bail them out since all the banks are doing it anyway. After this mess is cleaned out, no one will again talk about flipping house for a long long time:D
more...
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
2010 compaq 621 ruby red.
dionysus
06-27 10:34 PM
I am in the same situation, and I plan to include photocopy of my courtesy copy of my I-140 with other docs, as I am filing AOS by myself. If anyone else had the same issue, please share your exp.
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but courtesy copy is not sufficient to file I-485. Read your courtesy copy clearly. It categorically states that
"This courtesy copy may not be used in lieu of official notification to demonstrate the filing or processing action taken on this case."
I think it is crystal clear what INS means.
The big question is, what happens if you do file with the courtesy copy of your I-140 instead of the original one. My guess is, if you are lucky, INS may accept your 485 petition initially, and after a few months then may simply send you a RFE asking for the original copy of I-140. And, by that time you may be able to convince your company or company-lawyer to release to you the original copy. And if you are unluncky and the clerk at INS is sharp eyed, he/she may take this as a case of missing initial evidence and blow up your entire 485 application at the on set.
You can take your chances.
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but courtesy copy is not sufficient to file I-485. Read your courtesy copy clearly. It categorically states that
"This courtesy copy may not be used in lieu of official notification to demonstrate the filing or processing action taken on this case."
I think it is crystal clear what INS means.
The big question is, what happens if you do file with the courtesy copy of your I-140 instead of the original one. My guess is, if you are lucky, INS may accept your 485 petition initially, and after a few months then may simply send you a RFE asking for the original copy of I-140. And, by that time you may be able to convince your company or company-lawyer to release to you the original copy. And if you are unluncky and the clerk at INS is sharp eyed, he/she may take this as a case of missing initial evidence and blow up your entire 485 application at the on set.
You can take your chances.
more...
cooldude0807
08-16 02:02 PM
As far as my knowledge goes, there is no streamline email for NSC. We did send emails to NSCSfollowup and SCOPPSCAT .. and got standard script response for both.
Is it NSCSfollowup.nsc@dhs.gov or NCSCfollowup.nsc@dhs.gov?
Is it NSCSfollowup.nsc@dhs.gov or NCSCfollowup.nsc@dhs.gov?
hair images tattoo compaq 621 ruby
mamit
02-26 05:53 AM
Hi All
I received the passport from VFS (h1-B renewal - PIMS check delay) after a wait of 2 Months... All the best with your case !!
congrats man. I remember reading you angry emails about the delay. good luck.
I received the passport from VFS (h1-B renewal - PIMS check delay) after a wait of 2 Months... All the best with your case !!
congrats man. I remember reading you angry emails about the delay. good luck.
more...
aussienyc
05-16 07:13 PM
late last month my father passed away and I had to fly back to Australia to attend the funeral. My lawyer and I were already in the process of preparing my i485/ead/ap. They arrived at the service centre on may26 and I left the US shortly after midnight on the 27th ( talk about close). My lawyer told me that as long as I was present in the US the day that the Service centre recieved my applications, I was ok. I also had my L1 re-stamped in Sydney before returning.
So based on my experience, no you dont have to wait for reciept of filing, just must be in US when filled.
So based on my experience, no you dont have to wait for reciept of filing, just must be in US when filled.
hot images compaq 420. compaq 621
dtekkedil
07-09 06:38 PM
My flowers from FTD got shipped through DHL. Are they going to stop the DHS guy and ask him to go to the Hospital????
They would have to collect the flowers first and then send them there themselves.
Thats good enough for us!
They would have to collect the flowers first and then send them there themselves.
Thats good enough for us!
more...
house hair compaq 621 ruby red
reddymjm
08-21 10:10 AM
!!!!!!!!!!!!!Not all cell phones are included!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only these are included in free calling.
----------
India 91 FREE $0.17
India (Cellular & Premium) 919, 9192-4, 9197-9 FREE $0.18
India - Ahmedabad 9179 FREE $0.17
India - Andrah Pradesh (Cellular & Premium) 919440, 919848-9, 919885 FREE $0.16
India - Bangalore 9180 FREE $0.18
India - Baroda 91265 FREE $0.17
India - Calcutta 9133 FREE $0.17
India - Chennai (Madras) 9144 FREE $0.18
India - Ernakulam 91484 FREE $0.15
India - Gujurat 9126-8 FREE $0.17
India - Hyderabad 9140 FREE $0.18
India - Jallandhar 91181 FREE $0.15
India - Mumbai (Bombay) 9122 FREE $0.17
India - New Delhi 9111 FREE $0.17
India - Pune 9120 FREE $0.18
India - Punjab 9116-8, 91162, 91164-5, 91170, 91176, 91178-9, 91183, 91185-6, 91188, 91191-2, 91197, 91199, 911610-2, 911614-9, 911630-4, 911636-9, 911676, 911682, 911685, 911720-2, 911724-9, 911820-5, 911827-9, 911870, 911872-9, 911890-1, 911893, 911895-08, 911985 FREE $0.18
India - Punjab (Cellular & Premium) 919814-5, 919872 FREE $0.18
India - Tamil Nadu (Cellular & Premium) 919444, 919840-1, 919884 FREE
Only these are included in free calling.
