dummgelauft
09-23 08:38 AM
As long as greedy corporations like microsoft exist noting will happen to H1B program..its the economy that's it ..once it start moving up h1b will become l1b and the import of cheap labor starts once again .....you guys are just spreading fear nothing else ....
Just wait a couple of yeard for the things to improve a bit, "American Workers" will go right back to getting high on borrowed money, spending money that they don't have...this will all go away. Then, the focus will be..i don't know.....buying "stuff".
Plus, other countries are not sleeping any more. America started the outsourcing model and now, the hitherto underdeveloped economies have expanded their own industrial base and middle class. WHile US protectionism might hurt them in the short run, but they are much better prepared than they were, only a few years ago.
Druecken die daumen!!
Just wait a couple of yeard for the things to improve a bit, "American Workers" will go right back to getting high on borrowed money, spending money that they don't have...this will all go away. Then, the focus will be..i don't know.....buying "stuff".
Plus, other countries are not sleeping any more. America started the outsourcing model and now, the hitherto underdeveloped economies have expanded their own industrial base and middle class. WHile US protectionism might hurt them in the short run, but they are much better prepared than they were, only a few years ago.
Druecken die daumen!!
wallpaper Long Haircuts With Bangs And
sanjayc
10-15 02:49 PM
I saw the suggestion of asking lawyer to send AP while you travel to India without it. Although it sounds like a good idea but could be dangerous. I had a situation last year when I travelled to India with AP applied for but not approved. Unfortunately i had my old passport and visa damaged in India. When my lawyer wanted to expedite AP so that i can travel back as my old Visa was damaged and the only way to travel back was to use AP, they found out USCIS has issued an RFE on AP. Though RFP was trivial and they only wanted a clear copy of first page of passport and AP was approved immediately when it was submitted.
WeldonSprings
05-27 11:18 AM
I am starting a new thread ONLY for people who e-filed I-765 to NSC .
I e-filed at NSC on 14 Apr 2010. Received the receipt on 04/16/10 and had last LUD on 04/20/10. Waiting for approval
Are there other folks who applied around the same time as me and still have not seen approvals.
Please respond and update this thread periodically.
I e-filed at NSC on 14 Apr 2010. Received the receipt on 04/16/10 and had last LUD on 04/20/10. Waiting for approval
Are there other folks who applied around the same time as me and still have not seen approvals.
Please respond and update this thread periodically.
2011 long hair with angs and layers 2011. long hair with angs and layers 2011.
snthampi
08-17 12:40 PM
I have all proofs timesheets and bankstatements and email conversations. But, i am worried because he is threatening me saying he will go to court and sue me for working at the same client. Do i have chance to win the case if i fight back.
As your current employer is not the direct client of your former emplyer, they may not have a good case to sue you. They will threaten you to get something out of the situation. So, don't hurry and consult an attorney or get more information from some educated source on this type of matters. By the way, don't tell him what you will do. Just find out what he is trying to do and act accordingly. If you tell him that you will complain to DOL, he will be prepared to face it. Good luck.
As your current employer is not the direct client of your former emplyer, they may not have a good case to sue you. They will threaten you to get something out of the situation. So, don't hurry and consult an attorney or get more information from some educated source on this type of matters. By the way, don't tell him what you will do. Just find out what he is trying to do and act accordingly. If you tell him that you will complain to DOL, he will be prepared to face it. Good luck.
more...
puvathoor
02-17 09:02 AM
Even if Charles did say that EB2 India / China will have a cut off date of Dec 2003, how come the lawyers did not question him on this logic?
EB2 India was U from Feb 2008... The way I (and most people) interpreted that was that all visas for FY 2008 were used up... The possibility of new visas was only through spillover from other categories (or recapture of unused visas from other years).
What's happening here that after being moved to Jan 2000 before becoming U in Feb, suddenly things are moving all the way to 2003.
While I would love for this to happen, this seems to be a very remote possibility.
EB2 India was U from Feb 2008... The way I (and most people) interpreted that was that all visas for FY 2008 were used up... The possibility of new visas was only through spillover from other categories (or recapture of unused visas from other years).
What's happening here that after being moved to Jan 2000 before becoming U in Feb, suddenly things are moving all the way to 2003.
While I would love for this to happen, this seems to be a very remote possibility.
mchundi
03-15 12:30 PM
hi Super_Moderator,
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
Guys,
This is a complex issue. That one point may have been the reason S-1932 did not go thru. It gives an impression as if 1/2 million employment based G.C's will be dumped into the market, but in reality the USCIS is able to process around 200k G.C's per year.
The current provisions in the CIRB target several areas and likely to keep the dates current for EB-1,2,3 current for a couple of years.
Our consultants have advised us well in this regard, if they have done so.
--MC
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
Guys,
This is a complex issue. That one point may have been the reason S-1932 did not go thru. It gives an impression as if 1/2 million employment based G.C's will be dumped into the market, but in reality the USCIS is able to process around 200k G.C's per year.
The current provisions in the CIRB target several areas and likely to keep the dates current for EB-1,2,3 current for a couple of years.
Our consultants have advised us well in this regard, if they have done so.
--MC
more...
snathan
04-13 09:29 AM
Gurus, your inputs please: Can I take up a position in India with an American Firm while on H1B?
You can take any position anywhere with anyone...H1B is only if you want to work in the US
You can take any position anywhere with anyone...H1B is only if you want to work in the US
2010 long hair with angs and
obelix
03-02 11:38 AM
Looks like your PD is current. You might get your GC anytime. That is another factor I would consider if your GC gets approved before you get married.
Filing six months in advance seems to be a better idea.
Thanks for your input. I had incorrect information attached under my signature. I've not even started GC filing yet.
Filing six months in advance seems to be a better idea.
Thanks for your input. I had incorrect information attached under my signature. I've not even started GC filing yet.
more...
bsbawa10
09-29 08:41 PM
Extremely well put together. Can we send it to USCIS director so that it can make some impact ??
hair hair Long Curly Hairstyles With long haircuts with angs and layers. long
ajay
04-05 09:54 AM
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
The last updated date is 04/02/2009. Seems like they have updated something quite recently!!!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
The last updated date is 04/02/2009. Seems like they have updated something quite recently!!!
more...
vishwak
08-05 01:53 PM
I think this is like saying.....My friends drove on I-101 at 80 MPH and they never get Ticket. Ahhha....Immigration is like game and we never know when you get trapped.
Take advise of your Attorney, still you need to work on your own to get exact information....and correct way of doing.
I think person shouldn't leave country after applying AP and come back with AP which got approved while abroad.
Yes they can if they have VALID H1/H4 Visa stamping.
Thanks.....No offense guys.
VK.
Take advise of your Attorney, still you need to work on your own to get exact information....and correct way of doing.
I think person shouldn't leave country after applying AP and come back with AP which got approved while abroad.
Yes they can if they have VALID H1/H4 Visa stamping.
Thanks.....No offense guys.
VK.
hot hairstyles for long hair 2011
r2i2009
05-18 01:59 PM
Bullcrap....EB3 will become "U" in next one.
Too many Desis....too many competition for visa numbers....EAD is my GC for next 5 yrs.
Too many Desis....too many competition for visa numbers....EAD is my GC for next 5 yrs.
more...
house hot While long hair is in, long hair with angs and layers 2011. long hair
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.
tattoo hairstyles long hair layers with angs. long hair with angs and layers 2011.
pt326bc
09-27 10:36 AM
Same issue with me.
Different A# on I 140 and the I 485 receipt notice. The A# on the FP notice is the same as the I 485 receipt notice.
I have emailed the paralegal handling my case and she said she'll confirm with the lawyer and get back to me.
BTW my I 140 A# starts with 088 and the I 485 receipt notice starts with 094.
Don't know what that means.
Will keep you guys updated with whatever my lawyer sends me back.
Regards.
Different A# on I 140 and the I 485 receipt notice. The A# on the FP notice is the same as the I 485 receipt notice.
I have emailed the paralegal handling my case and she said she'll confirm with the lawyer and get back to me.
BTW my I 140 A# starts with 088 and the I 485 receipt notice starts with 094.
Don't know what that means.
Will keep you guys updated with whatever my lawyer sends me back.
Regards.
more...
pictures 2011 hairstyles for long hair
shsk
07-01 01:02 PM
My friend joined new company from Project Manager he got a job on Associate Director. When GC was filed he was developer :-)
dresses maintaining long hair):
wandmaker
07-12 08:46 PM
Our Current EAD is expiring on 10/01/2008. So we had applied for extension in june. On july 7th our application was approved and today we recieved our EAD cards. I was expecting a one year extension , which is until 10/01/2009. But USCIS send us ead cards that will expire on 01/01/2009.
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
You do not have to reapply, please call USCIS and let them know of this issue. CSR will tell you how to proceed further
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
You do not have to reapply, please call USCIS and let them know of this issue. CSR will tell you how to proceed further
more...
makeup Layers, Side Swept Bangs
MatsP
June 6th, 2005, 08:33 AM
Thanks. I will go back and reshoot this and experiment a bit. The scene wasn't lit by harsh light - high cloud as I recall. I actually deepended the shadows intentionally in the PS CS2 RAW converter - the original wasn't as contrasty. What is interesting is that while the actual exposure of the blown area should be well within tolerances (If I were still shooting B&W film I would have guessed it at around zone 8) it is just the one colour that is blown - and yellow is not one of the 3 channels so it must have actualy been 2 colours. I will have to keep an eye on my histogram display because I don't have the $ for a 1DSMkII!
Photoshop can show you a histogram of an individual colour. Ok, so it's not as good as viewing it on the camera when you shoot, but it's better than not being able to see it at all.... Also, you can view histogram for a portion of the image in Photoshop by selecting a portion and viewing that.
You could also view in R/G/B separately in PS by selecting that channel only... That way, you'll see the yellow on it's own.
Note that Yellow is a combination of RED and GREEN in the camera (as it's "not BLUE"), so look at both green and red in PS.
--
Mats
--
Mats
Photoshop can show you a histogram of an individual colour. Ok, so it's not as good as viewing it on the camera when you shoot, but it's better than not being able to see it at all.... Also, you can view histogram for a portion of the image in Photoshop by selecting a portion and viewing that.
You could also view in R/G/B separately in PS by selecting that channel only... That way, you'll see the yellow on it's own.
Note that Yellow is a combination of RED and GREEN in the camera (as it's "not BLUE"), so look at both green and red in PS.
--
Mats
--
Mats
girlfriend haircuts for long hair with
geesee
08-22 03:26 PM
Paskal:
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
saravanaraj -
Would you consider riding a bus?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12567
Please vote!
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
saravanaraj -
Would you consider riding a bus?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12567
Please vote!
hairstyles Long hair with angs 2011 wear
ata1234
07-13 09:07 PM
Dear friends, you are participating into this rally not for your own benefit but also you are helping huge community. All the best!
Sri_
02-29 09:06 AM
How can one find his/her receipt date if they dont have copy of their receipt notice, just the receipt notice?
Take the infopass appointment. Tell them your 485 receipt number and request them for Receipt Date & Notice Date. In the initial screen, I think officer can only see Notice Date. Then request them for Receipt date, then I think they can dig the info and find the info.
Few officers are not aware and they say that there will be only one date i.e. 'Notice Date', you should tell them the difference between Notice Date & Receipt Date, then they will try to look. This happened to me, So I showed them my I-140 receipt and explained the difference. Then the officer got convinced to check for Receipt Date for 485 in the system.
Thanks
Take the infopass appointment. Tell them your 485 receipt number and request them for Receipt Date & Notice Date. In the initial screen, I think officer can only see Notice Date. Then request them for Receipt date, then I think they can dig the info and find the info.
Few officers are not aware and they say that there will be only one date i.e. 'Notice Date', you should tell them the difference between Notice Date & Receipt Date, then they will try to look. This happened to me, So I showed them my I-140 receipt and explained the difference. Then the officer got convinced to check for Receipt Date for 485 in the system.
Thanks
blacktongue
01-20 08:00 AM
Don't EB3 have no example to show?
No comments:
Post a Comment