ruchigup
08-22 03:03 PM
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
wallpaper short cute love poems
GoneSouth
09-07 12:45 PM
But how did you manage to justify that you have enough knowledge/experience for that job. Did you use any particular course material or project work or anything of that kind against some one who applied for your ad ?
In my particular case, I used equivalent education + experience (i.e., BS +5) and had the necessary skills from prior work experience. If you are truly MS+0, presumably you'd have to show coursework or similar. If you absolutely have to use your work experience to support your labor certification (e.g., because your course work isn't distinct enough), then you'll have to switch employers and have the new employer submit the LC.
you can mention in your employment letter that you've been working since 2 years and could attach an experience letter from them to highlight the fact.. This is definitely doable and lawyer should have correct format to do this... No, you can't do that. Experience gained while working at an employer cannot be used to support the labor certification for that same employer.
In my particular case, I used equivalent education + experience (i.e., BS +5) and had the necessary skills from prior work experience. If you are truly MS+0, presumably you'd have to show coursework or similar. If you absolutely have to use your work experience to support your labor certification (e.g., because your course work isn't distinct enough), then you'll have to switch employers and have the new employer submit the LC.
you can mention in your employment letter that you've been working since 2 years and could attach an experience letter from them to highlight the fact.. This is definitely doable and lawyer should have correct format to do this... No, you can't do that. Experience gained while working at an employer cannot be used to support the labor certification for that same employer.
lapisguy
07-25 05:42 PM
Hi,
I was going thru the chain of I-140 issues, my case is a bit similar but wanted some expert advice...
My employer filed I-140 in June but I did not get any approval yet so my employer ask me to wait until it approved then file for I-485?
Are there chances that if I file I-485 it would get rejected?
I was going thru the chain of I-140 issues, my case is a bit similar but wanted some expert advice...
My employer filed I-140 in June but I did not get any approval yet so my employer ask me to wait until it approved then file for I-485?
Are there chances that if I file I-485 it would get rejected?
2011 what is love poem.
H1B-GC
07-15 04:49 PM
you can say that.USCIS processes the case Erratically . No Logic . No FIFO. Its just like playing the French Roulette. Sad but True.
more...
Maverick1
11-13 05:08 PM
I asked her if it is change of address they sent she is not sure but she said usually it is the card when Current Status: is "Document mailed to applicant."
She put in a service request for me and she some one is going to contact me in 30 business days.
Goodluck.
Since you are EB3/2004/India it is probably not I485 approval unless you got EXTREMELY lucky and they processed your application out of turn.
She put in a service request for me and she some one is going to contact me in 30 business days.
Goodluck.
Since you are EB3/2004/India it is probably not I485 approval unless you got EXTREMELY lucky and they processed your application out of turn.
InTheMoment
06-22 10:01 AM
Reposting this I-485 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) link again. This gives us a clue of what is checked when the packet is opened in the mail room and then further down with the AO.
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cissop.html
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cissop.html
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
2010 Cute Love Poem
bhayzone
05-01 08:21 PM
First a totally unrelated topic. Doesn't the portal send email notifications when someone replies to your post etc? I am a new member to this portal and was trying to find my post, but got lost in all the immigration related sites out there because I wasn't able to remember where I had posted :P . I really apologize if you thought that I had disappeared after posting.
Back to the main topic. Now my H1 and wife's H4 is transferred and extended. We have the approval notices with the new I-94's. I am really confused about the visa stamping question.
1] Do I first get our new H1B/H4's stamped (the old visa is valid till 10/2008. new one is valid till 10/2011)
2] Then get I-20 for my wife
3] Then get her F1 stamped.
Now the main question is, can I directly go for her F1 stamping, without the need to go through the intermediate step of H4 stamp. I ask this because the I-20 will be issued on the new I-94, but the stamp on the passport is still the old one. So basically what I want to do is, go to our home country, get my H1B stamped and simultaneously get her F1 stamped too. I have a bad feeling that I will have to get the H4 stamped before I do the F1. Please advise.
Back to the main topic. Now my H1 and wife's H4 is transferred and extended. We have the approval notices with the new I-94's. I am really confused about the visa stamping question.
1] Do I first get our new H1B/H4's stamped (the old visa is valid till 10/2008. new one is valid till 10/2011)
2] Then get I-20 for my wife
3] Then get her F1 stamped.
Now the main question is, can I directly go for her F1 stamping, without the need to go through the intermediate step of H4 stamp. I ask this because the I-20 will be issued on the new I-94, but the stamp on the passport is still the old one. So basically what I want to do is, go to our home country, get my H1B stamped and simultaneously get her F1 stamped too. I have a bad feeling that I will have to get the H4 stamped before I do the F1. Please advise.
more...
shan74
01-15 10:24 PM
Hi Bhanupriya,
Couple of questions:
Did you directly requested 140 and labor documents in the form, or what was ur statement to request the documents.
Also what are the documents u need to send along with the G639 form. Also if you can mention what to fill in each section that will be of great help.
thanks
Couple of questions:
Did you directly requested 140 and labor documents in the form, or what was ur statement to request the documents.
Also what are the documents u need to send along with the G639 form. Also if you can mention what to fill in each section that will be of great help.
thanks
hair Lists with Love Poems amp;
ps57002
07-18 11:40 AM
some people r thinking of flower campaign to atlanta center so as to speed up slowed down processin. if anyone is interested...
http://www..com/discussion-forums/atlanta-perm/4827173/last-page/
=======================
Message from IV
IV does not recommend any such actions.
We are aware of the issue and if there is any acion item, we will post it.
also be aware of what we posted earlier on this issue:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=100024#post100024
=========================
http://www..com/discussion-forums/atlanta-perm/4827173/last-page/
=======================
Message from IV
IV does not recommend any such actions.
We are aware of the issue and if there is any acion item, we will post it.
also be aware of what we posted earlier on this issue:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=100024#post100024
=========================
more...
webm
04-21 02:24 PM
I wanted to inform the community that our GC is finally approved... I just checked my email hoping against hope that I might see some good news and good news is what I saw...
This is a tremendous relief to us.
They have approved and ordered card production to myself and my spouse. But looks like they have not approved our son's GC. Hope they don't delay that last piece of processing any longer.
Good luck to everybody else and hope you all the best.
Congrats to you!! hopeful08
This is a tremendous relief to us.
They have approved and ordered card production to myself and my spouse. But looks like they have not approved our son's GC. Hope they don't delay that last piece of processing any longer.
Good luck to everybody else and hope you all the best.
Congrats to you!! hopeful08
hot poems and quotes.
gc_chahiye
11-09 02:43 AM
I think they are talking about the number of receipts that were issued in September, not the number of AOS filings.
oh ok, it makes sense then. thanks for clarifying that.
oh ok, it makes sense then. thanks for clarifying that.
more...
house i love you poems for
chris
02-12 01:23 PM
You are right. My finger prints are expired and called several times and took info pass.
Same answer, " if IO thinks need FP, they will send. Wait for their decission". :mad:
Chris,
My case was very similar in last November, I did call them many times...but same old answer. but in last month they told me they did not work on my case because my fiinger prints were expired. they expire every 15 months, and without valid FP , case even will not pass standard "filter" criteria, and they don't consider it "ready to approve"
Looks like you sent your 485 on Jul 2007, assume your first FP was done before Aug 2007? if yes, it's expired. By any chance, did you do your 2nd FP?
Just my 2 cents.!
Regards,
-N
Same answer, " if IO thinks need FP, they will send. Wait for their decission". :mad:
Chris,
My case was very similar in last November, I did call them many times...but same old answer. but in last month they told me they did not work on my case because my fiinger prints were expired. they expire every 15 months, and without valid FP , case even will not pass standard "filter" criteria, and they don't consider it "ready to approve"
Looks like you sent your 485 on Jul 2007, assume your first FP was done before Aug 2007? if yes, it's expired. By any chance, did you do your 2nd FP?
Just my 2 cents.!
Regards,
-N
tattoo love poems and quotes and
rb_248
04-10 04:41 PM
USCIS RELEASES PRELIMINARY NUMBER OF FY 2009 H-1B CAP FILINGS
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a preliminary number of nearly 163,000 H-1B petitions received during the filing period ending on April 7, 2008. More than 31,200 of those petitions were for the advanced degree category.
USCIS expects next week it will conduct the computer-generated random selection process, beginning with the selection of the 20,000 petitions under the advanced degree exemption. Those petitions not selected under the advanced degree category will join the random selection process for the cap-subject 65,000 limit.
USCIS will reject, and return filing fees for all cap-subject petitions not randomly selected, unless found to be a duplicate. USCIS will handle duplicate filings in accordance with the interim final rule published on March 24, 2008 in the Federal Register. USCIS will provide regular updates as the processing of FY 2009 H-1B cap cases continues.
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced a preliminary number of nearly 163,000 H-1B petitions received during the filing period ending on April 7, 2008. More than 31,200 of those petitions were for the advanced degree category.
USCIS expects next week it will conduct the computer-generated random selection process, beginning with the selection of the 20,000 petitions under the advanced degree exemption. Those petitions not selected under the advanced degree category will join the random selection process for the cap-subject 65,000 limit.
USCIS will reject, and return filing fees for all cap-subject petitions not randomly selected, unless found to be a duplicate. USCIS will handle duplicate filings in accordance with the interim final rule published on March 24, 2008 in the Federal Register. USCIS will provide regular updates as the processing of FY 2009 H-1B cap cases continues.
more...
pictures short love poems to a girl
WeShallOvercome
07-20 06:32 PM
My PD is Nov 2004, I got 140 approved. Im not filing 485 now as im unmarried.
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
If you plan to get married in the next few months, you can still go ahead and apply your I-485.
the dates are goign to retrogress again in October. so if you get married before your date becomes current again, you can file the I-485 for your spouse on the very first day it becomes current and before your I-485 approval
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
If you plan to get married in the next few months, you can still go ahead and apply your I-485.
the dates are goign to retrogress again in October. so if you get married before your date becomes current again, you can file the I-485 for your spouse on the very first day it becomes current and before your I-485 approval
dresses i miss you dad poems
mbartosik
06-22 05:15 PM
They charge $2, blimey, that's nothing. They want to increase to $9, hey increase it to $100 and to the job properly!
If I was stuck in name check I'd happy write them a check for $900 not just $9.
This is a typical example of how doing things on the cheap is just plain stupid.
If they are going to do a name check for the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 then how does that affect them. In computing we have to write systems that scale, I doubt their system will scale to cope with an extra 20,000,000 checks.
If I was stuck in name check I'd happy write them a check for $900 not just $9.
This is a typical example of how doing things on the cheap is just plain stupid.
If they are going to do a name check for the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 then how does that affect them. In computing we have to write systems that scale, I doubt their system will scale to cope with an extra 20,000,000 checks.
more...
makeup im sorry poems for boyfriends.
walking_dude
11-25 06:01 PM
To all IV members (and others), who have decided not to participate in the rally due to various reasons, I request you to give a very serious thought, and consideration, before reaching the final decision.
It's highly critical that we do this Rally and/or Lobby Day before CIR 2009 is introduced. If we miss the CIR next year, it may be difficult to get any relief to our community for many years. I agree with you that times are tough. But if we don't act now, it'll keep getting tougher & tougher.
I don't live near DC, and if you are too, understand where you are coming from. However, there is still several months time for the planned rally. If you book in advance, you should be able to lock-in a lower airfare on a budget airline. It may be a good idea to cash-in any Frequent flyer miles etc. you might be having ( I'm just throwing ideas here)
Get in touch with your State chapter or nearest state active chapter. If enough members like you step forward, you guys can sponsor a few members willing to participate.
If you still think you can't, please pledge or contribute donations/contributions for the planned Rally. If enough members like you, step forward IV may be to sponsor some members willing to participate, but can't due to economic hardship (out of job etc.) IV would also need funds to organize an event of this magnitude, to advertise it and arrange it.
If you decide to contribute now, you can do so by clicking the 'Contribute' option on the Homepage. If you decide to pledge, please post your pledge of support here.
I am confident that we will make it a success with your support.
It's highly critical that we do this Rally and/or Lobby Day before CIR 2009 is introduced. If we miss the CIR next year, it may be difficult to get any relief to our community for many years. I agree with you that times are tough. But if we don't act now, it'll keep getting tougher & tougher.
I don't live near DC, and if you are too, understand where you are coming from. However, there is still several months time for the planned rally. If you book in advance, you should be able to lock-in a lower airfare on a budget airline. It may be a good idea to cash-in any Frequent flyer miles etc. you might be having ( I'm just throwing ideas here)
Get in touch with your State chapter or nearest state active chapter. If enough members like you step forward, you guys can sponsor a few members willing to participate.
If you still think you can't, please pledge or contribute donations/contributions for the planned Rally. If enough members like you, step forward IV may be to sponsor some members willing to participate, but can't due to economic hardship (out of job etc.) IV would also need funds to organize an event of this magnitude, to advertise it and arrange it.
If you decide to contribute now, you can do so by clicking the 'Contribute' option on the Homepage. If you decide to pledge, please post your pledge of support here.
I am confident that we will make it a success with your support.
girlfriend spanish love poems for her
sreenivas11
10-03 05:10 PM
Now they are implementing in VA State too
hairstyles +poems+for+est+friends
sury
11-17 03:59 PM
This turned out to be FP notice.
I moved to new place before I have recieved FP notice. My Attorney sent their copy and I finished FP.
The FP notice copy which I recieved earlier at my old address is returned to USCIS and they have re-sent it to my new address......which is nothing but updated as "Document mailed to Applicant" online in USCIS website
I moved to new place before I have recieved FP notice. My Attorney sent their copy and I finished FP.
The FP notice copy which I recieved earlier at my old address is returned to USCIS and they have re-sent it to my new address......which is nothing but updated as "Document mailed to Applicant" online in USCIS website
shana04
07-21 10:25 PM
I am in same boat, I took a Infopass today and met with a IO in NYC. She said she will do the needful as the dates are current by communicating with TSC and if nothing happens I have to come back in 45 days. I do not have hopes but lets see what happens
Chandu,
I have been reading your post for quite a while. some nice info through your post.
Can you please help me how to take info pass.
Thanks in advance
Shana
Chandu,
I have been reading your post for quite a while. some nice info through your post.
Can you please help me how to take info pass.
Thanks in advance
Shana
nixstor
02-21 02:15 PM
Dec 21st 06. Is that really true? On , there are many people in Nov who havent got it approved yet. I know, those guys might not have updated after their extension was approved.
Is there any one in here who is before Dec 21st and got it approved? It sounds unbelievable to me because it moved from Oct 31st to Dec 21st (51 days?? )
Is there any one in here who is before Dec 21st and got it approved? It sounds unbelievable to me because it moved from Oct 31st to Dec 21st (51 days?? )
No comments:
Post a Comment