ramus
09-10 06:45 AM
Thanks for contribution..
just donated 100$ thru google checkout . transaction id Google Order #312235194400027
just donated 100$ thru google checkout . transaction id Google Order #312235194400027
wallpaper 15/69. Aerial View of El
gcadream
02-24 08:47 AM
Dear Sakthisagar
As you said that you applied for H1 extn in 2009 and got extended only for 1 yr instead of 3 yrs [as your I-140 was approved], this means that this yr if suppose you have to apply for H1 extn again that means again the employer has to pay around 4000$ for extn and your have to pay again around 500$ for H4 extn correct ?
As you said that you applied for H1 extn in 2009 and got extended only for 1 yr instead of 3 yrs [as your I-140 was approved], this means that this yr if suppose you have to apply for H1 extn again that means again the employer has to pay around 4000$ for extn and your have to pay again around 500$ for H4 extn correct ?
apb
09-11 06:29 PM
Contributed $100 yesterday. Contributed $100 more today. (Paypal Transaction ID: 3SC70877BD390151N).
Coming to the rally on 9/18.
Downloaded the petition and already got 20 signatures (not including family and friends).
Thanks for your effort IV.
You rock superdesi.. That is the spirit. Getting 20 signatures is awesome.
Coming to the rally on 9/18.
Downloaded the petition and already got 20 signatures (not including family and friends).
Thanks for your effort IV.
You rock superdesi.. That is the spirit. Getting 20 signatures is awesome.
2011 Mountains National Park
mallu
03-31 11:42 PM
Alright Guys, Let's ignore this Dard-e-disco guy he doesn't deserve a second of our time. To answer your question, one thing atleast USCIS can give us is, Release data like How many applications they have already received from Major Green Card Seeking countries and in which EB categories. All this data they would have entered in their computers, They can easily run these kind of reports, I'm sure they'll be having some Data Warehousing softwares. So atleast everybody of know where we stand today and stop predicting cut-off dates etc. etc.
They can also make sure they send our APs and EADs in less than 90 days....
As Ron Gotcher observed, they are still using DOS ( not department of state ! ) programs .
They can also make sure they send our APs and EADs in less than 90 days....
As Ron Gotcher observed, they are still using DOS ( not department of state ! ) programs .
more...
susie
07-15 11:19 AM
APPENDIX: REFORM SOLUTIONS
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
A compassionate visa is immediately required for reasons of humanity and dignity. Currently, because of the technicalities of US immigration laws many families torn apart are also subject to more degrading treatment at times of severe illness. Any provision should allow for the following:
* US residents, including those who are landlocked, to leave the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons;
* Non-US residents to enter the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons on a nonimmigrant basis;
* Evidence of immigrant intent should not prevent a person receiving a compassionate visa (such as an existing immigrant petition), unless an applicant makes it absolutely clear their intention is to immigrate and not to enter the USA on a temporary basis;
* To prevent abuse of such a visa, documentary evidence should be required as appropriate to ensure the application is made in good faith; and
* Compassionate visa processing should be dealt with the USCIS for US residents and in the consular office for non-US residents on an expedited basis if the imminent death of a close relative or funeral arrangements for a deceased relative is at issue.
INA, section 203(h) (as inserted by the Child States Protection Act, section 3) (8 U.S.C.1153(h))
Current Provision in INA, section 203(h)
�RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE CHILDREN-
(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made using--
(A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien's parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by
(B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending.
(2) PETITIONS DESCRIBED- The petition described in this paragraph is--
(A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or
(B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of the alien's parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c).
(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(4) and (d), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.''
Explanation
The references to �(a)(2)(A)� refers to principal beneficiaries and �(d)� refers to derivative beneficiaries. Subsection (1) provides a calculation to be considered a child under the family-based preference categories in light of USCIS processing delays. Subsection (2) describes the types of petition covered, ensuring beneficiaries, whether principal or derivative, are treated as a child under 21. Subsection (3) is another useful provision so that if the calculation of a beneficiary renders them over 21, they can retain the priority date of the original petition.
Problems
The language of this provision has rendered the provision open to ambiguity. Specifically, subsection (3) states the �alien�s petition shall be automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.� The problem is in relation to a derivative beneficiary (which is covered by this subsection) and is twofold. First, by its nature of being a derivative, a derivative beneficiary does not have an original application to speak of. Only the parent has a petition, which has caused the ambiguity. A Board of Immigration (BIA) decision did provide a common sense interpretation (Garcia, Maria T, File A79-001-587, June 16, 2006), but this is not binding on the USCIS and we know first hand that the USCIS has not consistently interpreted the provision in accordance with the BIA decision. Second, although the above mentioned BIA decision clarifies the provision also applies to F4 derivative beneficiaries, these petitions do not automatically convert. An F4 derivative beneficiary who ages still must wait for their Parent to file a new I-130 form, which is inconsistent with the language of the provision.
Another problem is if the new proposed points system is implemented, any person who ages out will no longer have a direct basis for immigration. Instead they would have to qualify under a points system, which is not guaranteed. This new system would make the above provisions redundant.
Solutions
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
A compassionate visa is immediately required for reasons of humanity and dignity. Currently, because of the technicalities of US immigration laws many families torn apart are also subject to more degrading treatment at times of severe illness. Any provision should allow for the following:
* US residents, including those who are landlocked, to leave the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons;
* Non-US residents to enter the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons on a nonimmigrant basis;
* Evidence of immigrant intent should not prevent a person receiving a compassionate visa (such as an existing immigrant petition), unless an applicant makes it absolutely clear their intention is to immigrate and not to enter the USA on a temporary basis;
* To prevent abuse of such a visa, documentary evidence should be required as appropriate to ensure the application is made in good faith; and
* Compassionate visa processing should be dealt with the USCIS for US residents and in the consular office for non-US residents on an expedited basis if the imminent death of a close relative or funeral arrangements for a deceased relative is at issue.
INA, section 203(h) (as inserted by the Child States Protection Act, section 3) (8 U.S.C.1153(h))
Current Provision in INA, section 203(h)
�RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE CHILDREN-
(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made using--
(A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien's parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by
(B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending.
(2) PETITIONS DESCRIBED- The petition described in this paragraph is--
(A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or
(B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of the alien's parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c).
(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(4) and (d), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.''
Explanation
The references to �(a)(2)(A)� refers to principal beneficiaries and �(d)� refers to derivative beneficiaries. Subsection (1) provides a calculation to be considered a child under the family-based preference categories in light of USCIS processing delays. Subsection (2) describes the types of petition covered, ensuring beneficiaries, whether principal or derivative, are treated as a child under 21. Subsection (3) is another useful provision so that if the calculation of a beneficiary renders them over 21, they can retain the priority date of the original petition.
Problems
The language of this provision has rendered the provision open to ambiguity. Specifically, subsection (3) states the �alien�s petition shall be automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.� The problem is in relation to a derivative beneficiary (which is covered by this subsection) and is twofold. First, by its nature of being a derivative, a derivative beneficiary does not have an original application to speak of. Only the parent has a petition, which has caused the ambiguity. A Board of Immigration (BIA) decision did provide a common sense interpretation (Garcia, Maria T, File A79-001-587, June 16, 2006), but this is not binding on the USCIS and we know first hand that the USCIS has not consistently interpreted the provision in accordance with the BIA decision. Second, although the above mentioned BIA decision clarifies the provision also applies to F4 derivative beneficiaries, these petitions do not automatically convert. An F4 derivative beneficiary who ages still must wait for their Parent to file a new I-130 form, which is inconsistent with the language of the provision.
Another problem is if the new proposed points system is implemented, any person who ages out will no longer have a direct basis for immigration. Instead they would have to qualify under a points system, which is not guaranteed. This new system would make the above provisions redundant.
Solutions
desi3933
12-21 11:47 AM
one of my close friend grew from a regular programmer to the position of VP in the span of last 6 years. he is facing lot of issues with GC.
clearly mirage didn't mean growing to the position of exactly VP. he meant a higher and slightly different position, for example an IT Manager. It is not that uncommon, for a IT Progmr who works in the same company for 5-6 years, offered a Manager position.
desi, this is argument is going nowhere, ur intentions in the beginning are good and i welcome ur critique, but leave it when recepeints aren't taking it. it became argument just for the sake of supporting ur argument.
Sure, he will face lot of difficulties, if his employer failed to file for H1 amendment when his job profile/responsibilities changed. There is a procedure in place whenever for cases when job profile changes. My job profile was changed, but my employer filed for both H1 amendment and new I-140 to reflect new job duties.
When new I-140 is filed in such cases, beneficiary retains his/her priority date.
Good Luck with your GC.
______________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
clearly mirage didn't mean growing to the position of exactly VP. he meant a higher and slightly different position, for example an IT Manager. It is not that uncommon, for a IT Progmr who works in the same company for 5-6 years, offered a Manager position.
desi, this is argument is going nowhere, ur intentions in the beginning are good and i welcome ur critique, but leave it when recepeints aren't taking it. it became argument just for the sake of supporting ur argument.
Sure, he will face lot of difficulties, if his employer failed to file for H1 amendment when his job profile/responsibilities changed. There is a procedure in place whenever for cases when job profile changes. My job profile was changed, but my employer filed for both H1 amendment and new I-140 to reflect new job duties.
When new I-140 is filed in such cases, beneficiary retains his/her priority date.
Good Luck with your GC.
______________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
more...
masti_Gai
01-10 03:30 PM
Am not going back no matter what....
2010 Guadalupe Mountains, West
ras
10-16 05:47 PM
Added some missing in's and to's, etc. if it appears appropriate, you may keep the changes.
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
Pineapple
01-06 04:58 PM
The video is obviously edited, so it is hard to put some of the statements into context without access to the entire transcript. (In any case, we cannot see what charts he is referring to)
Anyway: Regarding the point that it is relatively easy to find skilled people here than in India, I tend to agree. However, the reason is that the most skilled graduates from India (and China) do not stick around for long there, and are actually to be found here! Without checking the raw data it is impossible to comment on Mr Wadhwa's assertion regarding ease of filling positions in US vs India/China. (For instance, does his data on US companies include positions (in US) filled by immigrants or does it include only positions filled by US born citizens?)
Getting to where he is amazed that R&D is done in India & China, I'm not sure why that is surprising, and indeed, why should it even contradict his assertion that the vast majority of Indian/Chinese graduates are appalling. I'm not commenting on whether that assertion is true or not. I do not know, but, even granting it is true, it is important to remember that a minority of a large population might be as big, or bigger than the majority of a small population. (Remember, you have to exclude all foreign students from US universities and only include US born citizens in the population of American engineers. Why? Because all foreign students would need H1 to work here, just the same as a student in a Indian/Chinese university. To avoid 'double counting' basically) So how do we compare apples to apples? How do we compare "number of good engineers in US" vs "number of good engineers in China/India"? It is very hard to do that via a survey, if not impossible. The best survey is observing the "invisible hand" of the market: If good research is done in India/China, while simultaneously, immigrants from there have a had a huge role to play in Silicon Valley's success, that tells you something, does it not?
Anyway: Regarding the point that it is relatively easy to find skilled people here than in India, I tend to agree. However, the reason is that the most skilled graduates from India (and China) do not stick around for long there, and are actually to be found here! Without checking the raw data it is impossible to comment on Mr Wadhwa's assertion regarding ease of filling positions in US vs India/China. (For instance, does his data on US companies include positions (in US) filled by immigrants or does it include only positions filled by US born citizens?)
Getting to where he is amazed that R&D is done in India & China, I'm not sure why that is surprising, and indeed, why should it even contradict his assertion that the vast majority of Indian/Chinese graduates are appalling. I'm not commenting on whether that assertion is true or not. I do not know, but, even granting it is true, it is important to remember that a minority of a large population might be as big, or bigger than the majority of a small population. (Remember, you have to exclude all foreign students from US universities and only include US born citizens in the population of American engineers. Why? Because all foreign students would need H1 to work here, just the same as a student in a Indian/Chinese university. To avoid 'double counting' basically) So how do we compare apples to apples? How do we compare "number of good engineers in US" vs "number of good engineers in China/India"? It is very hard to do that via a survey, if not impossible. The best survey is observing the "invisible hand" of the market: If good research is done in India/China, while simultaneously, immigrants from there have a had a huge role to play in Silicon Valley's success, that tells you something, does it not?
hair In Guadalupe National Park.
lonedesi
08-11 12:56 PM
Hi All
I am sorry if I post this in wrong place. I dont know how my EB2 I140 approved in 2 months.did any body get approved like this?
Congrats. You are one of those lucky ones. Be thankful to USCIS that you got your I-140 approved so fast.
I am sorry if I post this in wrong place. I dont know how my EB2 I140 approved in 2 months.did any body get approved like this?
Congrats. You are one of those lucky ones. Be thankful to USCIS that you got your I-140 approved so fast.
more...
Cheran
07-11 11:59 AM
Between Fragoman, My Company and USCIS they sure are going to drive me nuts. I am waiting for green card for 10 years now with the same company. They are moving EB2 date and nothing gets done with EB3. On top of all these, 2 years from now, they will make all dates current which literally mean I will get my Green Card with a guy came here 10 months ago....
hot Guadalupe Mountains National
chanduv23
05-15 10:41 PM
I totally agree with you on this. But I am not talking about the MTR. I am talking about the fee issues. Why do we need to pay if its their mistake. I dont think we are talking about the fee waiver with congress men's office or anyone else.
I agree. We definitely need to get some kind of process to correct "service errors" against filing MTR which is associated with a cost.
Remember MTR is basically for presenting NEW FACTS and not to correct service errors.
If members can come up with innovative ideas of correcting these issues, we can definitely do campaigns.
All we need is cooperation and help from members.
AC21 denials is clearly a service error and when one invokes AC21 the person should not be punished by slapping a denial and making him/her accrue unlawful status and forcing them to open a Motion.
I agree. We definitely need to get some kind of process to correct "service errors" against filing MTR which is associated with a cost.
Remember MTR is basically for presenting NEW FACTS and not to correct service errors.
If members can come up with innovative ideas of correcting these issues, we can definitely do campaigns.
All we need is cooperation and help from members.
AC21 denials is clearly a service error and when one invokes AC21 the person should not be punished by slapping a denial and making him/her accrue unlawful status and forcing them to open a Motion.
more...
house Mountains National Park,
srt57
06-01 03:59 PM
THIS IS VALID ONLY IF THE CIR BILL BECOMES A LAW IN ITS CURRENT FORM....
From what I know (largely due to the posts on these forums), if your I-140 was not filed by May 15th 2007, you will have to reapply for your GC in the new system.
LC or I-485 is not relevant here. The cutoff date is determined by your I-140 filing date.
Also, between May 15th 2007 and October 1st 2008 (likely), no new I-140s can be applied. Thus, it would make no sense to apply for a LC either. USCIS will only process backlogged I-485 cases and issue green cards.
Finally, it is really unfair for them to set this cutoff date retroactively. But it is legal for them to do this. Can't sue them for it.
Hope this clears things.
Thanks,
Jayant
But this generally applies to people affected by retrogression. If one isn't affected by retrogression, applies for I-140 after 5/15/2007 and gets green card before 10/1/2008 (which is possible) then that person should be ok, is that right?
From what I know (largely due to the posts on these forums), if your I-140 was not filed by May 15th 2007, you will have to reapply for your GC in the new system.
LC or I-485 is not relevant here. The cutoff date is determined by your I-140 filing date.
Also, between May 15th 2007 and October 1st 2008 (likely), no new I-140s can be applied. Thus, it would make no sense to apply for a LC either. USCIS will only process backlogged I-485 cases and issue green cards.
Finally, it is really unfair for them to set this cutoff date retroactively. But it is legal for them to do this. Can't sue them for it.
Hope this clears things.
Thanks,
Jayant
But this generally applies to people affected by retrogression. If one isn't affected by retrogression, applies for I-140 after 5/15/2007 and gets green card before 10/1/2008 (which is possible) then that person should be ok, is that right?
tattoo Texas, United States photo
agc2005
07-15 09:25 AM
Mailed my little contribution $10.
agc2005
agc2005
more...
pictures Mountains National Park
leoindiano
09-11 01:55 PM
Paypal Confirmation Number: 7R258466SC5551342.
Just contributed another 100. Notified some freinds about the drive as well.
now or never GC.
I am going to DC.
Just contributed another 100. Notified some freinds about the drive as well.
now or never GC.
I am going to DC.
dresses Mountains National Park -
Raju
07-06 02:00 PM
No This is a height of Cruelity from USCIS. They must have interpreted lot of phone calls and inquiries as "people might not have understood the revision" as they are not from "English Speaking" countries so change it and put "Flip" and "Flop" together as somebody mentioned ahead. But if people might not have understood "Flip" and "Flop" then how can they understand "Flip-Flop"?:)
They posted the revised bulletin in a hurry. They should have done this on July 2nd. The actual july bulletin consists FB dates and other dates.
They posted the revised bulletin in a hurry. They should have done this on July 2nd. The actual july bulletin consists FB dates and other dates.
more...
makeup Mountains National Park.
GOTGC
07-25 07:56 AM
We applied in Nebraska in August 2003, Cleared in State on August 29th 2003, Transferred to Chicago DOL on Sept 1st 2003..Got Certfied on Oct 16th 2003...So yes..in some states Labor was VERY Quick.
girlfriend Guadalupe Mountains National
sands_14
01-06 12:58 PM
I e-filed for AP?
I have been asked to send ADIT photographs not computer photographs?
Anybody knows what ADIT means???
I am confused...
Please advise.
I just read that ADIT photographs used to be the norm till 2004,is it changing again from passport style photos to ADIT?The RFE I received for my AP clearly asking for ADIT photographs.Now where do I get these ADIT photographs???Any ideas.URGENT Please.
I have been asked to send ADIT photographs not computer photographs?
Anybody knows what ADIT means???
I am confused...
Please advise.
I just read that ADIT photographs used to be the norm till 2004,is it changing again from passport style photos to ADIT?The RFE I received for my AP clearly asking for ADIT photographs.Now where do I get these ADIT photographs???Any ideas.URGENT Please.
hairstyles Guadalupe Mountains National
missourian
09-09 11:33 PM
I feeling really bad because I couldn't participate in rally, I just made a modest contribution of $100 through paypal
Web Accept Payment Sent (ID # 0830757928815571G)
Web Accept Payment Sent (ID # 0830757928815571G)
guest1978
08-11 07:33 PM
sandy2575,
What category/country and what PD?
I am July 2nd filer, Got finger print notice from NSC with notice dated 8/7.
What category/country and what PD?
I am July 2nd filer, Got finger print notice from NSC with notice dated 8/7.
MDix
03-03 11:09 AM
Not much movement.
EB2-I : 15 August 2004
Eb3-I : Either U or 15 Jan 2002.
Thank's
MDix
EB2-I : 15 August 2004
Eb3-I : Either U or 15 Jan 2002.
Thank's
MDix
No comments:
Post a Comment