instantinstinct
09-11 11:13 PM
This might be just a way from DOS to USCIS to say bring their house in order... do not advance dates until you know the what the accurate demand is.....
just my thoughts...
-----------
Item E of the May 2008 Visa Bulletin (number 118, volume VIII) indicated that many Employment cut-off dates had been advancing very rapidly, based on indications that the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) would need to review a significantly larger pool of applicants than there were numbers available in order to maximize number use under the FY-2008 annual limits. That item also indicated that if the CIS projections proved to be incorrect, it would be necessary to adjust the cut-off dates during the final quarter of FY-2008. The CIS estimates have proven to be very high resulting in: 1) the �unavailability� of all Employment Third preference categories beginning in July, 2) the �unavailability� of numbers for China and India Employment Second preference adjustment of status cases during September, and 3) the establishment of many October Employment cut-off dates which are earlier than those which applied during FY-2008.
Little if any forward movement of the cut-off dates in most Employment categories is likely until the extent of the CIS backlog of old priority dates can be determined.
-----------
just my thoughts...
-----------
Item E of the May 2008 Visa Bulletin (number 118, volume VIII) indicated that many Employment cut-off dates had been advancing very rapidly, based on indications that the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) would need to review a significantly larger pool of applicants than there were numbers available in order to maximize number use under the FY-2008 annual limits. That item also indicated that if the CIS projections proved to be incorrect, it would be necessary to adjust the cut-off dates during the final quarter of FY-2008. The CIS estimates have proven to be very high resulting in: 1) the �unavailability� of all Employment Third preference categories beginning in July, 2) the �unavailability� of numbers for China and India Employment Second preference adjustment of status cases during September, and 3) the establishment of many October Employment cut-off dates which are earlier than those which applied during FY-2008.
Little if any forward movement of the cut-off dates in most Employment categories is likely until the extent of the CIS backlog of old priority dates can be determined.
-----------
wallpaper CARDIGANS JUST GOT SEXY: Mark
gc_kaavaali
10-28 12:32 PM
I sent an e-mail to Ombudsman.
nixstor
04-30 03:07 PM
SO IF they move PD's to 2006 dec then there is aposibility that all 2006 pd 's get GC's before @001 pd's.:mad:
Aytes said " We are moving towards processing based on the shift in priority dates"
what I understood is Aytes is talking about the sweep USCIS is conducting as soon as the VB released. The sweep was mentioned by a lot of service center personnel when members were calling for case status
Aytes said " We are moving towards processing based on the shift in priority dates"
what I understood is Aytes is talking about the sweep USCIS is conducting as soon as the VB released. The sweep was mentioned by a lot of service center personnel when members were calling for case status
2011 Faster by Mark Fast Pants:
pkv
05-07 10:09 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9186416
Congress penalizes U.S. troops, legal U.S. residents in attempt to punish illegal immigrants
By Ken McLaughlin
Mercury News
Article Launched: 05/07/2008 06:51:18 PM PDT
map loc val immig state
When Congress passed an economic-stimulus package giving hefty rebates to most taxpayers, it tried to make sure that illegal immigrants didn't get any of the cash.
But in doing so lawmakers inadvertently penalized hundreds of thousands of legal U.S. residents - and tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed overseas - simply because their spouses lack a Social Security number.
"Imagine an American soldier in Iraq whose foreign-born wife is waiting for an immigration petition to be approved and doesn't have a Social Security card. Now the couple can't even get a rebate," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. "That is really stupid."
Others in the predicament include about a million legal residents whose spouses are still overseas because of long immigration queues and hundreds of thousands of H-1B work visa holders in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
The scope of the problem is only now becoming clear as the government begins mailing out rebate checks. The first checks were electronically deposited in bank accounts last week.
Because illegal immigrants don't have Social Security numbers and instead routinely use "tax identification numbers," Congress banned rebates for taxpayers who use the IRS-issued numbers.
If a married couple files jointly and one spouse doesn't have a Social Security number, the couple won't get the $1,200 checks that other couples will receive. They're also ineligible for the $300 rebate per child. Many Armed Forces members stationed overseas have foreign spouses who can't get Social Security numbers.
William Luong, stationed at a U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Japan, said his fellow seamen resent that they've landed in the same category as illegal immigrants.
"They understand the reason they're getting the shaft," said Luong, 21, who is from the Los Angeles area. "but a lot are frustrated or angry about it."
More than 288,000 troops are stationed overseas, according to the Pentagon - not counting those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many live in places - Korea, Japan and Germany - where extended stays often result in marriages to locals.
The unintended situation developed after the House in late January passed the economic-stimulus legislation at the urging of President Bush. But anti-illegal immigration groups then lobbied the Senate to add the Social Security requirement, fearing that illegal immigrants would get their hands on the checks.
The Federation for American Immigrant Reform - whose members went on radio talk shows to bash the House version of the stimulus bill - has no apologies.
"No law was ever written that doesn't find someone falling through the cracks," said Ira Mehlman, a FAIR spokesman, who said he hoped government officials will come up with some way to help Armed Forces members.
But H-1B visa holders and legal immigrants who are being denied rebates say they want some justice, too.
"If the government collects taxes from us, we should be able to get rebates given to other legal residents, it should be a level-playing field," said Parveen Kumar, an H-1B visa holder who lives in Sunnyvale.
Kumar moved to Silicon Valley from India with his wife three years ago. He now works as an engineer at Intelliswift Software in Fremont. But his wife, Anu, is on a H-4 "dependency visa" that doesn't allow her to work.
After he found out about the rebate law, he went to the Mountain View office of the Social Security Administration and asked if he could get a number for his wife. He was told no.
John Johnston, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, confirmed on Wednesday that the agency's policy is not to issue Social Security cards simply for the purpose of issuing tax rebates.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, there are now between 600,000 and 800,000 H-1B visa holders in the United States. Exactly how many are married to spouses ineligible to work in this country is unclear.
Another group of immigrants - about a million nationwide - are non-citizen green-card holders who are already facing seven-year waits to get permission for their spouses to immigrate to their country.
"I've been in America for well over 20 years, and I consider myself an American," said Amir Nikpouri of Orland Park, a suburb of Chicago. "All I'm trying to do is obey the laws, but this one seems really unfair."
Nikpouri, 31, was married three years ago, but his wife won't be eligible to immigrate from Iran for a few more years.
"We are here legally and paying taxes and enjoying what a married family should be enjoying," said Aung Moe of San Jose, 33, a Burmese political refugee who works as an engineer at Applied Materials. His wife, Mon, is an electrical engineer who is forced to live separately from her husband in Singapore.
"Already we cannot be together, and now she cannot get a Social Security number," he said. "This needs to be fixed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress penalizes U.S. troops, legal U.S. residents in attempt to punish illegal immigrants
By Ken McLaughlin
Mercury News
Article Launched: 05/07/2008 06:51:18 PM PDT
map loc val immig state
When Congress passed an economic-stimulus package giving hefty rebates to most taxpayers, it tried to make sure that illegal immigrants didn't get any of the cash.
But in doing so lawmakers inadvertently penalized hundreds of thousands of legal U.S. residents - and tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed overseas - simply because their spouses lack a Social Security number.
"Imagine an American soldier in Iraq whose foreign-born wife is waiting for an immigration petition to be approved and doesn't have a Social Security card. Now the couple can't even get a rebate," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. "That is really stupid."
Others in the predicament include about a million legal residents whose spouses are still overseas because of long immigration queues and hundreds of thousands of H-1B work visa holders in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
The scope of the problem is only now becoming clear as the government begins mailing out rebate checks. The first checks were electronically deposited in bank accounts last week.
Because illegal immigrants don't have Social Security numbers and instead routinely use "tax identification numbers," Congress banned rebates for taxpayers who use the IRS-issued numbers.
If a married couple files jointly and one spouse doesn't have a Social Security number, the couple won't get the $1,200 checks that other couples will receive. They're also ineligible for the $300 rebate per child. Many Armed Forces members stationed overseas have foreign spouses who can't get Social Security numbers.
William Luong, stationed at a U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Japan, said his fellow seamen resent that they've landed in the same category as illegal immigrants.
"They understand the reason they're getting the shaft," said Luong, 21, who is from the Los Angeles area. "but a lot are frustrated or angry about it."
More than 288,000 troops are stationed overseas, according to the Pentagon - not counting those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many live in places - Korea, Japan and Germany - where extended stays often result in marriages to locals.
The unintended situation developed after the House in late January passed the economic-stimulus legislation at the urging of President Bush. But anti-illegal immigration groups then lobbied the Senate to add the Social Security requirement, fearing that illegal immigrants would get their hands on the checks.
The Federation for American Immigrant Reform - whose members went on radio talk shows to bash the House version of the stimulus bill - has no apologies.
"No law was ever written that doesn't find someone falling through the cracks," said Ira Mehlman, a FAIR spokesman, who said he hoped government officials will come up with some way to help Armed Forces members.
But H-1B visa holders and legal immigrants who are being denied rebates say they want some justice, too.
"If the government collects taxes from us, we should be able to get rebates given to other legal residents, it should be a level-playing field," said Parveen Kumar, an H-1B visa holder who lives in Sunnyvale.
Kumar moved to Silicon Valley from India with his wife three years ago. He now works as an engineer at Intelliswift Software in Fremont. But his wife, Anu, is on a H-4 "dependency visa" that doesn't allow her to work.
After he found out about the rebate law, he went to the Mountain View office of the Social Security Administration and asked if he could get a number for his wife. He was told no.
John Johnston, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, confirmed on Wednesday that the agency's policy is not to issue Social Security cards simply for the purpose of issuing tax rebates.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, there are now between 600,000 and 800,000 H-1B visa holders in the United States. Exactly how many are married to spouses ineligible to work in this country is unclear.
Another group of immigrants - about a million nationwide - are non-citizen green-card holders who are already facing seven-year waits to get permission for their spouses to immigrate to their country.
"I've been in America for well over 20 years, and I consider myself an American," said Amir Nikpouri of Orland Park, a suburb of Chicago. "All I'm trying to do is obey the laws, but this one seems really unfair."
Nikpouri, 31, was married three years ago, but his wife won't be eligible to immigrate from Iran for a few more years.
"We are here legally and paying taxes and enjoying what a married family should be enjoying," said Aung Moe of San Jose, 33, a Burmese political refugee who works as an engineer at Applied Materials. His wife, Mon, is an electrical engineer who is forced to live separately from her husband in Singapore.
"Already we cannot be together, and now she cannot get a Social Security number," he said. "This needs to be fixed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more...
param_r
09-11 12:05 PM
Guys,
Keep up the good work.
This is just another way of saying, sorry I cannot come down to DC due to prior engagements.
Sent $100 in contribution.
Google Order #528053412971728
Thanks,
Param.
Keep up the good work.
This is just another way of saying, sorry I cannot come down to DC due to prior engagements.
Sent $100 in contribution.
Google Order #528053412971728
Thanks,
Param.
Ramba
10-21 04:07 PM
How can USCIS can judge the legitimacy of the intent of the applicant - it can be very subjective and depend a lot on the way visa officer interprets. For example how long after six months is considered a "long wait"?
There will be always some descretionary powers to visa adjudicators but AC21 guidelines and associated memo's are detailed enough to give a clear explanation that once I485 is pending for six months, the applicants underlying I140 is valid (if its revoked or if it is not yet approved) and I485 continue to be processed - as long as the new job is same or similar. One thing that is not clear is the definitions of this same/similar job thing. We all expected some hiccups based on this interpretation. But the rejection of I485 (and subsequent MTR) based on I140 revocation is something that came out of blue and the number of these cases makes it really scary.
It is tricky. The intent can be proved only by how long the employee has worked for sponsor. If he/she worked considerable period (lets say for 2-3 years in non-immigrant visa (H.L,E) before filing 485 and worked for about 1 year after filing 485) then, it is very easy for the employee to prove his/her intent to have a permanent employment relationship with sponser, if employer try to revoke 140 based on the fact that employee does not have intent. The longivity of the employment relationship with sponser is a great proof. Some people are abusing (by misguidence of few lawyers, as they claim GC is for future job) AC21, without even working for single day with sponser, trying to get GC. USCIS may be controlling that kind of abuse.
One historical background reason for AC21 is that, in 2000, even though all catagories are "current", INS was very slow in approving 485. The delay for approval of 485 in year 2000 is caused by USCIS poor customer service. It took atleast 2 years for 485 approval, though the visa numbers were continously available for the entire 2 years. Therefore, the AC21 is an incentive for USCIS delay.
