Jimi_Hendrix
06-30 05:32 PM
Jealous people v/s Non Jealous people => Shady v/s Non Shady business? :cool:
wallpaper miss you quotes for
Hey Ram GC
04-08 10:11 AM
GCcube: How did you come to know that your NC / SC is cleared?
Did you call IO
( Question: If that is the case, your PD is current, are you/ or not eligible for 180 DAYS name check policy. there are cases being approved where PD is current, RD is not
Did you call IO
( Question: If that is the case, your PD is current, are you/ or not eligible for 180 DAYS name check policy. there are cases being approved where PD is current, RD is not
Dhundhun
12-10 09:43 AM
25,000 members, every day request to raise $30,000.
Why not happening? Even every member contribute $2, it becomes $50,000.
The question comes to whom contribute? This web site does not belong to me. If some question is in my mind, I can't start a thread. Which individual/group it belongs to? Who can start a thread? For the last 2-3 days, I am trying to find answers.
How many members are active? Is it or the orders of tengths or hundreds or thousands?
If with 25,000 members, raising $30,000 is difficult, there is some problem. One of the problem defenetly it is not open - even I asked, how can I start a thread, I did not get answer.
I think, core team to get into action to motivate people - as an example I am now so much demotivatied that thinking not visiting this site.
Why not happening? Even every member contribute $2, it becomes $50,000.
The question comes to whom contribute? This web site does not belong to me. If some question is in my mind, I can't start a thread. Which individual/group it belongs to? Who can start a thread? For the last 2-3 days, I am trying to find answers.
How many members are active? Is it or the orders of tengths or hundreds or thousands?
If with 25,000 members, raising $30,000 is difficult, there is some problem. One of the problem defenetly it is not open - even I asked, how can I start a thread, I did not get answer.
I think, core team to get into action to motivate people - as an example I am now so much demotivatied that thinking not visiting this site.
2011 miss you quotes for girlfriend. miss you quotes with images.
immi_twinges
09-06 09:05 AM
Received card production ordered email today!!!
For all those whose spouses are in F1 status do not worry
I applied through my husband(EB3 July 2004) and i was on F1 when i applied with him. Got funding through F1. Did not use 485 EAD.
Graduated but did not apply for OPT and started using 485-EAD to work.
Well... one more thing our lawyer forgot to include our BC while applying.
Actually he had them when he mailed them initially in DEC 2004 but got rejected and after he came back from vacation in March 05 he reapplied based on the rejected mail in Dec 04 and its then when he forgot to include BC.
I was ver scared reading about F1 being non immigrant visa blah blah... and should not apply for GC..blah blah..unfortunately i could not find a similar case like me...recently i saw a lot of people applying in F1 ...
I am happy to tell...do not worry if you are on F1 and
do not travel on F1 visa
Do not apply for OPT ( my limited knowledge advice)
Your lawyer knows the best!
Regarding LUDs:
If you guys see LUDs on your cases atleast one...be very happy...that means they are about to give you a green card...
I am planning on attending the Rally to show my support to 1V
I hope 2007 will be lucky to every one
Believ me journey through 485 process is nerve-wracking...
Just think if it really makes a difference think about it ...no
Just believe in god ( satyanarayan swami pooja cheyinchukondi)...dont laugh
All the Best:o
EB3
PD : July 2004
RD : March 2005
VSC--> TSC : Mar 2007
LUDs on 485 : July 29, Sep3rd 4th
and card production ordered on 5th
For all those whose spouses are in F1 status do not worry
I applied through my husband(EB3 July 2004) and i was on F1 when i applied with him. Got funding through F1. Did not use 485 EAD.
Graduated but did not apply for OPT and started using 485-EAD to work.
Well... one more thing our lawyer forgot to include our BC while applying.
Actually he had them when he mailed them initially in DEC 2004 but got rejected and after he came back from vacation in March 05 he reapplied based on the rejected mail in Dec 04 and its then when he forgot to include BC.
I was ver scared reading about F1 being non immigrant visa blah blah... and should not apply for GC..blah blah..unfortunately i could not find a similar case like me...recently i saw a lot of people applying in F1 ...
I am happy to tell...do not worry if you are on F1 and
do not travel on F1 visa
Do not apply for OPT ( my limited knowledge advice)
Your lawyer knows the best!
Regarding LUDs:
If you guys see LUDs on your cases atleast one...be very happy...that means they are about to give you a green card...
I am planning on attending the Rally to show my support to 1V
I hope 2007 will be lucky to every one
Believ me journey through 485 process is nerve-wracking...
Just think if it really makes a difference think about it ...no
Just believe in god ( satyanarayan swami pooja cheyinchukondi)...dont laugh
All the Best:o
EB3
PD : July 2004
RD : March 2005
VSC--> TSC : Mar 2007
LUDs on 485 : July 29, Sep3rd 4th
and card production ordered on 5th
more...
vin13
05-21 04:43 PM
Aha! He may have tricked you. He could have said you will get your GC by July. But did not mention the year.:D
chanlal
07-31 04:32 AM
Hi My name is Chamraj from India, obtained a h1b from a new jersy based company in Dec 2007. I have signed the agreement of Employment i.e part of my offer letter before appearing for my visa interview.
Infact they had given two offer letters. 1. offer letter with no agrrement of employment after shortlisting me for processing h1b.
2, Offer letter with agreement of employment just before going to us consulate for stamping.
I was asked to give a indian bank guarantee of 100 thousand INR, so i have given them a BG of 100 thousand INR. During last 30 months i was asked to renew my BG twice and i did the same and gave them the renewed copies. But they never bothered to send me to us on h1b.
BG got expired on last month and now they want me to travel to US immdly.
If i do not travel they were asking me to pay 4000 USD as the expenses incurred to process my h1b visa. They also want to take legal action against me.
I have waited for 2,5 years waiting for them to send me to us. they did not send me during last 2.5 years,
Extract from Agreement: If the employee terminates the agreement prior to the minimum period of 18 months, the employee will pay company liquidated charges of 4000 USD.
I am still in India and i was not paid single penny by the company so far. I waited for more than 18 months and now already 30 months over.
Pls advice how i can face his legal action. Can he take a legal against me when i am india where the offer is subject to laws of New Jersy state laws.
Thanks
Infact they had given two offer letters. 1. offer letter with no agrrement of employment after shortlisting me for processing h1b.
2, Offer letter with agreement of employment just before going to us consulate for stamping.
I was asked to give a indian bank guarantee of 100 thousand INR, so i have given them a BG of 100 thousand INR. During last 30 months i was asked to renew my BG twice and i did the same and gave them the renewed copies. But they never bothered to send me to us on h1b.
BG got expired on last month and now they want me to travel to US immdly.
If i do not travel they were asking me to pay 4000 USD as the expenses incurred to process my h1b visa. They also want to take legal action against me.
I have waited for 2,5 years waiting for them to send me to us. they did not send me during last 2.5 years,
Extract from Agreement: If the employee terminates the agreement prior to the minimum period of 18 months, the employee will pay company liquidated charges of 4000 USD.
I am still in India and i was not paid single penny by the company so far. I waited for more than 18 months and now already 30 months over.
Pls advice how i can face his legal action. Can he take a legal against me when i am india where the offer is subject to laws of New Jersy state laws.
Thanks
more...
sac-r-ten
07-30 02:04 PM
Sorry to hear about your "unique" situation. I guess you should hire a attorney and talk in person, since attorneys here for not helping.
Please update this thread if you get an answer from other sources. Its really a headache dealing with USCIS's ways of things.
I wish you get out of this mess soon.
take care.
thanks.
Please update this thread if you get an answer from other sources. Its really a headache dealing with USCIS's ways of things.
I wish you get out of this mess soon.
take care.
thanks.
2010 miss you quotes for girlfriend. missing you love quotes miss
arorasa
01-01 01:20 AM
Good thread. Encourage more people to vote !
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hair i love u quotes for
phigi
11-19 11:13 AM
you should ask the SSA office to accept the application and send it to DC for verification (manual process). They have that option available.
i think you should do that, since there would be no point in waiting if you have to do this after Dec 31 due to some technical error.
Also, the person can work without an SSN. it's not mandatory to have SSN to get paid.
i think you should do that, since there would be no point in waiting if you have to do this after Dec 31 due to some technical error.
Also, the person can work without an SSN. it's not mandatory to have SSN to get paid.
more...
dpp
04-23 03:59 PM
There is no Dead zone as such. They accepted all the applications received from July 2nd to Aug 17th. They have taken back the notice that they issued on July 2nd. So, they should accept all applications received in between the above period.
Yeah I understand the (convoluted!) concept of processing date....And in fact, that definition does not even hold good due to the retrogressions we have been seeing in Processing dates as well which should not be happening as per definition.
Anyway, I would have expected either a July 2 or July 17th... (skipping the zone in between). A July 11th indicates that they are currently processing some cases with that RD and everything else before that has been atleast 'touched'.
But as I mentioned in my post, there may be cases filed during that 'dead zone' as well.
Yeah I understand the (convoluted!) concept of processing date....And in fact, that definition does not even hold good due to the retrogressions we have been seeing in Processing dates as well which should not be happening as per definition.
Anyway, I would have expected either a July 2 or July 17th... (skipping the zone in between). A July 11th indicates that they are currently processing some cases with that RD and everything else before that has been atleast 'touched'.
But as I mentioned in my post, there may be cases filed during that 'dead zone' as well.
hot miss u quotes for girlfriend
amitjoey
06-09 02:29 PM
One of my friend with PD Jul 2001 EB3 India is still waiting for his GC. His name check was cleared 4-5 months back and not sure what he was waiting for.....
India EB3 Jul 2001 is current and he still haS not gotten his card. That Sucks!!. That means, it is still largely your luck!!
India EB3 Jul 2001 is current and he still haS not gotten his card. That Sucks!!. That means, it is still largely your luck!!
more...
house miss you quotes for girlfriend.
mallu
07-19 08:49 PM
And ask many Indians,Chinese etc about their namecheck experience :-)
But this won't be easy "Do you want us to compromise on national security", will be the first question asked . They will acknowledge the applicants pain and won't budge . "We know thousands like you are getting screwed for many years, but national security is foremost'.
I really hope they rely on electronic documents and don't push paper from one office to another.
First, I would like to congratulate each and every member of IV for having an effect on USCIS and successfully able to submit the 485 in July. The things that mattered were the unity and direction / advise from the core team. Its a victory by any standard.
The next big problem will be the delay in FBI name check. With the very little workload they have there are backlogged cases from 2003. It is again like a black box (Hope you remember philly BEC). You can do anything you want but FBI wont budge. And with this extra 200K + applications, the situation would get worse and worse. You really do not want to get stuck here for years. The only thing that works is WOM, and thats not an easy thing to do.
I would strongly urge the core team to consider this as an agenda along with ongoing effort of legislative solution of retrogression (Increasing the number of GCs). I would also ask all the members who were able to file 485 to read some of the forums (Yahoo namecheck tracker, immigration.com etc), and prepare yourself of what is coming. Right now, if you are unlucky, you get stuck, but later if you are lucky, you will get through.
We will win at the end, because we have not done anything wrong. Just keep unity.
Thanks
I contributed $150
But this won't be easy "Do you want us to compromise on national security", will be the first question asked . They will acknowledge the applicants pain and won't budge . "We know thousands like you are getting screwed for many years, but national security is foremost'.
I really hope they rely on electronic documents and don't push paper from one office to another.
First, I would like to congratulate each and every member of IV for having an effect on USCIS and successfully able to submit the 485 in July. The things that mattered were the unity and direction / advise from the core team. Its a victory by any standard.
The next big problem will be the delay in FBI name check. With the very little workload they have there are backlogged cases from 2003. It is again like a black box (Hope you remember philly BEC). You can do anything you want but FBI wont budge. And with this extra 200K + applications, the situation would get worse and worse. You really do not want to get stuck here for years. The only thing that works is WOM, and thats not an easy thing to do.
I would strongly urge the core team to consider this as an agenda along with ongoing effort of legislative solution of retrogression (Increasing the number of GCs). I would also ask all the members who were able to file 485 to read some of the forums (Yahoo namecheck tracker, immigration.com etc), and prepare yourself of what is coming. Right now, if you are unlucky, you get stuck, but later if you are lucky, you will get through.
We will win at the end, because we have not done anything wrong. Just keep unity.
Thanks
I contributed $150
tattoo i love u quotes for girlfriend
ItIsNotFunny
12-05 11:02 AM
I am already a citizen ..:) Just want to know more about PR in US.
Me too! Citizen of India.
Me too! Citizen of India.
more...
pictures miss you quotes for girlfriend. girlfriend quotes funny.
anzerraja
02-11 01:42 PM
PM Me.
Hi Folks,
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
Hi Folks,
What is the fastest and perhaps a little economic way to get documents over to chennai (Tamil Nadu) or Calicut (Kerala) from here in San Jose, ca.
USPS has this service called Express Mail ($27.95) or Priority Mail ($12.95)
I guess USPS is claiming 6-10 days (guess no gurantee) to india.
Other couriers seems to be $70+ (FedEx, UPS, DHL)..
Anyone has had good luck with USPS ? or do you suggest the couriers mentioned above ?
Need to get docs for an interview for parents on Feb 26th in Chennai...
Thanks in Advance for your reply !!
dresses miss u quotes and sayings.
gopi246
03-20 12:07 PM
I was in the same situation and was told by the SSN office person ( a very helpful guy) to re-apply and enter my address as of the SSN office address and he kept my cell number. He said he will call me as soon as the number arrives and then again when the actual card arrives. He called me on both occasions and I got my number in 2 days and the card in less than a month !
I was very grateful for the help and advice the SSN office person provided me at that time.
Thanks guys for the response. I checked with the SSN people if I can resubmit the form. They told they will not allow that. Is there a chance that the immigration people keep it pending so long. If so can I contact them?
I was very grateful for the help and advice the SSN office person provided me at that time.
Thanks guys for the response. I checked with the SSN people if I can resubmit the form. They told they will not allow that. Is there a chance that the immigration people keep it pending so long. If so can I contact them?
more...
makeup i love you and miss you quotes
onemorecame
10-25 01:19 PM
Hi Gurus,
I got You 2 A# number. one is from I-140 and other is from I-485 which i filled on July 2007.
Is it any problem to get 2 A#? if yes then what should be plan of action?
If No then which one is active A# number.
Please advice.
onemorecame.
Bump
I got You 2 A# number. one is from I-140 and other is from I-485 which i filled on July 2007.
Is it any problem to get 2 A#? if yes then what should be plan of action?
If No then which one is active A# number.
Please advice.
onemorecame.
Bump
girlfriend Miss U Quotes For Friends. i
yabadaba
06-25 02:16 PM
^^^
sorry for the bump...just trying to get a decent sample size
sorry for the bump...just trying to get a decent sample size
hairstyles girlfriend miss you quotes for
inskrish
09-15 10:44 AM
The I-485 processing dates have moved forward just a week. Disappointing. :(( If you don't see the Sep.15 dates, close all your browsers, and open a new window to view the dates, or just refresh your page until you see the new dates. )
I-485 EB (NSC) July 08th, 2007
I-485 EB (TSC) June 23rd, 2007.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
I-485 EB (NSC) July 08th, 2007
I-485 EB (TSC) June 23rd, 2007.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Gundark
08-26 11:40 AM
Thanks guys! It was fun making somebody else's idea, I never would have thought of making a Sonic smiley.
We need more suggestions!
We need more suggestions!
GCBatman
04-13 10:03 AM
I have recently switched the job using AC21. I have to move my 401K from my old previous company but here is the issue: in my new company I will not be eligible for the 401 till I complete 6 months with the new company.
If thinking of moving it to IRA account, please let me know what is the procedure involved?
I will really appreciate if some can suggest me what are my other options.
Thanks,
If thinking of moving it to IRA account, please let me know what is the procedure involved?
I will really appreciate if some can suggest me what are my other options.
Thanks,
No comments:
Post a Comment