sureshj
06-08 02:18 PM
To solve the FBI name check problem, the following suggestions should be communicated to lawmaker if possible:
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
I could'nt agree with gcdreamer more...
Consider this...
1. FBI, I believe, has 2 rookie analysts dedicated to processing name checks and I heard USCIS pays $25 per name check.
2. FBI has distributed databases in NY, CA, FL, etc. that are not networked. So they have to request name checks individually out of these databases.
3. Name check ranks least in their priority list.
4. FBI has increased their name check criteria from 2 (First name and Last Name) to, I think it is, 7 or 8 (part of the first name, part of the last name and few other combinations). This increases the chances of your name generating "hits" and falling into this blackhole.
In addition to the above FBI (which normally receives ~1.5m name check requests per year) received ~6m in 2003. They are still recovering from that deluge. So now you see what's causing the delay.
For USCIS this works out fine, since they rake in 15% of their annual revenue from EAD/AP renewals. They do not want to mess with this "free money" and reduce the processing time. And to top it all they can transfer the blame on FBI.
In addition, to secure this "money train" USCIS cleverly issued a public memo earlier this year indicating WOM cases will be fought in court. To most this would have seemed like the end of WOM, but it is not. Applicants have since filed and won these cases. However the memo probably had its' desired effect...to discourage a majority of the applicants from filing WOM.
I think USCIS has to be made accountable for the money they earn. The $25/name check is just not sufficient. More funding is necessary so that FBI can allocate more analysts to the job and also upgrade their IT infrastructure. Excuses such as "ball is in FBI's court" is just not acceptable. "Conditional Green card" (as suggested by gcdreamer) is excellant idea to alleviate the problems the "name check" victims face over the ~2 to 4 years they spend in this blackhole.
PS: Just in case you are not aware of Senator Obama's initiative to address this problem here is a link where you can sign-up for whatever it is worth.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nc082505&1
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
I could'nt agree with gcdreamer more...
Consider this...
1. FBI, I believe, has 2 rookie analysts dedicated to processing name checks and I heard USCIS pays $25 per name check.
2. FBI has distributed databases in NY, CA, FL, etc. that are not networked. So they have to request name checks individually out of these databases.
3. Name check ranks least in their priority list.
4. FBI has increased their name check criteria from 2 (First name and Last Name) to, I think it is, 7 or 8 (part of the first name, part of the last name and few other combinations). This increases the chances of your name generating "hits" and falling into this blackhole.
In addition to the above FBI (which normally receives ~1.5m name check requests per year) received ~6m in 2003. They are still recovering from that deluge. So now you see what's causing the delay.
For USCIS this works out fine, since they rake in 15% of their annual revenue from EAD/AP renewals. They do not want to mess with this "free money" and reduce the processing time. And to top it all they can transfer the blame on FBI.
In addition, to secure this "money train" USCIS cleverly issued a public memo earlier this year indicating WOM cases will be fought in court. To most this would have seemed like the end of WOM, but it is not. Applicants have since filed and won these cases. However the memo probably had its' desired effect...to discourage a majority of the applicants from filing WOM.
I think USCIS has to be made accountable for the money they earn. The $25/name check is just not sufficient. More funding is necessary so that FBI can allocate more analysts to the job and also upgrade their IT infrastructure. Excuses such as "ball is in FBI's court" is just not acceptable. "Conditional Green card" (as suggested by gcdreamer) is excellant idea to alleviate the problems the "name check" victims face over the ~2 to 4 years they spend in this blackhole.
PS: Just in case you are not aware of Senator Obama's initiative to address this problem here is a link where you can sign-up for whatever it is worth.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nc082505&1
wallpaper justin bieber drawing contest.
acecupid
07-13 11:09 AM
Was she sleeping all this while. Why did it take her 2 weeks to respond to the events that occured ? Looks like everyone wants a piggy back ride.:D
We know your selfish intentions !!:eek:
We know your selfish intentions !!:eek:
feedfront
10-13 01:53 PM
Hi,
The response to my RFE reached USCIS on 10/12 at 9 am and I haven't got any online status update as of now - 10/13 1 pm EST. Should I be worried or does it generally take them some time to update their records. Just want to make sure that the RFE reached USCIS since the due date for RFE response is coming up soon.
Thanks.
If you have doc that response to RFE reached USCIS on time, then do not worry about it. It may take time to update record.
The response to my RFE reached USCIS on 10/12 at 9 am and I haven't got any online status update as of now - 10/13 1 pm EST. Should I be worried or does it generally take them some time to update their records. Just want to make sure that the RFE reached USCIS since the due date for RFE response is coming up soon.
Thanks.
If you have doc that response to RFE reached USCIS on time, then do not worry about it. It may take time to update record.
2011 justin bieber drawings 2011.
Googler
02-20 03:11 PM
googler u r the new berkeleybee!!
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
more...
stucklabor
07-24 01:52 PM
The law 245 (c) clearly states that the status of the applicant may be adjusted to that of permanent resident only if the visa number is available.
Nowhere does it state that the application for adjustment of status can be accepted only if visa number is available.
What part of "an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed" do you not understand?
And my comments about "The law is the law" and "There is no room for interpretation" refers only to this situation. It is clear as lagoon water that an immigrant visa needs to be available to the applicant at the time that the application is filed. As I said, any attempt to convince USCIS otherwise is a waste of time.
Nowhere does it state that the application for adjustment of status can be accepted only if visa number is available.
What part of "an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed" do you not understand?
And my comments about "The law is the law" and "There is no room for interpretation" refers only to this situation. It is clear as lagoon water that an immigrant visa needs to be available to the applicant at the time that the application is filed. As I said, any attempt to convince USCIS otherwise is a waste of time.
CADude
02-20 06:32 PM
If possible, please change it without any delay? EB3 is only able to cross past May 2001 for 3 times in last 3 years where EB2 are enjoying GC most of time. No point in playing wait game with EB3 India. Otherwise, you will wait for-ever. :)
Does anyone want to make a guess of when EB3 India 2002 will become current ? I am thinking of changing the case to EB2.. Should I change my case or should I wait for EB3 to be current ?
Does anyone want to make a guess of when EB3 India 2002 will become current ? I am thinking of changing the case to EB2.. Should I change my case or should I wait for EB3 to be current ?
more...
ajaykk
07-11 09:35 PM
My PD is 06/27/06..should I feel happy or fingers x'd or just lucky....
2010 Justin Bieber
srikondoji
11-19 10:39 AM
My H1-B expires in another 8 months. I got my Labor cleared (EB-2) in 2 months through Perm and just finished applying for I-140. Before february, if i don't get my I-140 cleared i will go through Premium and apply for H1-B 3 year extension.
Getting my H1-B extended for 3 years is my goal. Once this happens, i will look elsewhere for a new job and start over GC process again hoping thta by then labor laws improve.
I have not dreamed/hoped to get GC. I am only hoping to stay in this country as long as possible.
I still don't understand why people are frustrated with delays in GC?
Why should you even stress yourself too much about this GC. Just enjoy the life and move on.
thanks
Getting my H1-B extended for 3 years is my goal. Once this happens, i will look elsewhere for a new job and start over GC process again hoping thta by then labor laws improve.
I have not dreamed/hoped to get GC. I am only hoping to stay in this country as long as possible.
I still don't understand why people are frustrated with delays in GC?
Why should you even stress yourself too much about this GC. Just enjoy the life and move on.
thanks
more...
desi3933
02-12 01:42 PM
....
The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
We still have 7 months left for FY2010, so only assertion that there will be EB visa unused is only a "theory" at best.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
I agree. He has not backed his claim on that thread as well. Someone has posted a question in that thread regarding source of the spillover. The author of the blog responded with legal statute that explains how unused numbers of FB & EB from previous years are used for next year. But no link to justify 13,000 number.
A fact in itself is nothing. It is valuable only for the idea attached to it, or for the proof which it furnishes. - Claude Bernard
I know you lawyers can, with ease, twist words and meanings as you please. - John Gay
_________________
Not a legal advice.
The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
We still have 7 months left for FY2010, so only assertion that there will be EB visa unused is only a "theory" at best.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
I agree. He has not backed his claim on that thread as well. Someone has posted a question in that thread regarding source of the spillover. The author of the blog responded with legal statute that explains how unused numbers of FB & EB from previous years are used for next year. But no link to justify 13,000 number.
A fact in itself is nothing. It is valuable only for the idea attached to it, or for the proof which it furnishes. - Claude Bernard
I know you lawyers can, with ease, twist words and meanings as you please. - John Gay
_________________
Not a legal advice.
hair Justin Bieber Drawing 2
ajthakur
07-14 06:34 PM
Paper copy: Today
Email notification: last week
Sorry for asking too many questions. One more thing is when did you get this RFE? I am in similar situation---used AC-21 and applied for EAD back in first week of May 2008, but nothing yet from NSC. I was with my GC sponsoring employer for more than 6 months though and I-140 was approved back in 2005.
Email notification: last week
Sorry for asking too many questions. One more thing is when did you get this RFE? I am in similar situation---used AC-21 and applied for EAD back in first week of May 2008, but nothing yet from NSC. I was with my GC sponsoring employer for more than 6 months though and I-140 was approved back in 2005.
more...
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
hot dresses justin bieber drawing
grinch
02-27 01:22 PM
actually my benches are just a series of boxes rotated into place and grouped =)
thats what i thought, but i was just wondering if there was a technique to create polygons along a curve. Haha thanks
thats what i thought, but i was just wondering if there was a technique to create polygons along a curve. Haha thanks
more...
house Justin Bieber Drawing 3 by
chintu25
07-09 03:11 PM
Way to Go Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC
Rock On We are with u :) :cool:
Rock On We are with u :) :cool:
tattoo justin bieber drawing easy. me
indrachat_75
05-15 05:11 PM
Hi,
One of my friend needs some advice :
I am in Company A on L1A. Client (Company B) wants to hire me on H1-B. Can I do it now ?
Please advice.
Indra
One of my friend needs some advice :
I am in Company A on L1A. Client (Company B) wants to hire me on H1-B. Can I do it now ?
Please advice.
Indra
more...
pictures Justin Bieber drawing by
paritp
07-18 05:42 PM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
dresses justin bieber drawing contest.
nomi
12-12 04:57 PM
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
12/11/2006: USCIS Considers Termination of Concurrent Filing (140/485)
According to the USCIS rule-making agenda, the USCIS is to propose to terminate current concurrent I-140 and I-485 filing. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in March 2007 with 60-day comment period. It is thus not imminent, but in the later part of next year(Oops!), the immigrant community may see a totally different filing procedure including electronic registration and filing just like current PERM labor certificaiton application procedure. Once the concurrent filing is terminated, the immigrants may experience a terrible pain as related to maintenance of nonimmigrant status pending I-140 petition, eligibility for 245K benefit, plus unavailability of EAD and AP pending I-140 petition, AC-21 180-day portability, etc. etc. Should the I-140 petition processing be dragged, the pain will be extremely unbearable
http://www.immigration-law.com/
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
12/11/2006: USCIS Considers Termination of Concurrent Filing (140/485)
According to the USCIS rule-making agenda, the USCIS is to propose to terminate current concurrent I-140 and I-485 filing. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in March 2007 with 60-day comment period. It is thus not imminent, but in the later part of next year(Oops!), the immigrant community may see a totally different filing procedure including electronic registration and filing just like current PERM labor certificaiton application procedure. Once the concurrent filing is terminated, the immigrants may experience a terrible pain as related to maintenance of nonimmigrant status pending I-140 petition, eligibility for 245K benefit, plus unavailability of EAD and AP pending I-140 petition, AC-21 180-day portability, etc. etc. Should the I-140 petition processing be dragged, the pain will be extremely unbearable
http://www.immigration-law.com/
more...
makeup justin bieber drawing outline.
we_can
01-03 11:06 PM
Posted on immigration.about.com
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-immigration&tid=13888
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-immigration&tid=13888
girlfriend justin bieber drawings 2011.
