godbless
01-19 08:04 PM
I'm also in same situation only difference is my visa stamped in PP is expired (Jan06), but has H1 till Jan 2009. I'm planning to visit India in Feb07 and return on AP. As I read in other forums that H1 will be valid and we can file for extension (even Cornin INS Memo (5-16-00)) memo says that. My attorney also confirmed that.
Keep posted your experiences.
Thank you.
ajkastar
I would suggest you to get h1 your visa stamped from India and enter on h1 and not on AP. Don't even show your AP to the immigration inspector at the POE.
Keep posted your experiences.
Thank you.
ajkastar
I would suggest you to get h1 your visa stamped from India and enter on h1 and not on AP. Don't even show your AP to the immigration inspector at the POE.
wallpaper Richard King, was waiting
rogerdepena
07-18 01:31 PM
can some of you guys pm me Lou Dobbs-related issues? i'm trying to make a blog entirely focus on Lou Dobbs lies. thanks.
nitinba
06-29 05:00 PM
Mathew Oh says this
06/29/2007: Notice to The Oh Law Firm Clients
* We have suspended the work for July 485 filing development pending the clarification of the rumor next week. Please bear with us in this confusing and difficult time.
I am of the opinion these rumors may not be rumors, they have some insider information. We are out of luck I guess
06/29/2007: Notice to The Oh Law Firm Clients
* We have suspended the work for July 485 filing development pending the clarification of the rumor next week. Please bear with us in this confusing and difficult time.
I am of the opinion these rumors may not be rumors, they have some insider information. We are out of luck I guess
2011 hair patti labelle richard
akhilmahajan
01-07 11:44 PM
Let's start working on this campaign. If you are in MA, ME, VT, RI & NH and not part of New England Yahoo group, please send me an email with your name and phone number. Click the link below to join the group
more...
shiankuraaf
10-01 05:20 PM
Hi you can find all the details in this thread.
"Wrongfull denial by cis and PD is current."
Thank you... I will find it.
"Wrongfull denial by cis and PD is current."
Thank you... I will find it.
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.
more...
CADude
10-10 05:54 PM
I send my Employment based I-485/I-765/I-131 application on June 29th 2007 and received at NSC on July 2nd 2007 (USPS Express mail tracking no. XXXX). It�s more than 100 days and I didn�t even received the Receipt Number for all the applications.
I have following question for CIS Ombudsman�s office:
1) Per US Law, I have to get the EAD in 90 days of filling of my application? How I can get the EAD in 90 days where I didn�t even get the Receipt Number after 100 days?
2) Why �First In First Out (FIFO)� process is not followed by USCIS for receipting? It�s unfair to applicant like me when application filed on August 17th 2007 enjoying the EAD card and able to work.
3) What action you can will take to force USCIS follow their own operational manual guidelines and follow FIFO in future?
I have following question for CIS Ombudsman�s office:
1) Per US Law, I have to get the EAD in 90 days of filling of my application? How I can get the EAD in 90 days where I didn�t even get the Receipt Number after 100 days?
2) Why �First In First Out (FIFO)� process is not followed by USCIS for receipting? It�s unfair to applicant like me when application filed on August 17th 2007 enjoying the EAD card and able to work.
3) What action you can will take to force USCIS follow their own operational manual guidelines and follow FIFO in future?
2010 Ben Smith (C) of New Zealand#39;s Highlanders avoids the tackle of Richard King
vkrishn
08-13 10:58 AM
Thanks Appas.. I sent an email to ombudsman on tueday and got a response on wednesday with the message. I also attached DS701 form, copy of I140 approved notice, I485 receipt notice.
Dear Sir/Madam:
We have received your case problem. We will initiate a formal inquiry with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
We appreciate your continued patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Office of the CIS Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Dear Sir/Madam:
We have received your case problem. We will initiate a formal inquiry with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
We appreciate your continued patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Office of the CIS Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
more...
Macaca
12-05 05:23 PM
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, exactly. And I have a different perspective on that�
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So you�ll indulge me.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But the fact is that immigration policy in this country has always been a means of rallying anger among the public.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, nonsense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes, it has.
LOU DOBBS: Nonsense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: First of all�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me finish, Lou, please.
LOU DOBBS: Ridiculous. But, alright, go ahead.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The Chinese�in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act�what was the claim against the Chinese, small population of Chinese immigrants? The claim was that they were involved in drugs, that they were bringing crime, that they were a danger to the country, and the country passed in 1882 a Chinese Exclusion Act. The same thing in the 1920s.
LOU DOBBS: Are you holding me responsible? Or are�
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, no.
LOU DOBBS: Because I can�t find germane or relevant point there.
JUAN GONZALEZ: What I�m telling you is that this has been done over and over again. This has been done over and over again. And precisely�
LOU DOBBS: Juan, according to you�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me finish, Lou. Precisely because�because the country is an immigrant nation, it�s easy to divide the people along ethnic and racial lines over the issue of immigration.
LOU DOBBS: You�re the only one doing it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Over the issue of immigration.
LOU DOBBS: You�re the only one doing it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, I�m not. No, I�m not.
LOU DOBBS: You�re socio-ethnocentric to the point of absurdity.
JUAN GONZALEZ: You know very well that 75% of the undocumented immigrant population in this country comes from Latin America. And not only that, 65% comes from one country: Mexico.
LOU DOBBS: That is right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So the crux of the illegal immigration problem in the United States is the question of Mexico and the United States�
LOU DOBBS: Correct.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �and the relationships between Mexico and the United States. Mexicans are the larger source of immigration to this country from any nationality.
LOU DOBBS: What is your point?
JUAN GONZALEZ: So that the question is that there is a huge disparity between the economic levels in Mexico and the economic levels in the United States. And you have properly said many times on your show that American companies are creating the problems, rather than helping to alleviate the problems. All that would be needed to do is to raise the economic level in Mexico and the entire illegal immigration population problems would decline in this country. And not only that, but the country, if it had a higher immigration quota in connection with�
LOU DOBBS: Are you giving me instruction, or are you telling me what we agree upon?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we don�t agree. We don�t agree, because you are demonizing illegal immigration as a separate issue, rather than dealing with the realities that Mexico and the United States must find a way to build better closer economic ties and raise the levels for both countries.
LOU DOBBS: Your view is�as I take it, you and Amy believe that if we just had more illegal immigration, the crime rate would drop and the economy would boom in this country.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No.
LOU DOBBS: That�s, on its face, absurd.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No.
LOU DOBBS: Secondly, I have, over the�over five years in reporting on this issue, repeatedly pointed out that the investment in Mexico by the United States has been paltry and absurd and diverted to China, instead of to this hemisphere, and particularly Mexico. The results could have been quite different. So when you talked about these issues, you�re preaching to the choir, and you know that. The fact that you would focus on a couple of reports on tuberculosis, leprosy, the issue of the CCC in a flash�what amounts to a flash frame, folks�
AMY GOODMAN: And all the guests connected to it since.
LOU DOBBS: And all of those guests. How many would you say? Five?
AMY GOODMAN: Oh, I can keep going. I just thought�
LOU DOBBS: I would like�
AMY GOODMAN: �I should give someone else a chance here to have�
LOU DOBBS: No, really, I think you should keep going, because the reality is, illegal immigration in this country is not going to be overwhelmed by this nonsense. The reality is, the Southern Poverty Law Center is an advocacy group right now. The ADL is an advocacy group right now. Pro-illegal immigration, pro-open borders, both of you, ideologically�I understand that, and I can deal with that.
But the reality is, there is such a thing as the national interest. There is such a thing as the common good. And it�s not ethnocentric. It�s not group and identity politics. It�s all about this country, because this political system makes this economy possible. And the fact that people are starving in Mexico�and my heart goes out to them�the reality is there are five-and-a-half billion people in the world who are more impoverished than those folks in Mexico. And that land bridge does not give Felipe Calderon or Vicente Fox or any other group of activists the right to dictate the US immigration policy. That�s the reality.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So you�ll indulge me.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But the fact is that immigration policy in this country has always been a means of rallying anger among the public.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, nonsense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes, it has.
LOU DOBBS: Nonsense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lou, let me finish.
LOU DOBBS: First of all�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me finish, Lou, please.
LOU DOBBS: Ridiculous. But, alright, go ahead.
JUAN GONZALEZ: The Chinese�in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act�what was the claim against the Chinese, small population of Chinese immigrants? The claim was that they were involved in drugs, that they were bringing crime, that they were a danger to the country, and the country passed in 1882 a Chinese Exclusion Act. The same thing in the 1920s.
LOU DOBBS: Are you holding me responsible? Or are�
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, no.
LOU DOBBS: Because I can�t find germane or relevant point there.
JUAN GONZALEZ: What I�m telling you is that this has been done over and over again. This has been done over and over again. And precisely�
LOU DOBBS: Juan, according to you�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me finish, Lou. Precisely because�because the country is an immigrant nation, it�s easy to divide the people along ethnic and racial lines over the issue of immigration.
LOU DOBBS: You�re the only one doing it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Over the issue of immigration.
LOU DOBBS: You�re the only one doing it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, I�m not. No, I�m not.
LOU DOBBS: You�re socio-ethnocentric to the point of absurdity.
JUAN GONZALEZ: You know very well that 75% of the undocumented immigrant population in this country comes from Latin America. And not only that, 65% comes from one country: Mexico.
LOU DOBBS: That is right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So the crux of the illegal immigration problem in the United States is the question of Mexico and the United States�
LOU DOBBS: Correct.
JUAN GONZALEZ: �and the relationships between Mexico and the United States. Mexicans are the larger source of immigration to this country from any nationality.
LOU DOBBS: What is your point?
JUAN GONZALEZ: So that the question is that there is a huge disparity between the economic levels in Mexico and the economic levels in the United States. And you have properly said many times on your show that American companies are creating the problems, rather than helping to alleviate the problems. All that would be needed to do is to raise the economic level in Mexico and the entire illegal immigration population problems would decline in this country. And not only that, but the country, if it had a higher immigration quota in connection with�
LOU DOBBS: Are you giving me instruction, or are you telling me what we agree upon?
JUAN GONZALEZ: No, we don�t agree. We don�t agree, because you are demonizing illegal immigration as a separate issue, rather than dealing with the realities that Mexico and the United States must find a way to build better closer economic ties and raise the levels for both countries.
LOU DOBBS: Your view is�as I take it, you and Amy believe that if we just had more illegal immigration, the crime rate would drop and the economy would boom in this country.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No.
LOU DOBBS: That�s, on its face, absurd.
JUAN GONZALEZ: No.
LOU DOBBS: Secondly, I have, over the�over five years in reporting on this issue, repeatedly pointed out that the investment in Mexico by the United States has been paltry and absurd and diverted to China, instead of to this hemisphere, and particularly Mexico. The results could have been quite different. So when you talked about these issues, you�re preaching to the choir, and you know that. The fact that you would focus on a couple of reports on tuberculosis, leprosy, the issue of the CCC in a flash�what amounts to a flash frame, folks�
AMY GOODMAN: And all the guests connected to it since.
LOU DOBBS: And all of those guests. How many would you say? Five?
AMY GOODMAN: Oh, I can keep going. I just thought�
LOU DOBBS: I would like�
AMY GOODMAN: �I should give someone else a chance here to have�
LOU DOBBS: No, really, I think you should keep going, because the reality is, illegal immigration in this country is not going to be overwhelmed by this nonsense. The reality is, the Southern Poverty Law Center is an advocacy group right now. The ADL is an advocacy group right now. Pro-illegal immigration, pro-open borders, both of you, ideologically�I understand that, and I can deal with that.
But the reality is, there is such a thing as the national interest. There is such a thing as the common good. And it�s not ethnocentric. It�s not group and identity politics. It�s all about this country, because this political system makes this economy possible. And the fact that people are starving in Mexico�and my heart goes out to them�the reality is there are five-and-a-half billion people in the world who are more impoverished than those folks in Mexico. And that land bridge does not give Felipe Calderon or Vicente Fox or any other group of activists the right to dictate the US immigration policy. That�s the reality.
hair Lawsuit evidence: Patti LaBelle Securty Assault YouTube 22 hours ago
Devils_Advocate
03-10 09:34 AM
No, the idea is; if you cry for gold you will atleast get silver. When the point is raised that people have been living here legally, paying taxes, SS, owning houses etc etc for 10 years!! what more is actually needed for citizenship?? The idea is to highlight that legal residents (many of them) have been here for ever!! 10 years is almost 15% of an average life span!! If only this thing is highlighted in some strong news papers. Isn't this protectionism at its worst. US is complaining about labor laws in China???? What the heck is this here??? You pay taxes and SS and medicare etc for 10 years and then you are asked to leave??????????? Isn't this slavery??? Either take of the requirement that workers on visas have to pay the required SS / medicare etc or assume responsibility for having taken their hard earned money and let them in as soon as possible into the society.
Giving an "expedited citizenship" is not like giving a stimulus check.
Over here if you cry for gold you wont get silver you'll get laughed out, see the context of the situation then apply relevant metaphors.
Yes if the point of this fruitless exercise is to "raise awareness" then its fine coz it might just do that and nothing else, but then hope you do know the difference between being "famous" and "infamous".
Again once you guys get your "expedited citizenship" please join the congress and change laws for all of us, and while you're at it change a law that requires the president to be US born so one of you can become the president as well :), since you know, changing laws is so easy in this country ;)
Giving an "expedited citizenship" is not like giving a stimulus check.
Over here if you cry for gold you wont get silver you'll get laughed out, see the context of the situation then apply relevant metaphors.
Yes if the point of this fruitless exercise is to "raise awareness" then its fine coz it might just do that and nothing else, but then hope you do know the difference between being "famous" and "infamous".
Again once you guys get your "expedited citizenship" please join the congress and change laws for all of us, and while you're at it change a law that requires the president to be US born so one of you can become the president as well :), since you know, changing laws is so easy in this country ;)
more...
ss777
06-17 07:12 AM
Option# 1 is better as there is trace of application being submitted and a receipt number to follow up with. With option# 2, you will never know how USCIS is treating your request.
hot Richard King#39;s Attorney Did
punjabi77
11-25 10:50 AM
I was absolutely pissed off with the "local" ppl that got greedy and dragged the whole economy with them. Seeing that there are ppl like you (one of us) who are pretty much the same, i am seething with rage. Because of idiots like you, people with a pristine credit history of more than ten years and some saved money cant buy a decent house in the bay area (and elsewhere) and have to see their hard-earned money go down the drain in 401k and stocks.....I wish ppl like you rot in foreclosure hell and no one ever lends credit you, ever again!!!
Boreal,
i dont know what are you talking about.. what do you mean local ppl and people like us..you are the first one to complain, having a good credit history and cannot buy a house in this big buyers market..what are you waiting for..
how many ppl "LIKE US" have you known who have gone for foreclosure..
person who has made downpayment and knows he will lose more money if he sells his house for a loss becuase he has to move because of employment.. will definately look for his options.
if it was an ideal situation..then one can sell his house within couple of months..
but because of this American dream, big homes, nice cars, which a person cannot afford, we are in this mess..
Btw.. i would say you would be one of the lucky ones right now who can afford a nice big house which you could not have imagined to afford couple yeara ago because of this housing crisis.. i dont really understand why you are complaing and getting "pissed off with the "local" ppl that got greedy and dragged the whole economy with them"
this thread is for those who are not greedy but want to explore their options within the legal limits..
Boreal,
i dont know what are you talking about.. what do you mean local ppl and people like us..you are the first one to complain, having a good credit history and cannot buy a house in this big buyers market..what are you waiting for..
how many ppl "LIKE US" have you known who have gone for foreclosure..
person who has made downpayment and knows he will lose more money if he sells his house for a loss becuase he has to move because of employment.. will definately look for his options.
if it was an ideal situation..then one can sell his house within couple of months..
but because of this American dream, big homes, nice cars, which a person cannot afford, we are in this mess..
Btw.. i would say you would be one of the lucky ones right now who can afford a nice big house which you could not have imagined to afford couple yeara ago because of this housing crisis.. i dont really understand why you are complaing and getting "pissed off with the "local" ppl that got greedy and dragged the whole economy with them"
this thread is for those who are not greedy but want to explore their options within the legal limits..
more...
house The B.B. King Blues Club
asdqwe2k
04-17 03:50 PM
I applied on Feb 12 and got my EAD yesterday.. This is my 4th EAD and from NSC.. I applied 3 1/2 months before my current one expires..
tattoo Patti LaBelle durante una
immi2006
06-26 01:26 AM
Folks,
This is the best I have come across :
husband files for himself - I 485
Wife files for herself - I 485
If one of the apps are approved, the other can Join.
