santb1975
01-22 03:40 PM
Now I am going to take up the task of calling people I know to send letters and organize a letter campaign in So.Cal. I will talk to my employer as well
wallpaper emma watson oyfriend.
shana04
08-20 05:52 PM
Friend,
Even if you paid cash, probably should have withdrawn from bank. And you should be having that bank withdrawl slip or you can go online to get a copy of your bank statement, which shows that you have withdrawn that amount - this is just a proof.
Now call your employer to refund all your money with interest and the loss that you incured for working all these years and the opportunity that you have lost for not filing I 485, else you would file a case agains him with police and FBI for taking cash as this would not provide any proof for filing labor and not filing I 485.
Now you threaten that you would file a suit against him, give all kinds of threats to these A**H***S. sorry could not control my words.
I am kind of same situtation but my employer filed my 485, but exploiting me.
Bastarads, would not progress of some one else money.
I am sorry for you my friend.
Even if you paid cash, probably should have withdrawn from bank. And you should be having that bank withdrawl slip or you can go online to get a copy of your bank statement, which shows that you have withdrawn that amount - this is just a proof.
Now call your employer to refund all your money with interest and the loss that you incured for working all these years and the opportunity that you have lost for not filing I 485, else you would file a case agains him with police and FBI for taking cash as this would not provide any proof for filing labor and not filing I 485.
Now you threaten that you would file a suit against him, give all kinds of threats to these A**H***S. sorry could not control my words.
I am kind of same situtation but my employer filed my 485, but exploiting me.
Bastarads, would not progress of some one else money.
I am sorry for you my friend.
onemorecame
07-17 10:35 AM
Clear IE/Firefox temp cache to view refreshed page. I had to do it (pressing F5 20 times did not make a difference). The dates are now updated to July 16, 2007.
Sorry But please tell me how to do this?
Sorry But please tell me how to do this?
2011 lady gaga oyfriend luc
krishjack
07-10 08:27 AM
As one of the contents in our rally in DC and SAN JOSE we can mention something like
CNN/LOU DOBBS LISTEN TO US - DON'T SPREAD FALSE NEWS
CNN/LOU DOBBS LISTEN TO US - DON'T SPREAD FALSE NEWS
more...
sandiboy
08-16 04:16 PM
Tomorrow being the last day for filing, i believe whoever had to refile have already done so.... So i guess Admin should close this thread
grupak
08-07 07:10 PM
Finally, its easy to say this, but really hard to follow - don't discuss this to your fiance(e) before wedding about the complexity of the situation, unless she is very understanding and can take it without a panic. Most of all, take it easy, relax and enjoy your wedding.
Good luck!
If I were you, I would discuss this before the wedding. Its too important an issue not to disclose, in my opinion.
Good luck!
If I were you, I would discuss this before the wedding. Its too important an issue not to disclose, in my opinion.
more...
nemadeni
08-25 08:08 PM
Received only one year EAD .I will have to call USCIS for incorrect validity date of issued EAD.
Did anybody contact USCIS regarding 1 year validity?
Did anybody contact USCIS regarding 1 year validity?
2010 lea michele oyfriend cory
kumar1
07-19 01:55 PM
Thanks to every person who answered this post. I managed to get an appointment in mumbai for Aug 2nd. This will give enough time to send necessary document from my end and also give enough breathing to file the application.
Very good, ask your wife to bring a load of sweets for IV member. ;)
Very good, ask your wife to bring a load of sweets for IV member. ;)
more...
Drifter
04-13 03:58 PM
So after more than a month of sleepless nights, thanks to Immigration Voice looks like my I 485 application is back on track.
A recap of my situation:
Last month I got an email from USCIS-CRIS stating that my I 485 was withdrawn. After being in this country for close to 10 years and in the immigration queue for more than 7 years why would I withdraw the application ??? I did not withdraw my application !!!
It took me more than a month to find out the reason behind the withdrawal..trust me it was not easy..and guess what ....It was my Attorney who had withdrawn the application in Error. Now what ... I call USCIS multiple times.. talk to many different IO's .. some of them patient and try to help.. some extremely rude.. but all of them had only one thing to say... they cannot help!!..... I get an Info Pass... no help there either.. I set up an emergency meeting with my attorney (one of the large Immigration Law Firms) .. nothing...they accept their mistake tell me that they will do all they can .. but no assurance that they will reinstate the case .. limited forward movement.... things look gloomy and bleak..no one can help me.
Then I called Immigration Voice on the number that is listed on the site and left a voice mail. Promptly got a call back I spoke to a Core member who understood the gravity and urgency of the situation and swiflty moved forward and got in touch with their contacts in the government. The Core member also put me in a conference call with the person who was going to look into my case, I was so relieved that I could explain the situation first hand.
I got a call today and I was told that after evaluating my case my file has been reopened and they have mailed an offical notice regarding the same and I should get it in a few days. *Fingers crossed until I get this notice in hand ;)*
The IV core was extremely sensitive to my situation and were very responsive and extremly helpful. I cant thank Immigration Voice enough for helping me resolve this issue in a quick manner.
I have registered to be a recurring contributing member and I intend to be an active member of this group.
My lessons from this crazy experience are:
- Never trust your attorney, always ask for a copy of any letter/document they send to USCIS on your behalf
- There is no organization besides IV out there that is looking out for the interests of the Immigrant Community.
- We need to strengthen IV in all ways we can, we need to be active.
- And as so many members have already said "We are IV." If we want things to be better "WE" need to do something about it.
I urge members who are still contemplating becoming active members to evaluate their options and to become active and contributing members of IV.
- Peace
ps:
Another point I would like to add is that no other organization has the kind of reach and the credibility with USCIS as IV has as far as representing the true interests of the Immigrant Community goes. IV is a huge asset we have and we should work towards strenthening it.
A recap of my situation:
Last month I got an email from USCIS-CRIS stating that my I 485 was withdrawn. After being in this country for close to 10 years and in the immigration queue for more than 7 years why would I withdraw the application ??? I did not withdraw my application !!!
It took me more than a month to find out the reason behind the withdrawal..trust me it was not easy..and guess what ....It was my Attorney who had withdrawn the application in Error. Now what ... I call USCIS multiple times.. talk to many different IO's .. some of them patient and try to help.. some extremely rude.. but all of them had only one thing to say... they cannot help!!..... I get an Info Pass... no help there either.. I set up an emergency meeting with my attorney (one of the large Immigration Law Firms) .. nothing...they accept their mistake tell me that they will do all they can .. but no assurance that they will reinstate the case .. limited forward movement.... things look gloomy and bleak..no one can help me.
Then I called Immigration Voice on the number that is listed on the site and left a voice mail. Promptly got a call back I spoke to a Core member who understood the gravity and urgency of the situation and swiflty moved forward and got in touch with their contacts in the government. The Core member also put me in a conference call with the person who was going to look into my case, I was so relieved that I could explain the situation first hand.
I got a call today and I was told that after evaluating my case my file has been reopened and they have mailed an offical notice regarding the same and I should get it in a few days. *Fingers crossed until I get this notice in hand ;)*
The IV core was extremely sensitive to my situation and were very responsive and extremly helpful. I cant thank Immigration Voice enough for helping me resolve this issue in a quick manner.
I have registered to be a recurring contributing member and I intend to be an active member of this group.
My lessons from this crazy experience are:
- Never trust your attorney, always ask for a copy of any letter/document they send to USCIS on your behalf
- There is no organization besides IV out there that is looking out for the interests of the Immigrant Community.
- We need to strengthen IV in all ways we can, we need to be active.
- And as so many members have already said "We are IV." If we want things to be better "WE" need to do something about it.
I urge members who are still contemplating becoming active members to evaluate their options and to become active and contributing members of IV.
- Peace
ps:
Another point I would like to add is that no other organization has the kind of reach and the credibility with USCIS as IV has as far as representing the true interests of the Immigrant Community goes. IV is a huge asset we have and we should work towards strenthening it.
hair wallpaper pictures justin
svam77
08-09 11:55 PM
No one knocked your door and and asked your personal opinion ....and no one cares for what you care ...
Its all these desi companies who misused LC ...... Thereare otherbig companie who just follow rules and do according to it. Being a senior member here, this is not expected of you .....
Its all these desi companies who misused LC ...... Thereare otherbig companie who just follow rules and do according to it. Being a senior member here, this is not expected of you .....
more...
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
hot quotes to a oyfriend.
ak_manu
01-12 12:08 PM
I am traveling this month end to India via Frankfurt. I am on AP. I checked with German consulate in US and officer told me we need transit visa both ways (going and coming back). there are no exceptions. He confirmed the same twice when I went in person to get Transit visa.
I would rather listen to German consulate office rather than interpreting stupid sentences on German consulate web site. So please do get Transit visa with 2 entries.
I would rather listen to German consulate office rather than interpreting stupid sentences on German consulate web site. So please do get Transit visa with 2 entries.
more...
house she and oyfriend Jason
go_guy123
01-27 12:11 AM
However, the offer letter has a clause that is a bit strange and raised some doubts in my mind. Experienced people please comment and let me know if it has a risky hidden meaning. Please note I am not going to take any trainings and would start to work immediately with one of their clients. The clause goes like this.
No problem these bonds etc clauses are unenforcable in court and
only act as deterrant against people leaving. Its a dog that barks not bites.
So you can sign and start working. Even teh good consultant have these types of clauses.
Mine one also had that , however they were good employer
No problem these bonds etc clauses are unenforcable in court and
only act as deterrant against people leaving. Its a dog that barks not bites.
So you can sign and start working. Even teh good consultant have these types of clauses.
Mine one also had that , however they were good employer
tattoo rosie huntington-whiteley
sheela
02-21 08:45 AM
This is the most bizarre thing I ever heard w.r.to immigration. Usually the IO schedules an interview at one of the local offices or at one of the CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) offices. Atleast in San Francisco, both USCIS and CBP offices are located in the same building.
This happened to me and I may try to summarize my experience here. OP relax . PM me if you want to.
I Filed EB2i AOS in 07/07. Got a phone call at home (sometime in sep07). I was at work so my wife was the one who recd call and gave them my work ph#. Guy called at work, introduced himself and asked for time to visit me. We fixed up next morning . It was a kind of tense night. I had not informed my attorney about this- thinking it a part of background checks.
Next morning, an officer in plain bussiness dress showed up at exact time, introduced and gave me his bussiness card and presented his official ID card.
He spent some 45 minutes or so., and had several questions of personal nature about family and friends and money transmitted to india over the years (He had a complete list of transfers)
It was all serious questions but in a very casual/relaxed atmosphere (Nothing like allegations/judgemental).
This all ended very well. Saying GOOD LUCK to GREEN CARD.
Btw: I arrived in 2000 , worked for the same university until then.
This happened to me and I may try to summarize my experience here. OP relax . PM me if you want to.
I Filed EB2i AOS in 07/07. Got a phone call at home (sometime in sep07). I was at work so my wife was the one who recd call and gave them my work ph#. Guy called at work, introduced himself and asked for time to visit me. We fixed up next morning . It was a kind of tense night. I had not informed my attorney about this- thinking it a part of background checks.
Next morning, an officer in plain bussiness dress showed up at exact time, introduced and gave me his bussiness card and presented his official ID card.
He spent some 45 minutes or so., and had several questions of personal nature about family and friends and money transmitted to india over the years (He had a complete list of transfers)
It was all serious questions but in a very casual/relaxed atmosphere (Nothing like allegations/judgemental).
This all ended very well. Saying GOOD LUCK to GREEN CARD.
Btw: I arrived in 2000 , worked for the same university until then.
more...
pictures her actor oyfriend#39;s hand
njboy
11-02 09:25 PM
If Republicans control the House, they will be too bitter because they can't repeal the Health Care Reform, and will not let CIR pass in 2011. Best hope is 2012 now. Obama could have easily passed CIR in past 2 years, instead he focused all his efforts on health care..
dresses ALLISON MACK TWITTER
eilsoe
02-16 06:10 PM
voting ended, thread died :-\
what gives??
oh, Soul, thx for the battle ;)
it was scary in the end...
what gives??
oh, Soul, thx for the battle ;)
it was scary in the end...
more...
makeup oyfriend luc carroll.
pete
12-13 03:29 PM
If I get to it I will report this to the authorities. IV should work against this as well.
girlfriend oyfriend Cash Warren quot;is
rajakannan
06-27 08:41 AM
Dude, From your previous posts looks like you have already filed and got your receipt notice.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=87755#post87755
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=80880#post80880
Well, this is not a good idea ... and obviously every one is as anxious as others to get their papers filed on time. This does not make sense at all. I read your posting history and notice your posts with GC approval and also about receipt notice for spouse.
What is goin on with you ?
you should probably correct ur sentence "... and obviously every one is as anxious as others to get their papers (fedexed) filed on time, fedexing it will not alone guarantee your filing.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=87755#post87755
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=80880#post80880
Well, this is not a good idea ... and obviously every one is as anxious as others to get their papers filed on time. This does not make sense at all. I read your posting history and notice your posts with GC approval and also about receipt notice for spouse.
What is goin on with you ?
you should probably correct ur sentence "... and obviously every one is as anxious as others to get their papers (fedexed) filed on time, fedexing it will not alone guarantee your filing.
hairstyles Allison Mack Twitter - Page 2
Ramba
04-01 06:53 PM
Contact attoreny ASAP why/how it has happened. As he represnts you, USCIS acts upon his request to withdraw. However, he has to make such requsest only upon your written communication to withdraw the application. Therefore, find out whose mistake it is (law firm or USCIS). If it is the law firm mistake ( if you have not requested your attorney to withdraw your 485), contact him to rectify his mistake. That means, he has to put his full effort to get the application back to USCIS. You can even sue them for a hefty amount for the damages they have done. If it is a USCIS mistake, MTR may work well, to get back the 485 in line. As the primary applicant already received the GC, it is tricky. So, contact another atttorney for second opinion and contact AILA, if required.
alterego
01-13 12:21 PM
I've sent in slightly modified letters(personalised) from myself and separately from my wife to both the Whitehouse and to IV.
I found the best way to modify the well written template is to just put a small personal introduction at the top. Who you are, what you do and perhaps that you are waiting patiently for X years.
If you have renewed your EAD multiple times, it might be worth mentioning that as well.
I found the best way to modify the well written template is to just put a small personal introduction at the top. Who you are, what you do and perhaps that you are waiting patiently for X years.
If you have renewed your EAD multiple times, it might be worth mentioning that as well.
dummgelauft
08-03 07:59 AM
Like it or not, USA want diversity;), they not want to be a second Indian, Asian, Mexican, African, European etc country.
And one way to try to manage this is by country limits.
per country limits or not, there will always be a hihgher number of Indians and Chinese just due to the massive backlogs. BTW, there are about 12 million Hispanic people, so called un documented people, just wait til they get legalised. you arguement will holdcabiut as much water as tea strainer.
And one way to try to manage this is by country limits.
per country limits or not, there will always be a hihgher number of Indians and Chinese just due to the massive backlogs. BTW, there are about 12 million Hispanic people, so called un documented people, just wait til they get legalised. you arguement will holdcabiut as much water as tea strainer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment