ArunAntonio
06-21 01:18 PM
MAN !!! this is confusing ...
-- Sheela Murthy says not to apply multiple I 485
-- Rajiv Khanna says you should apply
-- My attorney says .. it is my call....
-- some guys tell me ... apply independently and then join the one that is reaching towards completion..
and I am confused and frustrated........
but really .. what should a man do ??? I will kneel down and ask god .. I will let you guys know what he has to say ..... :(
Another answer from Rajiv Khanna: on multiple 485s
I recommend both husband wife file for yourselves and for each other. So between the two , there will be four 485 applications. One: Wife as primary, husband as derivative. Second, husband as primary and wife as derivative. We do this all the time and this is the safest thing to do. You will keep whichever 485 set gets approved, first, the other will be rejected by CIS.
-- Sheela Murthy says not to apply multiple I 485
-- Rajiv Khanna says you should apply
-- My attorney says .. it is my call....
-- some guys tell me ... apply independently and then join the one that is reaching towards completion..
and I am confused and frustrated........
but really .. what should a man do ??? I will kneel down and ask god .. I will let you guys know what he has to say ..... :(
Another answer from Rajiv Khanna: on multiple 485s
I recommend both husband wife file for yourselves and for each other. So between the two , there will be four 485 applications. One: Wife as primary, husband as derivative. Second, husband as primary and wife as derivative. We do this all the time and this is the safest thing to do. You will keep whichever 485 set gets approved, first, the other will be rejected by CIS.
wallpaper wallpapers,Mary J Blige
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
aquarianf
06-18 10:45 AM
My lawyer only asked for the W2 ans tax returns for the last two years. I think the latest two to three years shall be sufficient unless USCIS asks for all specifically.
Are there any instructions specifically asking for W2s and returns for all years of your stay ? or every one is including all they have just to be sure.
My attorney is not including any w2s/tax returns at all. According to her, their firm never files these documents and got many approval without any issue. Did you see any instructions in 485 forms that says that they are required?
Are there any instructions specifically asking for W2s and returns for all years of your stay ? or every one is including all they have just to be sure.
My attorney is not including any w2s/tax returns at all. According to her, their firm never files these documents and got many approval without any issue. Did you see any instructions in 485 forms that says that they are required?
2011 of Hip Hop Mary J. Blige#39;s
gc_on_demand
04-24 02:53 PM
They refer to ads on Sulekha and other similar portals
On another note - consulting companies will workaround by creating multiple companies and applying h1b through various companies
But are n't they proposing 50 % rule.. how can a small desi company afford 50 % US citizen staff ? That is why may be people think consulting companies will not work.
but what I think is it will make them less profitable. Very small body shoppers will go out of business. Med to large indian owner based consulting companies will be less profitable.
Guys with stock investment in indian IT compnies Heads UP !
On another note - consulting companies will workaround by creating multiple companies and applying h1b through various companies
But are n't they proposing 50 % rule.. how can a small desi company afford 50 % US citizen staff ? That is why may be people think consulting companies will not work.
but what I think is it will make them less profitable. Very small body shoppers will go out of business. Med to large indian owner based consulting companies will be less profitable.
Guys with stock investment in indian IT compnies Heads UP !
more...
gc_chahiye
01-27 08:33 PM
Isn't it part of her job? There is nothing like being servant. Moreover, it was just asked to rinse the bottle with hot water, to be sure it is hygenic, in a circumstances when baby was making tantrums. Another reason for asking was because bathrooms were full, otherwise there wouldn't have been a need. We have travelled many other airlines, and there was never an issue for such requests. Many airlines go extra mile to please you. It is what is called customer service.
I don't understand why is it hard or degrading? Maybe then they are not supposed to serve you a cool cup of water at your seat as well. Is that demeaning as well on part of her job?
no its not part of her job. I know a stewardess, and this exactly the part she dislikes about her job. people think its her job to attend to all little demands of the passengers.
She has two duties on the plane, in order:
- safety of the passengers. this is #1.(ensuring luggage is stowed, seatbeats are on, people are not wandering around the aisles; co-ordinate and help in case of emergencies)
- basic service (serve food, clear the trays, handle simple requests like juice/water, ice barfbags etc). This does not include cleaning out your babies bottles. Some airlines have stewardesses who would go out of their way (I have seen Singapore Airlines do this) but again, rinsing a baby's bottle is NOT part of her job. She can get you a bottle of hot water if you want and you can rinse it yourself either in the sink or into the barf-bag.
I don't understand why is it hard or degrading? Maybe then they are not supposed to serve you a cool cup of water at your seat as well. Is that demeaning as well on part of her job?
no its not part of her job. I know a stewardess, and this exactly the part she dislikes about her job. people think its her job to attend to all little demands of the passengers.
She has two duties on the plane, in order:
- safety of the passengers. this is #1.(ensuring luggage is stowed, seatbeats are on, people are not wandering around the aisles; co-ordinate and help in case of emergencies)
- basic service (serve food, clear the trays, handle simple requests like juice/water, ice barfbags etc). This does not include cleaning out your babies bottles. Some airlines have stewardesses who would go out of their way (I have seen Singapore Airlines do this) but again, rinsing a baby's bottle is NOT part of her job. She can get you a bottle of hot water if you want and you can rinse it yourself either in the sink or into the barf-bag.
InTheMoment
10-06 01:31 AM
caliguy,
The final option 4 that you press is correct. Sometimes you can get an IIO that is not happy to give status info (and it is a good idea that the status word is not mentioned by the caller...it kind of hurts their ego! for the reason below)
Remember reaching the Service Center directly (thro this "POJ" method) puts you in touch with not a CSR but an actual Immigration Information Officer (these at the Service Centers are positions that are rotated, they usually also do simple cases at other times like I-765, I-131 etc.) They have full access to all databases and systems that a Adjudication Officer handling you file has, unlike the regular contractor non-POJ CSR's.
@ fatjoe
Well, I dont think politeness works with USCIS, but do we really have a choice?
Yes, lets write to Secretary Napolitino. I will also send a copy of the letter to the first lady. I am not sure what else we can do besides that.
Once I get the sequence to call TSC using the POJ method, I will try calling them tomorrow.
The final option 4 that you press is correct. Sometimes you can get an IIO that is not happy to give status info (and it is a good idea that the status word is not mentioned by the caller...it kind of hurts their ego! for the reason below)
Remember reaching the Service Center directly (thro this "POJ" method) puts you in touch with not a CSR but an actual Immigration Information Officer (these at the Service Centers are positions that are rotated, they usually also do simple cases at other times like I-765, I-131 etc.) They have full access to all databases and systems that a Adjudication Officer handling you file has, unlike the regular contractor non-POJ CSR's.
@ fatjoe
Well, I dont think politeness works with USCIS, but do we really have a choice?
Yes, lets write to Secretary Napolitino. I will also send a copy of the letter to the first lady. I am not sure what else we can do besides that.
Once I get the sequence to call TSC using the POJ method, I will try calling them tomorrow.
more...
jsb
09-22 04:49 PM
When calling USCIS did anybody question, if they have not yet entered even July 2 filings, why do their weekly updates indicate otherwise. It is very pertinent question and a very valid point to be taken to a congressman.
2010 Give Me You by Mary J. Blige
stuck_here
02-07 11:17 PM
Sorry to hear about your predicament Shwetha. I hope you get the thing cleared soon. This is scaring me a little bit too !
I have called the consulate multiple times and DOS once. They said it is under PIMS verification. They haven't mentioned any 221(g) or anything like that ! But I guess lacking any accountibility to the applicants or employers they can practically do anything !
Hi stuck_here, how do you know you are stuck for PIMS and not anything else ??
I have called the consulate multiple times and DOS once. They said it is under PIMS verification. They haven't mentioned any 221(g) or anything like that ! But I guess lacking any accountibility to the applicants or employers they can practically do anything !
Hi stuck_here, how do you know you are stuck for PIMS and not anything else ??
more...
B+ve
10-08 07:11 AM
Hi Friends,
Myself and spouse got the GC last month (09/05/2009) and my kid's case was still pending. Today I received CPO mail for my kid.
My kid's RD is July 2, 2007 and ND is November 19, 2007. Actually my kid's 485 was rejected and then reapplied during July 2007 due to old fee and new fee confusion, though I have provided actual fee. That's the reason for my kid's ND was nearly 5 months apart from the RD.
Here is what I did:
Took couple of infopass and numerous calls to Customer Service. Nothing did work properly... Getting same old replies - like, need to wait for 3 months etc... And last time when I took infopass, I requested the IO to expedite the process as this is a small kid's case and more over parents 485 approved. So IO got convinced somehow and expedited the case. After two weeks, got the magic mail.
Best of luck who are still waiting...
- B+ve
Myself and spouse got the GC last month (09/05/2009) and my kid's case was still pending. Today I received CPO mail for my kid.
My kid's RD is July 2, 2007 and ND is November 19, 2007. Actually my kid's 485 was rejected and then reapplied during July 2007 due to old fee and new fee confusion, though I have provided actual fee. That's the reason for my kid's ND was nearly 5 months apart from the RD.
Here is what I did:
Took couple of infopass and numerous calls to Customer Service. Nothing did work properly... Getting same old replies - like, need to wait for 3 months etc... And last time when I took infopass, I requested the IO to expedite the process as this is a small kid's case and more over parents 485 approved. So IO got convinced somehow and expedited the case. After two weeks, got the magic mail.
Best of luck who are still waiting...
- B+ve
hair Give Me You Mary J. Blige Cover - By Debbie Vicari.
gcbeku
08-13 09:20 AM
Today we received our welcome notices. The PD on my application is correct but the PD on my wife's application is same as the receipt date. Is this normal for the dependent application?
Our applications were approved based on substitute labor. Our 485 is based on 140 with PD Aug 2006 but we have another substitute labor with PD Nov 2005. When I applied for 140 with PD Aug 2006, I added my wife as dependent. But in the substitute labor I am not sure if my wife was added.
Is there anything to worry or just ignore it?
Thank you
Check with your lawyers. It should be easy to get an amended approval notice or atleast a letter from USCIS that it is okay.
Our applications were approved based on substitute labor. Our 485 is based on 140 with PD Aug 2006 but we have another substitute labor with PD Nov 2005. When I applied for 140 with PD Aug 2006, I added my wife as dependent. But in the substitute labor I am not sure if my wife was added.
Is there anything to worry or just ignore it?
Thank you
Check with your lawyers. It should be easy to get an amended approval notice or atleast a letter from USCIS that it is okay.
more...
royus77
06-29 04:43 PM
Wait for the Updates from USICS today/monday morning...If they didnt give any statement considering a lot of rumors/activity , defintely some bad news is in store ......
hot Mary J Blige: #39;My favourite
drona
07-11 01:43 PM
Hi all, can we not include the original quote a hundred times. It make the thread hard to read. Many thanks.
more...
house Family Affair – Mary J. Blige
pdakwala
02-01 10:04 AM
1. Legislation: The Future of Employment-Based Immigration during the next few weeks, Congress is scheduled to decide the future of
employment-based immigration to the United States.
Comprehensive immigration reform proposals by Senators McCain and
Kennedy, Cornyn and Kyl, Hagel and Specter will be considered by the Senate in February.
Each proposal contains a combination of the following elements: (1) a
guest worker program; (2) stricter immigration enforcement; and (3) an
expansion of the employment-based immigration system.
The guest worker program is, by far, the most controversial part of the
package. To President Bush and its Congressional proponents, a guest
worker proposal is simply a way of creating a procedure to allow U.S.
companies to continue to employ millions of foreign-born workers to fill jobs which American choose not to perform.
Opponents of a guest worker program maintain that if employers simply
raise their wages, American workers will do any job. Call me a "doubter".
Our unemployment rate has been hovering around 5% for over a year. Yet,
the Wall Street Journal recently ran an article about lettuce growers who,
unable to harvest their crops, raised their rates to over $10 per hour. A few
Americans applied, but none lasted more than a few hours. How many of the
unemployed are willing and able to perform stoop labor in rural valleys?
The opponents of a guest worker program refuse to vote for any program
which looks like an "amnesty". Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) of the
Subcommittee on Immigration in the House of Representatives puts it
simply: "A guest-worker program that applies to illegal aliens already here is an amnesty." Representative Sensenbrenner and over one hundred Republican Congressman in the House of Representatives are against any "amnesty". Since Chairman Sensenbrenner will be the chief House negotiator in any Senate-House Conference Committee on an immigration reform bill, this spells trouble for any guest worker program.
If the guest worker program does not include the 10 million plus
illegal workers who are presently in the U.S., there is not the slightest
possibility of either regularizing their immigration status or of deporting them.
That is simply a fact, and building a huge fence on Mexico's border (no one
ever suggests doing so along the Canadian border) with the U.S. will simply
discourage illegal workers in the U.S. from returning home to visit
their families. Also, it does nothing to stem the influx of illegal workers
who enter the U.S. with visas and then overstay. Those in Congress who
think that by criminalizing these people the problem is solved are kidding
themselves and their constituents.
The real solution is to look reality square in the face, and fashion a
solution which will penalize illegal workers, but, at the same time, allow them
to participate in a guest worker program that will eventually result in
them becoming permanent residents of the U.S. Unless there is a light at
the end of the tunnel for them, what is the incentive for them to come out of the shadows and register for the program? The McCain-Kennedy bill contains such a program.
At least one ex-INS prosecutor (The one who writes this newsletter)
knows that the government cannot solve the illegal alien problem by wishing it away, or by an enforcement-only approach. Ten years after President Clinton enacted a "get tough" at the border policy, the number of illegal workers in the U.S. has more than doubled. Congress must realize that, in the post-9/11, world, the United States simply cannot afford to have 10 million persons in the U.S. who are unknown to the government. Every citizen should write to his Member of Congress and tell them that he/she wants these people identified, fingerprinted, registered with the government, paying taxes and learning English.
Whether or not the Congress enacts a guest worker program, the United
States has another immigration problem that needs to be solved, and solved
now. Our country is educating less scientists, engineers, doctors and nurses
than we did when I graduated from law school in 1973. In the meantime, countries in Asia are graduating far more of these professional workers than does the U.S. Fortunately, many of these professional workers have been supplementing the U.S. workforce for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, during the past year, huge backlogs in our immigration system have developed, and many of the best and brightest of these professionals are choosing to stay at home. This does not bode well for our security and our industries.
Our country is losing its manufacturing base. For example, the U.S.
automobile industry is firing tens of thousands of U.S. workers and G.M. and Ford are edging ever-closer to bankruptcy. Why? Because the American public is choosing to buy automobiles produced by Japanese and German companies.
Fortunately, thanks to the immigration of tens of thousands of Indian
and Chinese engineers to the U.S., the top software, chip makers and
biotech companies are still located in the U.S. But with our outdated
immigration laws making it increasingly difficult for U.S. employers to hire talented foreign- born scientists and engineers, how long can America maintain its dominance in these industries? U.S. employers can vote with their feet the same as U.S. consumers. Make it impossible to bring a sufficient number of foreign-born engineers to the U.S., and Microsoft and Intel and other top U.S. companies will simply locate their new plants and hire their new engineers not in the U.S., but in India and China.
Most of the bills pending before Congress would increase
employment-based immigration to 290,000 annually. This would help insure that our country maintains its number one position in science and technology.
employment-based immigration to the United States.
Comprehensive immigration reform proposals by Senators McCain and
Kennedy, Cornyn and Kyl, Hagel and Specter will be considered by the Senate in February.
Each proposal contains a combination of the following elements: (1) a
guest worker program; (2) stricter immigration enforcement; and (3) an
expansion of the employment-based immigration system.
The guest worker program is, by far, the most controversial part of the
package. To President Bush and its Congressional proponents, a guest
worker proposal is simply a way of creating a procedure to allow U.S.
companies to continue to employ millions of foreign-born workers to fill jobs which American choose not to perform.
Opponents of a guest worker program maintain that if employers simply
raise their wages, American workers will do any job. Call me a "doubter".
Our unemployment rate has been hovering around 5% for over a year. Yet,
the Wall Street Journal recently ran an article about lettuce growers who,
unable to harvest their crops, raised their rates to over $10 per hour. A few
Americans applied, but none lasted more than a few hours. How many of the
unemployed are willing and able to perform stoop labor in rural valleys?
The opponents of a guest worker program refuse to vote for any program
which looks like an "amnesty". Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) of the
Subcommittee on Immigration in the House of Representatives puts it
simply: "A guest-worker program that applies to illegal aliens already here is an amnesty." Representative Sensenbrenner and over one hundred Republican Congressman in the House of Representatives are against any "amnesty". Since Chairman Sensenbrenner will be the chief House negotiator in any Senate-House Conference Committee on an immigration reform bill, this spells trouble for any guest worker program.
If the guest worker program does not include the 10 million plus
illegal workers who are presently in the U.S., there is not the slightest
possibility of either regularizing their immigration status or of deporting them.
That is simply a fact, and building a huge fence on Mexico's border (no one
ever suggests doing so along the Canadian border) with the U.S. will simply
discourage illegal workers in the U.S. from returning home to visit
their families. Also, it does nothing to stem the influx of illegal workers
who enter the U.S. with visas and then overstay. Those in Congress who
think that by criminalizing these people the problem is solved are kidding
themselves and their constituents.
The real solution is to look reality square in the face, and fashion a
solution which will penalize illegal workers, but, at the same time, allow them
to participate in a guest worker program that will eventually result in
them becoming permanent residents of the U.S. Unless there is a light at
the end of the tunnel for them, what is the incentive for them to come out of the shadows and register for the program? The McCain-Kennedy bill contains such a program.
At least one ex-INS prosecutor (The one who writes this newsletter)
knows that the government cannot solve the illegal alien problem by wishing it away, or by an enforcement-only approach. Ten years after President Clinton enacted a "get tough" at the border policy, the number of illegal workers in the U.S. has more than doubled. Congress must realize that, in the post-9/11, world, the United States simply cannot afford to have 10 million persons in the U.S. who are unknown to the government. Every citizen should write to his Member of Congress and tell them that he/she wants these people identified, fingerprinted, registered with the government, paying taxes and learning English.
Whether or not the Congress enacts a guest worker program, the United
States has another immigration problem that needs to be solved, and solved
now. Our country is educating less scientists, engineers, doctors and nurses
than we did when I graduated from law school in 1973. In the meantime, countries in Asia are graduating far more of these professional workers than does the U.S. Fortunately, many of these professional workers have been supplementing the U.S. workforce for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, during the past year, huge backlogs in our immigration system have developed, and many of the best and brightest of these professionals are choosing to stay at home. This does not bode well for our security and our industries.
Our country is losing its manufacturing base. For example, the U.S.
automobile industry is firing tens of thousands of U.S. workers and G.M. and Ford are edging ever-closer to bankruptcy. Why? Because the American public is choosing to buy automobiles produced by Japanese and German companies.
Fortunately, thanks to the immigration of tens of thousands of Indian
and Chinese engineers to the U.S., the top software, chip makers and
biotech companies are still located in the U.S. But with our outdated
immigration laws making it increasingly difficult for U.S. employers to hire talented foreign- born scientists and engineers, how long can America maintain its dominance in these industries? U.S. employers can vote with their feet the same as U.S. consumers. Make it impossible to bring a sufficient number of foreign-born engineers to the U.S., and Microsoft and Intel and other top U.S. companies will simply locate their new plants and hire their new engineers not in the U.S., but in India and China.
Most of the bills pending before Congress would increase
employment-based immigration to 290,000 annually. This would help insure that our country maintains its number one position in science and technology.
tattoo Mary J Blige Performs At
sugaur
09-22 07:46 AM
I went to infopass on Aug 31s1, when my date was about to be current.
IO told me preadjudicated and I should come back in 2-3 weeks if I dont hear anything.
So I went yeaterday. Same IO. Told me everything looks ok and case is being "moved" Apparently she saw something in the system and told me that on sep 16th, your case was "moved". Couldnt tell me moved where, but still in TSC.
Again told me to come back in 2-3 weeks to get status update.
WTF. Anyone else with similar expirience?
IO told me preadjudicated and I should come back in 2-3 weeks if I dont hear anything.
So I went yeaterday. Same IO. Told me everything looks ok and case is being "moved" Apparently she saw something in the system and told me that on sep 16th, your case was "moved". Couldnt tell me moved where, but still in TSC.
Again told me to come back in 2-3 weeks to get status update.
WTF. Anyone else with similar expirience?
more...
pictures Update: Leaked Mary J. Blige
logiclife
07-09 06:45 PM
Call the place where you've ordered flowers and ask for a refund if flowers are delivered elsewhere. It should be up to USCIS to recieve and then ship those flowers to the hospitals.
DONT DO THAT.
Let the flowers go to USCIS and let them do whatever they want with the flowers. Kindly dont jinx this campaign by cancelling your orders and asking for refunds.
DONT DO THAT.
Let the flowers go to USCIS and let them do whatever they want with the flowers. Kindly dont jinx this campaign by cancelling your orders and asking for refunds.
dresses drake-and-mary-j-lige
SunnySurya
08-07 12:40 PM
No I am not!
NOW, aren't you ashamed about your sorry job....
NOW, aren't you ashamed about your sorry job....
more...
makeup Mary J. Blige has recorded two
Bpositive
10-07 04:52 PM
BPositive, Sorry to hear that, I am about to apply for AP. My PD is nov 2004, EB2 -I . I am next in line to loose the money. Did you apply online?
Good old hardcopy and mail
Good old hardcopy and mail
girlfriend Ummmmm I love Mary J Blige but
CADude
10-10 05:54 PM
I send my Employment based I-485/I-765/I-131 application on June 29th 2007 and received at NSC on July 2nd 2007 (USPS Express mail tracking no. XXXX). It�s more than 100 days and I didn�t even received the Receipt Number for all the applications.
I have following question for CIS Ombudsman�s office:
1) Per US Law, I have to get the EAD in 90 days of filling of my application? How I can get the EAD in 90 days where I didn�t even get the Receipt Number after 100 days?
2) Why �First In First Out (FIFO)� process is not followed by USCIS for receipting? It�s unfair to applicant like me when application filed on August 17th 2007 enjoying the EAD card and able to work.
3) What action you can will take to force USCIS follow their own operational manual guidelines and follow FIFO in future?
I have following question for CIS Ombudsman�s office:
1) Per US Law, I have to get the EAD in 90 days of filling of my application? How I can get the EAD in 90 days where I didn�t even get the Receipt Number after 100 days?
2) Why �First In First Out (FIFO)� process is not followed by USCIS for receipting? It�s unfair to applicant like me when application filed on August 17th 2007 enjoying the EAD card and able to work.
3) What action you can will take to force USCIS follow their own operational manual guidelines and follow FIFO in future?
hairstyles Mary J. Blige and Tiziano
Brightsider
09-25 11:12 AM
I saw this link Murthy's email too. The total pre-adjudicated cases in the chart is matching with the total in the document. Well now there are more un-answered questions:
1. Does all other pending 485 include employment based ? If yes what % are employment based ? Obviously we do not have any country specific data on these.
2. Is there any way to know whether individual case is pre-adjudicated or not ?
USCIS has fooled us again. No good statistical analysis can be done on incomplete/inaccurate data. I am going from hopeful to hopeless again. I am EB2-I Feb 2006.
Thanks a lot for staying on top of this and posting your analysis.
Guys,
If I may suggest.
Take a look at the pending 1-130 (Pref). Over 800k are pending and adjudication has been deferred in those cases. Those are FB cases for sure. Now if USCIS has deferred action in those cases, can we infer that all the 279k I-485 cases relate only to EB? Cant say for sure.
However as it was pointed out in another forum, Texas and Nebraska process only EB cases. In their cases, the rate of preadjudication is very high....over 90% in Texas. I cant fathom the Nebraska numbers.
The preadjudication numbers, in my opinion, are of the EB cases. The data, on the whole, needs to be explained by USCIS, better.
1. Does all other pending 485 include employment based ? If yes what % are employment based ? Obviously we do not have any country specific data on these.
2. Is there any way to know whether individual case is pre-adjudicated or not ?
USCIS has fooled us again. No good statistical analysis can be done on incomplete/inaccurate data. I am going from hopeful to hopeless again. I am EB2-I Feb 2006.
Thanks a lot for staying on top of this and posting your analysis.
Guys,
If I may suggest.
Take a look at the pending 1-130 (Pref). Over 800k are pending and adjudication has been deferred in those cases. Those are FB cases for sure. Now if USCIS has deferred action in those cases, can we infer that all the 279k I-485 cases relate only to EB? Cant say for sure.
However as it was pointed out in another forum, Texas and Nebraska process only EB cases. In their cases, the rate of preadjudication is very high....over 90% in Texas. I cant fathom the Nebraska numbers.
The preadjudication numbers, in my opinion, are of the EB cases. The data, on the whole, needs to be explained by USCIS, better.
GC_Info
04-06 12:14 AM
Hi,
My spouse is traveling to India soon as her father is ill. She is on H4 visa, valid until next year, with pending I-485. She doesn't have AP at hand. Given that there is a slim chance that our pds would be current, would she get into trouble if she is in India when her GC gets approved?:confused:
My spouse is traveling to India soon as her father is ill. She is on H4 visa, valid until next year, with pending I-485. She doesn't have AP at hand. Given that there is a slim chance that our pds would be current, would she get into trouble if she is in India when her GC gets approved?:confused:
maheshf
04-04 04:23 PM
I checked my status and it's been showing this for last 1 year..not sure what it means? Does it mean it has been pre-adjudicated? Please let me know if this is standard response once you submit RFE response. Thanks
"Request for Evidence Response Review
On May 29, 2009, we received your response to our request for evidence. This case is being processed at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. You should expect to receive a written decision or written update within 60 days of the date we received your response unless fingerprint processing or an interview are standard parts of case processing and have not yet been completed, in which case you can use the processing time information on our website to estimate when this case will be done. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Once a timely response to the request for evidence is received by USCIS, we review the evidence or information you submitted. If you submitted the requested evidence, we continue with the adjudication of your application or petition in light of the new evidence"
"Request for Evidence Response Review
On May 29, 2009, we received your response to our request for evidence. This case is being processed at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. You should expect to receive a written decision or written update within 60 days of the date we received your response unless fingerprint processing or an interview are standard parts of case processing and have not yet been completed, in which case you can use the processing time information on our website to estimate when this case will be done. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Once a timely response to the request for evidence is received by USCIS, we review the evidence or information you submitted. If you submitted the requested evidence, we continue with the adjudication of your application or petition in light of the new evidence"
No comments:
Post a Comment