GCwaitforever
03-17 09:13 PM
Kudos to the core team for their work. These contributions reflect hope and resoluteness in our would-be immigrants, in spite of odds faced in a new country. This is the way to go.
Fund raising should continue, even after we meet the initial goal. We should propagate the word around and seek ideas and cooperation from more future members.
I placed the posters in local Indian Groceries. Tomorrow it is going to be in local temples. I passed on the flyer to an Irish friend of mine. Happy St. Patrick's day to you all.
http://www.shamrock.org/
:)
Fund raising should continue, even after we meet the initial goal. We should propagate the word around and seek ideas and cooperation from more future members.
I placed the posters in local Indian Groceries. Tomorrow it is going to be in local temples. I passed on the flyer to an Irish friend of mine. Happy St. Patrick's day to you all.
http://www.shamrock.org/
:)
jatinr
08-03 05:40 PM
My I-140 is approved.
But as per the August visa bulletin all the country visa numbers are U right. The August 17th is just an extension for the July visa bulletin rollback right?
You are right, if you apply now, you will get 3 yr extension. The extenion is based on whether your I-140 is approved and if the visa numbers are unavailable at the time of applying for extension.
But as per the August visa bulletin all the country visa numbers are U right. The August 17th is just an extension for the July visa bulletin rollback right?
You are right, if you apply now, you will get 3 yr extension. The extenion is based on whether your I-140 is approved and if the visa numbers are unavailable at the time of applying for extension.
browncow
04-25 04:32 PM
Where did you get that?
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/marriage.html
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/marriage.html
Raj12
04-30 11:45 AM
As far as I know, H4's are allowed to do 'voluntary non-paying work' in the US and are not allowed to compete for jobs in the US. In my opinion, if you are working for an indian company and getting paid in Indian currency without hurting the US job market, it should be OK. An excellent point was made earlier about home maintenance activities and baby care activities that are also part of broader terminology of 'work' and 'job'.
more...
roseball
04-04 11:42 PM
3. If new employer gives me the option to move permanently to its subsidiary in another country, what are the available option for me to continue with green card processing?
You can convert your I-485 to Consular Processing (CP) and keep your GC process going. Since GC is for a future job, you can work this out with your employer. Basically, your employer has to support you so that when you are called for the consular interview, you need to be able to show documentary evidence that you will be moving back to the US and joining the same job at or above the advertised wage once your GC is approved.
4. If after going out of the country , I want to come back in future before Green card approval, what will be the available options?
As long as your I-485 is pending, you can use a valid AP to re-enter. To renew your AP, you need to be in the US. If you convert your I-485 to CP, you will lose your EAD/AP privileges and will only be able to enter US on a valid H1 assuming you are coming here to work and have a job offer from an employer.
You can convert your I-485 to Consular Processing (CP) and keep your GC process going. Since GC is for a future job, you can work this out with your employer. Basically, your employer has to support you so that when you are called for the consular interview, you need to be able to show documentary evidence that you will be moving back to the US and joining the same job at or above the advertised wage once your GC is approved.
4. If after going out of the country , I want to come back in future before Green card approval, what will be the available options?
As long as your I-485 is pending, you can use a valid AP to re-enter. To renew your AP, you need to be in the US. If you convert your I-485 to CP, you will lose your EAD/AP privileges and will only be able to enter US on a valid H1 assuming you are coming here to work and have a job offer from an employer.
Sachin_Stock
08-13 02:32 PM
Any gurus can answer this question?
more...
gc_check
03-10 07:55 AM
I guess I should agree with Jerrome because I am going to India 2 weeks from now and My friend who recently had been to India mentioned the same. I have asked the same question to my immigration lawyer, I will post it when I get a reply.
In mean time I have another question, My flight is from Chicago to Delhi, but I have to take a loacl flight from Miami to Chicago, all my international baggage check in's are at the Miami. My question here is should I surrender the I-94 at Miami since I am doing all my International baggage check in's or should it be in Chicago.
Please let me know if anybody had this situation.
-Success.
Submit the I-94 when you board the flight that leave USA, in your case, Chicago, Not Miami, It is always not advisable to sumbit when you are boarding a connecting, non-Internation flight. For example, what if the International flight is cancelled or you missed, you will be in US, but have already returned your I-94 Also always have copies of all the I-94 for records.
In mean time I have another question, My flight is from Chicago to Delhi, but I have to take a loacl flight from Miami to Chicago, all my international baggage check in's are at the Miami. My question here is should I surrender the I-94 at Miami since I am doing all my International baggage check in's or should it be in Chicago.
Please let me know if anybody had this situation.
-Success.
Submit the I-94 when you board the flight that leave USA, in your case, Chicago, Not Miami, It is always not advisable to sumbit when you are boarding a connecting, non-Internation flight. For example, what if the International flight is cancelled or you missed, you will be in US, but have already returned your I-94 Also always have copies of all the I-94 for records.
psychman
04-01 07:28 PM
Also, regarding this matter, how would I set this up if I wanted a rotate transform to happen to an Image object when a context menu item is clicked; not the image itself? I have been playing around with a setup in which I cast the sender as an Image and then using two If statements to check which context menu item was clicked. I will then apply either a clockwise or counter clockwise rotate transform based on which context menu item was clicked. The problem I am running into is how to write the condition for the If statement, undoubtedly due to my lack of C# experience. The following does not work because it says "click" can only be on the left of a += or -=. Here is the code:
//code from other private method
...myImage.MouseRightButtonUp += new MouseButtonEventHandler(myImage_MouseRightButtonUp );
void myImage_MouseRightButtonUp(object sender, MouseButtonEventArgs e)
{
Image clickedImage = (Image)sender;
if (contextRotateCW.Click == true)
{
//code to rotate "clickedImage" clockwise
}
if (contextRotateCCW.Click == true)
{
//code to rotate "clickedImage" counter clockwise
}
}
//code from other private method
...myImage.MouseRightButtonUp += new MouseButtonEventHandler(myImage_MouseRightButtonUp );
void myImage_MouseRightButtonUp(object sender, MouseButtonEventArgs e)
{
Image clickedImage = (Image)sender;
if (contextRotateCW.Click == true)
{
//code to rotate "clickedImage" clockwise
}
if (contextRotateCCW.Click == true)
{
//code to rotate "clickedImage" counter clockwise
}
}
more...
rcauvery
10-02 03:21 PM
Like I mentioned in my earlier post, after extensive research we found the best deal for ppl in H1 at https://www.accessgroup.org/AppSecure/Loan_Terms/federal-private-loan-terms.aspx
PS - This is in no way a promotion for accessgroup, I am just sharing the result of our several hours of research.
Can you please provide some more information on applying for a student loan without a co-signer, when you are not a GC holder or US Citizen? Thanks
PS - This is in no way a promotion for accessgroup, I am just sharing the result of our several hours of research.
Can you please provide some more information on applying for a student loan without a co-signer, when you are not a GC holder or US Citizen? Thanks
sidbee
10-26 04:21 PM
I have travelled on Lufthanza several times with stopover at Frankfort. My parents who have a visitor visa to US travelled on Air France with stopover at Paris. In both cases, there was no need for any transit visa. As a general rule, you need a visa only if you are leaving the airport at the stopover Hub.
This is totally wrong information.
If you are not sure , please don't post with confidence. The OP would have been screwed if he had used Air France.
If you don't have a valid US Visa stamped in the passport (IE working in the US on AP, Approved 797), you cant transit via UK,FRANCE, without a transit visa.
This is totally wrong information.
If you are not sure , please don't post with confidence. The OP would have been screwed if he had used Air France.
If you don't have a valid US Visa stamped in the passport (IE working in the US on AP, Approved 797), you cant transit via UK,FRANCE, without a transit visa.
more...
imind
03-12 03:50 PM
You can go to dice.com or any other jobportal and search for any IT job and you will see lot of jobs says:
NO H1Bs....ONLY EAD/GC/CITIZENSIP .
NO H1Bs....ONLY EAD/GC/CITIZENSIP .
Alabaman
06-22 03:05 PM
IV core team itself is not active these day.
Some people started a group, created a web site, featured on several news shows and have been flying miles to meet with powers that be. Some other people just joined the group by logging in from their website and all they can do is say that the first group as been inactive. Thats funny.
Some people started a group, created a web site, featured on several news shows and have been flying miles to meet with powers that be. Some other people just joined the group by logging in from their website and all they can do is say that the first group as been inactive. Thats funny.
more...
waiting4gc02
11-16 08:11 AM
Anyone...can you suggest..?
gctest
10-04 04:03 PM
wow.. u are making it personal... are u sure you wanna take it there?
I think i am not the first one to receive approval on a saturday... countless people have gotten that in the past. Come out of your mobile home and do some research before you make a statement like that.
Good, USCIS is working on saturday for you. You are lying again like you did for your visa?
