supers789
03-12 01:15 AM
is it really out
Visa Bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html)
this doesnt tell that yet
As far as dates for India goes, its out. Bulletin on USCIS website will have details for all other countries as well which doesn't matter much to us...
Visa Bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html)
this doesnt tell that yet
As far as dates for India goes, its out. Bulletin on USCIS website will have details for all other countries as well which doesn't matter much to us...
wallpaper emo love break. hair dresses
amitps
09-26 12:11 PM
Please send a thank you email to the reporter....
Eilene Zimmerman
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
This will be a great gesture on IV's part.
Eilene Zimmerman
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
This will be a great gesture on IV's part.
sirinme
06-11 07:34 PM
Just sent.
2011 emo love break. emo love break. out English,emo love good; out
Guest007
12-12 12:48 PM
Guys I have a basic question if filing for 140 and 485 concurently is rule that uscis can change.. why cant they change a rule to file for EAD and AP after 140 is approved. Since these two are seperate all together from 485 anyway, all we need is filing these two. and 485 can filed when numbers are available.
more...
ajthakur
07-14 06:41 PM
You are correct. I joined the new employer on H1 B transfer. I didnt use AC21(ead)to work for my new employer.
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
Nowhere in this post, do I see the fact that the OP used AC21 when he moved in August 2007.
Does not AC21 come in when you have used EAD to move instead of a H1 transfer?
In my understanding, by doing a H1 transfer rather than invoking AC21, the OP preserved the status of the original petition unless the employer revoked the I140 for fraud. If that's the case, shouldn't the RFE be worded differently?
If that's not the case, all the OP has to do is craft a response to the RFE with an Employment Verification Letter from his current employer attesting to the similar nature of job etc.. and move forward.
Either way, an attorney would be the safest bet..
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/chertoff_murthy.html
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
more...
nagio
02-20 12:50 PM
Hi Vin,
I am willing to donate 13,194 Korean airline miles. I have PM'd you with details. I appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Naga
I am willing to donate 13,194 Korean airline miles. I have PM'd you with details. I appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Naga
2010 emo love quotes with pictures.
svr_76
02-19 02:34 PM
There are dozens of security agencies involved with handling crime..The generic statement in the bill is to allow that - Drugs administration, Narcotics, Child-abuse etc etc....
Think! if this bill cannot be used to bring undoc workers into legal status, why would anyone come up with such a bill...This is the Latino caucus pushing to gain vote for 2012. And you thought ppl here care for legal immigrants? If the bill was not meant for undoc workers they could have just used the word "Legal " wherever they are using immigrant or alien but they have carefully kept the legal word out.
So there will be another July-01 but this time 12-20 millions application packets will have to be delivered. Any guess on the order of processing of these applications?
Think! if this bill cannot be used to bring undoc workers into legal status, why would anyone come up with such a bill...This is the Latino caucus pushing to gain vote for 2012. And you thought ppl here care for legal immigrants? If the bill was not meant for undoc workers they could have just used the word "Legal " wherever they are using immigrant or alien but they have carefully kept the legal word out.
So there will be another July-01 but this time 12-20 millions application packets will have to be delivered. Any guess on the order of processing of these applications?
more...
vgayalu
07-24 08:53 AM
I have a same idea like Mr Rpatel. I wrote a Personal message to our moderator Logiclife. But I failed to explain effectively about this to Logiclife.
Now I got some support from Rpatel. This is the very important and bst solution for time being. Rpatel can you send a personal message to logiclife with more clear picture please.
Vgayalu.
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
Now I got some support from Rpatel. This is the very important and bst solution for time being. Rpatel can you send a personal message to logiclife with more clear picture please.
Vgayalu.
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
hair 2010 emo love break. emo love
vghc
07-03 11:10 AM
Taking a benefit of one group, then distribute the pain across the board is not fair to ROW applicants. This is not the solution. You cannot say to us ROW people that we don't understand the fustration of waiting for our GC as well.
I think its ridiculous that some family takes up to 4 GC from the EB GC pool, why don't you make a petition to state that only EB GC goes to EB primary applicant while your family takes up family based GC. Unless your wife and kids are hired to work as the rest of us, them taking EB based GC is unfair to the rest of us who don't have a family.If you petition to eliminate country EB GC only to the primary applicant, then fine....i am all for it, but if you add your wife and kids to it, i say no.
I think its ridiculous that some family takes up to 4 GC from the EB GC pool, why don't you make a petition to state that only EB GC goes to EB primary applicant while your family takes up family based GC. Unless your wife and kids are hired to work as the rest of us, them taking EB based GC is unfair to the rest of us who don't have a family.If you petition to eliminate country EB GC only to the primary applicant, then fine....i am all for it, but if you add your wife and kids to it, i say no.
more...
gsc999
07-13 12:38 PM
Can members posting on this thread please explain to me why this thread is more visible than our San Jose rally thread.
Is this issue so important to you? If you have some spare time, help spread media awareness about this rally.
Other option is to go to this attorney's website and discuss it there.
Is this issue so important to you? If you have some spare time, help spread media awareness about this rally.
Other option is to go to this attorney's website and discuss it there.
hot emo love break. emo love break. Thomas Veil; emo love break. Thomas Veil
onemorecame
10-07 02:12 PM
My packet delivered to mailroom today morning at 9:07 by UPS. And just now at 2:48 got page and checked online status and its says they issued RFE again?
�On October 7, 2010, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence or information in this case�
Not sure whether it�s their system glitch or it�s my luck... :confused:
Is it happen to anyone else or it�s me?
�On October 7, 2010, we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence or information in this case�
Not sure whether it�s their system glitch or it�s my luck... :confused:
Is it happen to anyone else or it�s me?
more...
house how to draw emo love cartoons.
EndlessWait
07-13 09:35 AM
GCBy3000,
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
go figure..u jacko.. this forum is not give publicty to lawyers.
pls close this thread
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
go figure..u jacko.. this forum is not give publicty to lawyers.
pls close this thread
tattoo emo quotes about love and
kaisersose
07-14 05:56 PM
Should I send a AC21 letter to USCIS along with my new employment letter?
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
Who is the best attorney for such cases?
Is it possible that my prevous employer hasn't revoked 140? How can I know that? I have received RFE after one year after filing the case. Is there any way I can know the date when my previous employer did revoke the 140 ( in case he did)?
Of course, you know your problems best, but it was obviously irresponsible of you to quit before letting 180 days pass after applying for 485.
Here is the problem. The letter of employment you send to CIS must have a start date which will expose your violation of the 180 day rule. So unless you lie here, you are likely in in trouble. Your best bet is to suck it up and return to your sponsoring employer. That will ensure your case 100%. Any other option is risky.
Go to a knowledged attorney. Khanna, Murthy, Gotcher etc., are the names I know.
more...
pictures emo love break. emo love break. Top love emo breakup death Is; Top
ajthakur
07-14 05:17 PM
What options do I have now
dresses emo love break. the tomboy and
vin13
11-12 03:32 PM
Isn't there a limit of 27% of visas per quarter per country per calendar year ? If that limit is there then who will take precedence ? Quarterly Spill over or that limit ?
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
In simple math, spillover happens only when there are left overs. If they were able to allocate visas to fill the quarterly limit(say 27%) then there is no spillovers. But we know that there are leftover visa that can be allocated quarterly not annually.
We are not 100% sure of exactly how they are allocating. At the least, this effort will help us understand the current process.
To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.
What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..
just random thoughts.
In simple math, spillover happens only when there are left overs. If they were able to allocate visas to fill the quarterly limit(say 27%) then there is no spillovers. But we know that there are leftover visa that can be allocated quarterly not annually.
We are not 100% sure of exactly how they are allocating. At the least, this effort will help us understand the current process.
more...
makeup emo love break. sad reak
starscream
09-10 12:38 PM
Judiciary committe to resume at 1:00pmGot it. Thank you.
girlfriend emo love quotes in spanish.
Slumdog
01-22 06:29 PM
As mentioned posted new thread. here you go.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23267
Happy Reading..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23267
Happy Reading..
hairstyles emo love break. emo love
indyanguy
02-20 03:47 PM
looks like there no hope for EB3 India to move further :(
Ya, no hope for EB3-India :(
Ya, no hope for EB3-India :(
ganguteli
02-03 03:04 PM
Start from home first. Get the support of your wife to come with you to DC.
Then talk to your collegues in your company and get them to come with you. Before you strat creating divisions in IV and start a flame war with ROW, try to do those things first. That should tell you how difficult it is to get a 2 line bill.
Then talk to your collegues in your company and get them to come with you. Before you strat creating divisions in IV and start a flame war with ROW, try to do those things first. That should tell you how difficult it is to get a 2 line bill.
psk79
07-18 07:38 AM
Hi Guys,
Please post any July 2nd cases on this thread so that we all know if there really are any rejections. All I heard in the past few days was "A friend of mine got rejected on 2nd... My friend's friend got his rejected..Somebody got rejected..."
I didn't see a single post from anyone who got their OWN 485 REJECTED when they filed on July 2nd.
So please post your information as to when your app is received at USCIS.
Mine reached USCIS on July 2, 2007 @ 10AM via FEDEX.
Thanks.
Please post any July 2nd cases on this thread so that we all know if there really are any rejections. All I heard in the past few days was "A friend of mine got rejected on 2nd... My friend's friend got his rejected..Somebody got rejected..."
I didn't see a single post from anyone who got their OWN 485 REJECTED when they filed on July 2nd.
So please post your information as to when your app is received at USCIS.
Mine reached USCIS on July 2, 2007 @ 10AM via FEDEX.
Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment