chanduv23
10-05 07:29 AM
I think for first meeting 10-12 are enough. Let us meet and decide upon the strategy to have more people. I would prefer not to have lot of people in the first meeting.
Never say that. We need everyone. This discourages those who are on the fence.
I am saying this by experience - being a non profit and no obligation group - many people who want to do something - are just sitting on the fence finding it tough to decide whether to make the jump or not - a very good example is the rally. Most people just wanted to see how the response is and then jump in.
Every member in IV is a very crucial member - everyone has skills that he/she can contribute so just get as many people as possible - keep them intact - this is very essential. If people start backing out - others will lose morale. And slowly people will stop showing interest and when something drastic happens everyone will start blaming IV for not doing its job and will ask IV for doing fast actions.
We worked extremely hard to build the Tri State team so did California folks and other folks are catching up - it involves a lot of hard work and you will be constantly attacked by people for no fault of yours, but it is very essential that you keep up the tempo and morale - patience and perseverence is the key here for building the team. Aggression and passion must be combined to lead something.
At Tri State we recongize everyone. Everyone in this area have worked extremely hard with a lot of dedication and commitment - words will not be enough to describe their commitment. A lot of people say - Tri State was a let down for the rally - but in reality - as we have seen 1500+ members, a lot of people drove over in the last minute from Tri State Area.
It takes a lot to build a team. So get as many people as possible involved.
Come on my dear Michigan folks - Ford and Chrysler must give us atleast 10,000 members. Please wake up from your slumber. People sitting on the fence must jump right now. yes, this is the time - just join us. Help IV to help yourselves
Never say that. We need everyone. This discourages those who are on the fence.
I am saying this by experience - being a non profit and no obligation group - many people who want to do something - are just sitting on the fence finding it tough to decide whether to make the jump or not - a very good example is the rally. Most people just wanted to see how the response is and then jump in.
Every member in IV is a very crucial member - everyone has skills that he/she can contribute so just get as many people as possible - keep them intact - this is very essential. If people start backing out - others will lose morale. And slowly people will stop showing interest and when something drastic happens everyone will start blaming IV for not doing its job and will ask IV for doing fast actions.
We worked extremely hard to build the Tri State team so did California folks and other folks are catching up - it involves a lot of hard work and you will be constantly attacked by people for no fault of yours, but it is very essential that you keep up the tempo and morale - patience and perseverence is the key here for building the team. Aggression and passion must be combined to lead something.
At Tri State we recongize everyone. Everyone in this area have worked extremely hard with a lot of dedication and commitment - words will not be enough to describe their commitment. A lot of people say - Tri State was a let down for the rally - but in reality - as we have seen 1500+ members, a lot of people drove over in the last minute from Tri State Area.
It takes a lot to build a team. So get as many people as possible involved.
Come on my dear Michigan folks - Ford and Chrysler must give us atleast 10,000 members. Please wake up from your slumber. People sitting on the fence must jump right now. yes, this is the time - just join us. Help IV to help yourselves
wallpaper JESUS CROSS, was like many
starscream
05-31 03:56 PM
Here is the link to page 6918 of the congressional record for what happened on May 24. Look at SA 1249 and it shows that the amendment has been "ordered to lie on the table". Also page 6918 and 6919 has the details of the amendment.
The link to page 6918 and 6919 are -
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S6918&position=all
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S6919&position=all
Ok - checked up the Congressional reciord the S. AMDT 1249 has status " lie on table" that means it has been killed. I guess that is bad news. But then again why does AILA say
One amendment that has been “filed,” but is not currently “pending” is the Cantwell amendment which is very important to business immigration interests. We do not know at this time what will happen with this amendment – whether it will come to the floor for debate or be negotiated through unanimous consent into the final package.
Is there some procedure that can undo "lie on the table"
The link to page 6918 and 6919 are -
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S6918&position=all
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S6919&position=all
Ok - checked up the Congressional reciord the S. AMDT 1249 has status " lie on table" that means it has been killed. I guess that is bad news. But then again why does AILA say
One amendment that has been “filed,” but is not currently “pending” is the Cantwell amendment which is very important to business immigration interests. We do not know at this time what will happen with this amendment – whether it will come to the floor for debate or be negotiated through unanimous consent into the final package.
Is there some procedure that can undo "lie on the table"
mantagon
05-27 02:44 PM
GO IV!!
Transaction ID: 1KV16797636597104
Transaction ID: 1KV16797636597104
2011 Three Crosses
vine93
03-05 01:03 AM
I also got the same letter from USCIS today.
Where is the core who advised us to fax letter to USCIS. Please let us know what the action plan is ?
I am ready for $25.
Where is the core who advised us to fax letter to USCIS. Please let us know what the action plan is ?
I am ready for $25.
more...
mundada
01-12 04:53 PM
Here is the history of derivative acts under 14th amendment related to employement:
14th Amendment of the United States Constitution: guarantees due process and equal protection under the laws.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Section 1981: covers race-based discrimination by employers. Individuals may sue to assert their rights under this Act; which, unlike Title VII, has no limitation on back-pay liability.
The Civil rights Act of 1871, Section 1983: provides persons who believe they have been deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws to redress and holds those responsible for the deprivation liable to the person injured.
Equal Pay Act of 1963: forbids pay differentials based on sex. It covers all employees who come under the Fair Labor Standards Act, plus executive, administrative, professional employees and outside sales people. Investigation and compliance responsibilities were transferred from the Labor Department to the EEOC on July 1, 1979.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: bans discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It covers all terms and conditions of employment; and, it holds employers responsible for any discrimination that goes on within the employer's organization. Title VII is administered by the EEOC and covers employers with 15 or more employees.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): bans employment discrimination because of age against anyone 40 years of age and older, (also know as ADEA). Investigation and compliance responsibilities were transferred from the Labor Department to the EEOC on July 1, 1979.
Executive Order 11246: requires Federal contractors to include a nondiscrimination clause in all contracts and subcontracts in excess of $110.000 and all construction projects financed, even in part, with Federal funds. Revised Order No. 4 requires a written affirmative action program from contractors with 50 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more. This order is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Section 503 requires employers with government contracts and subcontracts of $2,500 or more to take affirmative action for qualified handicapped individuals. The regulations implementing the Act require "reasonable accommodation" to the physical and mental limitations of handicapped employees and applicants. Section 504 covers the employment practices of all recipients of Federal financial assistance, a broad spectrum of agencies and institutions from private employers operating under a Federal grant, to public schools, colleges and universities. Both Sections 503 and 504 are enforced by the OFCCP.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act: amends Title VII and states that employment discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions is prohibited under Title VII. According to EEOC, the amendment, which affects those employers under the jurisdiction of Title VII, requires that "persons affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions be treated the same as persons affected by other temporary disabilities."
South Carolina Human Affairs Law: prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, age, sex, disability and national origin.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): gives protections to qualified individuals with disabilities that are like those provided under Title VII. It also guarantees equal opportunity in employment, public accommodations, transportation, state/local government services and telecommunication. ADA is enforced by EEOC.
1991 Civl Rights Act of 1991: allows employees to seek compensatory and punitive damages and for trial-by-jury. (this amends Title VII.)
=====
Now the way I interpret it, the requirement to not discriminate based on place of birth is protected by constitution under 14th amendment.
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.
Furthermore, the precedent rulings related to The Civil Rights Act of 1964 indicate how strictly this is interpreted and enforced. For example, in 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.
I therefore believe there is a good chance at the Supreme Court ruling that because of long wait times of more than 3 years for a Green Card plus requirement of same or similar job during that long wait until the green card is received plus country quota affecting people born only in few countries leads to disadvantage for people of these few countries at work.
And yes, even I took law course and gave a seminar during my MBA. But even you would concur that this course at best is basic and does not make a person authority of the US legal system.
Finally, forget me or you, even a lawyer cannot say for sure what the final ruling will be in any case. And hence the best a person can do is give an educated opinion. In addition by human nature, the way I would interpret laws would be to my advantage while the way you would interpret them would be to your advantage. And hence I can understand your biases (and mine as well) because in case the country quota is found illegal by the US Supreme Court, it is the ROW that is going to be affected the most.
Don't want to pick on anyone one or anything.. just case-in-point to what I posted earlier.. here we have intense legal debates, and legal opinions with people who can not distinguish between Title VII and EEO which are legislative laws and between the constitution. These laws are not part of the constitution and they include provisions for federal and local governments and their agencies to override parts of rules if they deem necessary.
14th Amendment of the United States Constitution: guarantees due process and equal protection under the laws.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Section 1981: covers race-based discrimination by employers. Individuals may sue to assert their rights under this Act; which, unlike Title VII, has no limitation on back-pay liability.
The Civil rights Act of 1871, Section 1983: provides persons who believe they have been deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws to redress and holds those responsible for the deprivation liable to the person injured.
Equal Pay Act of 1963: forbids pay differentials based on sex. It covers all employees who come under the Fair Labor Standards Act, plus executive, administrative, professional employees and outside sales people. Investigation and compliance responsibilities were transferred from the Labor Department to the EEOC on July 1, 1979.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: bans discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It covers all terms and conditions of employment; and, it holds employers responsible for any discrimination that goes on within the employer's organization. Title VII is administered by the EEOC and covers employers with 15 or more employees.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): bans employment discrimination because of age against anyone 40 years of age and older, (also know as ADEA). Investigation and compliance responsibilities were transferred from the Labor Department to the EEOC on July 1, 1979.
Executive Order 11246: requires Federal contractors to include a nondiscrimination clause in all contracts and subcontracts in excess of $110.000 and all construction projects financed, even in part, with Federal funds. Revised Order No. 4 requires a written affirmative action program from contractors with 50 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more. This order is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Section 503 requires employers with government contracts and subcontracts of $2,500 or more to take affirmative action for qualified handicapped individuals. The regulations implementing the Act require "reasonable accommodation" to the physical and mental limitations of handicapped employees and applicants. Section 504 covers the employment practices of all recipients of Federal financial assistance, a broad spectrum of agencies and institutions from private employers operating under a Federal grant, to public schools, colleges and universities. Both Sections 503 and 504 are enforced by the OFCCP.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act: amends Title VII and states that employment discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions is prohibited under Title VII. According to EEOC, the amendment, which affects those employers under the jurisdiction of Title VII, requires that "persons affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions be treated the same as persons affected by other temporary disabilities."
South Carolina Human Affairs Law: prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, age, sex, disability and national origin.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): gives protections to qualified individuals with disabilities that are like those provided under Title VII. It also guarantees equal opportunity in employment, public accommodations, transportation, state/local government services and telecommunication. ADA is enforced by EEOC.
1991 Civl Rights Act of 1991: allows employees to seek compensatory and punitive damages and for trial-by-jury. (this amends Title VII.)
=====
Now the way I interpret it, the requirement to not discriminate based on place of birth is protected by constitution under 14th amendment.
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.
Furthermore, the precedent rulings related to The Civil Rights Act of 1964 indicate how strictly this is interpreted and enforced. For example, in 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.
I therefore believe there is a good chance at the Supreme Court ruling that because of long wait times of more than 3 years for a Green Card plus requirement of same or similar job during that long wait until the green card is received plus country quota affecting people born only in few countries leads to disadvantage for people of these few countries at work.
And yes, even I took law course and gave a seminar during my MBA. But even you would concur that this course at best is basic and does not make a person authority of the US legal system.
Finally, forget me or you, even a lawyer cannot say for sure what the final ruling will be in any case. And hence the best a person can do is give an educated opinion. In addition by human nature, the way I would interpret laws would be to my advantage while the way you would interpret them would be to your advantage. And hence I can understand your biases (and mine as well) because in case the country quota is found illegal by the US Supreme Court, it is the ROW that is going to be affected the most.
Don't want to pick on anyone one or anything.. just case-in-point to what I posted earlier.. here we have intense legal debates, and legal opinions with people who can not distinguish between Title VII and EEO which are legislative laws and between the constitution. These laws are not part of the constitution and they include provisions for federal and local governments and their agencies to override parts of rules if they deem necessary.
perm2gc
07-28 05:25 PM
It seems that more H4's want to work in the country which they have entered as dependents and many want to compare it with other countries but did you think what made you to bring to this country other than going to those countries.You want the immigration system to change according to you rather than you changing.If you are so frustated with the system and country better to pack the bags.This country Didn't invite you and promise you.!!!!!
No Hard Feelings..Its Reality...
No Hard Feelings..Its Reality...
more...
needhelp!
02-21 04:07 PM
~Thank You~
I mailed 21 letters ;)
I mailed 21 letters ;)
2010 Jesus#39; death on the cross
easygoer
07-14 05:08 PM
Hi mheggde,
You gave very good answer we were searching since morning. Thanks
You gave very good answer we were searching since morning. Thanks
more...
gc_buddy
01-02 01:09 AM
As far as my knowledge goes, the I 140 substitutions are no more accepted by USCIS. I may be wrong. Other members can comment..
I have made similar post on another thread on IV--so this is a repeat:
The key is revocation vs. substitution. Per discussions with immi attorneys, AC21 portability is not explicit on what needs to be done if I140 is substituted by previous employer and NOT REVOKED, and the applicant is eligible for changing jobs (same desc and 180 days pending). The fact is that this loophole leads to illogical scenario--2 applicants taking benefit from same I140.
Question to you and other forum members: Is there a thread on this specific topic?
My situation:
I485 denied on Oct 24th 2008. I did not get the letter and realized only when I checked on the USCIS website. My attorney also did not get the letter of denial or even the NOID.
I changed jobs in June 2006 by invoking AC21 (Priority Date - Oct 2002, I140 and I485 filed concurrently, I140 approved in Feb 2005).
The fact is that on all forums there is talk about revocation by previous employer. However please note that approved I140 could either be revoked or substituted. While those AC21 memos talk about revoked I140, the law is not clear when previous employer substitutes the approved I140. I know the substitution process is no longer legal since June 2007, however, it has been abused in the past. My questions to forum members:
1. Is any one in similar situation?
2. I have H1B only until June 2009 and EAD unitil Sep 2009, Can I work until then (Jun or Sept) assuming MTR is resolved in 2 months (per some optimistic posts on IV). I am working on EAD.
3. If my employer were to file a new PERM labor application--can I port my previous priority date? How soon is PERM labor in EB2 category getting approved.
Mohican
I have made similar post on another thread on IV--so this is a repeat:
The key is revocation vs. substitution. Per discussions with immi attorneys, AC21 portability is not explicit on what needs to be done if I140 is substituted by previous employer and NOT REVOKED, and the applicant is eligible for changing jobs (same desc and 180 days pending). The fact is that this loophole leads to illogical scenario--2 applicants taking benefit from same I140.
Question to you and other forum members: Is there a thread on this specific topic?
My situation:
I485 denied on Oct 24th 2008. I did not get the letter and realized only when I checked on the USCIS website. My attorney also did not get the letter of denial or even the NOID.
I changed jobs in June 2006 by invoking AC21 (Priority Date - Oct 2002, I140 and I485 filed concurrently, I140 approved in Feb 2005).
The fact is that on all forums there is talk about revocation by previous employer. However please note that approved I140 could either be revoked or substituted. While those AC21 memos talk about revoked I140, the law is not clear when previous employer substitutes the approved I140. I know the substitution process is no longer legal since June 2007, however, it has been abused in the past. My questions to forum members:
1. Is any one in similar situation?
2. I have H1B only until June 2009 and EAD unitil Sep 2009, Can I work until then (Jun or Sept) assuming MTR is resolved in 2 months (per some optimistic posts on IV). I am working on EAD.
3. If my employer were to file a new PERM labor application--can I port my previous priority date? How soon is PERM labor in EB2 category getting approved.
Mohican
hair The Cross of Jesus Collection
nrk
06-10 03:42 PM
Not there yet,
October 2005
It has lot of good News >>>>
VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED CATEGORIES
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment First: Current
Employment Second:
China and India: March or April 2006
Employment Third:
Worldwide: June through September 2004
China: October through December 2003
India: February 2002
Mexico: Unavailable
Philippines: June through September 2004
October 2005
It has lot of good News >>>>
VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT-BASED CATEGORIES
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment First: Current
Employment Second:
China and India: March or April 2006
Employment Third:
Worldwide: June through September 2004
China: October through December 2003
India: February 2002
Mexico: Unavailable
Philippines: June through September 2004
more...
desi3933
02-25 01:59 PM
desi3933,
I completely agree what you said and what is interpreted in the law.
BUT if they really go by law , JULY 2007 fiasco SHOULD never happen.
......
Read this pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletinUpdate17Jul07.pdf
that will answer your question.
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
I completely agree what you said and what is interpreted in the law.
BUT if they really go by law , JULY 2007 fiasco SHOULD never happen.
......
Read this pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletinUpdate17Jul07.pdf
that will answer your question.
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
hot Jesus sits at the center
needhelp!
07-11 05:30 PM
I don't see many people calling but see lots of discussions about VBs. How can we expect anything to happen if we cannot get our friends to call in for us... :confused:
more...
house Triple Crosses: Jesus Christ
acs_78
06-26 04:29 PM
All,
Is LUD mandetory after finger printing? I applied for EAD for my wife and me on 5/21. Sent supporting docs and had LUD on 5/23. Went for finger printing on 6/10 but no LUD so far. I am concerned if the finger printing center sent the data to USCIS or not. Our EAD expired 7/30 so I am concerned.
Thanks
ACS
Is LUD mandetory after finger printing? I applied for EAD for my wife and me on 5/21. Sent supporting docs and had LUD on 5/23. Went for finger printing on 6/10 but no LUD so far. I am concerned if the finger printing center sent the data to USCIS or not. Our EAD expired 7/30 so I am concerned.
Thanks
ACS
tattoo Palm Sunday is unique, fun,
GC_2004
07-20 04:42 PM
I completely agree with U. Let Us Fight.
more...
pictures The Symbol of the Cross - A
GooblyWoobly
07-16 12:58 PM
Hi,
I was not able to find a good answer for my question below from the search, so I posting again.
•Is the Service Center processing dates based on Received Date or Notice date on the I 485 Receipt Notice??
Received date
•Also I see many times people talking about Receipt Date is it Received date or Notice Date On the I 485 Receipt Notice??
Received date.
I was not able to find a good answer for my question below from the search, so I posting again.
•Is the Service Center processing dates based on Received Date or Notice date on the I 485 Receipt Notice??
Received date
•Also I see many times people talking about Receipt Date is it Received date or Notice Date On the I 485 Receipt Notice??
Received date.
dresses Olive Wood Jesus Cross
Hinglish
03-21 03:03 PM
Dude...read your post properly...u are making a statement...u r not saying it is what USCIS thinks...
And nobody is insecure over here..it's just people like u who have made this forum a place of hatred between people of different countries....
Didn't u learn on day 1 of ur job?...read a few times before u post/mail to anyone....u have no right to use words EB3 and unskilled together...
If u think USCIS thinks that way....pls mention it so...Get a life
FYI...I AM INDIAN
OOOPs you are an Indian.... and how does that affect this discussion?
My mistake .... I thought you were a normal person discussing immigration related matters on an immigration forum and hence have the ability to discern, understand and have some background on immigration law, USCIS
And nobody is insecure over here..it's just people like u who have made this forum a place of hatred between people of different countries....
Didn't u learn on day 1 of ur job?...read a few times before u post/mail to anyone....u have no right to use words EB3 and unskilled together...
If u think USCIS thinks that way....pls mention it so...Get a life
FYI...I AM INDIAN
OOOPs you are an Indian.... and how does that affect this discussion?
My mistake .... I thought you were a normal person discussing immigration related matters on an immigration forum and hence have the ability to discern, understand and have some background on immigration law, USCIS
more...
makeup jesus cross images
nat23
06-26 02:09 PM
i thought a simple majority i.e. >50 would make the bill pass through senate. is that not true?
Nope. Need 60 votes to do anything in Senate and that is why even though the Dems have a so called majority then cant get anything done.
Nope. Need 60 votes to do anything in Senate and that is why even though the Dems have a so called majority then cant get anything done.
girlfriend Represents Jesus Christ#39;s
eb3_nepa
03-08 04:10 PM
because for people from Aus, their spouses can work.
There is a different visa category for australians called E1, only THOSE ppl's spouses can work. If an australian is on an H1 his wife cannot work on an H4 either.
In that case you also have to argue, why H4's cant work but L2's can? :)
There is a different visa category for australians called E1, only THOSE ppl's spouses can work. If an australian is on an H1 his wife cannot work on an H4 either.
In that case you also have to argue, why H4's cant work but L2's can? :)
hairstyles Pictures Of Jesus
EkAurAaya
03-04 10:14 PM
In my opinion this is ridiculous... it is clear how they don't want to share the information by comming up with this!
I think you should forward this to The President! show him how open his offices are about sharing information under the Freedom of Information Act - i dont see how is this different then pay-per view on cable!
EDIT: F$%&ng ridiculous 5000$ to write a sql query... excuse my language
I think you should forward this to The President! show him how open his offices are about sharing information under the Freedom of Information Act - i dont see how is this different then pay-per view on cable!
EDIT: F$%&ng ridiculous 5000$ to write a sql query... excuse my language
Hinglish
03-21 03:03 PM
Dude...read your post properly...u are making a statement...u r not saying it is what USCIS thinks...
And nobody is insecure over here..it's just people like u who have made this forum a place of hatred between people of different countries....
Didn't u learn on day 1 of ur job?...read a few times before u post/mail to anyone....u have no right to use words EB3 and unskilled together...
If u think USCIS thinks that way....pls mention it so...Get a life
FYI...I AM INDIAN
OOOPs you are an Indian.... and how does that affect this discussion?
My mistake .... I thought you were a normal person discussing immigration related matters on an immigration forum and hence have the ability to discern, understand and have some background on immigration law, USCIS
And nobody is insecure over here..it's just people like u who have made this forum a place of hatred between people of different countries....
Didn't u learn on day 1 of ur job?...read a few times before u post/mail to anyone....u have no right to use words EB3 and unskilled together...
If u think USCIS thinks that way....pls mention it so...Get a life
FYI...I AM INDIAN
OOOPs you are an Indian.... and how does that affect this discussion?
My mistake .... I thought you were a normal person discussing immigration related matters on an immigration forum and hence have the ability to discern, understand and have some background on immigration law, USCIS
ameryki
10-06 10:27 AM
Just a quick update I efiled on Sept 22nd 2009. Was assigned to LIN, Nebraska. Sent supporting documents the next day by first class mail. Received 2 copies of advance parole in the mail yesterday. Checked online this morning case was approved on October 2nd 2009. So basically from filing online to approval took 10 days total. I am amazed.
No comments:
Post a Comment