I think i am not the first one to receive approval on a saturday... countless people have gotten that in the past. Come out of your mobile home and do some research before you make a statement like that.
Good, USCIS is working on saturday for you. You are lying again like you did for your visa?
more...
alterego
09-15 01:32 PM
Clearly they felt putting EB2 india PD at Jan 2003 created too much of a flow. So they made it unavailable for a while then backed up 6 months with this new quota.
My view is with the coming deluge of Labours from the BECs and the promised pick up in the pace of 140 adjudications, those of us in EB2 will be very lucky if we see a month for month movement in priority dates. I suspect you could count yourself lucky if you get to file for 485 in this fiscal year.
EB india's situation is truly that bad. The bulge in applications in 2002-2005 is so huge that I feel that absent legislation the dates may move at best 4 months per year for the next few years.
Just think that 40K green cards went to India last year and this year it will not exceed 10K by much. That was before BECs.
It is a truly daunting situation.
I however do feel there will be some solution to this mess within the next year with some sort of legislation that corporate america will push.
My view is with the coming deluge of Labours from the BECs and the promised pick up in the pace of 140 adjudications, those of us in EB2 will be very lucky if we see a month for month movement in priority dates. I suspect you could count yourself lucky if you get to file for 485 in this fiscal year.
EB india's situation is truly that bad. The bulge in applications in 2002-2005 is so huge that I feel that absent legislation the dates may move at best 4 months per year for the next few years.
Just think that 40K green cards went to India last year and this year it will not exceed 10K by much. That was before BECs.
It is a truly daunting situation.
I however do feel there will be some solution to this mess within the next year with some sort of legislation that corporate america will push.
jkays94
05-25 01:20 AM
Fax sent
more...
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
ArunAntonio
06-20 05:24 PM
You don't HAVE an A# yet - it is the number you get on your greencard
The A# is a case number that USCIS assigns to certain people, and then (usually, for exceptions see below) stays with you for the rest of your life, much like a Social Security Number. Most people get their A# when they apply for adjustment of status. It is also assigned if you apply for an employment authorization document (such as an F-1 OPT), a V visa, find yourself in deportation proceedings, and in a number of other situations.
Many USCIS forms ask for the A#. If you do not have one yet, simply write "None".
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
-
The A# is a case number that USCIS assigns to certain people, and then (usually, for exceptions see below) stays with you for the rest of your life, much like a Social Security Number. Most people get their A# when they apply for adjustment of status. It is also assigned if you apply for an employment authorization document (such as an F-1 OPT), a V visa, find yourself in deportation proceedings, and in a number of other situations.
Many USCIS forms ask for the A#. If you do not have one yet, simply write "None".
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
-
rsrikant
07-20 10:17 AM
hi,
i can't open this link...
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...0ecd19 0aRCRD
please give me the right link.. thanks.
i can't open this link...
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...0ecd19 0aRCRD
please give me the right link.. thanks.
eb3retro
04-14 08:13 AM
Yes, your reply is exactly same as her. But she added one more point. According to her The CBP officer can't deport a AP bearer. He/she has to parole the person and then can schedule a secondary check for I 140 validity. In such case my attorney can pitch in.
But I am not sure if this is true or she is being over assuring.
Thanks a lot
Listen kroy, All I can say is, people can share general info and their common experiences in these areas as to what they went through. I think its up to you to figure out the best case and the worst case scenario for yourself. Obviously neither me, nor your lawyer is going to be with you, when you go thru the CBP officer. My strong opinion would be to use all these information as a filler in your case and hope for the best. Good Luck!!!
But I am not sure if this is true or she is being over assuring.
Thanks a lot
Listen kroy, All I can say is, people can share general info and their common experiences in these areas as to what they went through. I think its up to you to figure out the best case and the worst case scenario for yourself. Obviously neither me, nor your lawyer is going to be with you, when you go thru the CBP officer. My strong opinion would be to use all these information as a filler in your case and hope for the best. Good Luck!!!
vishage
09-05 04:41 PM
She checked my file over 20 minutes and also talked to her supervisor. they thought USCIS maybe lost my application somewhere. right now, I am waiting response from NSC for my application. I really do not know what need to do.
wish I am the only bad luck one here and good luck to everyone.
Thanks Divakrr,
Tried this the lady on the second level said she couldnt find anything on the file yet.gues have to keep waitin
wish I am the only bad luck one here and good luck to everyone.
Thanks Divakrr,
Tried this the lady on the second level said she couldnt find anything on the file yet.gues have to keep waitin
0 comments:
Post a Comment