Mouns
04-30 03:37 PM
And the situation prior to surge wasnt any better either. I remember in 2006, the PD for India EB3 was April 2001 and now its Nov 2001. :mad:
This was directed to people who were current. If you are from India, China, Mexico, Philippines, get used to waiting. Your backlog is due to numerical limits. And this won't change (the way I see it)
This was directed to people who were current. If you are from India, China, Mexico, Philippines, get used to waiting. Your backlog is due to numerical limits. And this won't change (the way I see it)
wallpaper Animated Birthday Wishes
chanduv23
03-03 04:45 PM
Everyone feel like giving up but none of us give up :)
True - it applies to everyone. The difference is, some people look at it as fate, some people try to do best out of it and some try to do something for betterment. IV and some serious IV members are of the third type whereas the reast of folks are first and second types :)
True - it applies to everyone. The difference is, some people look at it as fate, some people try to do best out of it and some try to do something for betterment. IV and some serious IV members are of the third type whereas the reast of folks are first and second types :)
wantgc23
04-24 02:50 PM
Hi pappu/admin,
I just signed up for $25 per month contributions, Can you please allow me Donor access when you get a chance.
Thanks!
wantgc23
I just signed up for $25 per month contributions, Can you please allow me Donor access when you get a chance.
Thanks!
wantgc23
2011 happy irthday animated gif.
ragz4u
03-16 03:29 PM
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today reached agreement on proposals for a new guest-worker program and a plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to become permanent residents.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
Less than 24 hours after most experts and Capitol Hill watchers believed the committee would be unable to get a bill to the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist's March 27 deadline, committee Chairman Arlen Specter had brokered deals between some key senators on the complex issue.
No formal votes were taken and committee staffs were preparing to spend the next 10 days drafting language that would put in place the compromises reached. It appeared that at least a dozen of the 18 members on the panel would be prepared to back this deal. The committee plans to meet first thing in the morning on March 27. It is not yet known whether Frist will allow the panel to finish and send its bill to the Senate floor or if he still plans to bring up a more limited, possibly enforcement-only measure.
But even if nothing scuttles the compromise between now and when lawmakers get back from recess, and if the Senate passes a bill with these elements, there would remain a steep battle to get agreement from the House. The House passed an enforcement-based measure in December that doesn't include a guest-worker program or a plan for undocumented immigrants in the United States now.
Early this afternoon, Frist announced his intention to introduce a bill before next week’s recess that would deal with enforcement of immigration laws but will not include any of the controversial guest-worker or illegal immigrant provisions. Officials in Frist’s office say he is doing this to ensure that there is a bill ready on the floor if the committee fails to pass one. If Specter does get a bill out of committee, said Frist press secretary Amy Call, that could be substituted for the majority leader’s measure.
The most likely scenario, said ardent supporters of immigration reform who were pleasantly stunned by today's events, is that this will end in a stalemate, only to be brought up again in the next Congress. But they say it's important that the Senate go on record as supporting comprehensive change.
For the first time, Specter, R-Pa., who said he spent hours on the phone last night with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed to Kennedy's plan to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Specter would have allowed these people to work indefinitely but not get green cards. Kennedy wanted to give them a path to legalization.
Specter agreed this morning with Kennedy's approach, provided that these illegal immigrants would not be able to start legalization proceedings until the backlog of 3 million people now waiting in countries around the world for their chance to come to the United States legally get their green cards.
The deal reached on a new guest-worker plan says that 400,000 new guest workers would be allowed into the country each year. Under the proposal authored by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that number would have been unlimited. But Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, agreed to a cap and also agreed that after working for two years, these new guest workers would have to go back to their home countries and reapply for another stint as guest workers, one that could last up to six years. But first they'd have to stay in their home countries for one year.
Built into this compromise, however, is a chance for these workers to get a waiver and not go home based on how long they have been employed here or if they are considered essential to a U.S. employer's business.
The plan also allows guest workers to apply for permanent U.S. residency, something not included in either Specter's bill or the other major proposal under consideration, the bill by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Kennedy essentially compromised with Cornyn, who chairs the immigration subcommittee. The deal takes parts of each of their proposals.
Not all members of the committee agreed with these compromises.
Kyl said he still believed the illegal immigrants would get preference over those waiting legally in line overseas because the undocumented would be able to stay in the U.S. and work until their turn at a green card came. Those waiting to come here legally don't have that option, he said.
And several committee members most opposed to a guest-worker program – most notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., were not at this morning's session.
more...
Sachin_Stock
08-23 09:42 AM
So I am guessing that there's no significant change in policy towards EB-2 from what appears in the memo. They are merely reiterating on what exists. Lets not sweat.
yabadaba
07-11 01:23 PM
And those who had applied in PERM in 2005, got their GCs already..
I know a few who applied in PERM as soon it was introduced and got their
GCs last year.
not completely true...if people had filed their i-140 and i-485 before retrogression in 2005 (that means perm was approved before september 2005), they got their gcs last year, people like me with priority dates in sept 2005 (due to the general incompetencies that we have all experienced) were able to file only in july 2007.
I know a few who applied in PERM as soon it was introduced and got their
GCs last year.
not completely true...if people had filed their i-140 and i-485 before retrogression in 2005 (that means perm was approved before september 2005), they got their gcs last year, people like me with priority dates in sept 2005 (due to the general incompetencies that we have all experienced) were able to file only in july 2007.
more...
nandini
09-06 09:29 AM
15 years and 2 months. Arrived in US in June 1995. Includes 6 years on J1 and 9 years on H1. Been thru all possible problems-employer closing shop in the middle of waiver, scrambling to find another waiver position, labor stuck in back log , lost priority date, new PERM and labor from 2006 and then applied 485 in july 2007 .
I made a lot of mistakes, lost opportunities but there there were a lot of things beyond my control...
Received approval email on 9/4/2010
I made a lot of mistakes, lost opportunities but there there were a lot of things beyond my control...
Received approval email on 9/4/2010
2010 Happy Birthday PINKY
chanduv23
11-17 02:26 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but is this something we can ask clarification from CIS Ombudsman? Its real confusing:confused:
Some updates: I talked to two different lawyers and both advised differently on this issue. In fact I got the impression that one of them didn't have much clue as much as some experienced IV members have. (He said if job titles are different than you have issues...) There are many people hanging on to their current employer due to confusion on this issue and potential effect on pending GC.
and the great question continues to haunt: can a person keep working legally on EAD status if his/hers I-485 gets revoked in error by CIS? or he will be forced to resign from a new job when his MTR is being filed or in progress??? This is really killing me. Who has the answer? if anyone knows, please please share!
lazycis, chanduv - anyone to comment on above new information???
My blog was based on Attorney Rajiv Khanna's interpretation. We need to definitely nail this out. Any experts?
Some updates: I talked to two different lawyers and both advised differently on this issue. In fact I got the impression that one of them didn't have much clue as much as some experienced IV members have. (He said if job titles are different than you have issues...) There are many people hanging on to their current employer due to confusion on this issue and potential effect on pending GC.
and the great question continues to haunt: can a person keep working legally on EAD status if his/hers I-485 gets revoked in error by CIS? or he will be forced to resign from a new job when his MTR is being filed or in progress??? This is really killing me. Who has the answer? if anyone knows, please please share!
lazycis, chanduv - anyone to comment on above new information???
My blog was based on Attorney Rajiv Khanna's interpretation. We need to definitely nail this out. Any experts?
more...
Kodi
06-21 11:44 AM
I think what he meant is 20 since Jan till now. My attorney has 10 pending and the oldest is from Feb.
hair free e animated birthday cards
GOTGC
07-24 03:09 PM
makes no sense.....
EB3 India setp 2006 wasnt even current in Jun 2007....
Since LuckyPaji mentioned his brother came on investors visa, I'm thinking even he applied under INVESTOR CATEGORY-EB5..
Probably he is right that he got EAD, 140 and 485 receit notices etc...:) ..
Anyway he is not sure about his category..So it could be EB5 which was NEVER retrogressed..
EB3 India setp 2006 wasnt even current in Jun 2007....
Since LuckyPaji mentioned his brother came on investors visa, I'm thinking even he applied under INVESTOR CATEGORY-EB5..
Probably he is right that he got EAD, 140 and 485 receit notices etc...:) ..
Anyway he is not sure about his category..So it could be EB5 which was NEVER retrogressed..
more...
pankajkakkar
08-08 12:08 PM
I sent you one in a PM a few minutes ago.
Pankaj
Pankaj
hot Happy Birthday Animation
grimus
07-20 08:23 AM
Any more news on this? anyone please.
more...
house Orkut Birthday Image : Cartoon
Jaime
09-12 04:45 PM
Will do more tonight
tattoo irthday images animated.
GC Process
12-04 05:01 PM
Hi Jimi,
I live in O.C as well. Lets connect! Send me an IM with your contact details.
Thks!
I live in O.C as well. Lets connect! Send me an IM with your contact details.
Thks!
more...
pictures Birthday Dance, Animation,
smuggymba
08-23 08:26 AM
Does it mean the eligibility criteria/job requirement for EB2 is changed from 5 to 10 years?
I don't know but I'm scared now....My attorney is filing 140 this week and I was planning on premium processing.
Is this memo in effect already or what? Can someone throw more light on this?
I don't know but I'm scared now....My attorney is filing 140 this week and I was planning on premium processing.
Is this memo in effect already or what? Can someone throw more light on this?
dresses Animated happy irthday orkut
IneedAllGreen
09-27 02:14 PM
Came to USA in March 2000. First company never filed for GC in 2000 and 2001 year. Lost job in 2001. Got consulting work in another state. Later joined 3rd company in 2002.
1st EB3 Labor - Filed on Feb - 2004 in 3rd company in USA
(Labor Gone to backlog and lost job before it sees any light)
2nd EB2 Labor - Nov - 2006 - in 4th company in USA.
(Applied I-140 on Jan -2007- Got denied on May-2009 after two RFE's.)
(Appealed I-140 on June - 2009...still waiting for their response)
RFE was about my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree) for Eb2 case.
(Applied for 485 for me and my wife during July Fiasco)
Never used EAD anytime.
(I am going to bear all cost of GC process)
3rd Eb3 Labor - Jan 2010
(Applied I-140 Aug 2010 - Got approved)
Waiting for date to be current for I-485..waiting for another July(any month) fiasco :rolleyes:
(Again I am going bear all cost of GC process)..some Green dream hmmm
During all these time I am on H1B. Changed 4 companies and 3 states in USA.
1st EB3 Labor - Filed on Feb - 2004 in 3rd company in USA
(Labor Gone to backlog and lost job before it sees any light)
2nd EB2 Labor - Nov - 2006 - in 4th company in USA.
(Applied I-140 on Jan -2007- Got denied on May-2009 after two RFE's.)
(Appealed I-140 on June - 2009...still waiting for their response)
RFE was about my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree) for Eb2 case.
(Applied for 485 for me and my wife during July Fiasco)
Never used EAD anytime.
(I am going to bear all cost of GC process)
3rd Eb3 Labor - Jan 2010
(Applied I-140 Aug 2010 - Got approved)
Waiting for date to be current for I-485..waiting for another July(any month) fiasco :rolleyes:
(Again I am going bear all cost of GC process)..some Green dream hmmm
During all these time I am on H1B. Changed 4 companies and 3 states in USA.
more...
makeup Happy Birthday Animated Images
hydubadi
03-04 02:13 PM
Hello All,
NSC --> EB2 I Oct 2006 -->485 June 2007 filer --> LUD on mine 03/03/2009 --LUD and RFE on my wifes 03/04/2009 (RFE email from USCIS says: Current Status: Request for Additional Evidence Sent not sure what it evidence they need, recently we have made name change amendment on EAD for my wife, I am assuming it should be related to that, will wait and see till we can hard copy of RFE)
Thanks,
Hope we all get our GC soon!!!
NSC --> EB2 I Oct 2006 -->485 June 2007 filer --> LUD on mine 03/03/2009 --LUD and RFE on my wifes 03/04/2009 (RFE email from USCIS says: Current Status: Request for Additional Evidence Sent not sure what it evidence they need, recently we have made name change amendment on EAD for my wife, I am assuming it should be related to that, will wait and see till we can hard copy of RFE)
Thanks,
Hope we all get our GC soon!!!
girlfriend hairstyles animated birthday
bidhanc
03-10 05:42 PM
vparam/ anyone,
i have 2 questions
when i move into my own LLC how far do I need to go in terms of documents/ pay-stubs to prove to the USCIS that it's a legitimate company/ job offer? i guess i am a bit confused as to how to present to USCIS my dual role as owner/ employee with 140 job description?
also from your experiences is it practical (in terms of taxation) to just run your own payroll (from consulting) through your LLC - meaning you are the only employee in your company?
thanks in advance,
manderson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref (Murthy): " Foreign nationals can port their cases to a self-employed position! This is a very favorable stance, as many foreign nationals desire to establish their own companies and, in that way, control their own destinies. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong among many immigrants. The Memo reiterates the need to show that the new position or job is the same or similar. It also states that the new employer and job offer must be legitimate.
�MurthyDotCom
In these situations, the USCIS is to focus upon whether the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed. That is, the petitioning company must have intended to employ the foreign national beneficiary and the foreign national beneficiary must have intended to accept the position at the time of filing the I-140 and the I-485."
Source: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
I think the 2nd paragraph means USCIS might want additional RFEs from your 140 employer later on to prove that original 140 employment offer was valid.
From the above paragraph (quoted on Murthy site), it seems that it would be very much possible to just get self-employed (of course job description should be same and legal).
But here are the Questions:
1). How will USCIS be convinced that the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed??
2). How do you prove to USCIS that the original job offer was something that you intended to take on getting your GC?
From the below excerpt (same Murthy site and part of above doc)
Ability of New Sponsor to Pay
m
The Memo clarifies that there should not be requests for "ability to pay" proof from the new sponsor as part of the I-140 approval process. However, the Memo does state that it would be appropriate to check the legitimacy of the new employer and the job offer in connection with the I-485 approval. So, the new employer may have to show financial viability and prove that there is a valid job offer in order for the foreign national employee and any family members to obtain the I-485 approval.
Questions:
3).Doesn�t the above mean that USCIS will still check to see if your (lets say) spouse�s company or start-up company has the ability to pay you?
4). So, even though USCIS is saying �Yes� to self employment, will they (excerpt from mandersons musings)
�..ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not supposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...)???
i have 2 questions
when i move into my own LLC how far do I need to go in terms of documents/ pay-stubs to prove to the USCIS that it's a legitimate company/ job offer? i guess i am a bit confused as to how to present to USCIS my dual role as owner/ employee with 140 job description?
also from your experiences is it practical (in terms of taxation) to just run your own payroll (from consulting) through your LLC - meaning you are the only employee in your company?
thanks in advance,
manderson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref (Murthy): " Foreign nationals can port their cases to a self-employed position! This is a very favorable stance, as many foreign nationals desire to establish their own companies and, in that way, control their own destinies. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong among many immigrants. The Memo reiterates the need to show that the new position or job is the same or similar. It also states that the new employer and job offer must be legitimate.
�MurthyDotCom
In these situations, the USCIS is to focus upon whether the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed. That is, the petitioning company must have intended to employ the foreign national beneficiary and the foreign national beneficiary must have intended to accept the position at the time of filing the I-140 and the I-485."
Source: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html
I think the 2nd paragraph means USCIS might want additional RFEs from your 140 employer later on to prove that original 140 employment offer was valid.
From the above paragraph (quoted on Murthy site), it seems that it would be very much possible to just get self-employed (of course job description should be same and legal).
But here are the Questions:
1). How will USCIS be convinced that the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed??
2). How do you prove to USCIS that the original job offer was something that you intended to take on getting your GC?
From the below excerpt (same Murthy site and part of above doc)
Ability of New Sponsor to Pay
m
The Memo clarifies that there should not be requests for "ability to pay" proof from the new sponsor as part of the I-140 approval process. However, the Memo does state that it would be appropriate to check the legitimacy of the new employer and the job offer in connection with the I-485 approval. So, the new employer may have to show financial viability and prove that there is a valid job offer in order for the foreign national employee and any family members to obtain the I-485 approval.
Questions:
3).Doesn�t the above mean that USCIS will still check to see if your (lets say) spouse�s company or start-up company has the ability to pay you?
4). So, even though USCIS is saying �Yes� to self employment, will they (excerpt from mandersons musings)
�..ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not supposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...)???
hairstyles Happy Birthday with love
logiclife
07-20 01:34 PM
UPDATE : 7.20.07 12:10 PM PST
I need more people to stand up and commit to video campaign also. Come on guys, if this had any risk involved, I would not tell you to do this. I have myself put videos in past (for a different purpose). I am on my H1 too. If there was risk involved, I wouldnt do that. I am not crazy and I love my status and my prospects for GC too.
If USCIS had been going after people just for speaking out in media, then the entire core group's 140s and 485s would have been rejected. USCIS does not have time, interest or legal grounds to care about who does what. Their job is to follow procedure listed in Adjudicator's field manual and work as per federal laws and regulations. Denials of 140s and 485s or labor cert need to fall under one or other category of federal regulation. They also need to be cited on denial notice. You cant just deny someone's 140 because you dont LIKE the extra carricular activities of person. You are dealing with a Democracy here. Not the 15th century Mughal emperor where the jahan-panah (the emperor) can put someone on trial, convict and sentence upon whim without any due process and where the roles of judge, prosecutor and jury are all fused together into one person. There is a reason why there is an independent judiciary in any reasonable democracy.
If this were something illegal, yes you would be in trouble. If its legal, you are not in trouble no matter what.
If you do something illegal, then no matter how secretly you do it, it will affect your GC or citizenship. Even after you get GC or citizenship, if you do ILLEGAL STUFF, then yes, those privileges can be revoked. If everything you do is LEGAL, then NO, NOTHING will happen to you.
Kindly draw the lines of what you choose to do and choose not to do along the lines of LAW, and not along the lines of "What might or might not offend someone".
If you are constantly afraid of offending someone, then the sad news is that you wont be able to accomplish much of anything in life, EVEN AFTER getting GC and citizenship.
There is no such thing as secret protest.
If the only protest is the only inside your head, then I dont think Congress is going to get the message. That's because Congress does not read minds. It can hardly keep up with letters and webfaxes so I doubt that the grievances inside your head that you intend to keep private will do you any good. You need to speak up publicly.
I need more people to stand up and commit to video campaign also. Come on guys, if this had any risk involved, I would not tell you to do this. I have myself put videos in past (for a different purpose). I am on my H1 too. If there was risk involved, I wouldnt do that. I am not crazy and I love my status and my prospects for GC too.
If USCIS had been going after people just for speaking out in media, then the entire core group's 140s and 485s would have been rejected. USCIS does not have time, interest or legal grounds to care about who does what. Their job is to follow procedure listed in Adjudicator's field manual and work as per federal laws and regulations. Denials of 140s and 485s or labor cert need to fall under one or other category of federal regulation. They also need to be cited on denial notice. You cant just deny someone's 140 because you dont LIKE the extra carricular activities of person. You are dealing with a Democracy here. Not the 15th century Mughal emperor where the jahan-panah (the emperor) can put someone on trial, convict and sentence upon whim without any due process and where the roles of judge, prosecutor and jury are all fused together into one person. There is a reason why there is an independent judiciary in any reasonable democracy.
If this were something illegal, yes you would be in trouble. If its legal, you are not in trouble no matter what.
If you do something illegal, then no matter how secretly you do it, it will affect your GC or citizenship. Even after you get GC or citizenship, if you do ILLEGAL STUFF, then yes, those privileges can be revoked. If everything you do is LEGAL, then NO, NOTHING will happen to you.
Kindly draw the lines of what you choose to do and choose not to do along the lines of LAW, and not along the lines of "What might or might not offend someone".
If you are constantly afraid of offending someone, then the sad news is that you wont be able to accomplish much of anything in life, EVEN AFTER getting GC and citizenship.
There is no such thing as secret protest.
If the only protest is the only inside your head, then I dont think Congress is going to get the message. That's because Congress does not read minds. It can hardly keep up with letters and webfaxes so I doubt that the grievances inside your head that you intend to keep private will do you any good. You need to speak up publicly.
reddymjm
03-03 03:46 PM
Looks like MDix is making fun of EB3-I bcoz current law doesn't allow any spillover for EB3-I category. Damn you MDix.
Law never changed. Its how USCIS interprets it.
Law never changed. Its how USCIS interprets it.
fruity
07-22 06:27 PM
I am glad to see sked A here. I have been following this forum for a long time now and there is nothing for healthcare prof though the discussions were very helpful. As I can see it, the july VB put benefits on those going through AOS but as a result those whom I know who are scheduled for interview in their home countries in AUg. was cancelled.
No comments:
Post a Comment