sands_14
09-29 10:22 AM
SO,can we all try to get the unused visas recaptured.If they can do that for nurses and physical therapists ,they can do that to decrease retrogression.I dont think they require senate approval.
Something is better than nothing.Lets push for recapture of unused visas.
Something is better than nothing.Lets push for recapture of unused visas.
wallpaper Hand Holding Heart Tattoo
JAYASURESH
05-02 01:12 PM
it is shame on IRS!! listen, everyone is paying tax. if we are able to file tax as couple with itin for the spouse, why are they not using the same approach for the stimulus package. Do they not aware of this section of h1b visa holders who are paying taxes and are not benefited. folks, some of you are in h1b and got your ead and ssn for your sponse are better off, there are folks who are still on h1b and spouse on h4 filed with itin is not eligible because i am not within in the <70k limit. this is ridiculus and shame for everyone who came up with the great idea of stimulating the economy and share our tax money to others and not with this disadvantage section of the people. it is absolutely shame for IRS or whoever came up with the super idea of not considering the folks who filed with ITIN. IRS listen, if anyone who is citizen, illegal or legal, if they pay tax, they are entitled to get this stimulus package.. it is really a shame on you whoever not recognized this affected section of people.
immi_twinges
07-20 04:13 PM
I think its the right time to get in touch with the USINPAC. Not only USINPAC but all communities who ever have pacts with US government should start getting involved.
"United we stand divided we fall"
"United we stand divided we fall"
2011 Heart: The heart tattoo design
nk2006
10-16 04:29 PM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases – especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer – and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications – ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD’s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to: Ombudsman
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant’s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant’s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases – especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer – and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications – ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD’s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to: Ombudsman
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant’s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant’s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
unseenguy
02-09 10:19 PM
So many idiots here who dont know what marriage means and use their wives as a "maid" for their housework.
gctest
09-13 04:10 PM
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
Here is the form you can fill out to express support:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
View the read only document here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
Here is the form you can fill out to express support:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
View the read only document here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfq9i31UpaJcQdUK-1PaKcg&hl=en
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
more...
gcisadawg
02-09 10:05 AM
This, effectively, means that if the girl stops earning for any reason such as pregnancy or is unable to earn, she immediately forfeits the right to send money to her parents. This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard.
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
My stand is based on the premise that a man is financially responsible for his wife and his kids and not to wife's parents! The point I was making is about a completely non working spouse. It is not about a wife that leaves workforce for medical reason temporarily.
Let us not confuse the responsibility towards a man's wife and kids with that of in-laws!
Using the same token, a man shouldn't expect/demand any property/cash from in-laws!
I'm perfectly OK with humanitarian and need based help. What crosses the line, according to me, is that 'taking for granted' attitude!
If the brother in OP's story is taking care of his parents, then this situation wouldn't have occurred. Look at it other way. If the man's parents are in need of money, it is better to ask the man instead of their son-in-law!
A man taking a stand and be done with it has a better chance of saving a marriage than a man caving to the demand and building resentment. Hey, if a man is willing to please his in-laws in all possible ways, then who are we to stop him! Let him enjoy!!
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
My stand is based on the premise that a man is financially responsible for his wife and his kids and not to wife's parents! The point I was making is about a completely non working spouse. It is not about a wife that leaves workforce for medical reason temporarily.
Let us not confuse the responsibility towards a man's wife and kids with that of in-laws!
Using the same token, a man shouldn't expect/demand any property/cash from in-laws!
I'm perfectly OK with humanitarian and need based help. What crosses the line, according to me, is that 'taking for granted' attitude!
If the brother in OP's story is taking care of his parents, then this situation wouldn't have occurred. Look at it other way. If the man's parents are in need of money, it is better to ask the man instead of their son-in-law!
A man taking a stand and be done with it has a better chance of saving a marriage than a man caving to the demand and building resentment. Hey, if a man is willing to please his in-laws in all possible ways, then who are we to stop him! Let him enjoy!!
2010 makeup Various Heart Tattoo
Green.Tech
06-19 04:51 PM
What are you waiting for?
more...
Green.Tech
05-26 04:37 PM
Another bump!
hair dresses love heart tattoos for
manderson
09-24 02:00 PM
it has to be similar job PLUS with an established company.
from what i have gathered it seems that if USCIS issues a RFE or calls u for interview during adjucation they might ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not suppposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...).
i also wondered about the conflict of interest becoz it's your relative that u clearly identified in your G325 (Biographic) form -- but I guess if ppl are doing it then it's possible.
Ok. Now lets say I have EAD cards for me (primary applicant) and my wife. I can now have my wife start a company and have a job position similar to where I work. Now after 180 days, can I work for my wife's company invoking AC21 with my EAD??:D
and so when an RFE comes from USCIS , can this be shown as the similar job offer?
Really speaking, The USCIS only wants a promise of employment when they are adjudicating form 485 saying that I will be given a job after I get my green card:). So can I literally work anywhere for any job using my EAD until green card gets fully approved as long as I have a promise of employment (by my wife's company)? :p
Ofcourse i am risking the chance of being out of status if my 485 gets denied. i just want to make sure it wont get denied because the "similar job" offer is from my relatives (wife's) company.
any thoughts??:confused:
Rex
from what i have gathered it seems that if USCIS issues a RFE or calls u for interview during adjucation they might ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not suppposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...).
i also wondered about the conflict of interest becoz it's your relative that u clearly identified in your G325 (Biographic) form -- but I guess if ppl are doing it then it's possible.
Ok. Now lets say I have EAD cards for me (primary applicant) and my wife. I can now have my wife start a company and have a job position similar to where I work. Now after 180 days, can I work for my wife's company invoking AC21 with my EAD??:D
and so when an RFE comes from USCIS , can this be shown as the similar job offer?
Really speaking, The USCIS only wants a promise of employment when they are adjudicating form 485 saying that I will be given a job after I get my green card:). So can I literally work anywhere for any job using my EAD until green card gets fully approved as long as I have a promise of employment (by my wife's company)? :p
Ofcourse i am risking the chance of being out of status if my 485 gets denied. i just want to make sure it wont get denied because the "similar job" offer is from my relatives (wife's) company.
any thoughts??:confused:
Rex
more...
gapala
03-04 10:01 AM
First of all EAD is not a status. You need to provide them details on whether you are on H1B or AOS / Parolee (if used AP to travel or EAD to work).
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
hot Dove and hearts tattoo on foot love heart tattoos on foot.
nixstor
07-06 10:46 AM
looks like there main purpose was to deny us filing 485 application....i cannot believe they could go to such lengths to prevent high loads of work which they feared.
It was better for them to work 1 weekend 24/7 (nonstop) rather than working everyday for 8 hours (which is what our application may have caused them to do)
I have reiterated this again and again. There is no way USCIS was going to accommodate all of us as per the original VB. We will form the biggest hump on the back of USCIS and it will probably 20 yrs for every one to come out of the system. Remember, how much math we did on how many years EB2 India /Eb3 india/china will take? Thats what they see as well. Why would they want so many applications backlogged. The only way they can disallow filings is by saying that there are no visa numbers available on day one. You have to have a visa number available at the time of 485 filing. They cleared out all the old PD's. Believe me, If the original bulletin was not current, they would have done the same in 90 days with some numbers gone waste. It was a bad situation for both agencies. I am not saying that they have not goofed up. they goofed up big time and I can clearly see the lack of communication on issue like this which effects so many people. We can use this as an opportunity to show case our root cause or we can use this in a detrimental way that will screw our nuts and bolts for 10 more years.
It was better for them to work 1 weekend 24/7 (nonstop) rather than working everyday for 8 hours (which is what our application may have caused them to do)
I have reiterated this again and again. There is no way USCIS was going to accommodate all of us as per the original VB. We will form the biggest hump on the back of USCIS and it will probably 20 yrs for every one to come out of the system. Remember, how much math we did on how many years EB2 India /Eb3 india/china will take? Thats what they see as well. Why would they want so many applications backlogged. The only way they can disallow filings is by saying that there are no visa numbers available on day one. You have to have a visa number available at the time of 485 filing. They cleared out all the old PD's. Believe me, If the original bulletin was not current, they would have done the same in 90 days with some numbers gone waste. It was a bad situation for both agencies. I am not saying that they have not goofed up. they goofed up big time and I can clearly see the lack of communication on issue like this which effects so many people. We can use this as an opportunity to show case our root cause or we can use this in a detrimental way that will screw our nuts and bolts for 10 more years.
more...
house turkish tattoos. love heart
drirshad
12-14 05:24 AM
Even if the date move to Sept 05 by last quater of 2010 how many application will they process.
The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
12/12/2009: Additional Information on State Department EB Visa Number for FY 2010 Predictions as to Timeline
* AILA reports that the State Department official discussed some of the EB visa number predictions in November before the January 2010 Visa Bulletin was released. The information is very much coincide with the Visa Bulletin. However, the information gives prediction of visa number progression timelines for various EB visa categories.
The timeline predictions appear to be:
o Worldwide EB-3: The cut-off date was predicted to start to move forward in January or February 2010.
o India EB-3: There were 58,000 applications pending for the FY 2010 and it predicted that numbers would move forward up to 5 weeks altogether for the entire FY 2010.
o India and China EB-2: State Department predicted that annual limits would reach no later than May 2010, but because of the anticipated otherwise unused 2nd preference visa numbers, the cut-off dates may progress to October-December 2005. It is a promising information which was not made available in the Visa Bulletin. But prediction is a prediction and people will have to wait and see.
* Considering the terrible EB-3 prediction for Indians, the EB-3 prediction for worldwide is considered more or less promising.
12/11/2009: Congressman Gutierrez of IL Announces His Schedule to Introduce CIR Bill on 12/15/2009
* The bill will be titled Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP). Please stay tuned.
