snthampi
06-11 12:32 PM
Just sent email to senators.
wallpaper Tell me, which makeup look do
reddymjm
08-10 01:51 PM
I am in for it.
sc3
10-16 02:48 PM
I beg to disagree. If it was the visa bulletin, then why did they process newer applications first?. That shows some disorder out there. Even when Amazon breaks up, they set their operations right. Here we are being fed the same story over and over again.
Coming to backlogs, they introduced perm before all the existing labor applications were processed and what happened after that?. All the existing applications were sent to the infamous backlog elimination centers. While those applications were waiting to be picked up, perm applications were being processed left, right and centre.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications. USCIS had to use up the numbers so they took the path of least resistance -- not the right thing to do -- but it can't be branded as a "reaction" to the July 07 issue.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
Coming to backlogs, they introduced perm before all the existing labor applications were processed and what happened after that?. All the existing applications were sent to the infamous backlog elimination centers. While those applications were waiting to be picked up, perm applications were being processed left, right and centre.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications. USCIS had to use up the numbers so they took the path of least resistance -- not the right thing to do -- but it can't be branded as a "reaction" to the July 07 issue.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
2011 colorful makeup looks. but
sw33t
01-18 08:19 PM
Since my statement about making copies of offical US documents is causing confusion, let me rephrase & elaborate -
I, as many of you were, was stopped and requested to provide proof of immigration status. I had a color photocopy of my US Visa Stamp of my passport.
Besides the fact that the Border Patrol agent denied the photocopy as proof of immigration status, he did let me go as soon as I provided my College ID and a DL, warning me that it is against the law to make a photocopy of an official US IMMIGRATION document FOR PERSONAL USE. I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE. So, while you are allowed to provide photocopies of official US documents for official government purposes, you cannot make copies of official US IMMIGRATION documents for personal use. I have a pretty busy schedule so I don't have the patience to search, cut and paste the section of the law which refers to this since I did research this at that time and deemed correct the Border Agent's warning.
I, as many of you were, was stopped and requested to provide proof of immigration status. I had a color photocopy of my US Visa Stamp of my passport.
Besides the fact that the Border Patrol agent denied the photocopy as proof of immigration status, he did let me go as soon as I provided my College ID and a DL, warning me that it is against the law to make a photocopy of an official US IMMIGRATION document FOR PERSONAL USE. I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE. So, while you are allowed to provide photocopies of official US documents for official government purposes, you cannot make copies of official US IMMIGRATION documents for personal use. I have a pretty busy schedule so I don't have the patience to search, cut and paste the section of the law which refers to this since I did research this at that time and deemed correct the Border Agent's warning.
more...
sweet_jungle
01-31 10:09 PM
any feedbacks on Terasoft at Illinois? are they on blacklist?
reddymjm
08-16 06:57 PM
Hi Guys,
I got an LUD on 8/14 on mine and my wifes I485s and also on the first EADs filed along with the 485. Anything cooking? I did change my employer in Feb 2010 and yet to file AC21. If any one had similar LUDs please post.
Thanks
I got an LUD on 8/14 on mine and my wifes I485s and also on the first EADs filed along with the 485. Anything cooking? I did change my employer in Feb 2010 and yet to file AC21. If any one had similar LUDs please post.
Thanks
more...
tcsonly
09-19 04:44 AM
Hi,
I was one of the marshalls, reached Los Angeles like an hour ago. The rally was a huge success, but not upto the expectations from the locals. There is no doubt there is more participation from CA members in both days 17, & 18th and I am not sure what stopped locals attending the rally when they have excellent commuting options to the monument and the capitol area unlike the west coast where we're forced to drive.
I am sure that the local chapter leaders such as Arun, Sukhvinder, Sivakanth, & others put a lot of time, effort, & money into getting the permits from different authorities, display matertials prepared and delivered on time, and other logistics.
At the same time, having 6 weeks time for the rally, I think the local chapters in DC, VA, MD, & DE should have taken a bigger initiative in conducting chapter meetings to improve the participation, and volunteer efforts in receiving people from the airports and/or providing accommodations.
I spoke to one person from CA who came with all the checks written with the names & amounts in advance, and handing them over to the members who were sponsered for the rally.
Thanks to all who made the rally a big success.
I do support in changing the organization name to "Legal Immigration Voice" immediately.
I will be writing more in the morning,
Chandra.
I was one of the marshalls, reached Los Angeles like an hour ago. The rally was a huge success, but not upto the expectations from the locals. There is no doubt there is more participation from CA members in both days 17, & 18th and I am not sure what stopped locals attending the rally when they have excellent commuting options to the monument and the capitol area unlike the west coast where we're forced to drive.
I am sure that the local chapter leaders such as Arun, Sukhvinder, Sivakanth, & others put a lot of time, effort, & money into getting the permits from different authorities, display matertials prepared and delivered on time, and other logistics.
At the same time, having 6 weeks time for the rally, I think the local chapters in DC, VA, MD, & DE should have taken a bigger initiative in conducting chapter meetings to improve the participation, and volunteer efforts in receiving people from the airports and/or providing accommodations.
I spoke to one person from CA who came with all the checks written with the names & amounts in advance, and handing them over to the members who were sponsered for the rally.
Thanks to all who made the rally a big success.
I do support in changing the organization name to "Legal Immigration Voice" immediately.
I will be writing more in the morning,
Chandra.
2010 great makeup looks. for a more
keshtwo
07-09 05:00 PM
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
dude, When do they know ROW quota is not filled. The last day of the year? do you think they can give the spillover numbers to India, China and Mexico in one day? Currently what they do is, make a guess on how much will be free and then allot spillovers. tommorow as a result of this ladies lawsuit, they might decided to make sure other countries under 7% get their quota, and spillivers might be drastically curtailed.
Rememer there is no law which states 140K numbers have to be issued. only that max 140k can be issued.
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
dude, When do they know ROW quota is not filled. The last day of the year? do you think they can give the spillover numbers to India, China and Mexico in one day? Currently what they do is, make a guess on how much will be free and then allot spillovers. tommorow as a result of this ladies lawsuit, they might decided to make sure other countries under 7% get their quota, and spillivers might be drastically curtailed.
Rememer there is no law which states 140K numbers have to be issued. only that max 140k can be issued.
more...
ramus
07-03 07:58 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
hair MAC Makeup Looks: Straight
pappu
07-02 10:47 PM
http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com/
IV release
IV release
more...
laborchic
09-19 01:12 PM
First, I would like to congratulate everyone who contributed to the success of the DC rally on Sep 18, 2007...
I was there and I am proud of our ImmigrationVoice members for this FANTASTIC effort!
We are just starting and taking baby steps with these kind of activities...So, anything I mention below is not a critic, but a humble feedback/opinion...Please don't get offended.
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.org( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
2. We must/should always wear formal suits for these kind of rally....this would definitely give us a very high status and definitely there will not be any confusion if the rally is by legal or illegal immigrants. Even if it is hot summer, we must stick to this dress code...
3. In all the signs we had today, we need to have one line clearly in bold as "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" - bold and clear..
Also, all our T-shirts should have
"Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" in the back
4. One of the rally participants told me that a guide was telling a tourists bus passengers quote "these folks are illegal immigrants...", the rally participant who heard this went to the guide and explained that we are legal immigrants...if you think the guide is not smart enough to read our signs and understand that we are legal immigrants, read next point...
5. On the rally route, one gentleman, who was dressed in suit, looked well educated came up to me and asked what we are concerned about...I told him that green card process for Legal Immigrants is taking between 5-10 years and we are requesting to expedite it.....so it is clear that all our signs need this text at the bottom "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants"
We cannot be perfect the first or second time....Lets learn from this rally....
A pat in the back to all those who attended the rally....
Good Luck
RNGC: I just realised this morning that it was you with whom I was discussing all these issues last morning. Great going Sir.... I totally agree with you..
I was there and I am proud of our ImmigrationVoice members for this FANTASTIC effort!
We are just starting and taking baby steps with these kind of activities...So, anything I mention below is not a critic, but a humble feedback/opinion...Please don't get offended.
1. We must immediately change our name to LegalImmigrationVoice.org( LIV.org)...But still Immigrationvoice.org should work....This should be done ASAP...like within next week...Please conduct a poll for this ASAP.
2. We must/should always wear formal suits for these kind of rally....this would definitely give us a very high status and definitely there will not be any confusion if the rally is by legal or illegal immigrants. Even if it is hot summer, we must stick to this dress code...
3. In all the signs we had today, we need to have one line clearly in bold as "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" - bold and clear..
Also, all our T-shirts should have
"Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants" in the back
4. One of the rally participants told me that a guide was telling a tourists bus passengers quote "these folks are illegal immigrants...", the rally participant who heard this went to the guide and explained that we are legal immigrants...if you think the guide is not smart enough to read our signs and understand that we are legal immigrants, read next point...
5. On the rally route, one gentleman, who was dressed in suit, looked well educated came up to me and asked what we are concerned about...I told him that green card process for Legal Immigrants is taking between 5-10 years and we are requesting to expedite it.....so it is clear that all our signs need this text at the bottom "Legal Immigrants - LegalImmigrationVoice.com - Faster Green cards for Legal highly skilled Immigrants"
We cannot be perfect the first or second time....Lets learn from this rally....
A pat in the back to all those who attended the rally....
Good Luck
RNGC: I just realised this morning that it was you with whom I was discussing all these issues last morning. Great going Sir.... I totally agree with you..
hot type of makeup looks that
mchundi
07-24 10:32 AM
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
In the recently released ombudsman's report there was a concern that USCIS is giving EAD's for all AOS applications without checking the case and later rejects 20% of the cases.
It might be tough to push them to take a decesion like this.
On the other hand the hospital and doctor's lobby is going to push for some more relief for the nurses VISA numbers if the CIR doesnot materialize this year, If that happens we can try and lobby to attach some of our issues to that.
--MC
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
In the recently released ombudsman's report there was a concern that USCIS is giving EAD's for all AOS applications without checking the case and later rejects 20% of the cases.
It might be tough to push them to take a decesion like this.
On the other hand the hospital and doctor's lobby is going to push for some more relief for the nurses VISA numbers if the CIR doesnot materialize this year, If that happens we can try and lobby to attach some of our issues to that.
--MC
more...
house make-up look that looks
va_dude
03-19 08:44 AM
Guys... can we drop the whole discussion about this guy's name.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
tattoo I think her makeup looks great
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
more...
pictures charlize theron makeup look
webm
12-15 11:48 AM
Well said Chandu..it's true..
dresses and makeup looks here!
immigrant2007
02-19 12:20 PM
in case someone has already raised tis point then please pardon my ignorance.
Not sure if anyone came across this in the same bill, for all those who will benefit by 5 year cluse they will be beneift but at the same time they will be excluded from the annual numerical limitation quota that means PD dates moving rapidly for as early as all who were here on 20-FEB-2004 (if the bill is passed today which we all know wont happen). So I guess not bad in giving it a shot for raising support for it
BTW did anyone also looked at the exact text
"It is 5 year of continuous physical presence"
My question and doubt is how different is it from "5 year of legal presence v/s physical presence". People who didnt go to homeland for vacation are less than 10%.
Not sure if anyone came across this in the same bill, for all those who will benefit by 5 year cluse they will be beneift but at the same time they will be excluded from the annual numerical limitation quota that means PD dates moving rapidly for as early as all who were here on 20-FEB-2004 (if the bill is passed today which we all know wont happen). So I guess not bad in giving it a shot for raising support for it
BTW did anyone also looked at the exact text
"It is 5 year of continuous physical presence"
My question and doubt is how different is it from "5 year of legal presence v/s physical presence". People who didnt go to homeland for vacation are less than 10%.
more...
makeup The Barbie Doll Look
pappu
07-24 10:56 AM
I will try to dig out the actual memo. But this is from the oh law firm page:
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
girlfriend great makeup looks.
Legal_In_A_Limbo
03-10 01:08 PM
coolmanship, can you please share the format of the letter which we need to send to USCIS asking them of taking the attorney of the case?
I will really appreciate that.
Change of employer does not imply your use of the AC21.....the rule does not require you to notify USCIS....so in many cases, if you do not notify them, it is likely that they will never know and approve your GC. But, if they issue an RFE and if your sponsoring employer gives you the offer for future job you should be okay..........you may only have to work for them for at least a little bit after you got your GC....
I will really appreciate that.
Change of employer does not imply your use of the AC21.....the rule does not require you to notify USCIS....so in many cases, if you do not notify them, it is likely that they will never know and approve your GC. But, if they issue an RFE and if your sponsoring employer gives you the offer for future job you should be okay..........you may only have to work for them for at least a little bit after you got your GC....
hairstyles four great makeup looks
frostrated
09-09 04:20 PM
I have read so many posts in the past where senior members have clearly said that their is nothing possible for EB3 alone and if something is possible it would be for EB.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
Contributing money will not help, but contributing time and effort will go a long way in alleviating the pain that IV members are going through.
Make it a point to talk to the senators and representatives. They will have meet and greets every now and then. Go to those meetings. Set up appointments with them. Educate them.
If not, there is not going to be any CIR, and all the money that you send to IV will be a donation to IV, and that is all it is to it.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
Contributing money will not help, but contributing time and effort will go a long way in alleviating the pain that IV members are going through.
Make it a point to talk to the senators and representatives. They will have meet and greets every now and then. Go to those meetings. Set up appointments with them. Educate them.
If not, there is not going to be any CIR, and all the money that you send to IV will be a donation to IV, and that is all it is to it.
snathan
05-11 12:57 AM
What is a donor. I previously donated $500 and I am not on that forum. Also asked IV through PM about it. Never got a response.
They are considering Donor - only people who are contributing and not based on previous donation. As long as you are donating you will have the donor status.
They are considering Donor - only people who are contributing and not based on previous donation. As long as you are donating you will have the donor status.
rockstart
08-10 03:43 PM
10th is almost over and I thought we had this trend that when USCIS wants to maintain status quo they publish bulletin early in the month and if the bulletin is delayed there is strong probablity that there will be some positive movement
No comments:
Post a Comment