bugsbunny
05-12 04:37 PM
If you want to help IV and in turn help yourself
step 1. setup atleast $25 recurring contribution to IV and become a Donor.
step 2. participate in your state chapter
if its not active ...make it active
step 3. coordinate with other volunteers and help with media outreach
or meet your local lawmakers along with fellow IV members to talk about our issues.
sure there are plenty of things IV could do better but it cannot happen without your active participation. People who get greened will leave cause they do have better things to do than to toil on for people who don't even appreciate their efforts on here. Some who are noble stick around to help.
If you are complaining that there is no bill to help legal immigrants then ask yourself...Have you done your part in pushing for it?
step 1. setup atleast $25 recurring contribution to IV and become a Donor.
step 2. participate in your state chapter
if its not active ...make it active
step 3. coordinate with other volunteers and help with media outreach
or meet your local lawmakers along with fellow IV members to talk about our issues.
sure there are plenty of things IV could do better but it cannot happen without your active participation. People who get greened will leave cause they do have better things to do than to toil on for people who don't even appreciate their efforts on here. Some who are noble stick around to help.
If you are complaining that there is no bill to help legal immigrants then ask yourself...Have you done your part in pushing for it?
wallpaper adorable love quotes for your
eilsoe
02-03 06:17 PM
Anybody noticed the shadows on my entry?
I even have shadows on the flowers! :P
the boring days at work/school is gold in a pixel battle :smirk:
I even have shadows on the flowers! :P
the boring days at work/school is gold in a pixel battle :smirk:
Gravitation
04-13 11:18 AM
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3219.html
2011 2011 love quotes for your
karnamrao
08-22 02:13 PM
Based on the discussion with Charlie Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting, DOS, the AILA has just released the following predictions:
EB-1 (All Countries): Closely match to September 2007 VB
EB-2 (All Countries): Closely match to September 2007 VB
EB-3 (All Countries): Similar to January 2007 VB
EB-3EW (All Countries): 10/01/2001
EB-4: N/A
EB-5: C
Please stay tuned.
EB-1 (All Countries): Closely match to September 2007 VB
EB-2 (All Countries): Closely match to September 2007 VB
EB-3 (All Countries): Similar to January 2007 VB
EB-3EW (All Countries): 10/01/2001
EB-4: N/A
EB-5: C
Please stay tuned.
more...
apahilaj
11-27 07:15 PM
Hi All FP seekers! I do not know what exactly I am missing if there is a delay in FP. It looks like hundreds of IV members are too much worried because of the 'delay' in FP. Let me worry too (by knowing the big problem!). Can any worriers explain??
On the other hand is it not better to have a late FP, so that you need not go again in the next 15 months! Anyway for most people GC is going to take years!
It's the uncertainty of the entire process that kills us...Have seen couple of users whose cases have been erroneoulsy denied since they did not went for their biometrics. Guess what, these users never received any FP notice from USCIS. I tend to partially agree with you; if the PD is no where close to being current, why worry about FP now - it's their responsibility to get us finger printed. But on the other hand, I do not want my case to be erroneously denied because of an error in their processing...
This is just my personal opinion. I am not loosing my sleep over this any more.
On the other hand is it not better to have a late FP, so that you need not go again in the next 15 months! Anyway for most people GC is going to take years!
It's the uncertainty of the entire process that kills us...Have seen couple of users whose cases have been erroneoulsy denied since they did not went for their biometrics. Guess what, these users never received any FP notice from USCIS. I tend to partially agree with you; if the PD is no where close to being current, why worry about FP now - it's their responsibility to get us finger printed. But on the other hand, I do not want my case to be erroneously denied because of an error in their processing...
This is just my personal opinion. I am not loosing my sleep over this any more.
wahwah
06-05 02:59 PM
andy garcia,
its not about reading it 10 times....but you're incorrect - read this portion in the memo dont just blindly read the "must be approved I-140 portion" of the memo.
it clearly says that the new memo is not any different from what was said back in 2005. here is the excerpt from the new memo:
In order to be considered valid, an I-140 petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a portability request made under INA � 204(j).
The holding in this decision is consistent with the guidance previously provided in the answer to Question 1, Section 1, on page 3 of the December 27, 2005 memorandum entitled Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313).
and by the way...here is the Q1, Section 1 page the memo is talking about....
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has
been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated
within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue
relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or
similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.[/I][/I][/I][/I]
You can read it 10 ways, but the CIS has only one interpretation(see bold below).
An un-adjudicated Form I-140 petition is not made valid merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days. Rather, the petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a �106(c) AC21 portability request.
its not about reading it 10 times....but you're incorrect - read this portion in the memo dont just blindly read the "must be approved I-140 portion" of the memo.
it clearly says that the new memo is not any different from what was said back in 2005. here is the excerpt from the new memo:
In order to be considered valid, an I-140 petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a portability request made under INA � 204(j).
The holding in this decision is consistent with the guidance previously provided in the answer to Question 1, Section 1, on page 3 of the December 27, 2005 memorandum entitled Interim Guidance for Processing Form I-140 Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions and Form I-485 and H-1B Petitions Affected by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) (Public Law 106-313).
and by the way...here is the Q1, Section 1 page the memo is talking about....
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has
been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated
within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue
relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or
similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.[/I][/I][/I][/I]
You can read it 10 ways, but the CIS has only one interpretation(see bold below).
An un-adjudicated Form I-140 petition is not made valid merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days. Rather, the petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a �106(c) AC21 portability request.
more...
bostonqa
12-13 12:25 PM
Can you explain why EB2 ROW is flowing to EB3 and not to EB2 India?
Since May 2005
EB2 India has moved by 1 week.
so its ONE week in 9 months!
no matter what excuse they have, this is just pathetic.
well on the other hand if they can screw up FEMA, Immigration isnt even a blip on this nations radar.
Since May 2005
EB2 India has moved by 1 week.
so its ONE week in 9 months!
no matter what excuse they have, this is just pathetic.
well on the other hand if they can screw up FEMA, Immigration isnt even a blip on this nations radar.
2010 2011 love quotes for your
pappu
04-21 12:44 PM
Here is some analysis from Immigration Policy Center
---------------------------------
How Much Will Arizona's Immigration Bill (SB1070) Cost?
April 21, 2010
Washington, D.C.- Frustrated by Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, states across the country continue considering legislation that relies heavily on punitive, enforcement-only measures which not only fail to end unauthorized immigration but also have the potential to dig their state's finances deeper into a hole. The latest example of this kind of policy nose dive is in Arizona. A recent bill, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070), was passed by the Arizona State legislature and awaits the signature of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. As the Governor ponders whether or not to put her signature on SB 1070, she should consider the potential economic impact of the bill, which would require police to check a person's immigration status if they suspect that person is in the United States illegally. This bill, if it becomes law, will likely affect not only unauthorized immigrants, but all immigrants and Latinos in general. Given the vital role that immigrants and Latinos play in Arizona's economy, and considering Arizona's current budget deficit of $3 billion dollars, enacting SB 1070 could be a perilous move.
At a purely administrative level, Gov. Brewer should take into consideration the potential costs of implementation and defending the state against lawsuits. As the National Employment Law Project (NELP) points out in the case of other states that have passed harsh local immigration laws, Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted. This is in addition to the cost of implementation. For instance, NELP observes that "in Riverside, New Jersey, the town of 8,000 had already spent $82,000 in legal fees defending its ordinance" by the time it was rescinded in September, 2007. Also in 2007, the county supervisors in Prince William County, Maryland were unwilling to move forward with the police enforcement portion of an immigration law after they found that the price tag would be a minimum of $14 million for five years.
More broadly, Gov. Brewer should keep in mind that, if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002 - the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group also estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well.
With Arizona facing a budget deficit of more than $3 billion, Gov. Brewer might want to think twice about measures such as SB 1070 that would further imperil the state's economic future and try instead to find ways in which she can bring additional tax revenue to her state while pursuing smart enforcement that will actually protect Arizonans.
-----------------------------------------
---------------------------------
How Much Will Arizona's Immigration Bill (SB1070) Cost?
April 21, 2010
Washington, D.C.- Frustrated by Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, states across the country continue considering legislation that relies heavily on punitive, enforcement-only measures which not only fail to end unauthorized immigration but also have the potential to dig their state's finances deeper into a hole. The latest example of this kind of policy nose dive is in Arizona. A recent bill, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070), was passed by the Arizona State legislature and awaits the signature of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. As the Governor ponders whether or not to put her signature on SB 1070, she should consider the potential economic impact of the bill, which would require police to check a person's immigration status if they suspect that person is in the United States illegally. This bill, if it becomes law, will likely affect not only unauthorized immigrants, but all immigrants and Latinos in general. Given the vital role that immigrants and Latinos play in Arizona's economy, and considering Arizona's current budget deficit of $3 billion dollars, enacting SB 1070 could be a perilous move.
At a purely administrative level, Gov. Brewer should take into consideration the potential costs of implementation and defending the state against lawsuits. As the National Employment Law Project (NELP) points out in the case of other states that have passed harsh local immigration laws, Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted. This is in addition to the cost of implementation. For instance, NELP observes that "in Riverside, New Jersey, the town of 8,000 had already spent $82,000 in legal fees defending its ordinance" by the time it was rescinded in September, 2007. Also in 2007, the county supervisors in Prince William County, Maryland were unwilling to move forward with the police enforcement portion of an immigration law after they found that the price tag would be a minimum of $14 million for five years.
More broadly, Gov. Brewer should keep in mind that, if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002 - the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group also estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well.
With Arizona facing a budget deficit of more than $3 billion, Gov. Brewer might want to think twice about measures such as SB 1070 that would further imperil the state's economic future and try instead to find ways in which she can bring additional tax revenue to her state while pursuing smart enforcement that will actually protect Arizonans.
-----------------------------------------
more...
saketh555
05-30 07:29 PM
Done!!!
hair love quotes for your boyfriend
satheeshpola
09-11 04:30 PM
Our applications (myself and my wife) reached USCIS NSC on July 2nd. Our 485, EAD and AP's have WAC numbers. we both received EAD cards and approved AP's in first week of Sep. and last week of Aug we received Notice from CSC that our 485 case is being transferred to NSC as our cases fall under NSC's jurisdiction. It looks like EAD and AP cases are processed in CSC. My I-140 was approved by NSC in Oct 2006. We are waiting for FP notices. Hope this helps.
more...
starscream
06-23 09:38 PM
Related article:
Cornyn Calls on Obama to Present Immigration Reform Plan - Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/36174-1.html)
Cornyn Calls on Obama to Present Immigration Reform Plan
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Tuesday called on President Barack Obama to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan this year, saying a directive from the White House is the only way to push the complex issue forward.
�What we need is not another photo op at the White House. What we need now is a plan from the president,� said Cornyn, ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.
�The president doesn�t write legislation, but he does have the bully pulpit,� Cornyn said, adding that right now �it�s unclear how they can get it finished.�
Cornyn is one of several lawmakers who will meet with administration officials Thursday to discuss immigration policy. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged Monday that time may run out this year before the administration and Congress � already spread thin with health care and climate change legislation � can take up yet another time-consuming and sweeping proposal.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) echoed those concerns: �We�ve got a full plate already.�
�There�s been little discussion from our side on immigration reform. I�ve honestly not given it a lot of thought,� McConnell said.
But Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reiterated his call for doing a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year.
�We have to finish health care and climate change, but being third on the list is pretty good,� Reid said, predicting that he could muster up the votes for a bill later this year.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the immigration subpanel, will deliver an address on immigration at Georgetown University on Wednesday and is expected to outline �the principles that will guide legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate later this year,� according to a release.
Schumer will also attend the White House meeting Thursday.
Cornyn Calls on Obama to Present Immigration Reform Plan - Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/36174-1.html)
Cornyn Calls on Obama to Present Immigration Reform Plan
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Tuesday called on President Barack Obama to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan this year, saying a directive from the White House is the only way to push the complex issue forward.
�What we need is not another photo op at the White House. What we need now is a plan from the president,� said Cornyn, ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.
�The president doesn�t write legislation, but he does have the bully pulpit,� Cornyn said, adding that right now �it�s unclear how they can get it finished.�
Cornyn is one of several lawmakers who will meet with administration officials Thursday to discuss immigration policy. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged Monday that time may run out this year before the administration and Congress � already spread thin with health care and climate change legislation � can take up yet another time-consuming and sweeping proposal.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) echoed those concerns: �We�ve got a full plate already.�
�There�s been little discussion from our side on immigration reform. I�ve honestly not given it a lot of thought,� McConnell said.
But Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reiterated his call for doing a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year.
�We have to finish health care and climate change, but being third on the list is pretty good,� Reid said, predicting that he could muster up the votes for a bill later this year.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the immigration subpanel, will deliver an address on immigration at Georgetown University on Wednesday and is expected to outline �the principles that will guide legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate later this year,� according to a release.
Schumer will also attend the White House meeting Thursday.
hot love quotes for your
Circus123
07-10 08:04 AM
In my opinion, we should not spend any resources on this guy and or to oppose who oppose our views.
We should stick to getting our goals achieved instead of fighting those who are fighting us.
Lou Dobb seems to discourage illegal immigration but is all for legal immigration ...
We should stick to getting our goals achieved instead of fighting those who are fighting us.
Lou Dobb seems to discourage illegal immigration but is all for legal immigration ...
more...
house tattoo cute love quotes for
lsuk
04-13 02:51 PM
Good news for some of us guys! They are now processing August 1, 2003 :) It moved 1 year forward.
tattoo love quotes for your
McLuvin
03-04 11:05 AM
EB3-I is a lost hope, i dont think there will be any movement for next 2-3 years. Year 2001, 2002 and 2003 had 185K H1Bs and even if we assume 100K being used by India and all of them applied for GC -(half of them in EB3 to be optimistic). The number would be 50K/year just primary applicants. So, to advance from 2002 with 50K applicants would take---you can guess. There are only ~4000 visas/year for EB3 India.
Yeah I can understand... Well certain things defy logic.... Hope is all life is about :)
I am not trying to sound preachy.... com'on man we do go to casinos even knowing that the probability of winning is acute...
Yeah I can understand... Well certain things defy logic.... Hope is all life is about :)
I am not trying to sound preachy.... com'on man we do go to casinos even knowing that the probability of winning is acute...
more...
pictures funny love sayings your
mbartosik
01-26 10:31 PM
The standard stuff line, I'd say is a frequent sign on foul intent.
If there is foul intent then "training" would likely mean the salaries of all your senior colleagues in the employers' opinion. At least he would claim some stupid figure.
If it really is an honest employer, he would be willing to modify or clarify the contract to identify the meaning of training as "elective external courses paid for by employer and run by external training companies or schools, at request of employee, for example MBA course.". Now that would be more standard, for example, if employer pays for your MBA course and you leave soon after completing it, then employers do often ask for the course fees back. However, if you receive highly customized (and non portable) training because you need it for your job that should not be included, and to try to require it is just foul intent.
You could even write your definition of "training" on the contract before signing it.
If you need non proprietary training to do the job you are applying for, it sounds like abuse of H visa, since applicant is meant to be qualified.
If there is foul intent then you don't want to be working for him anyway.
Maybe try speaking to any other employees on H or L visa by way of references.
If there is foul intent then "training" would likely mean the salaries of all your senior colleagues in the employers' opinion. At least he would claim some stupid figure.
If it really is an honest employer, he would be willing to modify or clarify the contract to identify the meaning of training as "elective external courses paid for by employer and run by external training companies or schools, at request of employee, for example MBA course.". Now that would be more standard, for example, if employer pays for your MBA course and you leave soon after completing it, then employers do often ask for the course fees back. However, if you receive highly customized (and non portable) training because you need it for your job that should not be included, and to try to require it is just foul intent.
You could even write your definition of "training" on the contract before signing it.
If you need non proprietary training to do the job you are applying for, it sounds like abuse of H visa, since applicant is meant to be qualified.
If there is foul intent then you don't want to be working for him anyway.
Maybe try speaking to any other employees on H or L visa by way of references.
dresses Teenage Love Quotes For Your
regacct
07-07 08:19 AM
Over 60% of the US and 90% of Arizona supports the law they passed. Obama and his Attorney General are doing the wrong thing by interfering with state politics. How can these high ranking officials tell state law enforcement NOT TO enforce laws? The Supreme court will favor AZ even before the case starts. Slam Dunk.
Immigration issues are handled by the Federal govt and Arizona is encroaching upon the Fed, and making laws - that is why the Obama govt is calling it unconstitutional.
Secondly, if you want the green card, you better support the feds. Reason, if other states keep passing laws such as AZ, even if nothing happens initially to the legal immigrants - it won't be long before you will be targeted.
Besides, which state law should the USCIS confer to? If your wait is long now, if you believe that USCIS is inefficient - just wait until all the states pass AZ laws..............
Immigration issues are handled by the Federal govt and Arizona is encroaching upon the Fed, and making laws - that is why the Obama govt is calling it unconstitutional.
Secondly, if you want the green card, you better support the feds. Reason, if other states keep passing laws such as AZ, even if nothing happens initially to the legal immigrants - it won't be long before you will be targeted.
