Progressive
07-13 04:27 PM
count me in. I am from LA county live in Torrance
wallpaper cute quotes about music. cute
ilikekilo
10-22 09:11 AM
I understand what you say but interpretation differs from IO to IO. It still goes to chances....
Hey, tx for the PM, I sent the email, do we need to send a letter too?>
Hey, tx for the PM, I sent the email, do we need to send a letter too?>
Greening
01-07 03:46 PM
Try FHA option with BOA. All they need is only proof of last two years employment.
And good credit score(not bad but at least good). Thats it. They will approve it without any problem.
I got my home after 1st year of H1B. At that time my perm status approved only.
Try FHA its very nice program.
Pros: Loan approval is very simple and you dont need to put any heavy downpayment
Cons: Once they give you loan you can not sell this within 3/5 years.
Just sharing my personal experience.
Cheers,
AJ
And good credit score(not bad but at least good). Thats it. They will approve it without any problem.
I got my home after 1st year of H1B. At that time my perm status approved only.
Try FHA its very nice program.
Pros: Loan approval is very simple and you dont need to put any heavy downpayment
Cons: Once they give you loan you can not sell this within 3/5 years.
Just sharing my personal experience.
Cheers,
AJ
2011 Love Music, Music Quote,
sanprabhu
07-23 11:59 AM
Along with thank yous to Chertoff, Lofgren and Gonzalez, I sent an additional thank you to Sen Cornyn. I urge all of you to do the same too.
His Address is:
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
His Address is:
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
more...
apahilaj
05-01 10:28 AM
Any takers?
So, where is the bill going next? Sorry guys, haven't heard the recording but just going by the thread it seems like this hearing didn't go as expected...
Is the bill going to die prematurely or is it going any where?
So, where is the bill going next? Sorry guys, haven't heard the recording but just going by the thread it seems like this hearing didn't go as expected...
Is the bill going to die prematurely or is it going any where?
AMKumar
07-06 10:54 AM
Man, in frustration people do not even know what to say and what not! Be very careful of what you spin and what you say. From the looks of it, this stuff has every chance of spinning out of control and it may have already started the ball rolling.Think about it for a second!. Once it goes that way, trust me, we will all live to regret that.
Yes, DHS approved upwards of 25000 GCs over the weekend, leading up to July 2nd. And some people are pissed off at that, err..why?
Remember, those 25000 are one of us. Once,they too were in line for Labor certifications, I-140s, medical exams and all that crap. And some of them were in the so called "FBI Name check" black-hole for an extended period of time. We should be rejoicing in the fact that most of those backlogs got cleaned up. Instead we have people questioning the validity of those newly approved GCs.My dear friends, god willing, we will all have GCs one day and tell me, how would you feel if someone else comes screaming at you just because he did not get one too.
Putting a "security lapse" spin on this could be very dangerous and should be avoided at any cost. I hope one of those anti-immigrant lobbies do not pick it up and start running with that. I prey that they do not revoke those already approved GCs, because if they do, then those poor 25000 souls will go through much more agony than what we are going through now.
It's very tough to get the genie back in the bottle once it is out, so think before you start popping that cork.
~AMK
Yes, DHS approved upwards of 25000 GCs over the weekend, leading up to July 2nd. And some people are pissed off at that, err..why?
Remember, those 25000 are one of us. Once,they too were in line for Labor certifications, I-140s, medical exams and all that crap. And some of them were in the so called "FBI Name check" black-hole for an extended period of time. We should be rejoicing in the fact that most of those backlogs got cleaned up. Instead we have people questioning the validity of those newly approved GCs.My dear friends, god willing, we will all have GCs one day and tell me, how would you feel if someone else comes screaming at you just because he did not get one too.
Putting a "security lapse" spin on this could be very dangerous and should be avoided at any cost. I hope one of those anti-immigrant lobbies do not pick it up and start running with that. I prey that they do not revoke those already approved GCs, because if they do, then those poor 25000 souls will go through much more agony than what we are going through now.
It's very tough to get the genie back in the bottle once it is out, so think before you start popping that cork.
~AMK
more...
nareshg
09-17 01:08 AM
All the info here is great !!
Pardon my ingnorance, but if I wanted to start a small time business where I do website development and designing either myself or by a company outside US, do I need to file as an LLC or can I register as a small business. Can someone tell me where I might get details for registering a company (Or is that same as LLC).
I was thinking I will not get EAD earlier than 6 months and I got it in less than 6 weeks....so now am doing some basic ground work and would appreciate any guidance !!
Thanks in advance.
Pardon my ingnorance, but if I wanted to start a small time business where I do website development and designing either myself or by a company outside US, do I need to file as an LLC or can I register as a small business. Can someone tell me where I might get details for registering a company (Or is that same as LLC).
I was thinking I will not get EAD earlier than 6 months and I got it in less than 6 weeks....so now am doing some basic ground work and would appreciate any guidance !!
Thanks in advance.
2010 Quotes For Music. short love
chanduv23
06-07 07:47 AM
Just contributed 100 USD. I know the money will go far and also that IV needs more money to get us where we want to be. Come on people, lets do it.
100 USD will buy you freedom.
You are now a super hero.
Come on heros, you can all do it. IV == "I" and "we" all together united.
United - we can all do it.
100 USD will buy you freedom.
You are now a super hero.
Come on heros, you can all do it. IV == "I" and "we" all together united.
United - we can all do it.
more...
roseball
08-23 09:49 AM
AFAIK, this memo only applies to those I-140 petitions which do NOT require a labor certification approval. It does NOT apply to EB-2 Advanced degree holder petitions which require a certified labor and BS + 5 yrs or MS + 0 yrs of experience.
Though, for now, most of us who are filing in EB-2 Advanced degree holder category have nothing to worry, this definitely looks like a targeted approach where they are coming after everybody, one category at a time. So its just a matter of time it seems when they come up with something which targets everyone...
As per Matthew Oh's blog, this will be adopted on Sep 3rd.
Though, for now, most of us who are filing in EB-2 Advanced degree holder category have nothing to worry, this definitely looks like a targeted approach where they are coming after everybody, one category at a time. So its just a matter of time it seems when they come up with something which targets everyone...
As per Matthew Oh's blog, this will be adopted on Sep 3rd.
hair dresses quotes of love music
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...
bbct
02-18 04:24 PM
I agree. Mine is December 15, 2005.
Mine too is the same. I hope we are not from the same company. I remember, I had to fight asking my employer to file the labor since they were delaying without giving any reason and they did filed a bunch of labors on the same day.
Mine too is the same. I hope we are not from the same company. I remember, I had to fight asking my employer to file the labor since they were delaying without giving any reason and they did filed a bunch of labors on the same day.
hot Music is love in search of a
GC Process
12-04 05:01 PM
Hi Jimi,
I live in O.C as well. Lets connect! Send me an IM with your contact details.
Thks!
I live in O.C as well. Lets connect! Send me an IM with your contact details.
Thks!
more...
house makeup quotes about music and
javadeveloper
08-14 06:39 PM
People who can buy houses are more important to USCIS/US than people who already have bought houses.
Thats what I am saying , if they come up with strategy like this , people will start buying homes.
Thats what I am saying , if they come up with strategy like this , people will start buying homes.
tattoo dresses Quotes about music,
krishnam70
08-14 03:34 PM
Since your PD is June 2003, you could have applied in June 2007 because in June Visa bulletin(released in May ) it moved till April 2004.
This is too good to be true.. How could you apply in June if you are Eb3 with PD Sept 2003? The PD was'nt current in June. Also, how did your 140 get approved in less than a month? Premium Processing was'nt there in July...
I have a PD of Sep 2003. I filed my labor in Nebraska in Sep 2003 and state labor got cleared in a week and federal took 2 weeks. I had my Labour on Oct 2nd. I filed for my 140 and recd approval in 3 months. I had to wait for my 485 filing as I wanted to file it with my spouse who was out of country at that time. Rest of the details are in my signature.
BTW, those who are stuck in BEC's my sympathies are with you, its just pure bad luck your cases got stuck in there. PERM or no PERM this whole GC thing is just matter of timing.
As for the original post I dont understand the reason for the ah's and ooh's here. The original poster please correct the mistake here, gcpadmavyuh is right, you could not have applied for 485 in June if you had PD of sep 2003. You could have applied for your 485 as early as March 2005 when the PD dates retrogressed.
please clarify.
cheers
This is too good to be true.. How could you apply in June if you are Eb3 with PD Sept 2003? The PD was'nt current in June. Also, how did your 140 get approved in less than a month? Premium Processing was'nt there in July...
I have a PD of Sep 2003. I filed my labor in Nebraska in Sep 2003 and state labor got cleared in a week and federal took 2 weeks. I had my Labour on Oct 2nd. I filed for my 140 and recd approval in 3 months. I had to wait for my 485 filing as I wanted to file it with my spouse who was out of country at that time. Rest of the details are in my signature.
BTW, those who are stuck in BEC's my sympathies are with you, its just pure bad luck your cases got stuck in there. PERM or no PERM this whole GC thing is just matter of timing.
As for the original post I dont understand the reason for the ah's and ooh's here. The original poster please correct the mistake here, gcpadmavyuh is right, you could not have applied for 485 in June if you had PD of sep 2003. You could have applied for your 485 as early as March 2005 when the PD dates retrogressed.
please clarify.
cheers
more...
pictures short love quotes from songs.
StarSun
05-11 10:25 AM
Please continue to call the senators on the list and post the feedback on this thread
dresses pictures short love quotes and
new2gc
08-13 11:49 AM
Most of the Indian companies (TCS, Wipro, Infy, etc) have more than 50% H1Bs, I believe.
They will bring/hire more resources to near shore (if not onsite) Brazil/Canada to satisfy clients...This year the demand for H1b is around 25K.... next year that may go down to 10-15K... good for future EB -AOS applicants.. :-)
They will bring/hire more resources to near shore (if not onsite) Brazil/Canada to satisfy clients...This year the demand for H1b is around 25K.... next year that may go down to 10-15K... good for future EB -AOS applicants.. :-)
more...
makeup music. short love quotes
Junky
09-10 08:07 AM
Damn :mad:, I can't believe that USCIS will going to waste visa numbers again. Therefore friends please call congressmen to support HR5882.
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Data available in Mumbai consulate website
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 15 April 2002 15 April 2002
FX 1 May 2001 1 May 2001
F2A 1 January 2004 1 January 2004
F2B 15 December 1999 15 December 1999
F3 22 June 2000 22 June 2000
F4 22 May 1997 22 October 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 April 2003 Current
E3 1 July 2001 1 January 2005
EW 1 Janurary 2003 1 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Data available in Mumbai consulate website
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 15 April 2002 15 April 2002
FX 1 May 2001 1 May 2001
F2A 1 January 2004 1 January 2004
F2B 15 December 1999 15 December 1999
F3 22 June 2000 22 June 2000
F4 22 May 1997 22 October 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 April 2003 Current
E3 1 July 2001 1 January 2005
EW 1 Janurary 2003 1 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
girlfriend quotes about music and love.
pitha
07-18 04:11 PM
good to see a junior member stand up and contribute, I hope people like you become an example to all non contributing members. thank you for your contribution.
Started a reccuring monthly payment of $50. I will try to convince all my friends from Twin Cities (Minneapolis- St Paul) area to do the same.
Started a reccuring monthly payment of $50. I will try to convince all my friends from Twin Cities (Minneapolis- St Paul) area to do the same.
hairstyles Jonas, Emo Music, Quotes On
go_guy123
02-25 01:38 PM
It is easy and potentially justifiable to feel some frustration. As it relates to the green card, I am in a similar situation to most who visit and share their views on this board.
I view the Universe and everything that is contained therein to be perfect - there can be no imperfections. I find comfort in that thought and focus my attention on the following:
feeling grateful for all that I have; doing my work to the best of my ability; taking the risks I believe I should take; being resilient; enjoying my life more; being patient; caring more; comparing less
This is merely a statement of my beliefs - this works for me. It is not intended to offend anyone nor is it a solution to anyone's woes.
Good times, health, and happiness to all.
You are relatively at peace because your PD is 2005 and you are in EB2.
Moreover since you are already filed 485 and its more than 6 months you are secure.
For rest the situation is precarious
I view the Universe and everything that is contained therein to be perfect - there can be no imperfections. I find comfort in that thought and focus my attention on the following:
feeling grateful for all that I have; doing my work to the best of my ability; taking the risks I believe I should take; being resilient; enjoying my life more; being patient; caring more; comparing less
This is merely a statement of my beliefs - this works for me. It is not intended to offend anyone nor is it a solution to anyone's woes.
Good times, health, and happiness to all.
You are relatively at peace because your PD is 2005 and you are in EB2.
Moreover since you are already filed 485 and its more than 6 months you are secure.
For rest the situation is precarious
franklin
09-28 08:57 PM
But I think franklin posted earlier that she got her GC when the priority dates are not current. And shows about 5 EB3s from India got approvals during September whos PDs are on or after 2003.Do you think USCIS might have requested the visa number for their cases when their PD was current?
Theory 1: I got assigned a visa number as soon as my case arrived at USCIS in early June.
Theory 2: Spend as much time talking to lawmakers and reporters as I do, they want to shut that squeaky wheel up.
I like Theory 2 best :)
I would say, however, just because a handful of applications have been speedy, I don't see any systematic changes that mean everyone's will be.
Theory 1: I got assigned a visa number as soon as my case arrived at USCIS in early June.
Theory 2: Spend as much time talking to lawmakers and reporters as I do, they want to shut that squeaky wheel up.
I like Theory 2 best :)
I would say, however, just because a handful of applications have been speedy, I don't see any systematic changes that mean everyone's will be.
dhesha
09-10 02:46 PM
Data available in Mumbai consulate website
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 15 April 2002 15 April 2002
FX 1 May 2001 1 May 2001
F2A 1 January 2004 1 January 2004
F2B 15 December 1999 15 December 1999
F3 22 June 2000 22 June 2000
F4 22 May 1997 22 October 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 April 2003 Current
E3 1 July 2001 1 January 2005
EW 1 Janurary 2003 1 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Should we not demand resignation of USCIS Director?
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 15 April 2002 15 April 2002
FX 1 May 2001 1 May 2001
F2A 1 January 2004 1 January 2004
F2B 15 December 1999 15 December 1999
F3 22 June 2000 22 June 2000
F4 22 May 1997 22 October 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 April 2003 Current
E3 1 July 2001 1 January 2005
EW 1 Janurary 2003 1 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Should we not demand resignation of USCIS Director?
No comments:
Post a Comment