eilsoe
10-22 04:19 PM
in 90 percent of the times, I start out with clouds.. B&W clouds...
wallpaper 2000 Chevrolet Venture Minivan. Chevrolet Venture Minivan
GIC
01-09 03:07 PM
Extrapolating the Einstein equation E =mc2 I get the following results :
EB3 June 01
EB2 Dec 2000
Extrapolating like ... combing E= MC2 and the theory of relativity it is evident that there will be a lot of folks converting energy to mass (read fat) for a relatively very long period of time???
EB3 June 01
EB2 Dec 2000
Extrapolating like ... combing E= MC2 and the theory of relativity it is evident that there will be a lot of folks converting energy to mass (read fat) for a relatively very long period of time???
ImmigrationAnswerMan
06-30 12:09 PM
Apollon:
As you pointed out in your original posting, to qualify as the equivalent of a masters degree, thereby allowing you to apply in the EB2 category, the 5 years experience must be gained after the BA. So your experience gained prior to getting the BA does get credited toward the BA+5.
Experience gained with your current employer can be used if another employer is sponsoring you. You do not have to be working for the new sponsor for them to sponsor you, since the PERM and I-140 are for prospective employment.
You said that this was for an engineering position. Not all engineering positions require a masters degree. In order to qualify under the EB2 category, the employee must have a masters or the equivalent, AND the position must have an actual minimum requirement of a masters or the equivalent. So just because you have a BA+5 does not necessarily qualify you for the EB2 category.
As you pointed out in your original posting, to qualify as the equivalent of a masters degree, thereby allowing you to apply in the EB2 category, the 5 years experience must be gained after the BA. So your experience gained prior to getting the BA does get credited toward the BA+5.
Experience gained with your current employer can be used if another employer is sponsoring you. You do not have to be working for the new sponsor for them to sponsor you, since the PERM and I-140 are for prospective employment.
You said that this was for an engineering position. Not all engineering positions require a masters degree. In order to qualify under the EB2 category, the employee must have a masters or the equivalent, AND the position must have an actual minimum requirement of a masters or the equivalent. So just because you have a BA+5 does not necessarily qualify you for the EB2 category.
2011 1997 Chevrolet Venture Ls
randallemery
06-29 09:49 PM
It's next Wednesday morning on July 5th on Independence Mall in downtown Philadelphia. Give me a call or email me if you are interested. I would need to know right away though.
You can find my contact info here:
http://americanfamiliesunited.com/index.php?option=com_contact&catid=12&Itemid=3
You can find my contact info here:
http://americanfamiliesunited.com/index.php?option=com_contact&catid=12&Itemid=3
more...
kishdam
02-06 03:28 PM
Hi,
What is legally considered as "Permanent Residency approval date" - is it the approval of I485/getting greencard or is it the approval of I140. Sometimes the I140 referred to as an immigrant petition. As we know the process is once this immigrant petition (I14) is approved we apply for adjustment of status as a permanent resident thru II485 - so legally - can we consider that until I485 is not approved, our permanent residence applicaiton is pending?
This is to interpret a reimburse agreement I signed (bad thing to do - but I was naive then and signed a very vague repayment statement). But somewhat good thing is the agreement talks about staying for 2 years "after" the permanent residence is approved. If things get bad - I am hoping that this language might save me. Any thoughts?
- kd
What is legally considered as "Permanent Residency approval date" - is it the approval of I485/getting greencard or is it the approval of I140. Sometimes the I140 referred to as an immigrant petition. As we know the process is once this immigrant petition (I14) is approved we apply for adjustment of status as a permanent resident thru II485 - so legally - can we consider that until I485 is not approved, our permanent residence applicaiton is pending?
This is to interpret a reimburse agreement I signed (bad thing to do - but I was naive then and signed a very vague repayment statement). But somewhat good thing is the agreement talks about staying for 2 years "after" the permanent residence is approved. If things get bad - I am hoping that this language might save me. Any thoughts?
- kd
lostinbeta
10-20 02:13 AM
Very nice as usual edwin :)
more...
karthikgk
02-19 07:01 PM
Thanks guys for making the effort to understand my situation.
i now need a couple of clarifications:
pune_guy, you are spot on in your interpretation that it would be a hard sell for an EB-2 application with the current employer.
So now, if I do change a job, I would have to use my EAD and hence I would have to join as an engineer(Because my understanding is, even though my current role is Business Development, my GC application is for an Engineer role and hence any new job based on EAD would have to be that of an Engineer).
Is that understanding correct?
Further, the new Eb-2 application from my would-be employer would be for an Engineer position.
Are my assumptions correct?
Thanks much
i now need a couple of clarifications:
pune_guy, you are spot on in your interpretation that it would be a hard sell for an EB-2 application with the current employer.
So now, if I do change a job, I would have to use my EAD and hence I would have to join as an engineer(Because my understanding is, even though my current role is Business Development, my GC application is for an Engineer role and hence any new job based on EAD would have to be that of an Engineer).
Is that understanding correct?
Further, the new Eb-2 application from my would-be employer would be for an Engineer position.
Are my assumptions correct?
Thanks much
2010 1997 Chevrolet Venture Van 4D
yagw
09-26 07:27 PM
This is disheartening...
Don't be. You will be current in Oct and I believe going forward (chances of retrogressing to 2005 is very slim if at all there is any retrogression).
That said, don't wait for USCIS. Be proactive and do all you can. I would suggest
1. Calling the USCIS customer service (get hold of level 2 rep by telling the level 1 your case is outside normal processing time) and try to get the status of your case. Might take few tries before you can get some info.
2. Open an SR.
3. Do the above for your dependents if any.
4. Make infopass (you have already done this).
5. Contact local congress man/woman.
6. Send mail to CIS Ombudsman
7. If your security check is not cleared yet, you can contact FBI (by phone) and find out the status.
(more information on all these can be gotten from simple google search. If not, post here and some one here should be able to help you.)
Good luck.
Don't be. You will be current in Oct and I believe going forward (chances of retrogressing to 2005 is very slim if at all there is any retrogression).
That said, don't wait for USCIS. Be proactive and do all you can. I would suggest
1. Calling the USCIS customer service (get hold of level 2 rep by telling the level 1 your case is outside normal processing time) and try to get the status of your case. Might take few tries before you can get some info.
2. Open an SR.
3. Do the above for your dependents if any.
4. Make infopass (you have already done this).
5. Contact local congress man/woman.
6. Send mail to CIS Ombudsman
7. If your security check is not cleared yet, you can contact FBI (by phone) and find out the status.
(more information on all these can be gotten from simple google search. If not, post here and some one here should be able to help you.)
Good luck.
more...
gantilk
04-27 11:26 PM
Thanks Desertfox. Did you send any supporting documents. there were contradicting opinions on whether to send or not send any additional documentation after e-filing EAD. Please let us know what you sent or not sent?
hair 1997-2005 Chevy Venture
pani_6
01-16 05:17 PM
Letter is attached
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22793
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22793
more...
dhiru
08-19 12:45 PM
Good new... I went to the INFOPASS Washington Filed Office yesterday (walk-in) and told them that my EAD was expiring the same day and will loose my job if I dont get the EAD in next 5 days. The officer was very helpful and emailed the adjudicator to expedite the process. I received an update this morning saying that my EAD has been approved and the card is in production. Hopefully, I will get the EAD by next week and keep my job. Surprisingly the officer called me this morning to inform the same.
hot 2003 Chevrolet Venture - Mini
sush
08-21 11:33 AM
not sure which center my attorney filed through but on the back of the check, it mentioned St. Paul MN
more...
house 1997 Chevrolet Venture Minivan
mundada
11-08 12:56 PM
Hi everyone,
I am trying to reschedule my H1B appointment as my contact in mumbai failed to deliver the DS-156 and DS-157 to the consulate in time (5 business days prior). However, I can't book a new one till the old one is cancelled and the system won't let me cancel 5 business days or less before the current appointment. Does anyone know what to do? It must have happened to someone before? I really need to get back to the US in 10 days.
Thanks!!
It happened to my parents. They did not know that they had to drop the packet 5 days before the schedule date. While reading on the website, I found out that they need to drop the packet 5 days before. They then dropped the packet at the embassy 3 days before appointment day. On the appointment day, the visa officer rejected the application after asking one question "why you want to go to the USA?". The reason was a standard line -- not enough evidence that you will come back.
I am not sure about the reason of rejection but I think it has to do with not dropping the packet on time.
I am trying to reschedule my H1B appointment as my contact in mumbai failed to deliver the DS-156 and DS-157 to the consulate in time (5 business days prior). However, I can't book a new one till the old one is cancelled and the system won't let me cancel 5 business days or less before the current appointment. Does anyone know what to do? It must have happened to someone before? I really need to get back to the US in 10 days.
Thanks!!
It happened to my parents. They did not know that they had to drop the packet 5 days before the schedule date. While reading on the website, I found out that they need to drop the packet 5 days before. They then dropped the packet at the embassy 3 days before appointment day. On the appointment day, the visa officer rejected the application after asking one question "why you want to go to the USA?". The reason was a standard line -- not enough evidence that you will come back.
I am not sure about the reason of rejection but I think it has to do with not dropping the packet on time.
tattoo 1997 CHEVROLET VENTURE 2WD
reachinus
12-24 12:44 PM
If you don't get the regular W2, then you fill in all the details that you know are correct and submit it along with your tax filings saying that you asked your employer to issue you the W2/Correct W2 with all the Pay info, but since he didn't give you the correct W2 your are using a non standard W2. IF u google it I am sure u will find it.
Its better to have pay stubs for all the time that you are on H1 to avoid future problems.
Its better to have pay stubs for all the time that you are on H1 to avoid future problems.
more...
pictures 1997-2005 Chevy Venture
vin13
01-16 11:52 AM
Yes, it would be part of the lottery system (for company C)
Yes, there is a chance of H1 not going through.
It is as good as you applying for the H1-B for the first time.
Yes, there is a chance of H1 not going through.
It is as good as you applying for the H1-B for the first time.
dresses 2001 Chevrolet Venture Base in
buehler
06-03 09:57 AM
The link says all the majors considered as STEM. If you choose Browse by STEM discipline - those are the STEM disciplines..
Read carefully. It states that those are the occupations that might require a degree from those STEM Disciplines. For e.g. If you see under Life Sciences, it states that Farmers might require a degree in Life Sciences.
Read carefully. It states that those are the occupations that might require a degree from those STEM Disciplines. For e.g. If you see under Life Sciences, it states that Farmers might require a degree in Life Sciences.
more...
makeup 2000 Chevrolet Venture Ext
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
girlfriend old Chevy Venture minivan
meridiani.planum
09-27 11:52 AM
Thanks for the advice. I appreciate your insight.
I am going all in now.
1. I will call the Customer Service Line tomorrow.
2. I already got the InfoPass for 10/6
3. The letter for my senator is drafted. It will be sent tomorrow.
4. Finally, an email to the Ombudsman has been sent.
Hopefully, there is be some movement.
infopass is almost useless. Open SR, contact senator and email the ombudsman.
Dont worry about dates, your PD will almost certainly remain current going forward. If 6 months pass by, your date remains current, processing times remain as they are and case is not approved, sue them (Writ of Mandamus):
http://www.google.com/search?q=Writ+of+Mandamus+485
File it 'pro se' (on your own, without a lawyer) if you are worried about the expense...
I am going all in now.
1. I will call the Customer Service Line tomorrow.
2. I already got the InfoPass for 10/6
3. The letter for my senator is drafted. It will be sent tomorrow.
4. Finally, an email to the Ombudsman has been sent.
Hopefully, there is be some movement.
infopass is almost useless. Open SR, contact senator and email the ombudsman.
Dont worry about dates, your PD will almost certainly remain current going forward. If 6 months pass by, your date remains current, processing times remain as they are and case is not approved, sue them (Writ of Mandamus):
http://www.google.com/search?q=Writ+of+Mandamus+485
File it 'pro se' (on your own, without a lawyer) if you are worried about the expense...
hairstyles 1997 Chevrolet Venture LS
sandeep77
03-20 05:53 PM
bump
ssnd03
07-30 02:17 PM
Congratulations on your approval. Yor are really lucky and we envy you.
I know the systems is so much screwed up. There are so many frustrated people with their priority dates EB2 before August 2004 and could not file I-485 until this July. Its a wonder USCIS approved a case with priorioty date of August 2005. :mad: :confused: the system is so disgusting.
Remember one and only one thing prevents FIFO (First in First Out) for I485 approvals and that is FBI name-check delays. I do not believe FIFO is not honored due to USCIS processing problems.
(BEC backlogs also inhibit GC FIFO but hopefully that will be over by Sep 2007)
This guy's security checks were cleared timely and he got a visa number as soon as they were available.
It is rumored that USCIS in last month assigned visa numbers to applicants without FBI security-check completion. However, these GCs will not be approved if FBI checks are not completed by Sep 30, 2007 and the visa numbers will be returned to DOS. Hence, it remains to be seen how many visa numbers will be wasted in FY 2007 despite the fact that the visa bulletin says U August onwards.
Next to retrogression, this is a serious problem. But the irony is that retrogression allows FBI to enjoy, at our cost, years of delay in doing their job. However, you can also be so unlucky that your name-check does not clear when years later your PD becomes current
I know the systems is so much screwed up. There are so many frustrated people with their priority dates EB2 before August 2004 and could not file I-485 until this July. Its a wonder USCIS approved a case with priorioty date of August 2005. :mad: :confused: the system is so disgusting.
Remember one and only one thing prevents FIFO (First in First Out) for I485 approvals and that is FBI name-check delays. I do not believe FIFO is not honored due to USCIS processing problems.
(BEC backlogs also inhibit GC FIFO but hopefully that will be over by Sep 2007)
This guy's security checks were cleared timely and he got a visa number as soon as they were available.
It is rumored that USCIS in last month assigned visa numbers to applicants without FBI security-check completion. However, these GCs will not be approved if FBI checks are not completed by Sep 30, 2007 and the visa numbers will be returned to DOS. Hence, it remains to be seen how many visa numbers will be wasted in FY 2007 despite the fact that the visa bulletin says U August onwards.
Next to retrogression, this is a serious problem. But the irony is that retrogression allows FBI to enjoy, at our cost, years of delay in doing their job. However, you can also be so unlucky that your name-check does not clear when years later your PD becomes current
sidbee
05-06 10:59 AM
http://www.usabal.com/seminars/#a2
Michael Aytes, is one of the speaker in this conference
Why would IV get invitation to this ?????
You pay and you attend, and its for employers, not employees..
Michael Aytes, is one of the speaker in this conference
Why would IV get invitation to this ?????
You pay and you attend, and its for employers, not employees..
0 comments:
Post a Comment