The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
12/12/2009: Additional Information on State Department EB Visa Number for FY 2010 Predictions as to Timeline
* AILA reports that the State Department official discussed some of the EB visa number predictions in November before the January 2010 Visa Bulletin was released. The information is very much coincide with the Visa Bulletin. However, the information gives prediction of visa number progression timelines for various EB visa categories.
The timeline predictions appear to be:
o Worldwide EB-3: The cut-off date was predicted to start to move forward in January or February 2010.
o India EB-3: There were 58,000 applications pending for the FY 2010 and it predicted that numbers would move forward up to 5 weeks altogether for the entire FY 2010.
o India and China EB-2: State Department predicted that annual limits would reach no later than May 2010, but because of the anticipated otherwise unused 2nd preference visa numbers, the cut-off dates may progress to October-December 2005. It is a promising information which was not made available in the Visa Bulletin. But prediction is a prediction and people will have to wait and see.
* Considering the terrible EB-3 prediction for Indians, the EB-3 prediction for worldwide is considered more or less promising.
12/11/2009: Congressman Gutierrez of IL Announces His Schedule to Introduce CIR Bill on 12/15/2009
* The bill will be titled Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP). Please stay tuned.
tattoo Holding Hands Heart Tattoo.
gc007
09-01 10:24 AM
Since 1999. GC filled Mar 2003 EB3
more...
pictures Miley Cyrus getting tattoos
Milind123
09-17 02:05 PM
Order Details - Sep 17, 2007 1:33 PM EDT
Google Order #371403364547278
Thank you kumar for your shot. Which IIT did you graduate from? Delhi?
Google Order #371403364547278
Thank you kumar for your shot. Which IIT did you graduate from? Delhi?
dresses Love Heart Tattoo Design For
bskrishna
07-11 12:14 PM
Yes there will be dates in Oct. but will that be 2006 Jan.? That is what karanp25 means.
And answer is it probably will not be. We can look back the bulletin on May and June 2007. Are they match Oct. 2007 bulletin ?
07 case is different. we can't infer much from that. I hope DOS has some insight into the no of pending cases when the move dates like this. I am sure there will be language in the actual bulletin that saves them from flak when the move dates back. The primary aim is to utilize the visa nos. But with all the information available to them the movement should be proportional to the nos available from spillover and etc.,
And answer is it probably will not be. We can look back the bulletin on May and June 2007. Are they match Oct. 2007 bulletin ?
07 case is different. we can't infer much from that. I hope DOS has some insight into the no of pending cases when the move dates like this. I am sure there will be language in the actual bulletin that saves them from flak when the move dates back. The primary aim is to utilize the visa nos. But with all the information available to them the movement should be proportional to the nos available from spillover and etc.,
more...
makeup tetris-heart-2.jpg
AllVNeedGcPc
10-21 09:32 PM
... for example:
Step 1: File EB2 Perm labor (6-10 months)
Step 2: File 140 (2 days to 4 months)
:
And when should you interfile / port your EB3 date? Should you do it when you apply for 140 or should you do it after 140 approval when you apply for 485?
Thanks in advance
Step 1: File EB2 Perm labor (6-10 months)
Step 2: File 140 (2 days to 4 months)
:
And when should you interfile / port your EB3 date? Should you do it when you apply for 140 or should you do it after 140 approval when you apply for 485?
Thanks in advance
girlfriend heart and love tattoos.
hopefulgc
05-25 01:34 PM
Santb1975 is right.
If we stopped trying every time we failed we would not be here, we would still be in the caves looking for the next big invention.. the wheel.
Hell, if your folks stopped trying, you wouldn't be here in the first place.. hope you catch my drift :)
Every time we work on a bill we move a step forward. We have come a long way in the past 2 years. Some bills came and went and did not bring us any relief but that should not stop us from working hard when we see the next window of opportunity.
If we stopped trying every time we failed we would not be here, we would still be in the caves looking for the next big invention.. the wheel.
Hell, if your folks stopped trying, you wouldn't be here in the first place.. hope you catch my drift :)
Every time we work on a bill we move a step forward. We have come a long way in the past 2 years. Some bills came and went and did not bring us any relief but that should not stop us from working hard when we see the next window of opportunity.
hairstyles Heart Love Tattoo for Girls
pappu
10-02 07:37 PM
IV was able to get an op-ed published today
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=27239#post27239
by Pankaj Kakkar.
We have an opportunity to get more op-eds published. If other members would like to write op-eds they can submit on this forum and PM me their contact details.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=27239#post27239
by Pankaj Kakkar.
We have an opportunity to get more op-eds published. If other members would like to write op-eds they can submit on this forum and PM me their contact details.
vjkypally
07-06 05:47 PM
Does Condi know what shes speakin? That they worked during weekend clearing 25000 visas so that no one can apply on July 2nd.
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 01:16 PM
Yes its a very serious issue. As chandu mentioned earlier more action items are coming soon to fight this. But in the meantime please show your support and your willingness to fight this - if you havnt sent the mail yet, please do it and vote in the poll above. When we started this campaign, I though that at least a few hundred people will come forward easily - now is the time to act.
With you.
With you.
No comments:
Post a Comment