Now, if the visa numbers are continously available (for example EB1, EB2-ROW) USCIS is approving 485 within 6 months, except july 07 fiasco surge. So now AC21 users are only those who suffers in retrogression, not by USCIS administartive delay. That may be the another reason why USCIS becoming hard on AC21.
There will be always some descretionary powers to visa adjudicators but AC21 guidelines and associated memo's are detailed enough to give a clear explanation that once I485 is pending for six months, the applicants underlying I140 is valid (if its revoked or if it is not yet approved) and I485 continue to be processed - as long as the new job is same or similar. One thing that is not clear is the definitions of this same/similar job thing. We all expected some hiccups based on this interpretation. But the rejection of I485 (and subsequent MTR) based on I140 revocation is something that came out of blue and the number of these cases makes it really scary.
It is tricky. The intent can be proved only by how long the employee has worked for sponsor. If he/she worked considerable period (lets say for 2-3 years in non-immigrant visa (H.L,E) before filing 485 and worked for about 1 year after filing 485) then, it is very easy for the employee to prove his/her intent to have a permanent employment relationship with sponser, if employer try to revoke 140 based on the fact that employee does not have intent. The longivity of the employment relationship with sponser is a great proof. Some people are abusing (by misguidence of few lawyers, as they claim GC is for future job) AC21, without even working for single day with sponser, trying to get GC. USCIS may be controlling that kind of abuse.
One historical background reason for AC21 is that, in 2000, even though all catagories are "current", INS was very slow in approving 485. The delay for approval of 485 in year 2000 is caused by USCIS poor customer service. It took atleast 2 years for 485 approval, though the visa numbers were continously available for the entire 2 years. Therefore, the AC21 is an incentive for USCIS delay.
Now, if the visa numbers are continously available (for example EB1, EB2-ROW) USCIS is approving 485 within 6 months, except july 07 fiasco surge. So now AC21 users are only those who suffers in retrogression, not by USCIS administartive delay. That may be the another reason why USCIS becoming hard on AC21.
more...
vadicherla
05-28 02:27 PM
i will contribute 50$ now
contributed 350$ so far
contributed 350$ so far
2010 every show: Mark Fast,
dtekkedil
10-01 04:26 PM
I am curious..
why USCIS/ DOL needs a law to re-capture visa # which were not used in previous years ?
I mean Congress already authorized these ? Canot DOL/ UCIS make a judgement based on their own ?
thanks,
There is no law to allow re-capture of visa numbers as of yet. In fact it says the opposite in the existing laws - That the visa numbers may not be re-captured.
There has been one case of visa recapture law passed during the Clinton administration and they did not allow a rollover recapture (I believe they recaptured the visa numbers that were lost between 1995 and 2000 only (please correct me if I am wrong about the years))
why USCIS/ DOL needs a law to re-capture visa # which were not used in previous years ?
I mean Congress already authorized these ? Canot DOL/ UCIS make a judgement based on their own ?
thanks,
There is no law to allow re-capture of visa numbers as of yet. In fact it says the opposite in the existing laws - That the visa numbers may not be re-captured.
There has been one case of visa recapture law passed during the Clinton administration and they did not allow a rollover recapture (I believe they recaptured the visa numbers that were lost between 1995 and 2000 only (please correct me if I am wrong about the years))
more...
Cheran
07-11 11:59 AM
Between Fragoman, My Company and USCIS they sure are going to drive me nuts. I am waiting for green card for 10 years now with the same company. They are moving EB2 date and nothing gets done with EB3. On top of all these, 2 years from now, they will make all dates current which literally mean I will get my Green Card with a guy came here 10 months ago....
hair MARK FAST x TOPSHOP x
ajit77
09-20 10:45 AM
Hey I was in similar situation. My current H1 is expiring on Sept 30th 2007 and my extension application was filed on Aug 22nd 2007. So I was not expecting my H1 to be approved till way beyond Sept. But then I checked with Local DMV in virginia and they told me I can get a temporary 1 year extension on my DL if I can show them the receipt of my H1 extension application. I got that from my employer and my DL by extended by 1 Yr till Aug 22 2008 ( date when H1 was applied) my state is Virginia if that info helps.
I am in a similar situation. Which DMV office did you visit in VA ?
Thanks
I am in a similar situation. Which DMV office did you visit in VA ?
Thanks
more...
satishku_2000
07-09 05:41 PM
92807 here ...
hot Mark Fast Available Now on
dpp
07-06 12:09 PM
They have just linked the two things together making it more explicit.
Yah, thats true. What is necessity for them to edit that right now? May be they want to make sure that people read July bulletin must read revised bulletin also.
Yah, thats true. What is necessity for them to edit that right now? May be they want to make sure that people read July bulletin must read revised bulletin also.
more...
house Mark Fast Topshop Collection
amit1234
09-11 10:11 AM
A little contribution of $100 for a great effort by IV
Google Order #720968632428178
Google Order #720968632428178
tattoo beige knit Topshop dress
santb1975
06-11 09:08 PM
That is better than yesterday. We can do better.
Thanks to contributors today
Thanks to contributors today
more...
pictures Mark was inspired by sleek
logiclife
03-13 01:35 PM
DUI and DWI are crimes that can get your greencard petition in trouble even today.
The only thing today, that will not jeopardize your Greencard application is minor traffic violations. DUI and DWI and not minor traffic violations.
These amendments are only enhancing it to DEPORT those who are found driving drunk. The irony is, if you are an immigrant either illegal waiting for amnesty or legal waiting for your labor/485, you are more likely to need a drink or two.
--logiclife.
The only thing today, that will not jeopardize your Greencard application is minor traffic violations. DUI and DWI and not minor traffic violations.
These amendments are only enhancing it to DEPORT those who are found driving drunk. The irony is, if you are an immigrant either illegal waiting for amnesty or legal waiting for your labor/485, you are more likely to need a drink or two.
--logiclife.
dresses up to date with Topshop,
achiever2001
07-20 03:05 PM
Guys,
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
So what are trying to prove ? Generally i dont respond but this just shows that you have a lot of time. Why dampen people's spirits by such post or why try to say that whatever IV has done is a waste. That is what i get from what you have posted. If you are cynical, keep it to your own self, dont start such negative threads. Dont know you and this is not a personal attack but think twice before you create such posts, because they are disheartening for many (including me) who are so frustrated that they can believe any thing negative. Chill out and let us enjoy the moment why we have it, if things change over the period, we are fighters, we will survive but dont add to our problems by your predictions and logic (which might be right to start with but do we tell cancer patients that they are going to die on such and such date).
No offence intended but cool off.
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
So what are trying to prove ? Generally i dont respond but this just shows that you have a lot of time. Why dampen people's spirits by such post or why try to say that whatever IV has done is a waste. That is what i get from what you have posted. If you are cynical, keep it to your own self, dont start such negative threads. Dont know you and this is not a personal attack but think twice before you create such posts, because they are disheartening for many (including me) who are so frustrated that they can believe any thing negative. Chill out and let us enjoy the moment why we have it, if things change over the period, we are fighters, we will survive but dont add to our problems by your predictions and logic (which might be right to start with but do we tell cancer patients that they are going to die on such and such date).
No offence intended but cool off.
more...
makeup Mark Fast Dress with cut out
Jeniya2006feb27INDIA
11-07 01:33 AM
This is what i had read one of the blog sites i visit
The Bridge Amendment that we all had such high hopes for last week has failed to survive conference. This is an enormous setback to our effort.
All is not lost however, there is still a chance for the amendment to be offered in one of the forthcoming budget bills, including a likely omnibus at years end.
You Can check out the Site
http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
SA 3404 to HR 3043 is the one which is failed to survive the Senet
SA 3404 to HR 3043, seeks to amend the forthcoming Labor Health and Human Services appropriations bill, by recapturing 61,000 unused visas for Schedule A workers and their derivative family members.
And the Second one is
SA 3442, is also offered as an amendment to HR 3403. SA 3442 is a much more comprehensive amendment that seeks to recapture visas for not just Schedule A workers and their derivative family members, but also for conventional EB workers.
Hope i had answered your query
The Bridge Amendment that we all had such high hopes for last week has failed to survive conference. This is an enormous setback to our effort.
All is not lost however, there is still a chance for the amendment to be offered in one of the forthcoming budget bills, including a likely omnibus at years end.
You Can check out the Site
http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
SA 3404 to HR 3043 is the one which is failed to survive the Senet
SA 3404 to HR 3043, seeks to amend the forthcoming Labor Health and Human Services appropriations bill, by recapturing 61,000 unused visas for Schedule A workers and their derivative family members.