No risks....
This is the best I have come across :
husband files for himself - I 485
Wife files for herself - I 485
If one of the apps are approved, the other can Join.
No risks....
more...
pictures Jerome Ersland and Richard
gc_wow
09-23 09:25 PM
EB3 has a significant drop, Most of ROw applicants are filing in EB2 these days thus offsetting any significant advantage in filing EB2. EB3 will be faster comapred to EB2 some time between 2014-2015, EB3 still gets 40000 of quota.
dresses Patti LaBelle Securty Assault
ramus
06-29 04:45 PM
wonder what would have made them change the dates? They even haven't seen any application yet?
more...
makeup Patti Labelle, Richard Pryor
shekhar10c
06-29 06:57 PM
Could it be that the AILA is talking about the 4th category and AILF's Legal Action Center is seeking plaintiffs - mainly 4th category that got their applications rejected?
I'm not getting this. If DOS/USCIS wants to retrogress the current dates then why they will wait for july2nd or 3rd. As they know people will file their applications by 29th june or they will try to deliver their applications by 2nd of july. So,if this rumour is really true then they would have posted revised bulletin in this week only , latest by today only, so that people will stop filling applications. So guys relax and keep doing whatever you were doing and file your applications by 2nd july.
There is nothing in our hands or even in lawyers.Lets wait n watch!!! keep hope
I'm not getting this. If DOS/USCIS wants to retrogress the current dates then why they will wait for july2nd or 3rd. As they know people will file their applications by 29th june or they will try to deliver their applications by 2nd of july. So,if this rumour is really true then they would have posted revised bulletin in this week only , latest by today only, so that people will stop filling applications. So guys relax and keep doing whatever you were doing and file your applications by 2nd july.
There is nothing in our hands or even in lawyers.Lets wait n watch!!! keep hope
girlfriend hot L) and Richard King (2nd
conchshell
07-09 07:02 PM
First: They will ignore you (that's what preciously happened for so many years, no ear eager to listen about the problems of legal immigrants)
Second: They will laugh at you (that's what is taking place. Instead of accepting the mistake and offering an apology, USCIS has only issued a statement about forwarding flowers to Army Medical Center)
Third: They fight with you (I guess that's what they are gonna do in the court)
Fouth: Finally you win.
So stay tuned guys ...... victory is not far away!!
Second: They will laugh at you (that's what is taking place. Instead of accepting the mistake and offering an apology, USCIS has only issued a statement about forwarding flowers to Army Medical Center)
Third: They fight with you (I guess that's what they are gonna do in the court)
Fouth: Finally you win.
So stay tuned guys ...... victory is not far away!!
hairstyles Patti Labelle
starscream
09-10 10:39 AM
Punjabi 77 - plz see the Private message i sent you - thnks
OH law website says that the bill will be introduced around 10.15 today morning.
So has any discussion started yet?
OH website also mentioned that there are around 500,000 visa unsed since 1990.
If HR5882 passes today's debate, where will it go then?
OH law website says that the bill will be introduced around 10.15 today morning.
So has any discussion started yet?
OH website also mentioned that there are around 500,000 visa unsed since 1990.
If HR5882 passes today's debate, where will it go then?
Michael chertoff
03-29 04:42 PM
Can you update your profile for a better EB community statistics?
Can you please ask snathan same thing.
Can you please ask snathan same thing.
krishnam70
07-10 06:19 PM
Just released on Reuters
Indian green card seekers in flowery U.S. protest by Paul Eckert Asia Correspondent
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-07-11T035044Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_India-284101-1.xml
we need to correct this reporter and ask him to edit the report , there are members and others from many nationalities who contributed to this flower campaign and not only indians
Indian green card seekers in flowery U.S. protest by Paul Eckert Asia Correspondent
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-07-11T035044Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_India-284101-1.xml
we need to correct this reporter and ask him to edit the report , there are members and others from many nationalities who contributed to this flower campaign and not only indians
No comments:
Post a Comment