longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
wallpaper Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
Horace Jones
07-30 04:46 PM
I agree with most of the comments, the backlog definitely seems to be the overbearing issue here. The USCIS has faced a great deal of criticism because of this backlog, which many people argue is highly unfair. This article explains what I am talking about: Migration Information Source - USCIS Faces Criticism over Visa Backlog (http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=665)
CT_Green
07-10 11:45 AM
Lou has branded an entire national communiy in his hate filled rhetoric. I appreciate that good people differ in their views on immigration, but this crosses the line. H1b is "cheap Indian labor" and "overstay their visas" ??
Lou believes in quoting no facts, just bullishly repeating such views. Nobody who disagrees can ever get a word in. I am a specialist physician with multiple degrees and board certifications. I practice in underserved communities, speak fluent English and pay my taxes. My visa status is and always has been legal. Do I meet the Lou standards? I am waiting in an endless line for a green card that keeps me at the bottom based on my country of birth. So much for Lou's cheap labor! Has everyone forgotten his tacit support for outsourcing in his "other professional life"?
Shame on CNN for allowing this. I, for one, have no further interest in this channel.
Thanks paskal. We need to continue this momentum and more people should contact other media outlets as well as CNN
Lou believes in quoting no facts, just bullishly repeating such views. Nobody who disagrees can ever get a word in. I am a specialist physician with multiple degrees and board certifications. I practice in underserved communities, speak fluent English and pay my taxes. My visa status is and always has been legal. Do I meet the Lou standards? I am waiting in an endless line for a green card that keeps me at the bottom based on my country of birth. So much for Lou's cheap labor! Has everyone forgotten his tacit support for outsourcing in his "other professional life"?
Shame on CNN for allowing this. I, for one, have no further interest in this channel.
Thanks paskal. We need to continue this momentum and more people should contact other media outlets as well as CNN
2011 JustinBieber Selena Gomez 7
priderock
09-19 03:30 PM
No one can expect the result on the second day after the rally. And I get RED for stating the obvious :(
more...
easygoer
12-03 11:52 AM
I'm certain you cannot do that. While applying for H1B Visa, you can use experience in lieu of education, but while Perm/I140, they consider only 1 degree. Either its Masters or its Bachelors...even both of them are not considered as aggregates.
If your attorney is planning that way, he may not have handled such cases before... :eek:
You cannot substitute degree with experience while applying for Perm/I140.
WhiteStallion is right. I received ref on my EB2 due to combination of degrees. However, once filed with single degree as Master's it was approved
If your attorney is planning that way, he may not have handled such cases before... :eek:
You cannot substitute degree with experience while applying for Perm/I140.
WhiteStallion is right. I received ref on my EB2 due to combination of degrees. However, once filed with single degree as Master's it was approved
senocular
02-03 07:43 AM
so wait, is it different now? ... Im lost, what changed?
more...
jgh_res
08-11 09:14 AM
U have such a big signature but nothing abt contribution to IV. Have u contributed anything to IV? If not, how do u thinkIV can fight for whatever it is fighting?
I had a friend who came here after me, say I think in 2001, he got laid off and had gaps in his employment, he married this girl who joined a company head quartered in IOWA, the payroll stubs used to be in excel sheets. He was probably in the point where if we went to India, they would not have let him come back on H1. They paid 10K to get LS (adjusted through employment for 1 year) and when I-140 and 485 were being allowed for consecutive filing I believe Dec2004, filed it. He called me a month back saying they got their physical card. His PD date somewhere 2004 EB3. My PD March 21 2003, am I frustrated of course, but I am frustrated with the system that has loop holes, as pointed out there are hundred of people who have legitimately used LS.. there is no point losing sleep over it.
The need of the hour is this, to be together and fight together, not among each other. IV does not differentiate between LS and non LS, or degrees or anyone's individual cases or scenarios. IV's goal is very simple, GC process should not take more that 2 years and anything that reduces the total time frame, that is what IV stands for. Time is key, lost time cannot be regained, what is in for is now and the future, lets stick together and think about how we can help IV meet this goal, that none of us should be waiting many many more years to come. Can we all agree on this and go forward please?
Thanks and appreciate everyone's understanding.