----------
India 91 FREE $0.17
India (Cellular & Premium) 919, 9192-4, 9197-9 FREE $0.18
India - Ahmedabad 9179 FREE $0.17
India - Andrah Pradesh (Cellular & Premium) 919440, 919848-9, 919885 FREE $0.16
India - Bangalore 9180 FREE $0.18
India - Baroda 91265 FREE $0.17
India - Calcutta 9133 FREE $0.17
India - Chennai (Madras) 9144 FREE $0.18
India - Ernakulam 91484 FREE $0.15
India - Gujurat 9126-8 FREE $0.17
India - Hyderabad 9140 FREE $0.18
India - Jallandhar 91181 FREE $0.15
India - Mumbai (Bombay) 9122 FREE $0.17
India - New Delhi 9111 FREE $0.17
India - Pune 9120 FREE $0.18
India - Punjab 9116-8, 91162, 91164-5, 91170, 91176, 91178-9, 91183, 91185-6, 91188, 91191-2, 91197, 91199, 911610-2, 911614-9, 911630-4, 911636-9, 911676, 911682, 911685, 911720-2, 911724-9, 911820-5, 911827-9, 911870, 911872-9, 911890-1, 911893, 911895-08, 911985 FREE $0.18
India - Punjab (Cellular & Premium) 919814-5, 919872 FREE $0.18
India - Tamil Nadu (Cellular & Premium) 919444, 919840-1, 919884 FREE
tattoo CQ60 compaq 621 red.
glus
01-21 09:47 AM
But if your visa is stamped and not expired, do you still need an AP ?
Anurakt,
If a person has filed an I485 and has a valid H1 visa stamp in his/hers passport, no AP is needed when traveling as h1 is a "dual intent" visa. This applies to H1 and L1 visas. When leaving this country when I485 is pending, the I485 will not be deemed as abondomed because one travels on a "dual intent" visa. IF one, however, had filed an I485 while being on a diffrent type of a visa, like F1, or B2, one MUST obtaint AP before leaving. Other wise the person will NOT be able to re-enter the country even if one has a valid F1 or B2 visa and the I485 will be deemed abandomed. This is because by filing the I485, he/she has shown an immigrant intent, and both F1 and B2 don't allow for such intent.
So many people don't realize that a H1 or L1 are very POWERFUL visas.
I am not an attorney so do not take my answers for granted.
Anurakt,
If a person has filed an I485 and has a valid H1 visa stamp in his/hers passport, no AP is needed when traveling as h1 is a "dual intent" visa. This applies to H1 and L1 visas. When leaving this country when I485 is pending, the I485 will not be deemed as abondomed because one travels on a "dual intent" visa. IF one, however, had filed an I485 while being on a diffrent type of a visa, like F1, or B2, one MUST obtaint AP before leaving. Other wise the person will NOT be able to re-enter the country even if one has a valid F1 or B2 visa and the I485 will be deemed abandomed. This is because by filing the I485, he/she has shown an immigrant intent, and both F1 and B2 don't allow for such intent.
So many people don't realize that a H1 or L1 are very POWERFUL visas.
I am not an attorney so do not take my answers for granted.
more...
pictures girlfriend compaq 621 ruby red
sotaz
06-15 04:18 PM
I have quick question about I-485 filing date. What will be the filing date, the day I mail the packet or the day they receive or the day they acknowledge the receipt.
I am asking this because I cannot file my I-485 before August 15th due to some personal reasons. So suppose I prepare everything beforehand and mail it on August 16th - will that be appropriate filing (assuming the dates remain current in August)?
Thanks. Any feedback will be much appreciated.
PD: July 2004, I -140 pending.
I am asking this because I cannot file my I-485 before August 15th due to some personal reasons. So suppose I prepare everything beforehand and mail it on August 16th - will that be appropriate filing (assuming the dates remain current in August)?
Thanks. Any feedback will be much appreciated.
PD: July 2004, I -140 pending.
dresses compaq 621 ruby red. more
goel_ar
04-06 06:16 PM
This needs to be advertised on the forums here or on the home page. Most people don't know what IV's expenses are.
A generic breakdown of costs, without going into specifics, would help members understand the expenses and provide some transparency.
It may even motivate new members to contribute more :)
I completely agree !!!
A generic breakdown of costs, without going into specifics, would help members understand the expenses and provide some transparency.
It may even motivate new members to contribute more :)
I completely agree !!!
more...
makeup compaq 621 ruby red.
indianindian2006
09-09 03:35 PM
Wife called all of them I am starting to call now
girlfriend compaq 621 ruby red. ★
smitha
07-09 10:09 PM
I exactly know where your statements about 2005-2006-2007 coming from. Your basic assumptions is that 2005-2006-2007 guys are those who just came to US 2-3 yrs back and now want their GC asap whereas you are waiting in line for 6-7 years...right?
Ma'm with all due respect, that is not correct for most of the cases. There are several people who has to re-file their labor for several reasons (employer greedy, company overtaken, laid-off, company gone bankrupt etc etc.). That does not mean that 2005-2006-2007 guys are asking that they should get GC before 2001-2004 people. What most of the people need is an ability to file for AOS so that they can indepenedent of the clutches of their employers.
I'm sure if you widen your horizon, you will be able to understand the plight of all your brothers and sisters stuck in this retrogression.
For your information
Smitha
EB2 India
PD-2005-May
I140 approved-Sept 2006
I have MS in EE from US and working since 2001,filed my GC in 2005 May(PERM).
However can you please tell me anyone who got GC in Eb2/Eb3(India) in 1-2 yr in the last 15 yrs?
Exactly that is now 2006-2007 PD guys are expecting to happen a miracle, right? I mean, apply 485,EAD ASAP.
If you guys really care about 2002-2003-2004 guys, then please please wait for OCT 07 bulletin and after that you can do anything you want. If they will retrogress the dates, then please fight but not before that.
This is just a suggestion. If you like follow it, otherwise ignore.
Ma'm with all due respect, that is not correct for most of the cases. There are several people who has to re-file their labor for several reasons (employer greedy, company overtaken, laid-off, company gone bankrupt etc etc.). That does not mean that 2005-2006-2007 guys are asking that they should get GC before 2001-2004 people. What most of the people need is an ability to file for AOS so that they can indepenedent of the clutches of their employers.
I'm sure if you widen your horizon, you will be able to understand the plight of all your brothers and sisters stuck in this retrogression.
For your information
Smitha
EB2 India
PD-2005-May
I140 approved-Sept 2006
I have MS in EE from US and working since 2001,filed my GC in 2005 May(PERM).
However can you please tell me anyone who got GC in Eb2/Eb3(India) in 1-2 yr in the last 15 yrs?
Exactly that is now 2006-2007 PD guys are expecting to happen a miracle, right? I mean, apply 485,EAD ASAP.
If you guys really care about 2002-2003-2004 guys, then please please wait for OCT 07 bulletin and after that you can do anything you want. If they will retrogress the dates, then please fight but not before that.
This is just a suggestion. If you like follow it, otherwise ignore.
hairstyles compaq 621 ruby red.
brb2
10-07 09:21 PM
She may have been nice, but she did not give you correct information. I don't know where you "spoke to a very nice IO", but if it is the phone line, they are outsourced phone operators who are poorly trained and do not have access to the information that IO's have.
FBI name check comes back in 2 weeks at the most, if not then it could take 2 months to 5 years or so.
Hi
I just spoke to a very nice IO. I asked about my name check , she said that it's pendig and FBI name check is 9 months behind the scheduale. That all the information she gave me.
does everybody go through FBI check name or only a percentage?
FBI name check comes back in 2 weeks at the most, if not then it could take 2 months to 5 years or so.
Hi
I just spoke to a very nice IO. I asked about my name check , she said that it's pendig and FBI name check is 9 months behind the scheduale. That all the information she gave me.
does everybody go through FBI check name or only a percentage?
StillonH1B
09-24 06:06 PM
This link is not working
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Str...%20Reports.pdf. I get a Page Not found error.
Is there a different link.
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Str...%20Reports.pdf. I get a Page Not found error.
Is there a different link.
PBECVictim
06-29 05:35 PM
I am joining Law Suit. I am leaving this country, if they make it 'U' for Eb2 and Eb3 for India.