Besides, which state law should the USCIS confer to? If your wait is long now, if you believe that USCIS is inefficient - just wait until all the states pass AZ laws..............
more...
makeup teenage love quotes for your
Vsach
07-27 08:01 PM
You are being a jerk and don't encourage others to be:mad:
girlfriend cute love quotes about your
jgh_res
08-11 09:14 AM
U have such a big signature but nothing abt contribution to IV. Have u contributed anything to IV? If not, how do u thinkIV can fight for whatever it is fighting?
I had a friend who came here after me, say I think in 2001, he got laid off and had gaps in his employment, he married this girl who joined a company head quartered in IOWA, the payroll stubs used to be in excel sheets. He was probably in the point where if we went to India, they would not have let him come back on H1. They paid 10K to get LS (adjusted through employment for 1 year) and when I-140 and 485 were being allowed for consecutive filing I believe Dec2004, filed it. He called me a month back saying they got their physical card. His PD date somewhere 2004 EB3. My PD March 21 2003, am I frustrated of course, but I am frustrated with the system that has loop holes, as pointed out there are hundred of people who have legitimately used LS.. there is no point losing sleep over it.
The need of the hour is this, to be together and fight together, not among each other. IV does not differentiate between LS and non LS, or degrees or anyone's individual cases or scenarios. IV's goal is very simple, GC process should not take more that 2 years and anything that reduces the total time frame, that is what IV stands for. Time is key, lost time cannot be regained, what is in for is now and the future, lets stick together and think about how we can help IV meet this goal, that none of us should be waiting many many more years to come. Can we all agree on this and go forward please?
Thanks and appreciate everyone's understanding.
I had a friend who came here after me, say I think in 2001, he got laid off and had gaps in his employment, he married this girl who joined a company head quartered in IOWA, the payroll stubs used to be in excel sheets. He was probably in the point where if we went to India, they would not have let him come back on H1. They paid 10K to get LS (adjusted through employment for 1 year) and when I-140 and 485 were being allowed for consecutive filing I believe Dec2004, filed it. He called me a month back saying they got their physical card. His PD date somewhere 2004 EB3. My PD March 21 2003, am I frustrated of course, but I am frustrated with the system that has loop holes, as pointed out there are hundred of people who have legitimately used LS.. there is no point losing sleep over it.
The need of the hour is this, to be together and fight together, not among each other. IV does not differentiate between LS and non LS, or degrees or anyone's individual cases or scenarios. IV's goal is very simple, GC process should not take more that 2 years and anything that reduces the total time frame, that is what IV stands for. Time is key, lost time cannot be regained, what is in for is now and the future, lets stick together and think about how we can help IV meet this goal, that none of us should be waiting many many more years to come. Can we all agree on this and go forward please?
Thanks and appreciate everyone's understanding.
hairstyles love quotes for your crush
engineer
07-06 04:22 PM
This is great news. I was approaching Brian Williams few days ago and gave him all the information.
Great achievement...
Great achievement...
whattodo
07-27 02:14 PM
Talked to an io at neb sc.within 5 sec of me starting to talk the ffice interuppted and she apologosed for doing that and said because of huge vol of appli there is a delay in the receipt notice.i SAID I AM july 2 nd filer and she said it might be in the first week of aug..(i had said the same thing in my earlier post too after i spoke toa diff officer)..She asked to keep checking the check clearnace.
Hope this helps
Thanks
If no one (or practically no one) from July 2nd has got their receipt notice, then whats the point of calling them everyday. Calling them will NOT get your receipts sooner. These kind of behaviors lead to bad customer service. Misuse it and then dont complain if USCIS disallows this service where we can call and talk to someone. Just get your act together and act maturely.
Hope this helps
Thanks
If no one (or practically no one) from July 2nd has got their receipt notice, then whats the point of calling them everyday. Calling them will NOT get your receipts sooner. These kind of behaviors lead to bad customer service. Misuse it and then dont complain if USCIS disallows this service where we can call and talk to someone. Just get your act together and act maturely.
abhisec
08-06 02:29 PM
I am not an expert in starting a poll - But I think it will help to take a headcount for /year PD basis.
Esp. 2002,2003,2004,2005,Until June1,2006 cases. Proportion of which could serve as some kind of estimate - Can be cross checked with for sanity.
Amen to that. See my sig.
Esp. 2002,2003,2004,2005,Until June1,2006 cases. Proportion of which could serve as some kind of estimate - Can be cross checked with for sanity.
Amen to that. See my sig.