I had a friend who came here after me, say I think in 2001, he got laid off and had gaps in his employment, he married this girl who joined a company head quartered in IOWA, the payroll stubs used to be in excel sheets. He was probably in the point where if we went to India, they would not have let him come back on H1. They paid 10K to get LS (adjusted through employment for 1 year) and when I-140 and 485 were being allowed for consecutive filing I believe Dec2004, filed it. He called me a month back saying they got their physical card. His PD date somewhere 2004 EB3. My PD March 21 2003, am I frustrated of course, but I am frustrated with the system that has loop holes, as pointed out there are hundred of people who have legitimately used LS.. there is no point losing sleep over it.
The need of the hour is this, to be together and fight together, not among each other. IV does not differentiate between LS and non LS, or degrees or anyone's individual cases or scenarios. IV's goal is very simple, GC process should not take more that 2 years and anything that reduces the total time frame, that is what IV stands for. Time is key, lost time cannot be regained, what is in for is now and the future, lets stick together and think about how we can help IV meet this goal, that none of us should be waiting many many more years to come. Can we all agree on this and go forward please?
Thanks and appreciate everyone's understanding.
2010 justin bieber red carpet
tanu_75
08-02 02:00 PM
tanu, do you realize that the above is nothing but a rant? isantem is not responsible for making the rules so why beat him up? What he said is nothing but the facts to the best of his knowledge
Yes, go ahead, give me reds. From your behavior I feel you may be one of those immature types who will red anyone who disagrees..
Funny you say that. I'm all for a honest debate and in fact mentioned cited this forum's intolerance for disagreement. We fail to realize that the EB quota is not a Indian only domain, that there are other non-Indian EB immigrants with their own viewpoints, and that unfortunately this narrow sightedness will stifle any unified efforts to fight this problem.
And I'm not beating isantem up. I was on the other hand trying to explain to him why the policy of country based quotas are naive for attracting top talent. Please read my post below.
I would have given you a green for actual substantive disagreement but seeing that you failed to comprehend what I clearly was saying, I'll give you a red. Looks like you care about them enough.
Guys we see a very unhealthy trend here where any disagreement is not tolerated. This forum is for legal skilled immigrants and we sometimes show how unskilled we are when it comes to tolerance of opinion here.
isantem, while I understand the diversity argument, when it comes to skilled immigration it doesn't really help. The data itself shows that the overwhelming number of skilled immigrants come from India/China. If the objective is to let the most skilled immigrants in, then the US should forget about diversity. Unfortunately in terms of volume and talent combined, India and China handily beat the rest of the world. Even if EB3 goes to 2002 so be it, but at least you are treating all skilled immigrants on a level playing field rather than discriminating them based on where they were born. If the US continues to do this, there is a serious danger (and this has been documented) that skilled folks in India/China will no longer find the US attractive. Its already happening with the economy booming in India. In fact, we'll probably see you or your kids standing in line for an Indian or Chinese green card in a few years (and I doubt India or China will focus on diversity when it comes to attracting the most skilled talent).
Yes, go ahead, give me reds. From your behavior I feel you may be one of those immature types who will red anyone who disagrees..
Funny you say that. I'm all for a honest debate and in fact mentioned cited this forum's intolerance for disagreement. We fail to realize that the EB quota is not a Indian only domain, that there are other non-Indian EB immigrants with their own viewpoints, and that unfortunately this narrow sightedness will stifle any unified efforts to fight this problem.
And I'm not beating isantem up. I was on the other hand trying to explain to him why the policy of country based quotas are naive for attracting top talent. Please read my post below.
I would have given you a green for actual substantive disagreement but seeing that you failed to comprehend what I clearly was saying, I'll give you a red. Looks like you care about them enough.
Guys we see a very unhealthy trend here where any disagreement is not tolerated. This forum is for legal skilled immigrants and we sometimes show how unskilled we are when it comes to tolerance of opinion here.
isantem, while I understand the diversity argument, when it comes to skilled immigration it doesn't really help. The data itself shows that the overwhelming number of skilled immigrants come from India/China. If the objective is to let the most skilled immigrants in, then the US should forget about diversity. Unfortunately in terms of volume and talent combined, India and China handily beat the rest of the world. Even if EB3 goes to 2002 so be it, but at least you are treating all skilled immigrants on a level playing field rather than discriminating them based on where they were born. If the US continues to do this, there is a serious danger (and this has been documented) that skilled folks in India/China will no longer find the US attractive. Its already happening with the economy booming in India. In fact, we'll probably see you or your kids standing in line for an Indian or Chinese green card in a few years (and I doubt India or China will focus on diversity when it comes to attracting the most skilled talent).
more...
DDash
08-07 07:18 PM
If I were you, I would discuss this before the wedding. Its too important an issue not to disclose, in my opinion.
Mr.Suresh - Do what ever you feel is right....I take back my comment about dont discuss with your future wife.
Mr.Suresh - Do what ever you feel is right....I take back my comment about dont discuss with your future wife.
hair Selena Gomez red carpet,
DSJ
07-17 10:12 AM
Man I-485 Texas procesing dates went back to August 07 2006
more...
kaisersose
05-29 06:02 PM
With due respect, please refrain from posting pessimistic rants originating from unofficial sources. This may be true, but common sense should tell everyone to wait for such news to come from official sources.
These are things beyond our control. Best not to get anyone's panties into a bunch over such news. If the GC is not possible, that is still OK. Move back to the country of origin and life will go on - thoug not as planned.
The last thing we should be doing is whine about our troubles.
These are things beyond our control. Best not to get anyone's panties into a bunch over such news. If the GC is not possible, that is still OK. Move back to the country of origin and life will go on - thoug not as planned.
The last thing we should be doing is whine about our troubles.
hot selena gomez justin bieber red
pushkarw
12-21 01:02 PM
Have you contributed to the MILLION dollar drive? Please visit the funding thread.
more...
house Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
skp71
03-18 09:31 AM
Instead to lobbying politicians, why don't we file tons of lawsuits againt USCIS for the process delay? July my opinion.
tattoo selena gomez justin bieber red carpet. +justin+ieber+and+selena+
gc_maine2
04-03 08:38 AM
Just sent the WevFax # 10, #11. Thanks to IV Core members and all volunteers.
more...
pictures On Oscar night, Justin Bieber
ABC of GC
07-19 01:18 PM
Which state you are based in? If you are close to NJ, I know a doctor whoes turn around time was very very quick. You can speak to him in advance and arrange to get everything done quickly. He is very accomodative also. You can PM me if you are interested.
dresses Selena Gomez Singer/actress
ItIsNotFunny
12-02 04:54 PM
Hi,
I have a three year bachelor degree + MBA from India with 9 years of experience. My labor
...
Please let me know your opinion. I have to file an appeal in next few days. Thanks for your help.
This is not good. Either USCIS is doing a terrible job or you gotta change lawyer!
I have a three year bachelor degree + MBA from India with 9 years of experience. My labor
...
Please let me know your opinion. I have to file an appeal in next few days. Thanks for your help.
This is not good. Either USCIS is doing a terrible job or you gotta change lawyer!
more...
makeup Justin Bieber Selena Gomez Red
GCBy3000
07-26 05:03 PM
for sure nebraska will revise it to 10/26 or later. I think they did not realize what they are getting into when they released the date last week.
thanks for posting the actual link...
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...mes27Jul07.pdf
even before USCIS did....
thanks for posting the actual link...
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...mes27Jul07.pdf
even before USCIS did....
girlfriend Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
for_gc
01-05 01:40 PM
[QUOTE= ...
Hope that helps.[/QUOTE]
Dear FinalGC,
This answer reallys helps. Thanks for the same.
Along with the budget amount what are other typical metrics for "large" projects like schedule, no. of resources etc. ?
Is there a website or other resource where this type of data is collected and we can take a look at it ?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Hope that helps.[/QUOTE]
Dear FinalGC,
This answer reallys helps. Thanks for the same.
Along with the budget amount what are other typical metrics for "large" projects like schedule, no. of resources etc. ?
Is there a website or other resource where this type of data is collected and we can take a look at it ?
Thanks in advance for your response.
hairstyles Selena Gomez red carpet face
gcwait2007
03-26 08:44 AM
Thanks. Yes, that I certainly will have to do that. Any other areas need to be taken care of such as proof of financial audit reports for EB2 filer ? Or any other things...?
Mine is getting into a scenario similar to your case!! Can you please update me what is happening in your inter-filing scenario? Thanks in advance.
Mine is getting into a scenario similar to your case!! Can you please update me what is happening in your inter-filing scenario? Thanks in advance.
SkilledWorker4GC
07-08 12:34 PM
This is a "do nothing" congress. They dont care about immigration reforms as this doesnt have immediate affects. Frankly i have no hope. Nothing is going to happen till summer of next year.
sangmami
07-02 03:45 PM
app 5500 dollars plus 10 yrs off my total lifespan thinking about this i guess:(
No comments:
Post a Comment