transpass
02-23 01:05 PM
people,
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
But they can approve only based on available visa numbers...:confused:
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
But they can approve only based on available visa numbers...:confused:
wallpaper tattoo love quotes for girls.
chanduv23
10-21 03:08 PM
Though the denial of this MTR is against the law by USCIS, one must consider following.
AC21 is a benefit for a long delayed adjustment of status applicant to change the employer before getting GC. This law was framed based on the fact that the employee working for a long period of time with sponser (either in non-immigrant visa or in EAD) and cannot change the job because of prolonged delay in approval of 485. However, one must remember that, the fundamental priciple of granting GC is based on the fact that intent of the employee working "permanetly" or some longer period of time for the sponser. If the employer can demonstrate successfully to the USCIS that the employee does not having the intent then USCIS may deny the 485. If one resigns just immediatly after the 180 days, it doubts the legitimacy of the intent. If employer argues that the employee was waiting just for 180 days and using the law to change the job, there is a reason for USCIS to belive the employer's claim about false intent of the emploee. But one can overrule this denial in court, if the employee demonstrates that he/she worked for the sponsor for a considerable period of time before and after filing 485, to prove his/her intent.
I have also heard from some members on forums that the merit of the case is taken into consideration when such a decision has to be made.
AC21 is a benefit for a long delayed adjustment of status applicant to change the employer before getting GC. This law was framed based on the fact that the employee working for a long period of time with sponser (either in non-immigrant visa or in EAD) and cannot change the job because of prolonged delay in approval of 485. However, one must remember that, the fundamental priciple of granting GC is based on the fact that intent of the employee working "permanetly" or some longer period of time for the sponser. If the employer can demonstrate successfully to the USCIS that the employee does not having the intent then USCIS may deny the 485. If one resigns just immediatly after the 180 days, it doubts the legitimacy of the intent. If employer argues that the employee was waiting just for 180 days and using the law to change the job, there is a reason for USCIS to belive the employer's claim about false intent of the emploee. But one can overrule this denial in court, if the employee demonstrates that he/she worked for the sponsor for a considerable period of time before and after filing 485, to prove his/her intent.
I have also heard from some members on forums that the merit of the case is taken into consideration when such a decision has to be made.
GCBy3000
08-02 04:01 PM
Since I was bored at work, I called this number and talked with a rep this morning @10. She told me that they have 76K applications pending for the receipt date as of July 27th. She said this two times thinking me to take on with surprise with this huge number. Yes, of course I am surprised. Is it only 76K apps by July 27th?
Ooops, i missed this in my original post. This is true for Nebraska service centre.
I am not sure about the other service centre. Sorry dudes.
Ooops, i missed this in my original post. This is true for Nebraska service centre.
I am not sure about the other service centre. Sorry dudes.
2011 quotes on girls love. love
ind_game
05-15 11:06 PM
Well, there you go. I am sure your congress liason will give you some good news next week.
thanks a lot for your wishes.....
thanks a lot for your wishes.....
more...
singhsa3
09-12 10:51 AM
It is a good idea, can please register your vote against "simple letter"
In my opinion, we should do this:
Just send two information to USCIS, DOS, President, VP, First Lady and all Congress person of the following:
1. 1st info should have a photocopy of our degree certificate(s). On the same page, print your expereince in years and total tax paid till date to the US government.
2. On a fresh page, type in all the H1B/L VISA approval information and type in bold, we were wanted/invited here legally (and admitted via H1/L).
And, mention that our I140 is approved which means the immigration department has validated our eligibility to become PR.
Ask a question (larger font) on the same page, why keep us on limbo?
This would keep the whole thing short and sweet. We are explicitly saying that we are legals. And we were invited here - legally. We are approved by immigration team to be a PR.
If we could send couple of thousands of letters, I am sure it would have impact as much as any other letter we have in mind.
We are not humiliating them, we are just expressing our frustrations but in mass. May be we can say something like, "Legal Techie slaves in the land of liberty" or "Immigration process that enslave Legal Techies". But, we should keep it short.
As always, ignore this idea if you guys dont like it.
In my opinion, we should do this:
Just send two information to USCIS, DOS, President, VP, First Lady and all Congress person of the following:
1. 1st info should have a photocopy of our degree certificate(s). On the same page, print your expereince in years and total tax paid till date to the US government.
2. On a fresh page, type in all the H1B/L VISA approval information and type in bold, we were wanted/invited here legally (and admitted via H1/L).
And, mention that our I140 is approved which means the immigration department has validated our eligibility to become PR.
Ask a question (larger font) on the same page, why keep us on limbo?
This would keep the whole thing short and sweet. We are explicitly saying that we are legals. And we were invited here - legally. We are approved by immigration team to be a PR.
If we could send couple of thousands of letters, I am sure it would have impact as much as any other letter we have in mind.
We are not humiliating them, we are just expressing our frustrations but in mass. May be we can say something like, "Legal Techie slaves in the land of liberty" or "Immigration process that enslave Legal Techies". But, we should keep it short.
As always, ignore this idea if you guys dont like it.
H1bslave
01-07 09:18 AM
I thought you are Bulgarian :confused:
Ok, so I saw the video. I am confused by his analogy and I am a scientist. Maybe it is the lack of data analysis and graphics he keeps referring to. He is not a great speaker. I stopped watching it midway.
BTW, I am a student from a so called 'garbage' Indian education system and a graduate of Duke University.:p
Go figure!
Ok, so I saw the video. I am confused by his analogy and I am a scientist. Maybe it is the lack of data analysis and graphics he keeps referring to. He is not a great speaker. I stopped watching it midway.
BTW, I am a student from a so called 'garbage' Indian education system and a graduate of Duke University.:p
Go figure!
more...
black_logs
03-09 11:29 AM
So they'll probably take out schedule A workers(Nurses etc.) from EB3 category
2010 dresses dresses love quotes
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...
srikondoji
08-11 08:53 PM
frankzulu,
thanks buddy. ignore that intelligent person.
He seems to be living in different world.
I hope moderators or admin or atleast pappu privately restrain this guy from his vitrious talk.
Coming to attending the rally, lets get some more folks from manchester, nashua area and plan on to attend this event.
--sri
SriKondoji & I both being from the NE area we communicated through this thread possibility of car polling for DC and I received a call from him last thursday(Aug 9th) regarding this from some Ohio area code. So buddyinus I can at least assure you he was travelling at that time.
thanks buddy. ignore that intelligent person.
He seems to be living in different world.
I hope moderators or admin or atleast pappu privately restrain this guy from his vitrious talk.
Coming to attending the rally, lets get some more folks from manchester, nashua area and plan on to attend this event.
--sri
SriKondoji & I both being from the NE area we communicated through this thread possibility of car polling for DC and I received a call from him last thursday(Aug 9th) regarding this from some Ohio area code. So buddyinus I can at least assure you he was travelling at that time.
hair love quotes girls. love quotes
venkata555
09-10 01:49 AM
just donated 100$ thru google checkout . transaction id Google Order #312235194400027
more...
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.
hot tattoo quotes for girls about
santb1975
07-16 11:11 AM
People receive emails about info. posted on state chapters. I have asked other chapter leads to post on their chapter boards as well. I am not sure if we have a consolidated, updated and verified list of all the members across all the state chapters to be able to send an email at this time.
Admins
is it possible to send an email, probably daily once to all members about High Five ?
I feel that most of the members are not aware at this time. Usually when ever something is happening live at senate or congress, more members visit and follow the proceedings. Since there is nothing like that right now, i think it's time to communicate to all of'em.
Just a thought to increase the momentum. This is a great initiative indeed in this tough economy
By the way, i've mailed another check of $50 today morning, towards yesterday's target of $2000
Satya
Admins
is it possible to send an email, probably daily once to all members about High Five ?
I feel that most of the members are not aware at this time. Usually when ever something is happening live at senate or congress, more members visit and follow the proceedings. Since there is nothing like that right now, i think it's time to communicate to all of'em.
Just a thought to increase the momentum. This is a great initiative indeed in this tough economy
By the way, i've mailed another check of $50 today morning, towards yesterday's target of $2000
Satya
more...
house love quotes girls. love quotes
logiclife
04-26 04:46 PM
My H1 extension is under process. I had applied in Dec 2006. My DL expires on May 6. Is it possible to renew my license with the H1 extension receipt?. Is it possible to do Premium Processing now?
Pending H1 transfer/extension petitions can be upgraded to premium processing by sending another form (for upgrade to premium) and the premium fee of $1000.