And the Second one is
SA 3442, is also offered as an amendment to HR 3403. SA 3442 is a much more comprehensive amendment that seeks to recapture visas for not just Schedule A workers and their derivative family members, but also for conventional EB workers.
Hope i had answered your query
girlfriend Topshop dress and shoes
Jimi_Hendrix
11-30 01:10 AM
Day: Thursday, November 30,2006
Time: 7 PM PST
Conference Dial-In: (712) 432-3000
Conference Bridge: 227974
All new members including Thiru please dial in to the conference. Also new members please forward me your e-mail address at amitg_2000@hotmail.com
Time: 7 PM PST
Conference Dial-In: (712) 432-3000
Conference Bridge: 227974
All new members including Thiru please dial in to the conference. Also new members please forward me your e-mail address at amitg_2000@hotmail.com
hairstyles Mark Fast and Mary Katranzou
needhelp!
07-15 01:57 PM
Thanks for your participation:
bestofall, johnnybhai, Mahatma, sparklinks, kevinkris, hariswaminathan, akhilmahajan, a_paradkar, tejonidhi, ho_gaya_kaya_?, June05, chintainfogc, k_usa, Sri_1975, cheshirecat, satyasaich, pd_recapturing, sajidmd, govindk, mjdup, alok_msh, plreddy, naidu2543, venkygct, j_bharadwaj, gsrknth, cooldude0807, for_gc, Chiwere, jayleno, funny, eight_8, ita, GCOP, desi chala usa, gc_kaavaali, lakshman.easwaran, ebizash, srhari, srinivas_o, ndny, rameshvaid, mhathi, rajesh_kamisetty, shana04, Vsach, leo2606, sujijag, sam2006, dhirajs98, dhirajs98 , vsbalaji, shiankuraaf, nosightofgc, prasadn, prasha98, Mani, DDash, bgp, gc28262, Caliber, gc_on_demand, agc2005, SkilledWorker4GC, vban2007, vvicky72, sriv1, desidude, Suva, sandy_anand, ckichannagari, h1techSlave, kushaljn, sirinme, WeShallOvercome, rajvepa, dodsatya, gc78, hotammo, gcbikari, abhijitp, wizpal
bestofall, johnnybhai, Mahatma, sparklinks, kevinkris, hariswaminathan, akhilmahajan, a_paradkar, tejonidhi, ho_gaya_kaya_?, June05, chintainfogc, k_usa, Sri_1975, cheshirecat, satyasaich, pd_recapturing, sajidmd, govindk, mjdup, alok_msh, plreddy, naidu2543, venkygct, j_bharadwaj, gsrknth, cooldude0807, for_gc, Chiwere, jayleno, funny, eight_8, ita, GCOP, desi chala usa, gc_kaavaali, lakshman.easwaran, ebizash, srhari, srinivas_o, ndny, rameshvaid, mhathi, rajesh_kamisetty, shana04, Vsach, leo2606, sujijag, sam2006, dhirajs98, dhirajs98 , vsbalaji, shiankuraaf, nosightofgc, prasadn, prasha98, Mani, DDash, bgp, gc28262, Caliber, gc_on_demand, agc2005, SkilledWorker4GC, vban2007, vvicky72, sriv1, desidude, Suva, sandy_anand, ckichannagari, h1techSlave, kushaljn, sirinme, WeShallOvercome, rajvepa, dodsatya, gc78, hotammo, gcbikari, abhijitp, wizpal
Desichakit
07-11 09:51 AM
This appears to be half the battle won for EB2 as it has to translated into actual approval. Also we must be mindfull of EB3 retrogression and must not lose sight of it in this Euphoria.
EB2-I-Jan08
EB2-I-Jan08
Stan09
03-11 01:20 PM
Hi All,
something really strange is going on:
I485 EB2 filed at NSC Dec 3,2008, and on Feb,18 received RFE(!) requesting employment verification, divorce certificate, W2 and some other stuff that has been posted to them just 2 months ago.:confused:
something really strange is going on:
I485 EB2 filed at NSC Dec 3,2008, and on Feb,18 received RFE(!) requesting employment verification, divorce certificate, W2 and some other stuff that has been posted to them just 2 months ago.:confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment