gsthantry
08-14 01:55 PM
2 year EAD received
Applied on 7/7/2008
Receipt date 7/8/2008
Card production ordered 8/9/2008
Approval notice sent 8/11/2008
Actual card received 8/13/2008.
Lost 2 months due to renewal date starting 8/8/2008 instead of 10/8/2008
EB2-I
PD: Mar 2006
Applied on 7/7/2008
Receipt date 7/8/2008
Card production ordered 8/9/2008
Approval notice sent 8/11/2008
Actual card received 8/13/2008.
Lost 2 months due to renewal date starting 8/8/2008 instead of 10/8/2008
EB2-I
PD: Mar 2006
wallpaper emma watson fashion 2011.
sankap
07-09 11:58 PM
@desi3933:
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (which could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. In fact, many staffing companies give you the option of working on a project or 1099 or W2. (Of course, the advantage of working on W2 is you can "transfer" your H-1B, if the company is willing to do that. But the advantage of working on 1099 or LLC is that you can deduct your business expenses, as a "Self-employed" or a Corporation.) Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. True, your I-140 petition is for a "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has (supposedly) an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen many "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Likewise, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
7. On the link you cite, OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, the process for filing PERM is explained. The employer needs to fill out the Application for Permanent Employment Certification form. The PERM representation requirement does indeed say that "The job opportunity is for full-time, permanent employment for an employer other than the alien." First, how to judge a job as "permanent?" Second, just because the PERM has the requirement for a FT, "permanent" job, it doesn't imply that the "permanent" requirement would apply to the AC21 law.
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
7. Since you're *not* required to inform USCIS on your job changes, why "file AC21" (and stir things), or advise people to do so?
Sankap -
Please allow me to explain this in detail. Please feel free to verify this information with attorney of your choice.
1. W2 Self Employed simply means that one has controlling equity in the employer company. For example - I am employed by corp that is, in part, owned by me since I hold a % of shares. I get paid on W2, just like any other employee in the corp.
2. Any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations. They do not replace them. In any case, memo does not have force of law. In case of contradictory info, memo must "bow" to federal regulations and court rulings.
3. I-140 is for permanent and full time job only. See Page 5 of
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-140instr.pdf
4. Also, read this. It says 'Permanent Employment'
OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm#effdate1)
5. AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time.
6. Permanent Job does not mean "forever", It simply means that duration of employment is not known. A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job (since duration is known), hence all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers. A permanent can be terminated at any time, at will, or as agreed notice by both parties.
7. One is not required to notify AC-21 job, but should e ready to respond to EVL RFE that can come any time.
8. Most of the full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (which could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. In fact, many staffing companies give you the option of working on a project or 1099 or W2. (Of course, the advantage of working on W2 is you can "transfer" your H-1B, if the company is willing to do that. But the advantage of working on 1099 or LLC is that you can deduct your business expenses, as a "Self-employed" or a Corporation.) Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. True, your I-140 petition is for a "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has (supposedly) an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen many "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Likewise, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
7. On the link you cite, OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, the process for filing PERM is explained. The employer needs to fill out the Application for Permanent Employment Certification form. The PERM representation requirement does indeed say that "The job opportunity is for full-time, permanent employment for an employer other than the alien." First, how to judge a job as "permanent?" Second, just because the PERM has the requirement for a FT, "permanent" job, it doesn't imply that the "permanent" requirement would apply to the AC21 law.
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
7. Since you're *not* required to inform USCIS on your job changes, why "file AC21" (and stir things), or advise people to do so?
Sankap -
Please allow me to explain this in detail. Please feel free to verify this information with attorney of your choice.
1. W2 Self Employed simply means that one has controlling equity in the employer company. For example - I am employed by corp that is, in part, owned by me since I hold a % of shares. I get paid on W2, just like any other employee in the corp.
2. Any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations. They do not replace them. In any case, memo does not have force of law. In case of contradictory info, memo must "bow" to federal regulations and court rulings.
3. I-140 is for permanent and full time job only. See Page 5 of
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-140instr.pdf
4. Also, read this. It says 'Permanent Employment'
OFLC Frequently Asked Questions and Answers (http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/faqsanswers.cfm#effdate1)
5. AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time.
6. Permanent Job does not mean "forever", It simply means that duration of employment is not known. A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job (since duration is known), hence all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers. A permanent can be terminated at any time, at will, or as agreed notice by both parties.
7. One is not required to notify AC-21 job, but should e ready to respond to EVL RFE that can come any time.
8. Most of the full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
ub27
07-24 08:56 AM
Paper filed at TSC on May 22, 2008
Service center: TSC
Last LUD on May 29
No updates since.
Currently working on EAD and exires in Sept 2008
----------------
Just called the service center and reply I got back was weird. Apparently their case status viewing system is down and will not be up and running for another 1 week. So, no info as of now and call back in 1 week :(
Service center: TSC
Last LUD on May 29
No updates since.
Currently working on EAD and exires in Sept 2008
----------------
Just called the service center and reply I got back was weird. Apparently their case status viewing system is down and will not be up and running for another 1 week. So, no info as of now and call back in 1 week :(
2011 Emma Watson at Glastonbury
gene77
03-25 10:01 PM
I am curious to know what's stopping the EB3s to port their dates to the EB2 category. I've been seriously considering this lately.
I tried doing that. Convinced the employer to file a new labor for a new position, advertized again, filed a new labor under PERM, applied for a new I-140 and waited for a year for approval ... now the I-140 has been denied for A2P and is under appeal; I must confess that I have lost hope that it'll get re-opened and approved.
So all my efforts for getting a EB2 140 have failed.....what do you recommend, I start this entire process again. Even if I'm willing to bear the cost, the employer will not file yet another labor.
EB3 wait is my only way out now......
thanks
I tried doing that. Convinced the employer to file a new labor for a new position, advertized again, filed a new labor under PERM, applied for a new I-140 and waited for a year for approval ... now the I-140 has been denied for A2P and is under appeal; I must confess that I have lost hope that it'll get re-opened and approved.
So all my efforts for getting a EB2 140 have failed.....what do you recommend, I start this entire process again. Even if I'm willing to bear the cost, the employer will not file yet another labor.
EB3 wait is my only way out now......
thanks
more...
foobar2001
09-02 08:57 AM
hi,
folks who got their GC recently - i was wondering what the post "card production ordered" timeline looks like. How long did it take to get the GC in hand once the CPO email/LUD was received, and what other updates did you receive along the way?
thanks and good luck to all.
-andy
folks who got their GC recently - i was wondering what the post "card production ordered" timeline looks like. How long did it take to get the GC in hand once the CPO email/LUD was received, and what other updates did you receive along the way?
thanks and good luck to all.
-andy
chantu
08-20 12:04 PM
No need to send any cover letter. Rest all docs you mentioned are correct. No more docs needed.
All,
Sorry if I am posting on wrong thread. I am in the process of sending my documents for EAD renewal and had few questions
Do we need to include a cover letter ?
Also I am sending the following documents.
1) copy I-485 receipt notice
2) copy of EAD (front and back)
3) two color photos
4) Filing fee check $340
5) Mailer stub received from previous EAD.
Am I missing anything else?
All,
Sorry if I am posting on wrong thread. I am in the process of sending my documents for EAD renewal and had few questions
Do we need to include a cover letter ?
Also I am sending the following documents.
1) copy I-485 receipt notice
2) copy of EAD (front and back)
3) two color photos
4) Filing fee check $340
5) Mailer stub received from previous EAD.
Am I missing anything else?
more...
doshhar
07-07 02:38 PM
I have initiated the similar discussions on Murthy. Please take a look this thread and reply to that thread.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=6341054251
We should do something and this is the right way to show our unity.
We can also gather students from different universities (as they will going to suffer the same pain as us).
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=6341054251
We should do something and this is the right way to show our unity.
We can also gather students from different universities (as they will going to suffer the same pain as us).
2010 Model chic: Emma Watson steps
gc28262
05-10 08:50 PM
.................................................. .............
.................................................. .................................................. .
I personally think GC quota has a rationale behind it. It allows for a reasonable share to go to smaller countries so that the US population maintains its diversity. Besides, near the end of the year, if the numbers are unused, they are rolled over to larger countries like India and China, thereby automatically eliminating the quota.
If the original intend was to promote diversity (whether it is in FB or EB immigration), quota should be based on ethnicity of US population ( GC holders and citizens ). Ceiling should be applicable to countries those have a high percentage of representation in US population. Does India or China constitute a majority in US population ? No way. Indians and Chinese are a minority in US population.
The concept of "diversity" by country is a racially motivated law. It does not promote diversity. In fact it limits diversity.
.................................................. .................................................. .
I personally think GC quota has a rationale behind it. It allows for a reasonable share to go to smaller countries so that the US population maintains its diversity. Besides, near the end of the year, if the numbers are unused, they are rolled over to larger countries like India and China, thereby automatically eliminating the quota.
If the original intend was to promote diversity (whether it is in FB or EB immigration), quota should be based on ethnicity of US population ( GC holders and citizens ). Ceiling should be applicable to countries those have a high percentage of representation in US population. Does India or China constitute a majority in US population ? No way. Indians and Chinese are a minority in US population.
The concept of "diversity" by country is a racially motivated law. It does not promote diversity. In fact it limits diversity.
more...
redsox2009
11-17 04:09 PM
If Dream act becomes law, I will throw my visa documents and register my self as undocumented alien with undocumented birth certificate and get degree from a community college and get the visa.:D
hair Own Your Style
snathan
02-12 06:31 PM
So far $1805...come on guys
more...
gjoe
10-09 06:18 AM
Why do you think FIFO is scientifically impossible? If you beleive that weather forecast is reliable like most of the Americans do, making the FIFO system work more effeciently without wasting even a single visa is possible.
It is not necessary to issue the visa if the case is still pending for some reason, but if it has cleared all it has a visa number ready to complete the case. If all the visa numbers are allocated ( not necessarily issued) each year there will be no waste. There is no need to go back and recapture visa numbers because all visa numbers are already allocated. Obove all these reasons, those people with PD's as old as 1999 coming out from the BEC need not face another nightmare like first waiting for the I485 to become current before even he can file and then wait in the end of the queue for new applicants to move forward before having his case handled.
This GC system broke because the system was revamped without taking into account the whole process.
First I-485 is triggered by an act of the applicant (he has to apply). So USCIS is never going to know whether an earlier applicant is still out there trying to file his application or not. In fact I would blame the entire retrogression on USCIS' attempt at FIFO which is scientifically impossible. It only results in wastage of visa numbers. In 2004 USCIS wasted 47000 visa numbers, in 2006 it wasted 10000 visa numbers. What USCIS could think of doing is just approve whoever is approvable. So the visa bulletin has only 2 possible values "C" and "U". If an earlier I485 applicant is stuck in name check then he should take appropriate action (writing to senators, FL, GWB or file WoM) and get his case adjudicated.
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
It is not necessary to issue the visa if the case is still pending for some reason, but if it has cleared all it has a visa number ready to complete the case. If all the visa numbers are allocated ( not necessarily issued) each year there will be no waste. There is no need to go back and recapture visa numbers because all visa numbers are already allocated. Obove all these reasons, those people with PD's as old as 1999 coming out from the BEC need not face another nightmare like first waiting for the I485 to become current before even he can file and then wait in the end of the queue for new applicants to move forward before having his case handled.
This GC system broke because the system was revamped without taking into account the whole process.
First I-485 is triggered by an act of the applicant (he has to apply). So USCIS is never going to know whether an earlier applicant is still out there trying to file his application or not. In fact I would blame the entire retrogression on USCIS' attempt at FIFO which is scientifically impossible. It only results in wastage of visa numbers. In 2004 USCIS wasted 47000 visa numbers, in 2006 it wasted 10000 visa numbers. What USCIS could think of doing is just approve whoever is approvable. So the visa bulletin has only 2 possible values "C" and "U". If an earlier I485 applicant is stuck in name check then he should take appropriate action (writing to senators, FL, GWB or file WoM) and get his case adjudicated.
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
hot Emma Watson rocks festival
dhesha
08-14 08:03 PM
One of my friend got "Card Production Ordered" email. He is EB2-I, PD Jan 2006, RD- Sep 30 2007, NSC.
Mine is Dec 2005 and still waiting. So what is going on with NSC? Are they also doing the same thing that TSC is doing? latest cases first?
Mine is Dec 2005 and still waiting. So what is going on with NSC? Are they also doing the same thing that TSC is doing? latest cases first?
more...
house megastar Emma Watson,
GCStatus
09-17 02:43 PM
GCStatus, I think Prashanthg's point is a valid one but that in no way means that we should not sue USCIS for what all they have been doing all these years. This in fact will help us prepare our case even more stronger against USCIS. It is best we ourselves find all the gaps we might have while we proceed with this case instead of them coming onto the issue.
I would suggest everyone who ofcourse is in favor or in doubt to bring forward the issues they think we need to cover while we move on with this.
Pamposh.
Pamposh - Point is not we getting money, idea is getting it back from USCIS. Whoever paid it, USCIS got it. Moreover, money is not the only issue. There are quite a few as we listed before.
We are making great progress. Lets keep it going. Its ideal, we dont waste our energy on these.
I would suggest everyone who ofcourse is in favor or in doubt to bring forward the issues they think we need to cover while we move on with this.
Pamposh.
Pamposh - Point is not we getting money, idea is getting it back from USCIS. Whoever paid it, USCIS got it. Moreover, money is not the only issue. There are quite a few as we listed before.
We are making great progress. Lets keep it going. Its ideal, we dont waste our energy on these.
tattoo Emma Watson Wallpapers
ArunAntonio
07-09 06:59 PM
Amit,
Can you post the template of the email you are sending to the reporters.
- AA
Can you post the template of the email you are sending to the reporters.
- AA
more...
pictures 0606-emma-watson-makeup-look-
hiUS
09-03 10:30 AM
Wait4ever,
I am the same boat, got the approval email and a week later received the approval notice in the mail. Did not get welcome or CPO email. My approval notice says I MAY have to do biometrics again to get my PR card
and they will notify me about appearing for biometrics if required.
Dose your approval notice have a similar message?
Thanks
Did you receive the physical cards by now?
My Case:
08/12/08 - Approval Notice Sent message (This is the only message I got)
08/18/08 - Received the Approval notice by post
No cards till now...:confused:
I am the same boat, got the approval email and a week later received the approval notice in the mail. Did not get welcome or CPO email. My approval notice says I MAY have to do biometrics again to get my PR card
and they will notify me about appearing for biometrics if required.
Dose your approval notice have a similar message?
Thanks
Did you receive the physical cards by now?
My Case:
08/12/08 - Approval Notice Sent message (This is the only message I got)
08/18/08 - Received the Approval notice by post
No cards till now...:confused:
dresses Hair style helps star land
franklin
06-08 05:12 PM
How are you guys seeing these check images? Did you pay for this out of your own pocket?
I'm assuming your assumption is correct :)
There is no way for me to see check images for this, since my company paid
I'm assuming your assumption is correct :)
There is no way for me to see check images for this, since my company paid
more...
makeup Emma Watson and Jessica
xyz_123
08-29 03:21 PM
My attorney received the receipt notice for I-485 application today.
Application was received by NSC on July 23rd.
PD - Jan 2004
Application was received by NSC on July 23rd.
PD - Jan 2004
girlfriend Emma Watson in custom-made
pbuckeye
02-15 09:35 AM
Great initiative IV. Finally signed up for monthly contributions. If that doesn't count towards the event fund, will make a one time contribution as well.
Here is the paypal info for the monthly subscription:
Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: pbuckeye)
Unique Transaction ID # 8TU01799C9450725Y
Subscription # S-55296973D5390092N
Here is the paypal info for the monthly subscription:
Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: pbuckeye)
Unique Transaction ID # 8TU01799C9450725Y
Subscription # S-55296973D5390092N
hairstyles Emma Watson does an encore as
apahilaj
08-01 12:24 PM
Dear all,
I was wondering if any one on this forum has filed his/her AOS with NSC and their case will be transferred to TSC (due to I140 approved from TSC) and has got the filing receipts yet?
My application (based on lawyer's email) should have reached NSC on July 2nd, but haven't got the checks cashed yet or got the receipts yet...
I was wondering that my case will most likely be transferred to TSC from NSC. I am thinking lot of guys are in same situation as me, but have you guys received any receipt yet?
Thanks and good luck!
I was wondering if any one on this forum has filed his/her AOS with NSC and their case will be transferred to TSC (due to I140 approved from TSC) and has got the filing receipts yet?
My application (based on lawyer's email) should have reached NSC on July 2nd, but haven't got the checks cashed yet or got the receipts yet...
I was wondering that my case will most likely be transferred to TSC from NSC. I am thinking lot of guys are in same situation as me, but have you guys received any receipt yet?
Thanks and good luck!
Jimi_Hendrix
12-13 11:54 AM
I posted to topic "My concern- Skill in 2009"...then came proud american..derailed us off track and then we forgot our route....now back to the route....what action are we talking to intorduce this Eb interm relief Bill in senate in Jan..I think we need an input from Core members about how to proceed here..
Each of us write to all out state senators and also important once like Nance pelosi, Mccain..so on...about providing some non-contraversial releif...we need to mention those and send LEGIBLE HAND WRITTEN LETTERS without spelling mistakes and send it fedex.....Send it during Chirstmas ...dot forget to mention God Bless America...just explain in simple words that we have been waiting for some relief from 2001 and have not seen any...please consider passing these non-contraversial issuses....I think they are reasonable and would agree....also mention that we have been dodged like a football saying skill/CIR and so on....
Better yet a skillfull person writing this and all of us using this...
Target is to intorduce the EB interm bill by End of Jan
Yes let us get back on track. Core members please respond with comments about interim relief in January.
Each of us write to all out state senators and also important once like Nance pelosi, Mccain..so on...about providing some non-contraversial releif...we need to mention those and send LEGIBLE HAND WRITTEN LETTERS without spelling mistakes and send it fedex.....Send it during Chirstmas ...dot forget to mention God Bless America...just explain in simple words that we have been waiting for some relief from 2001 and have not seen any...please consider passing these non-contraversial issuses....I think they are reasonable and would agree....also mention that we have been dodged like a football saying skill/CIR and so on....
Better yet a skillfull person writing this and all of us using this...
Target is to intorduce the EB interm bill by End of Jan
Yes let us get back on track. Core members please respond with comments about interim relief in January.
gckabayega
09-01 07:47 AM
Wait for a couple of more weeks-- It is on the way. Don't go by the dates USCIS posted. They apparently don't correctly reflect the actual.
i sent application for me and my wife on july 6th NSC my I 140 was applied in TSC . i am NJ resident. wife took info pass appointmnet as no check cashed, no notice receive. started worrying now. as NSC is updating even new applications no sure if my case was transferred to TSC or not . any body in same boat ? application was signed by R williams in NSC.
i sent application for me and my wife on july 6th NSC my I 140 was applied in TSC . i am NJ resident. wife took info pass appointmnet as no check cashed, no notice receive. started worrying now. as NSC is updating even new applications no sure if my case was transferred to TSC or not . any body in same boat ? application was signed by R williams in NSC.
No comments:
Post a Comment