Some states accept H1 extension filing receipt notice. Other states dont. Depends on the state regulation and state laws. You should check with your DMV / DPS of New Jersey and ask them before you make decision to upgrade your H1 petition to premium. Maybe they will renew your DL with receipt...so check before you spend that money.
Pending H1 transfer/extension petitions can be upgraded to premium processing by sending another form (for upgrade to premium) and the premium fee of $1000.
Some states accept H1 extension filing receipt notice. Other states dont. Depends on the state regulation and state laws. You should check with your DMV / DPS of New Jersey and ask them before you make decision to upgrade your H1 petition to premium. Maybe they will renew your DL with receipt...so check before you spend that money.
tattoo wallpaper love quotes girls.
pd_recapturing
07-14 02:29 PM
Done !!!
Here is the BofA transaction desc:-
Immigration Voice $ 10.00 07/18/2008 7YB4S-SMGL8
Here is the BofA transaction desc:-
Immigration Voice $ 10.00 07/18/2008 7YB4S-SMGL8
more...
pictures quotes for girls about love.
ronhira
07-06 02:27 AM
lahiribaba - you are my hero. this is the best idea yaar :D
good thought
but that's what i just said, you just repeated whatever i said. is that how you define change? my question to you - bawa is - WWBD - what would bawa do?
good thought
but that's what i just said, you just repeated whatever i said. is that how you define change? my question to you - bawa is - WWBD - what would bawa do?
dresses 2011 love quotes girls. love
piperwarrior
07-23 04:16 PM
I got the e-mail today as well. My PD is Sep 2005 and my I-485 receipt date was Sep 30, 2005.
They indeed are clearing up the pipes, so the situation is not as horrible as it seems to be. A pd of 2004 is considered "old" so as soon as visa nos become available in october, they would be the first ones to get approved.
They indeed are clearing up the pipes, so the situation is not as horrible as it seems to be. A pd of 2004 is considered "old" so as soon as visa nos become available in october, they would be the first ones to get approved.
more...
makeup love quotes girls. tattoo love
mrdelhiite
06-25 11:49 AM
Got approved just now. Labor filed EB3 on 23rd Feb Govt job. Thinsg are moving ... Best of luck to all !!!
-M
-M
girlfriend sad love quotes for girls.
channj
03-10 09:24 AM
I got a home loan last year through SunTrust on EAD without any issues. You would need to provide more documentation such as I-140 approval, I-1488 receipt copies. :)
hairstyles house love quotes tattoos for
GCKaMaara
10-27 07:43 AM
Good job GCWonder & cnachu2.
I got few PM from senior members that they sent mails too. Please do not loose the momentum - keep sending mails.
ItIsNotFunny, thanks for reminder.
I got few PM from senior members that they sent mails too. Please do not loose the momentum - keep sending mails.
ItIsNotFunny, thanks for reminder.
chanduv23
09-12 11:52 AM
can we put up forum threads here for state chapters or some kind of direct link or page for each individual state chapter
Doing state chapters through list servs is just not working out.
I think IV is trying to bring State Chapters also onto the website instead of individual list serves. I do not have any details, maybe pappu or Aman can throw light on this. But nevertheless, we can currently execute things in the way we are doing now.
Doing state chapters through list servs is just not working out.
I think IV is trying to bring State Chapters also onto the website instead of individual list serves. I do not have any details, maybe pappu or Aman can throw light on this. But nevertheless, we can currently execute things in the way we are doing now.
singhsa3
07-20 12:37 PM
Not really, The PD will be stuck sometime in 02 or 03. Thus, unless there are some changes in law, we are looking at 5-7 years wait.
Also, I am not fabricating 750,000 number. This is the anticpated applicants, per Matthew Oh.
750,000 applications ? Does that mean the PD will be 01 Jan 1900 after October ? I think you grossly overestimated the number of applications . If the GC quota is 9800 for India then to process 750,00 applications ( most of them will be India I am sure ) will take like 20 years . Thats impossible man !!!
Also, I am not fabricating 750,000 number. This is the anticpated applicants, per Matthew Oh.
750,000 applications ? Does that mean the PD will be 01 Jan 1900 after October ? I think you grossly overestimated the number of applications . If the GC quota is 9800 for India then to process 750,00 applications ( most of them will be India I am sure ) will take like 20 years . Thats impossible man !!!
No comments:
Post a Comment