sunny
02-12 04:10 PM
Thats the right way. Probably I should not have told him that I have AP in my hands. This is what my attorney said. But now I have no idea if my h1 will be extended or not once I have used the AP.
I got my H1 extension...though I entered on AP. You should get it too.
Sunny
I got my H1 extension...though I entered on AP. You should get it too.
Sunny
wallpaper efore and after photos of
soni7007
08-07 12:54 PM
U are saying - The person's GC category should be same all through out the GC process, irrespective of the technical advancements the person make during the course of the GC process. A person is porting only because he is qualified for the category, U folks are talking as if there is an open slot and everyone is clamoring for it.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
bkn96
11-17 04:41 PM
At present my EAD is status not changed (USCIS case tracking), So I assume my EAD is valid. I also read Attorny Ron's blog that EAD is valid even I485 is denied. That gives me some comfort. Another problem, even if I get H1b (with out I94), I don't have AP to go (out of country) for stamping. What happens if I apply for AP while I485 is denied? Any one tried this? I am not sure what to do...
2011 Monica Keena efore and after
whitecollarslave
09-10 01:08 PM
Ok, I called the following urging them to support HR 5882:
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
more...
eb3_nepa
07-11 10:11 AM
I saw posts of several members extremely skeptical of the whole idea, even went on calling it stupid, crazy and useless. Some made mockery suggesting sending dead fish etc. I don't see any more posts from them.
Keeping mum now are we, eh?:rolleyes:
Yes I was the one who suggested the dead fish. I belive in RESULTS, if sending these flowers actually ACHIEVES something, I will make a nice big biscuit of my words and eat them :).
Until we see ACTUAL "POSITIVE" RESULTS I am still going to be skeptical. Sure we have made a lot of noise and it has been heard by a lot of miscallaneous people. So were the rallies held by the illegals. What happened? NOTHING! So until I see some results YES I will STILL be skeptical.
Other than that, I really really really hope for everyone's sake, that this works and if it does I will eat my words and become a believer:)
So much for being mum eh ;)
Keeping mum now are we, eh?:rolleyes:
Yes I was the one who suggested the dead fish. I belive in RESULTS, if sending these flowers actually ACHIEVES something, I will make a nice big biscuit of my words and eat them :).
Until we see ACTUAL "POSITIVE" RESULTS I am still going to be skeptical. Sure we have made a lot of noise and it has been heard by a lot of miscallaneous people. So were the rallies held by the illegals. What happened? NOTHING! So until I see some results YES I will STILL be skeptical.
Other than that, I really really really hope for everyone's sake, that this works and if it does I will eat my words and become a believer:)
So much for being mum eh ;)
pappu
11-22 07:50 PM
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Tao%2011-7-07.pdf
Plaintiff suggests that the fact that her application
has been pending for nearly three years is patently
unreasonable. She argues that Congress intended
applications to be adjudicated within 180 days. See 8
U.S.C. � 1571(b) ("It is the sense of Congress that the
processing of an immigration benefit application should
be completed not later than 180 days after the initial
filing of the application . . .."). That [*10] 180-day
timetable may provide some guidance here, although the
"sense of Congress" expressed in INA Section 1571(b)
does not necessarily carry the force of law. See Yang v.
California Dep't of Social Servs., 183 F.3d 953, 958-59
(9th Cir. 1999).
Defendants argue that there is no statutory deadline
by which applications must be adjudicated and that, in
any event, the "first-in, first-out" protocol must be given
deference. True, Congress has not established a
mandatory timeframe for the USCIS to adjudicate
applications. Moreover, "'[t]he passage of time alone is
rarely enough to justify a court's intervention in the
administrative process, especially since administrative
efficiency is not a subject particularly suited to judicial
evaluation.'" Yu, 36 F. Supp.2d at 934 (quoting Singh v.
Ilchert, 784 F. Supp. 759, 764-65 (N.D. Cal. 1992)).
However, the court also recognizes that there is no
precise formula for determining whether there has been
an unreasonable delay. Instead, "[w]hat constitutes an
unreasonable delay in the context of immigration
applications depends to a great extent on the facts of the
particular case." Id.
Plaintiff suggests that the fact that her application
has been pending for nearly three years is patently
unreasonable. She argues that Congress intended
applications to be adjudicated within 180 days. See 8
U.S.C. � 1571(b) ("It is the sense of Congress that the
processing of an immigration benefit application should
be completed not later than 180 days after the initial
filing of the application . . .."). That [*10] 180-day
timetable may provide some guidance here, although the
"sense of Congress" expressed in INA Section 1571(b)
does not necessarily carry the force of law. See Yang v.
California Dep't of Social Servs., 183 F.3d 953, 958-59
(9th Cir. 1999).
Defendants argue that there is no statutory deadline
by which applications must be adjudicated and that, in
any event, the "first-in, first-out" protocol must be given
deference. True, Congress has not established a
mandatory timeframe for the USCIS to adjudicate
applications. Moreover, "'[t]he passage of time alone is
rarely enough to justify a court's intervention in the
administrative process, especially since administrative
efficiency is not a subject particularly suited to judicial
evaluation.'" Yu, 36 F. Supp.2d at 934 (quoting Singh v.
Ilchert, 784 F. Supp. 759, 764-65 (N.D. Cal. 1992)).
However, the court also recognizes that there is no
precise formula for determining whether there has been
an unreasonable delay. Instead, "[w]hat constitutes an
unreasonable delay in the context of immigration
applications depends to a great extent on the facts of the
particular case." Id.
more...
usertt123
02-28 02:58 PM
I agree calabor well said ;), but realy its frustrating when you have a family to look after and a house. The worst thing is no one is accountable for this mess. Specialy when you have been in US for such a long time.
Veeru123, so in your case did you call DOS and then things worked out or consulate themselves send you the email/passport on 25th. Let me also know is it an automated response system at DOS or we have to speak to someone and give our EAC# as case reference. Your advice would be of great help.
Veeru123, so in your case did you call DOS and then things worked out or consulate themselves send you the email/passport on 25th. Let me also know is it an automated response system at DOS or we have to speak to someone and give our EAC# as case reference. Your advice would be of great help.
2010 Lisa-rinna-lips-efore-afte
Praveen20
09-12 11:36 AM
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/september-8-2008/vote-expected-wednesday-recapturing-unus.html
According to numberusa the committe could resume consideration of the bills at it next schedule meeting on Sep 16. So don't stop calling.
We need to be on the top of the issue with Oct Visa dates.
Thanks,
According to numberusa the committe could resume consideration of the bills at it next schedule meeting on Sep 16. So don't stop calling.
We need to be on the top of the issue with Oct Visa dates.
Thanks,
more...
nish
06-15 10:37 PM
Hi,
One of my friend is working in L1 on Informatica tool for one of the financial client.
Does it mean that his company is violationg rules?
His company is harrassing much for some personal reason and asking him to come back home country
what action he can take against his company if his company viaolating L1 rules.
Please anyone come across this situation then give us your suggestion.
Appericiate your help in advance
Can somebody reply to my question...?
One of my friend is working in L1 on Informatica tool for one of the financial client.
Does it mean that his company is violationg rules?
His company is harrassing much for some personal reason and asking him to come back home country
what action he can take against his company if his company viaolating L1 rules.
Please anyone come across this situation then give us your suggestion.
Appericiate your help in advance
Can somebody reply to my question...?
hair makeup 4 starring Anna Faris
starscream
09-11 01:38 PM
bump
more...
EB2DEC152005
08-12 06:50 PM
Let me know if you still want me to call you.
Please give me a call, if you donot mind.
Thank u so much for your kind reponse.
Please give me a call, if you donot mind.
Thank u so much for your kind reponse.
hot efore and after surgery
gc_chahiye
01-25 04:46 PM
I have flown lot of airlines ..I was in merchant navy before.
are'nt you supposed to go in boats and ships when you are in the navy? :D
are'nt you supposed to go in boats and ships when you are in the navy? :D
more...
house shocking efore and after
delhirocks
06-29 09:11 PM
NO Matter how many people say "Take it easy" its simply not possible, you will have to be a superhuman to do that. Sure its stressfull but no more stressful than boarding your first flight to USA. no more stressful than attending 1st H1B interview at the consulate or your first client interview. So in the end, we have been through all the hurdles with most of us surviving 2001-2002 job markets and now is 2007.
The point is we have been through all that successfully and thats a BIG WIN. So we will be through this too, but not without stress. The day we decided to come to USA and until now we have been successful as we are resourceful and can improvise at a short notice and we will. We are shrewd individuals and We Will PREVAIL.
Amen....
The point is we have been through all that successfully and thats a BIG WIN. So we will be through this too, but not without stress. The day we decided to come to USA and until now we have been successful as we are resourceful and can improvise at a short notice and we will. We are shrewd individuals and We Will PREVAIL.
Amen....
tattoo and after plastic surgery
485_se_dukhi
07-18 08:55 PM
Here's the link to the transcripts of the "Tonight" show:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ldt.html
This can be used as a starting point for fact checking his claims and assertions, without having to sit through his shows..
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ldt.html
This can be used as a starting point for fact checking his claims and assertions, without having to sit through his shows..
more...
pictures done plastic surgery look
drona
07-10 07:38 PM
Saimrathi Please see nixstor's message above and respond to it.
dresses Nicollette Sheridan Surgery
Bhargav Goswami
07-13 01:24 PM
I just watched clips that show how stridently "anti H1B" / "anti legal Indian Immigrant" Lou Dobbs is! We would be witihin our rights to boycott him and CNN.
more...
makeup Scarlett Johansson efore and
pappu
08-04 06:43 PM
FBI Name Check
Copyright � Triceiver.com
All applicants for immigration benefits must undergo background security checks, and one of them is the FBI name check. It is conducted by the FBI National Name Check Program Section (NNCPS). Since 2003, many green card (I-485) and naturalization applications have been significantly delayed by this process, sometimes by several years! More importantly, immigrants affected by this processing delay are often left in complete darkness. USCIS has adopted a policy that it will not release any information regarding name checks to applicants. Similarly, the FBI has practically shut down all email and phone communications previously available to immigrants.
How FBI name check works?
FBI name check, in short, is to compare a person's name against the Central Records System and see if there is a matching record. However, this seemingly simple process can be quite complicated in some cases.
1. The Central Records System (CRS) is huge
The CRS contains all information which the FBI has acquired during many years of law enforcement activities. It has numerous administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel, and other types of files, related to not only individuals, but companies and foreign intelligence matters also. Certain records are stored in the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., while others are maintained by field offices across the United States.
When a name check request is received, the FBI conducts a search of the individual's name in the CRS' General Indices. In addition to the person's full name, the FBI will also use different combinations and variations of the same name.
The General Indices have two types of entries according to the FBI:
A "main" entry - an entry that carries the name corresponding with the subject of a file contained in the CRS. A main file name thus refers to an individual who is the subject of an FBI investigaton.
A "reference" entry - an entry, sometimes called a "cross-reference," that generally only mentions or references an individual, organization, etc., contained in a document located in another "main" file. So a reference is someone whose name only appears in an investigation.
The FBI name check will search both "main" files and "reference" files. In comparison, the FBI Privacy Act request searches main files only. The Privacy Act request is sometimes referred to as FOIPA request, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. So when an I-485 filer receives a "No Record" letter from the FBI in response to their FOIPA request, it only means that his or her name doesn't match any "main" entry.
During a name search, the FBI first checks the person's name electronically against the Universal Index contained in a database called Automated Case Support (ACS) system. For most people (68% according to the FBI), the results come back with "No Record" within 48 hours, meaning that their name checks are considered cleared. If there is a match, called a "hit," an agent must manually review the file or entry. This secondary name search usually identifies additional people as having "No Record." According to the FBI, about 10% of name check requests must go through yet a third level of review, during which the matching record must be retrieved from the source. But there is a problem:
2. Not all records are digitized and many are still paper documents
If the matching record has a digital copy in the ACS, it can be reviewed quickly. Otherwise paper documents must be transported to the reviewer from one of the FBI field offices which are located all over the country. This could cause significant delays. The name check result after this review will be forwarded to the requesting agency such as the USCIS.
3. Sheer volume of name check requests from multiple agencies
Although the name check itself could take a long time in some cases, it is not the bottle neck. The more serious problem is the time it takes for an analyst to actually get to a case after a "hit," due to backlogs. This is probably the No.1 reason for a lot of cases that are stuck in FBI name checks.
The FBI name check backlog may have several causes, and one of them is the sheer volume of requests. In addition to USCIS, many other Federal agencies, congressional committees, as well as state and local law enforcement agencies, all request name checks as part of their background investigation or clearance processes. According to Michael Cannon, Section Chief of NNCP, the FBI processed 3.7 million name checks in 2005, compared to about 2.5 million/year before September 11, 2001. In 2006, the USCIS alone sends more than 27,700 requests on a weekly basis.
Moreover, it is not clear how strictly the FBI follows the order of first-in, first-out. It is particular difficult to find out exactly how the FBI would queue cases that have returned with potential matching records. From the simple fact that some name-check cases can be pending for several years, and not all of them are that complicated, the FBI's queuing method may need a review of its own.
4. Lengthy name check process and national security
Although conducting name checks is an essential step in identifying national security and public safety concerns, the current process may not achieve its intended objectives. The reason is that in almost all cases, a person whose name check is pending is currently present in the United States. So the lengthy process actually extends an individual's stay in the US. If it takes years to come to a conclusion that the person is indeed a security threat, what will happen during those years? In this sense, timely processing of name checks is not only a relief to legal immigrants, but a must for national security reasons.
5. It is difficult to expedite FBI name checks
In 2007, the USCIS established new policies on expediting FBI name checks and the criteria are very limited. The USCIS may demand expedited handling only if the case involves military deployment, age-out or sunset provisions, loss of certain benefits, or other compelling reasons such as critical medical conditions. It specifically stated that Writ of Mandamus (WOM) - a lawsuit forcing the government to act quickly after an unreasonable delay - would no longer qualify as one.
Writing to Senators, Congressmen, or even the First Lady, have not shown as much success as many were hoping for. In fact, most Congressional inquires are now simply coming back with "case pending" responses. Some offices have stated that they will no longer contact the FBI for cases pending less than a year, citing an increasing number of letters asking for assistance. However, for most poeple, contacting congressional representives is one of very few channels still available to receive any information regarding their pending cases.
6. The name check situation may get even worse, before it improves
According to the USCIS Ombudsman, there is a staggering 329,160 FBI name check cases pending as of May 2007. Among them, 211,341 (64%) have been pending more than 90 days and approximately 32 percent (106,738) pending more than one year. Now with the biggest fee increase in decades, taking effect July 30th, 2007, The USCIS has proposed to allocate more funds toward the name check process. And the FBI indicated that additional funding would allow them to add more staff to speed up the process and reduce backlogs. Many are skeptical, but we certainly hope that they will achieve some of the goals this time.
Copyright � Triceiver.com
All applicants for immigration benefits must undergo background security checks, and one of them is the FBI name check. It is conducted by the FBI National Name Check Program Section (NNCPS). Since 2003, many green card (I-485) and naturalization applications have been significantly delayed by this process, sometimes by several years! More importantly, immigrants affected by this processing delay are often left in complete darkness. USCIS has adopted a policy that it will not release any information regarding name checks to applicants. Similarly, the FBI has practically shut down all email and phone communications previously available to immigrants.
How FBI name check works?
FBI name check, in short, is to compare a person's name against the Central Records System and see if there is a matching record. However, this seemingly simple process can be quite complicated in some cases.
1. The Central Records System (CRS) is huge
The CRS contains all information which the FBI has acquired during many years of law enforcement activities. It has numerous administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel, and other types of files, related to not only individuals, but companies and foreign intelligence matters also. Certain records are stored in the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., while others are maintained by field offices across the United States.
When a name check request is received, the FBI conducts a search of the individual's name in the CRS' General Indices. In addition to the person's full name, the FBI will also use different combinations and variations of the same name.
The General Indices have two types of entries according to the FBI:
A "main" entry - an entry that carries the name corresponding with the subject of a file contained in the CRS. A main file name thus refers to an individual who is the subject of an FBI investigaton.
A "reference" entry - an entry, sometimes called a "cross-reference," that generally only mentions or references an individual, organization, etc., contained in a document located in another "main" file. So a reference is someone whose name only appears in an investigation.
The FBI name check will search both "main" files and "reference" files. In comparison, the FBI Privacy Act request searches main files only. The Privacy Act request is sometimes referred to as FOIPA request, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. So when an I-485 filer receives a "No Record" letter from the FBI in response to their FOIPA request, it only means that his or her name doesn't match any "main" entry.
During a name search, the FBI first checks the person's name electronically against the Universal Index contained in a database called Automated Case Support (ACS) system. For most people (68% according to the FBI), the results come back with "No Record" within 48 hours, meaning that their name checks are considered cleared. If there is a match, called a "hit," an agent must manually review the file or entry. This secondary name search usually identifies additional people as having "No Record." According to the FBI, about 10% of name check requests must go through yet a third level of review, during which the matching record must be retrieved from the source. But there is a problem:
2. Not all records are digitized and many are still paper documents
If the matching record has a digital copy in the ACS, it can be reviewed quickly. Otherwise paper documents must be transported to the reviewer from one of the FBI field offices which are located all over the country. This could cause significant delays. The name check result after this review will be forwarded to the requesting agency such as the USCIS.
3. Sheer volume of name check requests from multiple agencies
Although the name check itself could take a long time in some cases, it is not the bottle neck. The more serious problem is the time it takes for an analyst to actually get to a case after a "hit," due to backlogs. This is probably the No.1 reason for a lot of cases that are stuck in FBI name checks.
The FBI name check backlog may have several causes, and one of them is the sheer volume of requests. In addition to USCIS, many other Federal agencies, congressional committees, as well as state and local law enforcement agencies, all request name checks as part of their background investigation or clearance processes. According to Michael Cannon, Section Chief of NNCP, the FBI processed 3.7 million name checks in 2005, compared to about 2.5 million/year before September 11, 2001. In 2006, the USCIS alone sends more than 27,700 requests on a weekly basis.
Moreover, it is not clear how strictly the FBI follows the order of first-in, first-out. It is particular difficult to find out exactly how the FBI would queue cases that have returned with potential matching records. From the simple fact that some name-check cases can be pending for several years, and not all of them are that complicated, the FBI's queuing method may need a review of its own.
4. Lengthy name check process and national security
Although conducting name checks is an essential step in identifying national security and public safety concerns, the current process may not achieve its intended objectives. The reason is that in almost all cases, a person whose name check is pending is currently present in the United States. So the lengthy process actually extends an individual's stay in the US. If it takes years to come to a conclusion that the person is indeed a security threat, what will happen during those years? In this sense, timely processing of name checks is not only a relief to legal immigrants, but a must for national security reasons.
5. It is difficult to expedite FBI name checks
In 2007, the USCIS established new policies on expediting FBI name checks and the criteria are very limited. The USCIS may demand expedited handling only if the case involves military deployment, age-out or sunset provisions, loss of certain benefits, or other compelling reasons such as critical medical conditions. It specifically stated that Writ of Mandamus (WOM) - a lawsuit forcing the government to act quickly after an unreasonable delay - would no longer qualify as one.
Writing to Senators, Congressmen, or even the First Lady, have not shown as much success as many were hoping for. In fact, most Congressional inquires are now simply coming back with "case pending" responses. Some offices have stated that they will no longer contact the FBI for cases pending less than a year, citing an increasing number of letters asking for assistance. However, for most poeple, contacting congressional representives is one of very few channels still available to receive any information regarding their pending cases.
6. The name check situation may get even worse, before it improves
According to the USCIS Ombudsman, there is a staggering 329,160 FBI name check cases pending as of May 2007. Among them, 211,341 (64%) have been pending more than 90 days and approximately 32 percent (106,738) pending more than one year. Now with the biggest fee increase in decades, taking effect July 30th, 2007, The USCIS has proposed to allocate more funds toward the name check process. And the FBI indicated that additional funding would allow them to add more staff to speed up the process and reduce backlogs. Many are skeptical, but we certainly hope that they will achieve some of the goals this time.
girlfriend And After Plastic Surgery
raj2007
06-21 01:55 AM
Endlessloop wrote:
Everybody here is on common grounds. We are all in this forum to help each other with only one objective: to obtain our green cards. There is no need to make assumptions to make each other feel bad. With all we have to go through with the retrogressions and whatever comes with it, this is the last thing we need. AND...No, sorry to disappoint you but I am not in the country illegally and I don't intend to commit fraud... is that clear?????????
When I filed my I-485, the letter/job offer of my employer stated that the job will be open for me as soon as I get my green card. So when I get my EAD in 3 months, what am I going to do with it if I will not be working for my employer yet.
Yes you can work on EAD but join the employer after getting GC. He should support you if you get any RFC that he still intends to hire you.
so ... will this answer my question?
:)
Everybody here is on common grounds. We are all in this forum to help each other with only one objective: to obtain our green cards. There is no need to make assumptions to make each other feel bad. With all we have to go through with the retrogressions and whatever comes with it, this is the last thing we need. AND...No, sorry to disappoint you but I am not in the country illegally and I don't intend to commit fraud... is that clear?????????
When I filed my I-485, the letter/job offer of my employer stated that the job will be open for me as soon as I get my green card. So when I get my EAD in 3 months, what am I going to do with it if I will not be working for my employer yet.
Yes you can work on EAD but join the employer after getting GC. He should support you if you get any RFC that he still intends to hire you.
so ... will this answer my question?
:)
hairstyles Filed Under: Before and After
ashkam
11-24 10:09 AM
When you buy a home you sign a contract saying you will pay the loan amount at the end of the loan term with interest. There was a commitment made. And you are saying people who walk away without fulfilling their obligation are smart? Fool!
And who do you think is footing the bill for bailing out those banks? its you and me! You are not only dishonest and unethical, you must be really dumb if you think you are not going to be paying for the mistakes of people like punjabi when they "walk away" from their homes. Idiot!
This reminds me of the following exchange from Seinfeld :
Jerry : So were going to make the Post Office pay for my new stereo ?
Kramer : It's just a write off for them .
Jerry : How is it a write off ?
Kramer : They just write it off .
Jerry : Write it off what ?
Kramer : Jerry all these big companies they write off everything
Jerry : You don't even know what a write off is .
Kramer : Do you ?
Jerry : No . I don't .
Kramer : But they do and they are the ones writing it off .
Jerry : I wish I just had the last twenty seconds of my life back . But seriously, Punjabi, screwing up your credit history for 20,000 dollars is not a very smart move, especially if you're planning on living here for the rest of your life. Not sure if it will affect your job prospects in the future but what I AM sure of is everything else will be affected, even everyday things like getting car insurance. If you want to switch to a different insurer, your premium will increase if you have bad credit history. As someone else said, you need to really think this through because it will be a life-changing decision for you. People who are telling you to go ahead and do it just because it is legal are not giving you good advice. And people who are advising you to go ahead and do it and get a couple more credit cards and a new car while you are at it, well, these people really have no business giving anyone any advice about anything.
And who do you think is footing the bill for bailing out those banks? its you and me! You are not only dishonest and unethical, you must be really dumb if you think you are not going to be paying for the mistakes of people like punjabi when they "walk away" from their homes. Idiot!
This reminds me of the following exchange from Seinfeld :
Jerry : So were going to make the Post Office pay for my new stereo ?
Kramer : It's just a write off for them .
Jerry : How is it a write off ?
Kramer : They just write it off .
Jerry : Write it off what ?
Kramer : Jerry all these big companies they write off everything
Jerry : You don't even know what a write off is .
Kramer : Do you ?
Jerry : No . I don't .
Kramer : But they do and they are the ones writing it off .
Jerry : I wish I just had the last twenty seconds of my life back . But seriously, Punjabi, screwing up your credit history for 20,000 dollars is not a very smart move, especially if you're planning on living here for the rest of your life. Not sure if it will affect your job prospects in the future but what I AM sure of is everything else will be affected, even everyday things like getting car insurance. If you want to switch to a different insurer, your premium will increase if you have bad credit history. As someone else said, you need to really think this through because it will be a life-changing decision for you. People who are telling you to go ahead and do it just because it is legal are not giving you good advice. And people who are advising you to go ahead and do it and get a couple more credit cards and a new car while you are at it, well, these people really have no business giving anyone any advice about anything.
Hewa
06-29 02:11 PM
If USCIS mail room is closed fedex will probably re-attempt to deliver the next business day.
Guys, Are we sure that Fedex will not deliver on saturday or sunday, what will happen if they deliver, nobody will be at USCIS to accept right, so it will still be opened only on monday ?
Guys, Are we sure that Fedex will not deliver on saturday or sunday, what will happen if they deliver, nobody will be at USCIS to accept right, so it will still be opened only on monday ?
gapala
09-03 01:55 PM
Hi,
If any one is interested in signing and needs referral, Ping Me. I will send the referal link so that both of us will get 2 months free of service.
thanks
WOW! First post to solicit the referals from members??? :confused:
Well, Thank you for your offer.... Do we know you??;)
Are you also waiting for your GC like most of us here?
By the way, Welcome to IV.:)
If any one is interested in signing and needs referral, Ping Me. I will send the referal link so that both of us will get 2 months free of service.
thanks
WOW! First post to solicit the referals from members??? :confused:
Well, Thank you for your offer.... Do we know you??;)
Are you also waiting for your GC like most of us here?
By the way, Welcome to IV.:)