SunnySurya
08-07 10:25 AM
Then why do we have different categories then...
If you can call it EB2 line, yes he will come before you. On the other hand an EB3 guy calls it �GC� line and says that you come later with a Masters and go before him in the line. It depends on which way you look at it.
If you can call it EB2 line, yes he will come before you. On the other hand an EB3 guy calls it �GC� line and says that you come later with a Masters and go before him in the line. It depends on which way you look at it.
wallpaper Matthew Broderick/Michelle
lenova
09-26 02:40 PM
I disagree with Mallu , name checks do not affect only a few , if it was so the staggering 440K people wouldnt be there , more interestinly I am seeing that only Indians are being subjected to this name check crap , everyone else seems to be doing just fine
buddyinsd
08-20 12:15 AM
The pain of waiting for 9-yrs is nothing compared to the wait now (after dates got current)...Refreshing my yahoo mail on iPhone atleast twice per hour, Clicking on Safari where the last visited page is that of case status online (Click the status btn frequently) --- Life is difficult :(
Like an ad says: "Stay thirsty my friend", I hope I dont have to stay thirsty "FOREVER".
God save us from this misery just like u've been saving a few others!!!
I am in the same situation. I share your pain.
I think the scientific community should stop their search for a black hole. Considering the difficulty in extracting the least bit of information from the USCIS, they will beat any black hole hands down. :-)
Like an ad says: "Stay thirsty my friend", I hope I dont have to stay thirsty "FOREVER".
God save us from this misery just like u've been saving a few others!!!
I am in the same situation. I share your pain.
I think the scientific community should stop their search for a black hole. Considering the difficulty in extracting the least bit of information from the USCIS, they will beat any black hole hands down. :-)
2011 Matthew Broderick (right) with
GC_Info
04-06 08:41 AM
GC_info:
YOU can apply her AP with the instructions to deliver the AP to nearby US consulate in India. Upon AP approval, she can go and collect her AP from the consulate and come back using AP.
Why would she need AP when her H4 visa is still valid?
YOU can apply her AP with the instructions to deliver the AP to nearby US consulate in India. Upon AP approval, she can go and collect her AP from the consulate and come back using AP.
Why would she need AP when her H4 visa is still valid?
more...
WaldenPond
12-31 07:54 PM
Hello Logiclife,
The information you provided is very useful. Will go look for David Heenan's book.
Here is the book that I am trying to read - 'Flight of the Creative Class' by Dr. Richard Florida. Here is the extract from this book -
Chapter 4 – The Closing of America? - Page 112
The rejection rate of H-1B visas (also called “high-skilled visas”), which allow professionals who are not U.S. citizens to work in the country for up to six years, increased from 9.5 to 17.8 percent between 2001 and 2003.
Chapter 4 – The Closing of America? - Page 117
By 2003, antiterrorism measures began to catch up not just with visa applications but also with requests for more permanent U.S. residence. Thanks to delays in the processing of green-card applications, only 705,827 people became legal permanent residents that year, down from 1.06 million in 2002. This decline is the steepest since 1953, when Joseph McCarthy stoked fears that Communists were invading the government and general population. Nearly half of those affected by the government slowdown in 2003 were foreign students, workers, and others already residing in the U.S. and hoping to become permanent residents. Such figures may understate the extent of the problem-which were backlogged to more than 6 million by the end of the fiscal year 2003. Of these over 6 million people whose legal lives as residents were put on hold, roughly 3.6 million have had applications pending for more than six months.
The practical, everyday implications of such a wait can be exasperating. Without a green card, many immigrants are prohibited from traveling, denied the benefit of in-state tuition rates, or even put at risk for job loss and deportation if the wait goes on too long. These risks accrue not only to individuals and families but to the businesses that hire them and need their skills.
There is lot more to share but I am not able to put all this on the discussion forum thread. Will add more to this later.
Here is the link to Dr. Florida's site : http://www.creativeclass.org/.
The information you provided is very useful. Will go look for David Heenan's book.
Here is the book that I am trying to read - 'Flight of the Creative Class' by Dr. Richard Florida. Here is the extract from this book -
Chapter 4 – The Closing of America? - Page 112
The rejection rate of H-1B visas (also called “high-skilled visas”), which allow professionals who are not U.S. citizens to work in the country for up to six years, increased from 9.5 to 17.8 percent between 2001 and 2003.
Chapter 4 – The Closing of America? - Page 117
By 2003, antiterrorism measures began to catch up not just with visa applications but also with requests for more permanent U.S. residence. Thanks to delays in the processing of green-card applications, only 705,827 people became legal permanent residents that year, down from 1.06 million in 2002. This decline is the steepest since 1953, when Joseph McCarthy stoked fears that Communists were invading the government and general population. Nearly half of those affected by the government slowdown in 2003 were foreign students, workers, and others already residing in the U.S. and hoping to become permanent residents. Such figures may understate the extent of the problem-which were backlogged to more than 6 million by the end of the fiscal year 2003. Of these over 6 million people whose legal lives as residents were put on hold, roughly 3.6 million have had applications pending for more than six months.
The practical, everyday implications of such a wait can be exasperating. Without a green card, many immigrants are prohibited from traveling, denied the benefit of in-state tuition rates, or even put at risk for job loss and deportation if the wait goes on too long. These risks accrue not only to individuals and families but to the businesses that hire them and need their skills.
There is lot more to share but I am not able to put all this on the discussion forum thread. Will add more to this later.
Here is the link to Dr. Florida's site : http://www.creativeclass.org/.
malaGCPahije
08-07 11:24 AM
If people can move freely between the categories then Why do we have categories?...:confused:
How are people moving "freely" between categories? Man, if this was so "free" then would we have anyone at all in EB3 and even EB2...everyone would have moved to EB1 !!
I do not think it is that "free". I personally do not think anyone would move jobs ONLY to move from EB3 to EB2. The move to EB2 could be a side-effect for a job move that was done for a whole different reason.
Everyone has the right to do what they feel is the right thing. I feel supporting IV is right and hence have participated in each campaign from the time I joined. Sunny and Rolling are doing what they feel is right.
I do believe in "As you sow, so you reap". Do good, get good in return (tried to translate 'kar bhala, ho bhala'). You all know whether what you are doing is right or wrong. When you reap the result of it, just remember that you got what you sowed. Be happy.
How are people moving "freely" between categories? Man, if this was so "free" then would we have anyone at all in EB3 and even EB2...everyone would have moved to EB1 !!
I do not think it is that "free". I personally do not think anyone would move jobs ONLY to move from EB3 to EB2. The move to EB2 could be a side-effect for a job move that was done for a whole different reason.
Everyone has the right to do what they feel is the right thing. I feel supporting IV is right and hence have participated in each campaign from the time I joined. Sunny and Rolling are doing what they feel is right.
I do believe in "As you sow, so you reap". Do good, get good in return (tried to translate 'kar bhala, ho bhala'). You all know whether what you are doing is right or wrong. When you reap the result of it, just remember that you got what you sowed. Be happy.
more...
ezee
08-16 12:30 PM
I got the CPO email today for both my wife and I.
Here is my info:
PD - Oct, 2005
NSC
Sent email to followup address on 8/6 (no response yet), sent again to scopsscata address on 8/13
Asked my congressman to inquire on 8/12
Opened SR on 8/13
Got CPO email on 8/16 (Happy Independence Day!!! Well I am sure they wanted to present this gift on 8/15, but what could they do, it was a Sunday!)
Hope and pray that the rest of the people waiting get their approvals soon!
Here is my info:
PD - Oct, 2005
NSC
Sent email to followup address on 8/6 (no response yet), sent again to scopsscata address on 8/13
Asked my congressman to inquire on 8/12
Opened SR on 8/13
Got CPO email on 8/16 (Happy Independence Day!!! Well I am sure they wanted to present this gift on 8/15, but what could they do, it was a Sunday!)
Hope and pray that the rest of the people waiting get their approvals soon!
2010 (At left) Matthew Broderick
mirage
08-22 11:49 AM
Guys Please send this out. It'll take 20 minutes and less than $2 of postage stamps...If we can get Rep Zoe Lofgren's attention towards our issue, the whole thing may change...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Oppenheim / Visa Section
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
From,
Your Name/Your Address/EB-3 India Applicant
Priority Date: May 2003
Some City,
OK-2#####
Dear Sir/Madam,
Sub: Statistics on Employment Based AOS(Adjustment of Status) applications pending at USCIS under various categories
I am writing to you to express my sense of helplessness over the unpredictability of Visa Number allotment to various employment based category. I want to bring to your attention that it�s been nearly a �Decade� since we saw any meaningful Visa Date movement from year 2001 for EB-3 Green Card applicants from India.
It is important to know that despite of severe visa retrogression and random visa cutoff date movements, USICIS or DOS hasn�t released any official information on how many Adjustment of Status applications are pending at USCIS under various categories which leaves thousands of AOS(Adjustment of Status) applicants in complete darkness and dependent on guessing games by various Law firms.
A green card application requires enormous amount of efforts and money from the beneficiary and his/her employer. People who are waiting for 7-8 years now would have had already spent average $15,000-$20,000, in maintaining their statuses and keep the Green Card process going on. Being stuck in a green card process keeps us bonded with 1 employer, job type etc.
We need to know if there is any light at the end of the tunnel. We need to know for how long we have to live our life in limbo. If there is hope than we need to be patient and plan to live like that for another 1-2 years. But if there�s no light at the end of the tunnel than we need to move on with our careers and other family commitments. Only your office and USCIS can help us by releasing statistics on the number and categories of applications pending with USCIS people waiting in this category can plan their lives accordingly.
It will be a great help if DOS or USCIS could tell us about the number of AOS application pending at USCIS along with their Categories(EB-3, EB-2, EB-1) and chargeable country.
We have been waiting for a decade and continue to wait would it be reasonable to request you for some guidance with regards to the Visa allotment. I request your office to provide some statistics on home many Adjustment of Status applications are pending at USCIS.
We understand that you work with in the limits of the law as set by the Congress and are limited by various constraints that are beyond your agency realm of work. We appreciate your hard work and sincerely thank you for all the hard work.
God Bless America!
Thank you for you attention,
(Your Name OR EB-3 India Applicant )
Priority Date: April 02
Category: EB-3
Member ImmigrationVoice.Org
Copy Sent to
Honorable Secretary of State
Dr. Condoleezza Rice
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Honorable Director, USCIS
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20529
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Senator John Cornyn
Chairman - United States Senate Judiciary subCommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Chairwoman - United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
102 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone (202) 225-3072
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Oppenheim / Visa Section
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
From,
Your Name/Your Address/EB-3 India Applicant
Priority Date: May 2003
Some City,
OK-2#####
Dear Sir/Madam,
Sub: Statistics on Employment Based AOS(Adjustment of Status) applications pending at USCIS under various categories
I am writing to you to express my sense of helplessness over the unpredictability of Visa Number allotment to various employment based category. I want to bring to your attention that it�s been nearly a �Decade� since we saw any meaningful Visa Date movement from year 2001 for EB-3 Green Card applicants from India.
It is important to know that despite of severe visa retrogression and random visa cutoff date movements, USICIS or DOS hasn�t released any official information on how many Adjustment of Status applications are pending at USCIS under various categories which leaves thousands of AOS(Adjustment of Status) applicants in complete darkness and dependent on guessing games by various Law firms.
A green card application requires enormous amount of efforts and money from the beneficiary and his/her employer. People who are waiting for 7-8 years now would have had already spent average $15,000-$20,000, in maintaining their statuses and keep the Green Card process going on. Being stuck in a green card process keeps us bonded with 1 employer, job type etc.
We need to know if there is any light at the end of the tunnel. We need to know for how long we have to live our life in limbo. If there is hope than we need to be patient and plan to live like that for another 1-2 years. But if there�s no light at the end of the tunnel than we need to move on with our careers and other family commitments. Only your office and USCIS can help us by releasing statistics on the number and categories of applications pending with USCIS people waiting in this category can plan their lives accordingly.
It will be a great help if DOS or USCIS could tell us about the number of AOS application pending at USCIS along with their Categories(EB-3, EB-2, EB-1) and chargeable country.
