kumar4875
03-01 03:00 PM
Always try to go for group policy with your employer, even if you are paying 100% of the premium and your company is not contributing a dime. That way your premiums are lower than what you get from the open market...may be you do not have that option but good to know... I can vouch for Kaiser, they are very good.
I was using my employers policy where I had $1000 deductible and paying $1100 per month (2adults+2kids).I switched to BCBS for personal insuracne with $5000 out of pocket limits with $435 premium/month. my calcualtion was I pay $5000 as monthly premiusms + $5000 max deductible -$1000per month just like I was with my employer. At least we can see some saving until we have to spend some amount on healthcare as deductible+outofpocket expenses.So far luck is with me and hoping it will continue.
But Again --these plans keep on increasing their price yearly --So I am also looking for good plan in Maryland.When I compared from ehealthinsuranne.com BCBS had better plans than Kaiser.but Kaiser seems to be public choice here.
I was using my employers policy where I had $1000 deductible and paying $1100 per month (2adults+2kids).I switched to BCBS for personal insuracne with $5000 out of pocket limits with $435 premium/month. my calcualtion was I pay $5000 as monthly premiusms + $5000 max deductible -$1000per month just like I was with my employer. At least we can see some saving until we have to spend some amount on healthcare as deductible+outofpocket expenses.So far luck is with me and hoping it will continue.
But Again --these plans keep on increasing their price yearly --So I am also looking for good plan in Maryland.When I compared from ehealthinsuranne.com BCBS had better plans than Kaiser.but Kaiser seems to be public choice here.
immm
07-07 01:45 PM
(Admins, please delete this thread if already covered)
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/13765761p-14347307c.html
Our View: Feds play games with immigrants
They said they had an abundance of green cards and then rescinded the offer in a matter of weeks.
Last Updated: July 7, 2007, 03:16:02 AM PDT
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them. As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas." Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system." This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost. In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point? In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/13765761p-14347307c.html
Our View: Feds play games with immigrants
They said they had an abundance of green cards and then rescinded the offer in a matter of weeks.
Last Updated: July 7, 2007, 03:16:02 AM PDT
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them. As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas." Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system." This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost. In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point? In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
gceb3holder
02-27 06:50 AM
Yes it is possible, since until I find a job that I really like it will take some time, problably I can even negotiate to start after the 181th day.
Also, what would be the process? Does the new employer needs to notify INS that I am changing jobs? Os this can be done without advising anybody but the former employer?
Also, what would be the process? Does the new employer needs to notify INS that I am changing jobs? Os this can be done without advising anybody but the former employer?
whoever
07-20 01:56 PM
we did the same. it seems your marriage in india was just marriage ceremony and not legal marriage.
more...
ivgclive
05-02 08:31 AM
I was on I-485 status on my EB3 application working on EAD. My I140 for Eb2 application got approved today while also requesting porting of priority date.
I believe USCIS would have automatically switched the 485 application to use the new EB2 I-140 instead of old EB3-I140
Now my question I am ready to renew my EAD. I wanted if there will be any problem with my EAD application since it is now transfered to an Eb2 position.
My pririty date is still not current....
EAD is based on a pending I-485, you should go ahead to renew your EAD (as you work in EAD, do not let it expire). Consult a lawyer, send additional documentation along with the package that you have done so-and-so transfer.
I believe USCIS would have automatically switched the 485 application to use the new EB2 I-140 instead of old EB3-I140
Now my question I am ready to renew my EAD. I wanted if there will be any problem with my EAD application since it is now transfered to an Eb2 position.
My pririty date is still not current....
EAD is based on a pending I-485, you should go ahead to renew your EAD (as you work in EAD, do not let it expire). Consult a lawyer, send additional documentation along with the package that you have done so-and-so transfer.
Blog Feeds
09-01 10:00 PM
This is a recent update from the AILA Rome Chapter for the benefit of our readers. The State Department has substantially rewritten the FAM provisions relating to physical or mental disorders as medical grounds of inadmissibility. These significant changes, set forth at 9 FAM 40.11 N11, focus on physical or mental disorders with harmful behavior, and on substance-related disorders, corresponding to INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (iv), respectively.
The following is a summary of these sweeping revisions.
Introduction
As before, the mere presence of a physical or mental disorder does not by itself render a visa applicant inadmissible to the United States under 212(a)(1)(A)(iii). The trigger to inadmissibility is the presence of associated harmful behavior.
Key Concepts of Mental Health
In this new section, the Department defines the key concepts of physical and mental health disorders:
A "physical disorder" is a clinically diagnosed medical condition where the focus of attention is physical manifestations.
A "mental disorder" is a health condition characterized by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior.
"Harmful behavior" is an action associated with a physical or mental disorder that causes (or has caused) one or more of the following:
1. Serious injury (psychological or physical) to the foreign national or others. An example of harmful behavior to the foreign national is attempted suicide. An example of harmful behavior to others is pedophilia.
2. A serious threat to the health or safety of the foreign national or others. An example of a serious threat to both the foreign national and to others is driving while intoxicated.
3. Major property damage.
NOTE: The Department emphasizes the following principle: Only harmful behavior that is associated with a physical or mental disorder is relevant for the purpose of determining a medical inadmissibility.
A "substance-related disorder" can involve one of the following:
1. Substance dependence - compulsive long-term use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite significant problems (physical, social, and others).
2. Substance abuse - a pattern of recurrent use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite adverse consequences or impairment.
Remission in the context of mental or substance-related disorders is defined as "a period of at least 12 months during which no substance use or associated harmful behavior have occurred."
Class "A" medical conditions are those which render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa.
Class "B" medical conditions do not render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa, even though the applicant has a disease, disability or abnormality amounting to a substantial departure from well-being.
Alcohol Abuse or Dependence
The FAM changes stress that alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence constitutes a medical condition which can lead to inadmissibility. That said, a panel physician's diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence alone does not make an applicant ineligible to receive a visa unless there is evidence of associated harmful behavior which has, or is likely to pose a threat to the property, safety or welfare of the foreign national or others.
Consular officers are instructed to refer nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applicants to panel physicians if the applicant has a single alcohol-related arrest or conviction within the past five years, or if the applicant has two or more such arrests or convictions within the past decade. Officers should also refer applicants to panel physicians if, in the absence of DUI arrests or convictions, there is any other evidence to suggest that the visa applicant has an alcohol problem.
Role of the Panel Physician
Panel physicians have a central role in evaluating the existence of a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder that would render an applicant ineligible for a visa. In performing a medical examination, the panel physician is responsible (inter alia) for identifying and diagnosing physical or mental disorders (including alcohol-related disorders); identifying harmful behavior associated with a disorder; and determining the remission status of any previously diagnosed disorder.
Class "A" or Class "B" Medical Conditions
Panel physicians may make the following diagnoses with regard to applicants referred for examination:
Class "A": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior.
Class "A": The applicant has a disorder characterized by substance abuse or dependence.
Class "B": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with no associated harmful behavior.
Class "B": The applicant has a history of a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior which is unlikely to recur.
Class "B": The applicant's substance abuse or dependence is in full remission.
Neither "A" nor "B": The applicant has not been diagnosed as having a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder.
Waivers for Immigrant Visa Applicants
An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(i).
An immigrant visa applicant who objects on religious or moral grounds to receiving required vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(ii).
An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iii).
An immigrant visa applicant diagnosed with substance abuse or addiction is NOT eligible for waiver relief of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iv).
Waivers for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants
Consular officers may recommend waivers per 212(d)(3)(A) for any of the medical-related grounds of inadmissibility set forth in 212(a)(1)(A).
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/09/us_visa_denials_medical_ground.html)
The following is a summary of these sweeping revisions.
Introduction
As before, the mere presence of a physical or mental disorder does not by itself render a visa applicant inadmissible to the United States under 212(a)(1)(A)(iii). The trigger to inadmissibility is the presence of associated harmful behavior.
Key Concepts of Mental Health
In this new section, the Department defines the key concepts of physical and mental health disorders:
A "physical disorder" is a clinically diagnosed medical condition where the focus of attention is physical manifestations.
A "mental disorder" is a health condition characterized by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior.
"Harmful behavior" is an action associated with a physical or mental disorder that causes (or has caused) one or more of the following:
1. Serious injury (psychological or physical) to the foreign national or others. An example of harmful behavior to the foreign national is attempted suicide. An example of harmful behavior to others is pedophilia.
2. A serious threat to the health or safety of the foreign national or others. An example of a serious threat to both the foreign national and to others is driving while intoxicated.
3. Major property damage.
NOTE: The Department emphasizes the following principle: Only harmful behavior that is associated with a physical or mental disorder is relevant for the purpose of determining a medical inadmissibility.
A "substance-related disorder" can involve one of the following:
1. Substance dependence - compulsive long-term use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite significant problems (physical, social, and others).
2. Substance abuse - a pattern of recurrent use of alcohol or other psychoactive substance despite adverse consequences or impairment.
Remission in the context of mental or substance-related disorders is defined as "a period of at least 12 months during which no substance use or associated harmful behavior have occurred."
Class "A" medical conditions are those which render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa.
Class "B" medical conditions do not render a visa applicant ineligible for a visa, even though the applicant has a disease, disability or abnormality amounting to a substantial departure from well-being.
Alcohol Abuse or Dependence
The FAM changes stress that alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence constitutes a medical condition which can lead to inadmissibility. That said, a panel physician's diagnosis of alcohol abuse or dependence alone does not make an applicant ineligible to receive a visa unless there is evidence of associated harmful behavior which has, or is likely to pose a threat to the property, safety or welfare of the foreign national or others.
Consular officers are instructed to refer nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applicants to panel physicians if the applicant has a single alcohol-related arrest or conviction within the past five years, or if the applicant has two or more such arrests or convictions within the past decade. Officers should also refer applicants to panel physicians if, in the absence of DUI arrests or convictions, there is any other evidence to suggest that the visa applicant has an alcohol problem.
Role of the Panel Physician
Panel physicians have a central role in evaluating the existence of a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder that would render an applicant ineligible for a visa. In performing a medical examination, the panel physician is responsible (inter alia) for identifying and diagnosing physical or mental disorders (including alcohol-related disorders); identifying harmful behavior associated with a disorder; and determining the remission status of any previously diagnosed disorder.
Class "A" or Class "B" Medical Conditions
Panel physicians may make the following diagnoses with regard to applicants referred for examination:
Class "A": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior.
Class "A": The applicant has a disorder characterized by substance abuse or dependence.
Class "B": The applicant has a physical or mental disorder with no associated harmful behavior.
Class "B": The applicant has a history of a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior which is unlikely to recur.
Class "B": The applicant's substance abuse or dependence is in full remission.
Neither "A" nor "B": The applicant has not been diagnosed as having a physical or mental disorder or a substance-related disorder.
Waivers for Immigrant Visa Applicants
An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(i).
An immigrant visa applicant who objects on religious or moral grounds to receiving required vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(ii).
An immigrant visa applicant who is determined to have a physical or mental disorder with associated harmful behavior may be eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iii).
An immigrant visa applicant diagnosed with substance abuse or addiction is NOT eligible for waiver relief of the inadmissibility set forth in INA 212(a)(1)(A)(iv).
Waivers for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants
Consular officers may recommend waivers per 212(d)(3)(A) for any of the medical-related grounds of inadmissibility set forth in 212(a)(1)(A).
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/09/us_visa_denials_medical_ground.html)
more...
marmoren
07-24 11:52 AM
I am in Indianapolis. Also, let me know of meetings or initiatives in Indiana. I am willing to participate. This wait has been the longest of all.
anilsal
07-17 12:51 AM
But that idea may face long odds. AILA's Kuck says that current law prohibits green cards from one year to be used in other years. And he thinks there is no appetite in either Congress or the White House for writing new pro-immigration legislation, after the comprehensive immigration reform proposal went down in flames earlier this summer. "I don't think they'd touch the issue with a 10-foot pole," says Kuck. "This issue has become radioactive."
Which law prohibits usage of unused visa numbers? I guess that is one of our provisions that we are demanding. :)
Which law prohibits usage of unused visa numbers? I guess that is one of our provisions that we are demanding. :)
more...
vipul_pandey
12-11 02:37 PM
iv heard that it's taking long for extensions. some people I know of are waiting for over 3-4 months - although for you it seem to have taken even longer. If i were you - I would get it upgraded to premium. My extension got filed under premium and I got my approval notice in 15 days (as usual).
sundarraj_us
07-17 08:38 PM
IV Core Team - You have done a great job... No doubt about it.. I already said my sincere thanks to you guys in earlier post and would say it again - Thank You !!!!
BUT GUYS, dont you think we should thank USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez as well for honoring original July visa bulletin?
His comments from the bulletin sounds so honest
�The public reaction to the July 2 announcement made it clear that the federal government�s management of this process needs further review,� said Emilio Gonzalez, USCIS Director. �I am committed to working with Congress and the State Department to implement a more efficient system in line with public expectations.�
Everone is busy to appreciate work done by IV Core team, Zoe Lofgren, media and all IV team members.. But we are forgetting the man who signed off on the visa bulletin... without it, we wouldn't be celebrating...
Whatever happened on 07/02, it happened. I dont want to get into details of "why" the flipflop happened... But I sincerely thank Emilio Gonzalez for giving us the opportunity to file for I-485 with the old fee structure. Thank you, Sir.
I concur
BUT GUYS, dont you think we should thank USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez as well for honoring original July visa bulletin?
His comments from the bulletin sounds so honest
�The public reaction to the July 2 announcement made it clear that the federal government�s management of this process needs further review,� said Emilio Gonzalez, USCIS Director. �I am committed to working with Congress and the State Department to implement a more efficient system in line with public expectations.�
Everone is busy to appreciate work done by IV Core team, Zoe Lofgren, media and all IV team members.. But we are forgetting the man who signed off on the visa bulletin... without it, we wouldn't be celebrating...
Whatever happened on 07/02, it happened. I dont want to get into details of "why" the flipflop happened... But I sincerely thank Emilio Gonzalez for giving us the opportunity to file for I-485 with the old fee structure. Thank you, Sir.
I concur
more...
canleo98
11-11 09:56 PM
I renewed my passport from Indian SF consulate by mail. I had send my passport in Aug 2010 with Notarized supporting documents like photocopies of driving license and H1B. I did not notarize passport photos. I got my passport back after 5 weeks without any problem. Hope this helps.
pdakwala
02-24 04:29 PM
Hello everyone,
There is no need to get excited. How much we can achieve from this will depend on our efforts.
Please contribute to Immigration Voice if you really want something to come out from this markup. Be generous by the way.
Cheers
There is no need to get excited. How much we can achieve from this will depend on our efforts.
Please contribute to Immigration Voice if you really want something to come out from this markup. Be generous by the way.
Cheers
more...
marty
01-09 11:30 AM
We need to talk to our local govt. officials about the delay and discrepancy in the processing times published for the USCIS service centers. Please go to the following URLs and find out about your local govt. representative:
US House of Representatives
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
US Senate
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
I am providing you the text that you can use in your e-mail. Please also download the processing time for the service centers from the following URL:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/a014c1d/n/Processing_Time-11182008_pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail Subject
Delay and concerns about USCIS processing time updates
E-Mail Text
Dear [Name of your local representative]:
I am writing you in reference to the USCIS processing times updates on their web site at https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplay.do. Following are my concerns:
1. The last update on processing time was published on November 18, 2008. No update was made to the processing time since November 18, 2008.
2. There appears to be discrepancy between the dates the processing time is posted and the service center processing dates. Attached is the processing time report from November 18, 2008 for California Service Center, Nebraska Service Center, Texas Service Center, and Vermont Service center. Please notice the date processing time was posted was November 18, 2008 and the service center processing dates was given as of September 30, 2008.
I will appreciate if a corrective action is taken so that the processing times are published on time and the discrepancy between the date posted and service center processing date is addressed.
Thank you,
[Your Name]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Please let me know if anything else needs to be added to the e-mail text.
Thanks.
US House of Representatives
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
US Senate
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
I am providing you the text that you can use in your e-mail. Please also download the processing time for the service centers from the following URL:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/a014c1d/n/Processing_Time-11182008_pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail Subject
Delay and concerns about USCIS processing time updates
E-Mail Text
Dear [Name of your local representative]:
I am writing you in reference to the USCIS processing times updates on their web site at https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplay.do. Following are my concerns:
1. The last update on processing time was published on November 18, 2008. No update was made to the processing time since November 18, 2008.
2. There appears to be discrepancy between the dates the processing time is posted and the service center processing dates. Attached is the processing time report from November 18, 2008 for California Service Center, Nebraska Service Center, Texas Service Center, and Vermont Service center. Please notice the date processing time was posted was November 18, 2008 and the service center processing dates was given as of September 30, 2008.
I will appreciate if a corrective action is taken so that the processing times are published on time and the discrepancy between the date posted and service center processing date is addressed.
