BharatPremi
11-06 12:21 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=192506#post192506
wallpaper Having her natural curly hair
nixstor
09-10 08:42 AM
What are you guys trying to figure out here? The unanswered Q's have been unanswered for a lot of years now and July VB fiasco resolve was just a lid on the unanswered Q's that were coming out into lime light. While USCIS is not perfect and is culpable for the mishap, our focus should be on getting some relief. There is not a lot any one of us is going to gain by finding the cuplable and reasons behind. We will simply not get any answers in the current situation and hoping that USCIS will provide some thing like a used visas ticker through out their fiscal year, because of the July VB fiasco is nothing but being too naive.
Congress Women Lofgren would not go on witch hunting DOS/USCIS officials after they have honored the original VB. The simple reason being (GC's) visa numbers, though capped per year, allow USCIS to accept more applications than the visa numbers available. There is no one to one match between the available GC numbers and applications. USCIS OB submits an annual report and will report the number of visas used by USCIS in the fiscal year. Hopefully, after all this hooplah, we should see 100% utilization of visa numbers.
Congress Women Lofgren would not go on witch hunting DOS/USCIS officials after they have honored the original VB. The simple reason being (GC's) visa numbers, though capped per year, allow USCIS to accept more applications than the visa numbers available. There is no one to one match between the available GC numbers and applications. USCIS OB submits an annual report and will report the number of visas used by USCIS in the fiscal year. Hopefully, after all this hooplah, we should see 100% utilization of visa numbers.
kumkum
08-04 01:46 PM
Thank you very much Mr.sk.aggarwal.i will call them.
2011 Are you digging Taylor#39;s
alterego
03-02 11:15 AM
The irony in the current schizophrenic EB immigration policy is that, it is ironically the more talented, qualified and marketable and entrepreneural talent that is more likely to look at US immigration policy and call it a day. It is conversely the mediocre talent that would be inclined to "stick it out" and deal with all the crap.
Hmm, something surely to ponder for this country.
Hmm, something surely to ponder for this country.
more...
sidd_k2002
02-10 05:10 PM
Hello All,
I am in a very odd situation which i would like to explain and get help from people here. I am a computer science student,who came on a F1 visa in USA in Jan 2007. I studied hard, and got good grades , and thereby got an internship in a good company immediately after 1 year , in Feb 2008. I was working on CPT(Curicullar practical training i.e work permit),which was full time, until Jan 2009 ,when i graduated.
Now i want to call my parents on a Vistors B category visa for my graduation.
I have a full time job since one year, so i am thinking of the fact , whether i could send a sponsorship letter to them in order for them to visit for my graduation ceremony. I have already taken a invitation letter from my school to invite them. Following are the points of my concern.
1: It was shown 2 years back that my father sponsored me for my education. So is it fair enough to show that i am sponsoring him immediately after 2 years?. Please note that i m still on F1 visa, and working now on my OPT. (My H1 will be filed this time in April 2009)
2: I read in a forum that students cannot sponsor there parents for there visitors visa for there graduation, because they are the ones ,who take there sponsorship, when they come for there studies. Is this true enough, even if i am working for 1 year now.
3: My father has already retired from a bank job, so he is not working. All his funds are in FDs (about 7 lacs), with a liquid cash of around 8 lacs in the bank, and a pension amount of 9,000 rs per month( which is quite low to tell to the visa officer). Is it okay for him to show his self sponsorship for him and my mother in this case? Will these funds be okay? If he is retired then will his income be not asked by the officer.
4: My parents visa has got rejected twice 3 years back, when they were trying to visit USA, under the sponsorship of my cousin. Then will this thing affect the issue this time again?
Friends i really want my parents to visit me for my graduation this MAY.They are in a dilemma about what to do in this situation. Please advice me in this case.
Thanks in advance
I am in a very odd situation which i would like to explain and get help from people here. I am a computer science student,who came on a F1 visa in USA in Jan 2007. I studied hard, and got good grades , and thereby got an internship in a good company immediately after 1 year , in Feb 2008. I was working on CPT(Curicullar practical training i.e work permit),which was full time, until Jan 2009 ,when i graduated.
Now i want to call my parents on a Vistors B category visa for my graduation.
I have a full time job since one year, so i am thinking of the fact , whether i could send a sponsorship letter to them in order for them to visit for my graduation ceremony. I have already taken a invitation letter from my school to invite them. Following are the points of my concern.
1: It was shown 2 years back that my father sponsored me for my education. So is it fair enough to show that i am sponsoring him immediately after 2 years?. Please note that i m still on F1 visa, and working now on my OPT. (My H1 will be filed this time in April 2009)
2: I read in a forum that students cannot sponsor there parents for there visitors visa for there graduation, because they are the ones ,who take there sponsorship, when they come for there studies. Is this true enough, even if i am working for 1 year now.
3: My father has already retired from a bank job, so he is not working. All his funds are in FDs (about 7 lacs), with a liquid cash of around 8 lacs in the bank, and a pension amount of 9,000 rs per month( which is quite low to tell to the visa officer). Is it okay for him to show his self sponsorship for him and my mother in this case? Will these funds be okay? If he is retired then will his income be not asked by the officer.
4: My parents visa has got rejected twice 3 years back, when they were trying to visit USA, under the sponsorship of my cousin. Then will this thing affect the issue this time again?
Friends i really want my parents to visit me for my graduation this MAY.They are in a dilemma about what to do in this situation. Please advice me in this case.
Thanks in advance
jingi1234
08-19 05:57 PM
I have the copy from Murthy.com [they still have it on]....
send me ur copy to : 509 355 3413
Thanks,
send me ur copy to : 509 355 3413
Thanks,
more...
desi3933
03-16 12:08 PM
Thanks Yagw. Appreciate your response. That is the part I am not certain: If they ask for Copies of Tax return?
Also, as per my understanding, You only get RFE when your PD is current (I did not file AC21, when I switched to EAD). And, since EB3 india is stuck on Oct 01 for months now, It will be years before they get to my case. Am I right in my assumption ?
>> Also, as per my understanding, You only get RFE when your PD is current
Incorrect.
RFE and I-485 denial can be issued even when PD is not current.
Also, as per my understanding, You only get RFE when your PD is current (I did not file AC21, when I switched to EAD). And, since EB3 india is stuck on Oct 01 for months now, It will be years before they get to my case. Am I right in my assumption ?
>> Also, as per my understanding, You only get RFE when your PD is current
Incorrect.
RFE and I-485 denial can be issued even when PD is not current.
2010 My hair is naturally pin
neoklaus
10-21 09:42 AM
I am working on H1B. Recently what has happened that my family lives in state A, and I am working in state B. My family could not move to state B because my sone is going to school. I have to pay alot of expenses to go back and fort from state B to A, like air ticket and cab ect. I talking to my compnay regarding this and they said that whatever are my expenses submit to every month end and he will send a check for those expenses which will be pre taxed amount. i.e. if my pre taxed salary is $ 5000 per-month , if I submit expense statemet for $500. Then my employer will send a check of 500 and paystub i.e. direct deposit after applying tax on $4500.
I am not sure whatever he is suggesting is good tyhing to do and it will not have any problem for me.
If you made a correct explanation then: 1. You will end up with $4500- of wages PLUS $500 of reimbursable expenses. Therefore only $4500 will be taxed.
You should to make sure that in your Form W2 ( 1. Wages, tips, other compensation)for 2008 these $500 will not be shown: reason- you will be taxed only on $4500 but your income will be higher so you will may end up with additional taxes owned- that depends on you Income).
That scenario is OK if your total salary is not an issue for you.
For you Employer paying to you $4500 Plus $500( reimbursable) is much better
cause he will pay company taxes only on that $4500 and not on $500.
There could be other ways to resolve this problem. Depends on your employer
willingness.
I am not sure whatever he is suggesting is good tyhing to do and it will not have any problem for me.
If you made a correct explanation then: 1. You will end up with $4500- of wages PLUS $500 of reimbursable expenses. Therefore only $4500 will be taxed.
You should to make sure that in your Form W2 ( 1. Wages, tips, other compensation)for 2008 these $500 will not be shown: reason- you will be taxed only on $4500 but your income will be higher so you will may end up with additional taxes owned- that depends on you Income).
That scenario is OK if your total salary is not an issue for you.
For you Employer paying to you $4500 Plus $500( reimbursable) is much better
cause he will pay company taxes only on that $4500 and not on $500.
There could be other ways to resolve this problem. Depends on your employer
willingness.
more...
jay75
08-07 01:34 AM
Received 2 year EAD, with pending I140(EB3 I).
hair whether we have curly hair
kennyc
May 25th, 2005, 02:37 AM
So here are three more from the same "session" last evening which do include some foreground framing/interest. (slight adjustments on these to levels, color, etc. no cropping though)
Enjoy,
KAC
Enjoy,
KAC
more...
jonty_11
12-14 02:15 PM
Class of admission means the class/status she was admitted into the country with. So I think u should use H4. I think u should mail it together...
hot Taylor Swift Hair, Taylor
vss
10-28 02:38 PM
USCIS used to accept 3=4, 60 page template evaluations - it is no longer the case. Second, your is SL, it always throws a doubt in legitimacy of job offer. Given the current sitiation, 2nd RFE is mainly on education because USCIS is not convinced with your 1st response. Your chances of success is slim (if you can prove the 3 +1 is in the same line of study) to none - Restart your GC. You are now paying the price for choosing the SL route.
Go back to India, that is the best option in this kind of difficult times.
Go back to India, that is the best option in this kind of difficult times.
more...
house Alicia Keys Long Curly
sidbee
02-22 12:37 PM
I am not a lawyer , and this is not a legal advise.
According to my study , and talk with some lawyers .. Yes it could be same.
But if the Job description is same (not more than 50% different) , then u cannot use the experienced gained in the previous job with the same employer.
Eg .
You had 7 years of experience , and u worked as a software engineer (which required BS + 3 years of exp in c), and Ur company filed Ur GC in eb3.
Now u get promoted to Senior Software Engineer (which required BS + 6 years of exp in c),Now if u had 6 years of exp in c before joining this company in the previous job. you should be eligible to file in EB2 based on Ur previous work ex.
Talk to Ur attorney about the points i mentioned.
According to my study , and talk with some lawyers .. Yes it could be same.
But if the Job description is same (not more than 50% different) , then u cannot use the experienced gained in the previous job with the same employer.
Eg .
You had 7 years of experience , and u worked as a software engineer (which required BS + 3 years of exp in c), and Ur company filed Ur GC in eb3.
Now u get promoted to Senior Software Engineer (which required BS + 6 years of exp in c),Now if u had 6 years of exp in c before joining this company in the previous job. you should be eligible to file in EB2 based on Ur previous work ex.
Talk to Ur attorney about the points i mentioned.
tattoo Taylor Swift Curly Hair Updos.
fittan
03-16 03:12 PM
HumHongeKamiyab,
Since your I-140 is approved, your chance of I-485 RFE is very low. I think you should be ok since the key is that on the day your I-485 is approved, you must have a job offer per your labor.
Fittan
Since your I-140 is approved, your chance of I-485 RFE is very low. I think you should be ok since the key is that on the day your I-485 is approved, you must have a job offer per your labor.
Fittan
more...
pictures Taylor Swift embraces the
chanduv23
12-17 10:15 AM
My first FP was done in July 2007. I have not yet received second FP notice. Normally USCIS sends second FP notice after 15 months. Is someone else like me?
I never received my first FP notice and I think there are a lot of people like me here.
I never received my first FP notice and I think there are a lot of people like me here.
dresses How to Get Long Curly Hair
gmail
07-22 03:14 AM
Quoting the AC21 memo:
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
It is not withdrawn. I-140 was approved in April, 9 months after I-140/485 were filed. However the old employer would withdraw it if he knows. Most US employers don't have too much a clue of GC. He'd love to see me getting into trouble.
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
It is not withdrawn. I-140 was approved in April, 9 months after I-140/485 were filed. However the old employer would withdraw it if he knows. Most US employers don't have too much a clue of GC. He'd love to see me getting into trouble.
more...
makeup Curly Hair taylor swift
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
girlfriend Sofia Milos Long Curly Hair
GC_SUCK
09-26 11:19 AM
Thanks. But GC still sucks because of the long process. Good Luck to everyone.
PD - 04/2002
EB3 - ROW
I-485 RD - 03/2007
I-485 AD - 09/2007
PD - 04/2002
EB3 - ROW
I-485 RD - 03/2007
I-485 AD - 09/2007
hairstyles We hardly recognized Taylor
MatsP
August 14th, 2006, 11:33 AM
Josh,
I wasn't meaning to be ridiculous, but it came out a bit stronger (when I read it back again) than I intended... Sorry to upset you...
--
Mats
I wasn't meaning to be ridiculous, but it came out a bit stronger (when I read it back again) than I intended... Sorry to upset you...
--
Mats
BMS1
09-19 01:09 AM
Thankfully there is a concept called pre-adjudication which makes any retrogression wait run parallel to all the other delays combined like RFE,security/name check etc. So the total wait time is just one of the all the above waits that happens to be the longest. They just do not add up.
TUnlimited
11-03 09:23 PM
requested attorney's view he said he would prefer normal way as its better and i can see checks cashing and make that a proof of receipt in case of reciept notice lost
Sounds like that attorney is complete idiot and never went through eFile things him(her)self...
Because you paying with CC on eFile and they give you receipt for payment, receipt for filing right away and this is your evidence of reception. In other words, you know your case number from the moment you push the button and with eFile you wil not have such question - where to file. They will deal with that on their own. All other stuff, reception notice, FP appointment notice will come a bit later to address you wil put with forms.
Sounds like that attorney is complete idiot and never went through eFile things him(her)self...
Because you paying with CC on eFile and they give you receipt for payment, receipt for filing right away and this is your evidence of reception. In other words, you know your case number from the moment you push the button and with eFile you wil not have such question - where to file. They will deal with that on their own. All other stuff, reception notice, FP appointment notice will come a bit later to address you wil put with forms.
No comments:
Post a Comment