We have been waiting for a decade and continue to wait would it be reasonable to request you for some guidance with regards to the Visa allotment. I request your office to provide some statistics on home many Adjustment of Status applications are pending at USCIS.
We understand that you work with in the limits of the law as set by the Congress and are limited by various constraints that are beyond your agency realm of work. We appreciate your hard work and sincerely thank you for all the hard work.
God Bless America!
Thank you for you attention,
(Your Name OR EB-3 India Applicant )
Priority Date: April 02
Category: EB-3
Member ImmigrationVoice.Org
Copy Sent to
Honorable Secretary of State
Dr. Condoleezza Rice
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Honorable Director, USCIS
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20529
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Senator John Cornyn
Chairman - United States Senate Judiciary subCommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Chairwoman - United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
102 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone (202) 225-3072
more...
gpawar
01-15 08:16 AM
VFS locations, timing and address:
Tirupati Apartments, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Opp. Mahalakshmi Temple,
Mumbai - 400026.
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
Gujarat Chambers Building, Shri Ambika Mills, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380009 .
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
106, Sohrab Hall 1st Floor, Sassoon Road, Behind Pune Station Junction,
Pune - 411001 .
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
Please remember to watch out for the emails around 1:00 - 1:30 pm, so that you can submit your PP for stamping on the same day. I ended up missing today's deadline of 3pm and essentially losing one day.
Good luck,
G Pawar
Tirupati Apartments, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Opp. Mahalakshmi Temple,
Mumbai - 400026.
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
Gujarat Chambers Building, Shri Ambika Mills, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380009 .
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
106, Sohrab Hall 1st Floor, Sassoon Road, Behind Pune Station Junction,
Pune - 411001 .
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
Please remember to watch out for the emails around 1:00 - 1:30 pm, so that you can submit your PP for stamping on the same day. I ended up missing today's deadline of 3pm and essentially losing one day.
Good luck,
G Pawar
hair and Matthew Broderick
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.
more...
virginia_desi
05-23 03:39 PM
Can I get the letter of Employment verification from my manager or does it need to come through HR in the company?
hot Matthew Broderick takes
chintu25
09-10 09:41 AM
I have this link for the hearing but unable to play the video Any suggestions or other links
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
more...
house Matthew Broderick - Zap2it
anilsal
06-21 02:05 PM
Got "No" from lawyers from both sides.
tattoo matthew broderick
perm
06-19 09:22 AM
Hi everyone,
I have 2004 W2 but cant seem to find my tax return. I have 2003, 2005, 2006tax returns but not 2004. What can I do to get that return. Please any advice will be nice.
Thanks
go to irs.gov > personal section and find somethink like transcripts. you can oder transcripts for free or copy of your tax return for $39 ( I guess)
I have 2004 W2 but cant seem to find my tax return. I have 2003, 2005, 2006tax returns but not 2004. What can I do to get that return. Please any advice will be nice.
Thanks
go to irs.gov > personal section and find somethink like transcripts. you can oder transcripts for free or copy of your tax return for $39 ( I guess)
more...
pictures Matthew Broderick; Matthew
factoryman
06-18 05:15 PM
EOM. Should this be a question or if you use less paper, will you be considered environmental friendly and way to faster GC.
Don't waste your time and energy on trifles. I can, because I am done with filing and work at office.
How the forms to be printed? One sided or back to- back?
Don't waste your time and energy on trifles. I can, because I am done with filing and work at office.
How the forms to be printed? One sided or back to- back?
dresses wallpaper Matthew Broderick
mallu
09-11 05:56 PM
CIS Ombudsman's annual report.
The information might have been posted earlier...
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf
page 37 - 44 - detail the problem and proposed solution
the flow chart on page is 42 gives a good description
So , the USCIS says they get 39% positive response from FBI namecheck. Does that mean
for those 39% the GC/Citizenship is denied? I haven't heard much about folks getting GC denied because of critical FBI report. The Ombuds is unable to determine how much of the 39% positive response cases were already covered by other means of check. .
I think their reasoning could be like this "Even if 1 million good guys are put to difficulty because of the false hits, if they can catch 1 bad guy with the process, they will continue to do so". The only solution appears to increase the resources/money.
The information might have been posted earlier...
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf
page 37 - 44 - detail the problem and proposed solution
the flow chart on page is 42 gives a good description
So , the USCIS says they get 39% positive response from FBI namecheck. Does that mean
for those 39% the GC/Citizenship is denied? I haven't heard much about folks getting GC denied because of critical FBI report. The Ombuds is unable to determine how much of the 39% positive response cases were already covered by other means of check. .
I think their reasoning could be like this "Even if 1 million good guys are put to difficulty because of the false hits, if they can catch 1 bad guy with the process, they will continue to do so". The only solution appears to increase the resources/money.
more...
makeup Matthew Broderick, Wonderful
sc3
08-20 11:02 PM
I got 3 negs.. not that I care about the reputation system here... but it shows people are unwilling to confront me openly, and choose to hide even though this forum is already anonymous.
One neg says:
"old system - like we're going to let that happen. interfile if you can."
Why should I interfile? I am putting my energies into getting USCIS to follow the rules. It is the right thing to do, just because I am willing to wait for my turn, doesn't mean I will cede my position in the queue.
Also, I am trying to take recourse from the written laws, there is nothing that anyone can do (barring USCIS' own impediment to follow the law) to not "let that happen".
One neg says:
"old system - like we're going to let that happen. interfile if you can."
Why should I interfile? I am putting my energies into getting USCIS to follow the rules. It is the right thing to do, just because I am willing to wait for my turn, doesn't mean I will cede my position in the queue.
Also, I am trying to take recourse from the written laws, there is nothing that anyone can do (barring USCIS' own impediment to follow the law) to not "let that happen".
girlfriend Matthew Broderick and Sarah
Caliber
10-07 01:37 PM
The USCIS calls this efficiency. I wish these folks to be on the receiving end of their own treatment in their next life.
Dear Alterego,
What do you think we are? We were INS officers in our past lifes and troubled all these Chinese and Italian immigrants. That is the reason, why we are born to take back what we gave them in past life.
Dear Alterego,
What do you think we are? We were INS officers in our past lifes and troubled all these Chinese and Italian immigrants. That is the reason, why we are born to take back what we gave them in past life.
hairstyles Matthew Broderick Cheats on
bayarea07
09-15 10:54 AM
bump
BharatPremi
09-25 02:07 PM
I dont get this - the PDF clearly mentions that the table is for ALL PENDING EMPLOYMENT-BASED 485s. So that means: -
1. It does not include any Family-based 485s.
2. This is not a count of just pre-adjudicated cases - this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES.
3. And since this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES, it also means that ALL DEPENDENT CASES are also included in this count - all DEPENDENTS HAVE TO FILE THEIR OWN 485s!
Sometimes I just wonder, if most people here on this board have an illness or over-analyzing everything. It is so simple if you just read what is stated and take it at the face!
The only thing I can tell is most of us are trying to search "light" from this "black and dark cloud". USCIS does not seem to be agree with what you are saying. Please have this trend chart and the worksheet in this thread together and then you will realize what we all are saying.:)
1. It does not include any Family-based 485s.
2. This is not a count of just pre-adjudicated cases - this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES.
3. And since this is a count of ALL PENDING CASES, it also means that ALL DEPENDENT CASES are also included in this count - all DEPENDENTS HAVE TO FILE THEIR OWN 485s!
Sometimes I just wonder, if most people here on this board have an illness or over-analyzing everything. It is so simple if you just read what is stated and take it at the face!
The only thing I can tell is most of us are trying to search "light" from this "black and dark cloud". USCIS does not seem to be agree with what you are saying. Please have this trend chart and the worksheet in this thread together and then you will realize what we all are saying.:)
vdlrao
04-01 11:36 PM
Total 44K
If 44k is the available number for EB2 I & C then the PD will move upto Jun 2008 with out any doubt. Even with the porting of EB3 to EB2 is accounted for.
.
If 44k is the available number for EB2 I & C then the PD will move upto Jun 2008 with out any doubt. Even with the porting of EB3 to EB2 is accounted for.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment