amsgc
04-25 02:02 PM
I used AC21 twice. Both times I informed USCIS, EVL contained exact job description but different title. Did not have any AC21 related RFE and today got 'CP ordered email'. :) good luck to all!
Hope this helps...
Congrats!
Could you please tell us what those job titles were, starting from the original one?
Thanks
Hope this helps...
Congrats!
Could you please tell us what those job titles were, starting from the original one?
Thanks
wallpaper Santa With Kids Wallpaper
ajthakur
07-14 06:50 PM
How can you say dates will become current when I send the response.This could be a blessing for you.As your 485 file is now open depending upon your reply if IO is convinced he could easily mail out the GC to you as your dates would be current by the time he looks into your reply.Consult an attorney to frame a correct reply.
Good luck.
Good luck.
mrdelhiite
07-23 03:47 PM
485 is not for employer, its for employee. AOS.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
2011 Decorative Wallpapers for Kids
nousername
01-30 01:11 PM
Sorry to hear about your situation... I seriously hope and pray that your RFE is for a small issue like birth certificate or marriage document..
Good luck and keep us posted on the matter.
God Bless.
Good luck and keep us posted on the matter.
God Bless.
more...
matreen
10-28 11:42 PM
PD = Jan 29, 2007
I40 = Aprroved = April, 2007
485 = Receipt Date, July, 12 2007
I40 = Aprroved = April, 2007
485 = Receipt Date, July, 12 2007
speddi
07-18 10:01 AM
my application reached texas center on july 2nd at 10.23am .. I called USCIS today and the rep said they didnt enter the information into the system..he said it might take upto 30 days to start giving receipt notices because of the load of applications
more...
inskrish
02-22 12:41 AM
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
Excellent point. We need to make sure the 'information provider' is not victimized.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
Excellent point. We need to make sure the 'information provider' is not victimized.
2010 wallpapers for kids room 1
jonty_11
12-13 10:13 AM
Count me and 2 more members with me....lets have a plan..and execute it.
more...
shantanup
02-04 10:39 AM
Some questions to those who are supporting country cap.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students’ visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors’ visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners’ earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
Why not put a country cap on foreign students’ visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on H1B visas since many of them get into the green card line eventually?
Why not put a country cap on labor certifications?
Why not put a country cap on I-140s?
Why not impose a country cap at the port of entry?
Why not put a country cap on visitors’ visas?
Why not put a country cap on business visas?
Why not put a country cap on US trade with other countries?
Why not put a country cap on amount of US $ reserves that each country can have?
Why not put a country cap on children that foreigners in the US can bear?
Why not put a country cap on the foreigners’ earnings in the US?
.
.
.
And the list can go on.
Putting country cap on greens cards serves a hidden racist agenda of not letting the people of one particular ethnic group grow in number and become strong.
hair Tags: wallpapers kids.
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
more...
sc3
10-16 06:05 PM
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people’s answers.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
hot Wallpapers For Childrens
qesehmk
02-11 07:31 PM
So, according to you, what happens when no action is taken for assigned visa number?
What matters is number of visas used. Have you looked at the numbers?
I actually was saying I agreed w you. Read my post again... I was trying to say a few things over and above...
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
What matters is number of visas used. Have you looked at the numbers?
I actually was saying I agreed w you. Read my post again... I was trying to say a few things over and above...
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
more...
house wallpaper for kids rooms.
boreal
04-22 01:54 PM
Decipher and GSC999 have totally contradictory opinions . Not sure whom to believe here .:D . There seems to have been 2 sets of opinons here of the members who attended the rally.
Oh well!! Some things are going on in the background too and i was one of those ppl that shifted from the first group (disappointed) to the second group (optimistic) after talking with Aman. So, if you are not sure which group you are falling into, try calling someone in the core group.
Oh well!! Some things are going on in the background too and i was one of those ppl that shifted from the first group (disappointed) to the second group (optimistic) after talking with Aman. So, if you are not sure which group you are falling into, try calling someone in the core group.
tattoo Decorate Wallpapers For Kids
sunty
11-11 12:33 PM
In addition to sending the letter, we may try this avenue as well (look at the page bottom)
How to Contact Us (http://travel.state.gov/about/info/info_308.html)
"For immigrant visa inquiries, call the National Visa Center at 603-334-0700 or
email: NVCINQUIRY@state.gov"
Any idea if these is the correct number to call ?
Maybe inundating them with calls might help us reach Mr. Charles Oppenheim office and get some explaination about the visa allocation process.
I tried calling, but today is a Federal Holiday. Will try again tomorrow.
How to Contact Us (http://travel.state.gov/about/info/info_308.html)
"For immigrant visa inquiries, call the National Visa Center at 603-334-0700 or
email: NVCINQUIRY@state.gov"
Any idea if these is the correct number to call ?
Maybe inundating them with calls might help us reach Mr. Charles Oppenheim office and get some explaination about the visa allocation process.
I tried calling, but today is a Federal Holiday. Will try again tomorrow.
more...
pictures Kids Wallpapers - Set 01
jonty_11
12-13 10:13 AM
Count me and 2 more members with me....lets have a plan..and execute it.
dresses kids cried HQ wallpapers
Green.Tech
03-05 10:14 PM
I always believed that everyone out here is atleast a grad with a degree. Isn't it what the minimum requirement for EB Category 3 ?
Correct me if I am wrong.
Undergraduate degree = Bachelors
Graduate degree = Masters
Correct me if I am wrong.
Undergraduate degree = Bachelors
Graduate degree = Masters
more...
makeup kids bedroom wallpaper (6)
Munna Bhai
09-19 06:14 AM
Thank you IV and all volunteers that made this rally happen. It was very well organized and I really enjoyed being part of it!!
I really liked Murthy's speech. Short and to the point. "Legal" is the key.
I also liked Mark's little comedy act.
(Wish more would have shown up to show their support, but I guess some people are content waiting 10 or more years for their GC.)
Suggestions for improvement to next time:
1. I liked that the Chinese group joined the rally, but I didn't like their speaker. He was only talking about Chinese and Indian joining forces, and then making some kind of joke about IC chips are only made by Indians and Chinese. It's ok if you want to be an Indian/Chinese-only group, it is your choice. But if you want to change something about your green cards, you will fail with that attitude. You need to attract and change things for EVERYONE, or no one will listen to you. (If you want IV to be for everyone, IV needs to be more clear on that. There are so many Indians on the forums that ppl might think it is only for Indians.)
2. Minor things... Good job on the signs(!), but there were too many of them. Half would be enough. People had trouble focus on them.
Also, keep the message short. Max a few words. No one can, in a few seconds, read a moving sign containing 4 lines of text with 5 words on each, on an unknown subject. The poor people who tried to read them looked like near-sighted old men. Short and big letters is better. "Shorter wait for legals"
rather than
"Reduce the backlog for highly-skilled legal immigrants so we can live the American dream and not wait for 10 years"
But all in all, I was amazed how well everything was planned. The state flags was a nice touch. Flowers too. Water for the participants. Great! Even the nice DC cops blocking the roads for us seemed very happy with us. Following the law is what legals do...
This is correct!! I think, too many banners will distract..great feedback
I really liked Murthy's speech. Short and to the point. "Legal" is the key.
I also liked Mark's little comedy act.
(Wish more would have shown up to show their support, but I guess some people are content waiting 10 or more years for their GC.)
Suggestions for improvement to next time:
1. I liked that the Chinese group joined the rally, but I didn't like their speaker. He was only talking about Chinese and Indian joining forces, and then making some kind of joke about IC chips are only made by Indians and Chinese. It's ok if you want to be an Indian/Chinese-only group, it is your choice. But if you want to change something about your green cards, you will fail with that attitude. You need to attract and change things for EVERYONE, or no one will listen to you. (If you want IV to be for everyone, IV needs to be more clear on that. There are so many Indians on the forums that ppl might think it is only for Indians.)
2. Minor things... Good job on the signs(!), but there were too many of them. Half would be enough. People had trouble focus on them.
Also, keep the message short. Max a few words. No one can, in a few seconds, read a moving sign containing 4 lines of text with 5 words on each, on an unknown subject. The poor people who tried to read them looked like near-sighted old men. Short and big letters is better. "Shorter wait for legals"
rather than
"Reduce the backlog for highly-skilled legal immigrants so we can live the American dream and not wait for 10 years"
But all in all, I was amazed how well everything was planned. The state flags was a nice touch. Flowers too. Water for the participants. Great! Even the nice DC cops blocking the roads for us seemed very happy with us. Following the law is what legals do...
This is correct!! I think, too many banners will distract..great feedback
girlfriend Tags: wallpapers kids.
StuckInTheMuck
07-28 12:38 PM
Okay, from wine shop to religion to law to constitution, what next :)
Hmm, now I know, for me it is back to the wine shop - no intellectual quest though, just a simple thirst for quality alcohol.
Hmm, now I know, for me it is back to the wine shop - no intellectual quest though, just a simple thirst for quality alcohol.
hairstyles Anime Kids Wallpapers
saro28
07-12 06:48 PM
Same boat as you! Legally in this country for more than 11 years! Hope they approve on time. Debating whether to extend the EAD or wait for the card
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
makemygc
07-05 11:24 AM
I ask the doctor to treat me first but also make sure that my brother gets treatment too.It's just that for the past 15 days not one post reg people stuck in BEC's and one guy who started the thread of unfairness got bashed.Even then no announcement nothing from the core team.That's what bugs me.
I'm not trying to create a division.In fact I sympathise with everybody effected by VB ,all the money,effort,time that you have put in.I know I'll be next in line waiting to get in the roller coaster.I also know that core team is not answerable to anybody.
Peace..
Aries22...here is your answer from the core.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
If you are satisfied with the answer, I'll encourage you to bring other BECs brothers to join IV and contribute.
I'm not trying to create a division.In fact I sympathise with everybody effected by VB ,all the money,effort,time that you have put in.I know I'll be next in line waiting to get in the roller coaster.I also know that core team is not answerable to anybody.
Peace..
Aries22...here is your answer from the core.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6084
If you are satisfied with the answer, I'll encourage you to bring other BECs brothers to join IV and contribute.
FucTheGC
06-06 02:44 PM
My 485 packet went to Nebraska from where it was transferred to Texas. My I140 was approved from Texas too.
Mine is so similar to yours !! Jan 27 instead of Jan 29 and July 2 instead of Jul 13. VA instead of OH. Hope mine will get cleared soon. But God only knows when. :)
Mine is so similar to yours !! Jan 27 instead of Jan 29 and July 2 instead of Jul 13. VA instead of OH. Hope mine will get cleared soon. But God only knows when. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment