chanduv23
06-29 05:04 PM
This disclaimer in VB, does not say "mid-month". It takes about cut off dates via bulletin only. Also, this means USCIS put some thought behind the time they will have to announce cut-off dates. They new the demand will ber "very heavy".
**
All Employment Preference categories except for Third �Other Workers� have been made �Current� for July. This has been done in an effort to generate increased demand by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) for adjustment of status cases, and to maximize number use under the annual numerical limit. However, all readers should be alert to the possibility that not all Employment preferences will remain Current for the remainder of the fiscal year. Should the rate of demand for numbers be very heavy in the coming months, it could become necessary to retrogress some cut-off dates for September, most likely for China-mainland born and India, but also possibly for Mexico and Philippines. Severe cut-off date retrogressions are likely to occur early in FY-2008.
**
This was based on information obtained then. Now they can say that they do not have enough visa numbers and all numbers are exhausted
**
All Employment Preference categories except for Third �Other Workers� have been made �Current� for July. This has been done in an effort to generate increased demand by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) for adjustment of status cases, and to maximize number use under the annual numerical limit. However, all readers should be alert to the possibility that not all Employment preferences will remain Current for the remainder of the fiscal year. Should the rate of demand for numbers be very heavy in the coming months, it could become necessary to retrogress some cut-off dates for September, most likely for China-mainland born and India, but also possibly for Mexico and Philippines. Severe cut-off date retrogressions are likely to occur early in FY-2008.
**
This was based on information obtained then. Now they can say that they do not have enough visa numbers and all numbers are exhausted
wallpaper Whoa, Cataclysm questions that
indigokiwi
04-01 11:01 AM
Folks, we've still got a long way to go to reach our contribution target for Advocacy Days and hardly any time left. $50 or a $100 is what you might spend on a few nights out. I'm sure spending on this is much more important to you. Let's everyone pitch in and help ourselves out here.
And thank you to the many members on this thread who have already contributed.
And thank you to the many members on this thread who have already contributed.
rajeshalex
10-13 06:45 PM
u wont get 20% discount and referral at same time. I talked to the CS. So she told me go with the referral first, complete the referral month and then prepay for the one year starting from that date.
2011 WoW Cataclysm Worgen
gccovet
09-10 10:41 AM
bump
more...
legal_la
06-28 10:55 PM
June 28, 2007
USCIS: RUMORS OF EARLY VISA RETROGRESSION
Late Wednesday, rumors emerged that the USCIS may attempt to retrogress the July immigrant visa numbers early in July and reject I- 485 (adjustment of status) applications filed early in the month. USCIS has taken such action already with respect to the �other worker� visa category involving non-professional workers.
Visa availability is based on the U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin, which is published monthly, not on a rolling basis. If USCIS cuts off visa numbers in mid-month, this would be a clear violation of Federal law and agency policy. If the USCIS were to take this arbitrary action, it would cause significant problems for applicants and employers alike.
If USCIS cuts off applications on a certain date in early July, this will most likely occur without advance warning. In that case, not all applications will be accepted for processing. Be aware that that USCIS will reject an application unless it contains certain minimum supporting documents. For I-485 applications, minimum documents include a completed medical examination and birth certificates (or secondary evidence of birth, which must meet specific USCIS requirements). Applications for dependent spouses must include a marriage certificate. We strongly recommend that I-485 applicants obtain these and other requested documents as soon as possible. Until further notice, please do not plan to travel internationally during the month of July.
We will work as hard and as diligently as possible to get I-485 applications filed quickly. This will require active cooperation by all applicants to obtain needed documents. Again, please understand that the proposed USCIS action is just rumor at this point, but if the USCIS takes such action, it will likely be without warning. Further, it is possible that there could be retroactive rejections of applications once filed. Unfortunately, this is all we know at this time. We do not know when and if any such actions will occur; we will also not know immediately which, if any, cases are rejected once they have been submitted.
The attorneys at XXXXX are shocked and disappointed that the government could take such ill-thought and arbitrary steps and we will work to fight any illegal action by the USCIS. We are continuing to monitor the USCIS� actions and will provide updates as they become available
I heard similar story from my lawyer. I am not trying to scare anyone just posting what I heard, he is also a very reputed lawyer.
We may not get anything by lawsuit or by taking some action, but we should not just sit there and let them play with us. It is not about anger but it is about self respect.
USCIS: RUMORS OF EARLY VISA RETROGRESSION
Late Wednesday, rumors emerged that the USCIS may attempt to retrogress the July immigrant visa numbers early in July and reject I- 485 (adjustment of status) applications filed early in the month. USCIS has taken such action already with respect to the �other worker� visa category involving non-professional workers.
Visa availability is based on the U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin, which is published monthly, not on a rolling basis. If USCIS cuts off visa numbers in mid-month, this would be a clear violation of Federal law and agency policy. If the USCIS were to take this arbitrary action, it would cause significant problems for applicants and employers alike.
If USCIS cuts off applications on a certain date in early July, this will most likely occur without advance warning. In that case, not all applications will be accepted for processing. Be aware that that USCIS will reject an application unless it contains certain minimum supporting documents. For I-485 applications, minimum documents include a completed medical examination and birth certificates (or secondary evidence of birth, which must meet specific USCIS requirements). Applications for dependent spouses must include a marriage certificate. We strongly recommend that I-485 applicants obtain these and other requested documents as soon as possible. Until further notice, please do not plan to travel internationally during the month of July.
We will work as hard and as diligently as possible to get I-485 applications filed quickly. This will require active cooperation by all applicants to obtain needed documents. Again, please understand that the proposed USCIS action is just rumor at this point, but if the USCIS takes such action, it will likely be without warning. Further, it is possible that there could be retroactive rejections of applications once filed. Unfortunately, this is all we know at this time. We do not know when and if any such actions will occur; we will also not know immediately which, if any, cases are rejected once they have been submitted.
The attorneys at XXXXX are shocked and disappointed that the government could take such ill-thought and arbitrary steps and we will work to fight any illegal action by the USCIS. We are continuing to monitor the USCIS� actions and will provide updates as they become available
I heard similar story from my lawyer. I am not trying to scare anyone just posting what I heard, he is also a very reputed lawyer.
We may not get anything by lawsuit or by taking some action, but we should not just sit there and let them play with us. It is not about anger but it is about self respect.
pitha
07-01 11:21 AM
Lets say DOS revises bulletin on july 2, does that mean applications recieved on july 2 are accepted and all applications recieved after 2 will be rejected or will USCIS reject all applications recieved on july 2 also.
more...
gvenkat
09-23 08:08 PM
All we need is just 233,816(page 2) visas(forget about country limit, EB category etc). In that case in 2 years we will have 280,000(140,000 * 2) visas. So should we all get GC in two years with that logic.
If only USCIS can think along those lines. :confused:
If only USCIS can think along those lines. :confused:
2010 over at WoW Raid and they
prasadn
09-23 05:23 PM
they are RD's not PD's
IF they were PD's we shouldnot be seeing anything after Jul 2007 [as those were the farthest PD's ever reached].
Seems logical, but on the other hand if that were to be the case, then why isn't there a spike in June-July '07 to reflect the deluge of 485 filings?
IF they were PD's we shouldnot be seeing anything after Jul 2007 [as those were the farthest PD's ever reached].
Seems logical, but on the other hand if that were to be the case, then why isn't there a spike in June-July '07 to reflect the deluge of 485 filings?
more...
DallasBlue
09-27 02:18 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_chrono.shtml
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
hair but the Worgen area didn#39;t
snathan
03-30 05:43 PM
If USCIS is providing spillover visas to EB2 in May, shouldn't the PDs of China and India (countries with most demand) have the same PDs in May VB? Doesn't this also mean that in the worst case the PD of EB2 India will be Jul 22 2006 (the current PD of China) in May VB?
-CinBoy
First they will move India to July 22 2006, if there are more visa numbers both I/C will move togather.
-CinBoy
First they will move India to July 22 2006, if there are more visa numbers both I/C will move togather.
more...
drona
07-11 01:43 PM
Hi all, can we not include the original quote a hundred times. It make the thread hard to read. Many thanks.
hot Here are two new cool worgen
sri1309
08-23 07:24 AM
Guys,
I am not sure what others are doing, but as somebody said a flower campaign to the guys who support us may go against us, but I think that shoudl be sent to those who dont support.
I have written twice in the last week and today I am sending cards with a letter.
One simple way of sending very short messages is "I am EB3-India and due to to non-availablility of visas, I am going back to INdia". And tell your qualifications. This is the same story even with PhD holders in US whose job desc doesnt qulaify for EB2 or EB1. No offense any others, as I know many others got experience while some got education.
This is in fact true with 5 of my friends who left in 2007 just before that visa bulletin. They had good offers and they did not want to wait for the US GC.
Just send the loud message" UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING, WE ARE GOING BACK.". Send the message in different ways.
And ofcors good to meet personally.
Sri.
I am not sure what others are doing, but as somebody said a flower campaign to the guys who support us may go against us, but I think that shoudl be sent to those who dont support.
I have written twice in the last week and today I am sending cards with a letter.
One simple way of sending very short messages is "I am EB3-India and due to to non-availablility of visas, I am going back to INdia". And tell your qualifications. This is the same story even with PhD holders in US whose job desc doesnt qulaify for EB2 or EB1. No offense any others, as I know many others got experience while some got education.
This is in fact true with 5 of my friends who left in 2007 just before that visa bulletin. They had good offers and they did not want to wait for the US GC.
Just send the loud message" UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING, WE ARE GOING BACK.". Send the message in different ways.
And ofcors good to meet personally.
Sri.
more...
house WoW Cataclysm Delayed amp; New
glus
01-21 09:47 AM
But if your visa is stamped and not expired, do you still need an AP ?
Anurakt,
If a person has filed an I485 and has a valid H1 visa stamp in his/hers passport, no AP is needed when traveling as h1 is a "dual intent" visa. This applies to H1 and L1 visas. When leaving this country when I485 is pending, the I485 will not be deemed as abondomed because one travels on a "dual intent" visa. IF one, however, had filed an I485 while being on a diffrent type of a visa, like F1, or B2, one MUST obtaint AP before leaving. Other wise the person will NOT be able to re-enter the country even if one has a valid F1 or B2 visa and the I485 will be deemed abandomed. This is because by filing the I485, he/she has shown an immigrant intent, and both F1 and B2 don't allow for such intent.
So many people don't realize that a H1 or L1 are very POWERFUL visas.
I am not an attorney so do not take my answers for granted.
Anurakt,
If a person has filed an I485 and has a valid H1 visa stamp in his/hers passport, no AP is needed when traveling as h1 is a "dual intent" visa. This applies to H1 and L1 visas. When leaving this country when I485 is pending, the I485 will not be deemed as abondomed because one travels on a "dual intent" visa. IF one, however, had filed an I485 while being on a diffrent type of a visa, like F1, or B2, one MUST obtaint AP before leaving. Other wise the person will NOT be able to re-enter the country even if one has a valid F1 or B2 visa and the I485 will be deemed abandomed. This is because by filing the I485, he/she has shown an immigrant intent, and both F1 and B2 don't allow for such intent.
So many people don't realize that a H1 or L1 are very POWERFUL visas.
I am not an attorney so do not take my answers for granted.
tattoo world of warcraft worgen mount
FUNTIMES
06-22 11:13 AM
I am in the same situation. Details Below.
Me: EB2(10/2006) Pending I-140
Wife: EB3(04/2002 SUBSTITUTION) Pending I-140
Reply from My Lawyer.
"Many people are in your scenario.
There are many ways to do this. Each one being a little more expensive then others.
What can be done:
Your wife files as primary and you secondary on her 140.
You file as primary and her secondary on your 140.
Option #2
You file alone on your 140
She files alone on her 140.
Somehow if the dates should move backwards and her 140 on labor substitution should get denied (you never know with labor sub); then for her to file on your 140 the date has to be current or she canʼt file until it becomes current.
You and her just file on her 140. Problem is if the 140 gets denied then the window of opportunity to file the 485 again may not be for a couple of years.
You and her just file on your 140. Problem is that it may take a long time for you to eventually get the greencard approved.
If you want to be safe and want to spend more money then she would file as primary on her 140 and you as dependent. Then at same time we would file you as primary on your 140 and her as dependent on your 140.
Reply from Wife's Lawyer(Murthy):
"It is not possible for you to be her derivative as well as your own primary, and vice versa. It would require the filing of 2 I-485s and this causes nothing but confusion on the part of the USCIS. You have 2 choices. You could pick a case that you are going to proceed under, most likely the one with the earliest priority date, so long as there is confidence that the I-140 will be approved. Or, you can hedge your bets by each filing as your own primary because if one of the cases falls into a problem, the person can switch to be a derivative, but could run into a problem if there were not current priority dates at the time. But, so long as your both remain in H-1B status, and not use EAD/AP, that is minimized"
Me: EB2(10/2006) Pending I-140
Wife: EB3(04/2002 SUBSTITUTION) Pending I-140
Reply from My Lawyer.
"Many people are in your scenario.
There are many ways to do this. Each one being a little more expensive then others.
What can be done:
Your wife files as primary and you secondary on her 140.
You file as primary and her secondary on your 140.
Option #2
You file alone on your 140
She files alone on her 140.
Somehow if the dates should move backwards and her 140 on labor substitution should get denied (you never know with labor sub); then for her to file on your 140 the date has to be current or she canʼt file until it becomes current.
You and her just file on her 140. Problem is if the 140 gets denied then the window of opportunity to file the 485 again may not be for a couple of years.
You and her just file on your 140. Problem is that it may take a long time for you to eventually get the greencard approved.
If you want to be safe and want to spend more money then she would file as primary on her 140 and you as dependent. Then at same time we would file you as primary on your 140 and her as dependent on your 140.
Reply from Wife's Lawyer(Murthy):
"It is not possible for you to be her derivative as well as your own primary, and vice versa. It would require the filing of 2 I-485s and this causes nothing but confusion on the part of the USCIS. You have 2 choices. You could pick a case that you are going to proceed under, most likely the one with the earliest priority date, so long as there is confidence that the I-140 will be approved. Or, you can hedge your bets by each filing as your own primary because if one of the cases falls into a problem, the person can switch to be a derivative, but could run into a problem if there were not current priority dates at the time. But, so long as your both remain in H-1B status, and not use EAD/AP, that is minimized"
more...
pictures hairstyles WOW CATACLYSM:
gc_on_demand
09-09 04:39 PM
bump
dresses the epic land mount bonus
nishant81
11-06 04:27 PM
Knowing the fact that so many applicants have been waiting for YEARSSSS and USCIS not doing anything about makes me sick just thinking about it. How can agency be so ignorant and continue to make thousands of people live in dark black hole for years? Has anyone heard about the new plans or action taken by either agency to reduce the backlog. According to what ombudsman said on july 20 2007 teleconference USCIS will dramatically reduce the backlog for people waiting 33 months or longer in immediate future, apparently it has been 4 months and nothing seems to have been moved yet.
more...
makeup played World of Warcraft.
yawl
06-29 05:43 PM
AILA Follow-up to Update on July Visa Availability
From: AILA National
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 5:48 PM
Subject: Follow-up to Update on July Visa Availability
Further to the email earlier today about July visa availability:
Several members have asked whether they should continue in their efforts to
file adjustment of status applications for employment-based cases. Of course
, this is a matter for each attorney's best judgment, but note that:
-It is not certain what day the revised Bulletin will be issued.
-It is possible that the revised bulletin will not issue at all--efforts to
stop this unprecedented action are being pursued.
-If you "front desk" the application, i.e. decide it is futile to file, and
a remedy opens up later, having submitted the applications may improve the
chances of utlizing whatever fix might be available.
-If you do submit the adjustments, be sure to use a method whereby you can
document delivery, and keep that documentation for each client.
-AILF's Legal Action Center is seeking plaintiffs with respect to both the
adjustment applications that were or are expected to be rejected for June
and the adjustment applications that are expected to be rejected in July. Go
to InfoNet Document # 07062975: http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22798 on InfoNet for the Potential Plaintiff Questionnaire and related FAQ.
We cannot predict now what will happen, but will continue to update the
membership as developments occur.
From: AILA National
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 5:48 PM
Subject: Follow-up to Update on July Visa Availability
Further to the email earlier today about July visa availability:
Several members have asked whether they should continue in their efforts to
file adjustment of status applications for employment-based cases. Of course
, this is a matter for each attorney's best judgment, but note that:
-It is not certain what day the revised Bulletin will be issued.
-It is possible that the revised bulletin will not issue at all--efforts to
stop this unprecedented action are being pursued.
-If you "front desk" the application, i.e. decide it is futile to file, and
a remedy opens up later, having submitted the applications may improve the
chances of utlizing whatever fix might be available.
-If you do submit the adjustments, be sure to use a method whereby you can
document delivery, and keep that documentation for each client.
-AILF's Legal Action Center is seeking plaintiffs with respect to both the
adjustment applications that were or are expected to be rejected for June
and the adjustment applications that are expected to be rejected in July. Go
to InfoNet Document # 07062975: http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22798 on InfoNet for the Potential Plaintiff Questionnaire and related FAQ.
We cannot predict now what will happen, but will continue to update the
membership as developments occur.
girlfriend And then the world comes
makemygc
01-24 10:33 PM
No more 1 year multiple entry TV. I was issued only 2months multiple entry with visa expiring just after 15 days of my return.
With all due sympathies, this is one of the funniest posts I have read in a long time....It helps to lighten up a bit every now and then considering we are all in this for a long haul...
Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I went through London back in 2004 and my experience was completely different. I went to the NYC consulate to get my TV for $50, yes just $50 and the whole paper work etc was done in less than 30min and I had to go back after 2 hours to collect my passport with a 1 year multiple entry stamped on it.
My point being, I think they have changed a lot of rules and made it more stringent after the recent security threats etc.
Getting a GC soon is our saviour
With all due sympathies, this is one of the funniest posts I have read in a long time....It helps to lighten up a bit every now and then considering we are all in this for a long haul...
Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I went through London back in 2004 and my experience was completely different. I went to the NYC consulate to get my TV for $50, yes just $50 and the whole paper work etc was done in less than 30min and I had to go back after 2 hours to collect my passport with a 1 year multiple entry stamped on it.
My point being, I think they have changed a lot of rules and made it more stringent after the recent security threats etc.
Getting a GC soon is our saviour
hairstyles World of Warcraft: Cataclysm.
punjabi
11-20 01:49 PM
did you emailed to ombudsman also? any replies from him?
Didn't receive response from anyone else.
Didn't receive response from anyone else.
bomber
06-29 05:18 PM
I'm at a total loss here. My dates became current in June and I was ready with all the paperwork - even filled all the forms myself. Company and their attorneys took their own time and sent the application out only today for Monday delivery... I kept on reminding them what USCIS did to EB-3 other workers.. but all for nothing....... they can just say 'oops sorry' and out lives are screwed!!!
nrk
10-26 03:26 PM
congrats fatjoe
No comments:
Post a Comment