Jerrome
07-12 05:28 PM
I feel this move is to benefit EB-2 China, Since the EB1 and EB2 overflow are evenly distributed across china and india, keeping PD with 2004 would be a loss for china and gain for India. So by keeping 2006 June, USCIS will have enough visa numbers for China . India's share will be consumed by 2004 and 2005 applicants.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
Even if India's PD is going to be in 2006 mid, this would result some adhoc or lucky one in 2006 getting GC than a majority of applicants. PD for india would move back to 2004 or 2005 by october 08.
If USCIS follows the same rule again then by next year end the PD for India will move.
This is my guess.
hairstyles wallpaper justin bieber
giveme_gc
10-15 08:40 PM
1) Rope in folks such as Vinod Khosla and Indra Nooyi to talk for us
2) Differentiate ourselves from illegal immigrants
3) Statistics such as taxes paid, contribution to economy, etc will help
4) Ability to purchase homes, start business, and create jobs
5) For the sizeable population we are, involvement in crime is minimal
6) Peace loving people who want to live in this county and contribute towards its growth.
Legal immigrant lobbies are weaker than illegal ones. We need to get more lobbying power to contribute to our causes. I dont know how many there are now, but we sure are weaker than the ones supporting the illegal immigrants. A lot more power in the corridors of Washington are needed to move things to our side. Hopefully our next generation will see better representation than the woeful lack that we face now. I agree with Bechara that sending flowers wont help.
2) Differentiate ourselves from illegal immigrants
3) Statistics such as taxes paid, contribution to economy, etc will help
4) Ability to purchase homes, start business, and create jobs
5) For the sizeable population we are, involvement in crime is minimal
6) Peace loving people who want to live in this county and contribute towards its growth.
Legal immigrant lobbies are weaker than illegal ones. We need to get more lobbying power to contribute to our causes. I dont know how many there are now, but we sure are weaker than the ones supporting the illegal immigrants. A lot more power in the corridors of Washington are needed to move things to our side. Hopefully our next generation will see better representation than the woeful lack that we face now. I agree with Bechara that sending flowers wont help.
potatoeater
05-26 04:36 PM
I-94 is a complete proof of your immigration status in the US.
carrying your gc is understandable, its just a card like your license.
But expecting folks to carry their immigration papers all the time, even when they haven't travelled abroad is a bit too much. As long as i have my license or state id with me, it should suffice.
This is just a classic case of harassing immigrants.
carrying your gc is understandable, its just a card like your license.
But expecting folks to carry their immigration papers all the time, even when they haven't travelled abroad is a bit too much. As long as i have my license or state id with me, it should suffice.
This is just a classic case of harassing immigrants.
BharatPremi
03-17 02:03 PM
Are you saying EB3-India visa date will be set as Jan 2004 by USCIS some time soon? I thought they kept saying that EB3-India dates would move very slowly only. So from the current Oct 2001 to Jan 2004 is a very long and narrow road.
Applicants with PD before January First 2004 will mostly be current by December 2008 end. That is what I belive, USCIS will head towards. If it will not happen than do not kill me.:) Ultimately we all are in USCIS's lap..
Applicants with PD before January First 2004 will mostly be current by December 2008 end. That is what I belive, USCIS will head towards. If it will not happen than do not kill me.:) Ultimately we all are in USCIS's lap..
No comments:
Post a Comment