Thank you,
[Your Name]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Please let me know if anything else needs to be added to the e-mail text.
Thanks.
engineer
07-16 01:57 PM
Today, I spoke to a USCI Agent and his supervisor at NSC about my case..
I quizzed them about July 2007 revised visa bulletin etc.
He looked around, checked it for like 10 minutes and said HE DOESN'T HAVE
ANY MEMO. All he said that he has this MEMO which states that July 2007 (original) bulletin ..based on that EB1-3 for all countries are current.
:-) May be NSC approves application :-) as practically NO ONE can stop them..
Again this is based on my call to actual live human being at NSC..
I quizzed them about July 2007 revised visa bulletin etc.
He looked around, checked it for like 10 minutes and said HE DOESN'T HAVE
ANY MEMO. All he said that he has this MEMO which states that July 2007 (original) bulletin ..based on that EB1-3 for all countries are current.
:-) May be NSC approves application :-) as practically NO ONE can stop them..
Again this is based on my call to actual live human being at NSC..
more...
calgirl
08-15 07:54 PM
Folks,
If I contact a Senator and they probe TSC for status, will my lawyer or the firm come to know I initiated this?
Any ideas.?
Thanks.
Now that our PD dates will be current for more than 30 days (based on next months visa bulletin), can we use Odbumsman 7001 form
Or Can we expidetite the process, as when ever we call IO they give this BS explination saying that we can only expedite if your dates are current for more than 30 days and your file is still pending.
If I contact a Senator and they probe TSC for status, will my lawyer or the firm come to know I initiated this?
Any ideas.?
Thanks.
Now that our PD dates will be current for more than 30 days (based on next months visa bulletin), can we use Odbumsman 7001 form
Or Can we expidetite the process, as when ever we call IO they give this BS explination saying that we can only expedite if your dates are current for more than 30 days and your file is still pending.
laksmi
12-06 10:54 AM
Increasing H1B quota may not be the good choice, US Economy needs stability in immigration, immigrants should be issue with GreenCards for pending AOS and thereby people can invest to buy house and stay in this country.
more...
arunkotte
02-14 04:14 PM
MS + 0 years is fine for EB2. I got my PERM approved with MS+ 0 years. No one is trying to bypass the system!. We are trying to figure out the best possible avenue to get our GC.
hope_4_best
07-27 03:45 PM
[QUOTE=ajaykk]From the below FAQ2 just release by USCIS
Q21: Will USCIS permit applicants who filed adjustment applications between July 2, 2007 � July 17, 2007, but who have not yet received a USCIS generated receipt notice, to file for Advance Parole and Employment Authorization based on proof of delivery of the I-485 application?
A21. Yes.
Does this applies to the applications reached USCIS in June but receipt is not yet issued?
Q21: Will USCIS permit applicants who filed adjustment applications between July 2, 2007 � July 17, 2007, but who have not yet received a USCIS generated receipt notice, to file for Advance Parole and Employment Authorization based on proof of delivery of the I-485 application?
A21. Yes.
Does this applies to the applications reached USCIS in June but receipt is not yet issued?
chanduv23
09-15 04:22 PM
Bump
anjs
11-20 02:18 PM
I think there is nothing called State chapter link.. we have to come together and form a group.
Please reply to this thread and express your interest to join TN chapter.
I will consolidate.
Sorry. i did not saw your post until now.
I am in Knoxville.
One or two members from different cities in Tennessee posting on this thread.
Is any group formed for Tennessee.
Thanks
Suresh
Please reply to this thread and express your interest to join TN chapter.
I will consolidate.
Sorry. i did not saw your post until now.
I am in Knoxville.
One or two members from different cities in Tennessee posting on this thread.
Is any group formed for Tennessee.
Thanks
Suresh
dollargc
09-20 09:10 PM
My 140 was received at TSC on 23 APR 2007. I also have an lud 08/05 which is a sunday.
does anybody see a pattern.
I140 filed Apr 19 2007
I140 Approved Apr 23rd 2007
I485 filed ..on July 24th 2007 to TEXAS
LUD on I140 08/05/2007
does anybody see a pattern.
I140 filed Apr 19 2007
I140 Approved Apr 23rd 2007
I485 filed ..on July 24th 2007 to TEXAS
LUD on I140 08/05/2007
No comments:
Post a Comment