akred
07-04 11:33 PM
If both parents are Indian citizens, then the child is eligible for primary citizenship of India.
This is not true. The Indian citizenship rules were changed sometime in 2003 so that children are not eligible citizenship if the birth was not registered within 1 year or if the child has taken some other passport. These children can get Indian citizenship only after attaining 18 years and renouncing the foreign citizenship.
I think like many Indian government rules, the OCI rules have not been thought out properly.
This is not true. The Indian citizenship rules were changed sometime in 2003 so that children are not eligible citizenship if the birth was not registered within 1 year or if the child has taken some other passport. These children can get Indian citizenship only after attaining 18 years and renouncing the foreign citizenship.
I think like many Indian government rules, the OCI rules have not been thought out properly.
wallpaper CALYPSO amp; ODYSSEUS Photo Mugs
gg_ny
03-19 08:27 AM
people can be so dumb...
it is better to wait for PD to become current than to convince some people (who seem to own houses-and hence are bent on opposing--wake up guys ..real estate is dead )
At last.. you got this self-realization. I have been trying to tell this in a more polished way ever since this thread was started
it is better to wait for PD to become current than to convince some people (who seem to own houses-and hence are bent on opposing--wake up guys ..real estate is dead )
At last.. you got this self-realization. I have been trying to tell this in a more polished way ever since this thread was started
crazyghoda
01-14 08:47 PM
I agree, you will be competing with all the illegals. But.....
1. How likely are they to file their apps on the first allowable day that USCIS will accept the applications? Not very. Most of us know what's going on and will be ready to send in our apps first. Ofcourse if some EB based guy is pottering around instead of moving fast, thats his problem.
2. How many illegals can afford the high priced attorneys? Most of these poor guys dont know to speak, read or write english, forget about filing out USCIS forms.
3. How many illegals maintain perfect records of their time and can recreate a paper trail of the time they spent in the US. I certainly can and most legal wannabe immigrants can definitely prove the time they have been here (paystubs, utility bills, credit card statements, bank statements, etc.)
The point I am making is - this is the best option I have seen in a long time. Even the stupid point based system had its drawbacks. This is unconditional. It will get vast support from the hispanic community also. The UK has the same thing. Be on a work permit for 5 years and then you are eligible to apply for Permanent Residency. I believe there is also some clause in the UK system that states that you have to have been in the UK illegally for 10 years as against 5 years for a legal immigrant. I'm sure setting the illegal bar at 10 years and legal bar at 5 would be acceptable for most people.
If we reapply under this section, we will be competing with the massive illegal-to-AOS guys based on our Receipt date for adjudication.
1. How likely are they to file their apps on the first allowable day that USCIS will accept the applications? Not very. Most of us know what's going on and will be ready to send in our apps first. Ofcourse if some EB based guy is pottering around instead of moving fast, thats his problem.
2. How many illegals can afford the high priced attorneys? Most of these poor guys dont know to speak, read or write english, forget about filing out USCIS forms.
3. How many illegals maintain perfect records of their time and can recreate a paper trail of the time they spent in the US. I certainly can and most legal wannabe immigrants can definitely prove the time they have been here (paystubs, utility bills, credit card statements, bank statements, etc.)
The point I am making is - this is the best option I have seen in a long time. Even the stupid point based system had its drawbacks. This is unconditional. It will get vast support from the hispanic community also. The UK has the same thing. Be on a work permit for 5 years and then you are eligible to apply for Permanent Residency. I believe there is also some clause in the UK system that states that you have to have been in the UK illegally for 10 years as against 5 years for a legal immigrant. I'm sure setting the illegal bar at 10 years and legal bar at 5 would be acceptable for most people.
If we reapply under this section, we will be competing with the massive illegal-to-AOS guys based on our Receipt date for adjudication.
2011 Homer Revisited – Odysseus and
hopein07
02-20 04:17 PM
I have been doing the same research for the past one month, here is my experience.
1. Termlife Vs Wholelife.
Term is better than whole life. Instead of going with whole life, you can have Term + Saving account. For example, if you need $500/year for term and $2500/year for whole life. Take the Term insurnace and pay $500/year, open a saving account and deposit $2000/year ($2500 - $500).
The only issue here is that Term will cover you till the age of 60-65 if you get 20-30 year fixed rate policy. But if you still have immovable assets at age 65, which you surely will, that you need protected for your dependents then you will not have any coverage at all because Term will last only its stated duration. If saving/investing during young age is the objective then Term is good, no doubt, because it's cheap and covers you from risk during young working years. But I guess no company gives Whole Life on H1 so there's not any other option.
1. Termlife Vs Wholelife.
Term is better than whole life. Instead of going with whole life, you can have Term + Saving account. For example, if you need $500/year for term and $2500/year for whole life. Take the Term insurnace and pay $500/year, open a saving account and deposit $2000/year ($2500 - $500).
The only issue here is that Term will cover you till the age of 60-65 if you get 20-30 year fixed rate policy. But if you still have immovable assets at age 65, which you surely will, that you need protected for your dependents then you will not have any coverage at all because Term will last only its stated duration. If saving/investing during young age is the objective then Term is good, no doubt, because it's cheap and covers you from risk during young working years. But I guess no company gives Whole Life on H1 so there's not any other option.
more...
hiralal
08-03 11:15 PM
Although officially so far, USCIS has not branded an I-485 status as "pre-adjudicated", if you haven't received any RFE and/or any other negative status about your 485, and if your case is outside the processing dates of the Service Center, then obviously dude your case is pre-adjudicated. I don't understand why most of the people are ignoring this simple fact. I think we need to stop consider USCIS a mystery box, and start treating it like an organization that processes the applications in a structured way.
I tend to believe that the offical status of being "pre-adjudicated" is coming soon. A few months back I read that USCIS is considering publishing another set of date known as "Qualifying Date" in their monthly visa bulletin. That date will define if you are "qualified" to file I-485. They will determine this date based on their workload. The idea behind is to avoid another July 2007 fiasco. They intend to process the 485's early rather than have you wait for your PD to become current. That way they will manage their workload efficiently and avoid visa wastage. They did indicate these applications to be pre-adjudicated then. I am guessing the official status of "pre-adjudicated" on your 485 application is coming soon.
well my view is that it is not that obvious !! say someone is in EB3-I with a priority date of 2004 or EB2-I with a PD of 2006 / 2007 - what would USCIS do ?
these are not the low hanging cases (as opposed to EB2 with PD of 2004 or EB3 with PD of 2001) ..or in other words - there is less chance that they will become current soon ..in that case, does USCIS close the case and put the file away or will they still pre-adjudicate ??
(I am not as informed -- since I have not read the article in detail ..and hence my post is more of a question ...)
I tend to believe that the offical status of being "pre-adjudicated" is coming soon. A few months back I read that USCIS is considering publishing another set of date known as "Qualifying Date" in their monthly visa bulletin. That date will define if you are "qualified" to file I-485. They will determine this date based on their workload. The idea behind is to avoid another July 2007 fiasco. They intend to process the 485's early rather than have you wait for your PD to become current. That way they will manage their workload efficiently and avoid visa wastage. They did indicate these applications to be pre-adjudicated then. I am guessing the official status of "pre-adjudicated" on your 485 application is coming soon.
well my view is that it is not that obvious !! say someone is in EB3-I with a priority date of 2004 or EB2-I with a PD of 2006 / 2007 - what would USCIS do ?
these are not the low hanging cases (as opposed to EB2 with PD of 2004 or EB3 with PD of 2001) ..or in other words - there is less chance that they will become current soon ..in that case, does USCIS close the case and put the file away or will they still pre-adjudicate ??
(I am not as informed -- since I have not read the article in detail ..and hence my post is more of a question ...)
21stIcon
02-19 12:59 PM
Folks,
I bought whole life insurance for my wife year ago for $300k from PRUDENTIAL, monthly premium is $116/month but $72 went to admin. and tran. charges. Although I paid $1276 last year, my balance was $476 after 25.2 % return on funds. whole life has surrender charges apart from hefty financial charges ,so you can not withdraw when you want.
I took $1500 loss and canceled my whole life insurance policy since I do not want to waste 70% of my premium as a financial charges.you are feeding for a company and agent s getting heavy commission on this.
Buy term life insurance and invest in Vanguard Index funds for investment purpose.
I bought whole life insurance for my wife year ago for $300k from PRUDENTIAL, monthly premium is $116/month but $72 went to admin. and tran. charges. Although I paid $1276 last year, my balance was $476 after 25.2 % return on funds. whole life has surrender charges apart from hefty financial charges ,so you can not withdraw when you want.
I took $1500 loss and canceled my whole life insurance policy since I do not want to waste 70% of my premium as a financial charges.you are feeding for a company and agent s getting heavy commission on this.
Buy term life insurance and invest in Vanguard Index funds for investment purpose.
more...
learning01
04-26 07:10 AM
Two days back I searched "Immigration Voice" and "immigrationvoice.org", it gave no results. As I posted in this thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=9527#post9527) here on IV, I suggested that we should modify the meta tags of IV site and expose them to search engines.
While I am awaiting those changes, I did the same search again at Google. The first 2 results are for immigrationvoice.org
This is indeed a transformation.
Search Google for Immigration Voice (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmail&q=%22Immigration%20Voice%22)
Search Google for immigrationvoice.org (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=immigrationvoice.org&btnG=Search)
Readers, click each of the above links and see the results for yourselves (and improve the search rank, by clicking)
While I am awaiting those changes, I did the same search again at Google. The first 2 results are for immigrationvoice.org
This is indeed a transformation.
Search Google for Immigration Voice (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmail&q=%22Immigration%20Voice%22)
Search Google for immigrationvoice.org (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=immigrationvoice.org&btnG=Search)
Readers, click each of the above links and see the results for yourselves (and improve the search rank, by clicking)
2010 Odysseus and Calypso, 1883
chanduv23
02-11 12:06 PM
OK. I received the Denial letter today and below is the extract from it.
What does not make sense to me is that it said I140 revoked but in the next line it said I 140 revoked because it you did not meet minimum requirments for labor cert .
This I140 was approve ( it was file for me ) and if they did have this question at that time , how come they revoke it now.
Or is this is the way they normally denay the 485 ?
I am in big trouble . ???
**********************
You are applying on the basis of an immigrant petition for alien worker, for I140 filed on your behalf. However the same petition has been revoked.
Since the approval of the visa petition files on your behalf is no longer considered valued, your application is here by denied.
Please note that the Form I140 is no longer valid for porting purpose under section 106� of AC21 if the I140 was revoked due to the fact that you did not meet the minimum requirements for the labor certificate at the time of filing. Due to the fact that beneficiary of the For I140 was found to be �unqualified� at the time of filing you are not eligible for relied under section 106� of AC21.
The regulation do not provide for an appeal from this decision.
*********************************
A certified labor is needed to approve your 140. So your 140 was approved without labor?
What does not make sense to me is that it said I140 revoked but in the next line it said I 140 revoked because it you did not meet minimum requirments for labor cert .
This I140 was approve ( it was file for me ) and if they did have this question at that time , how come they revoke it now.
Or is this is the way they normally denay the 485 ?
I am in big trouble . ???
**********************
You are applying on the basis of an immigrant petition for alien worker, for I140 filed on your behalf. However the same petition has been revoked.
Since the approval of the visa petition files on your behalf is no longer considered valued, your application is here by denied.
Please note that the Form I140 is no longer valid for porting purpose under section 106� of AC21 if the I140 was revoked due to the fact that you did not meet the minimum requirements for the labor certificate at the time of filing. Due to the fact that beneficiary of the For I140 was found to be �unqualified� at the time of filing you are not eligible for relied under section 106� of AC21.
The regulation do not provide for an appeal from this decision.
*********************************
A certified labor is needed to approve your 140. So your 140 was approved without labor?
more...
bsbawa10
07-01 10:19 PM
These ppl are talking about giving amnesty to ILLEGALS...let me repeat it.. amnesty=award for being ILLEGAL. They have done that before and all of a sudden we F'KIN LEGAL TEMP WORKERS from India/China have to worry about the LEGAL aspect of filing a law-suit.
Something is seriously screwed up with this. This is no different than a pseudo-SLAVERY. Now all of a sudden most of you will say, no one put a gun on your head to work. Ofcourse not, but why hell do they create a dual intent H1FU?K Visa where they show you the carrot and create a indentured servant system and discriminate on the basis of the country of your birth. It is discrimination. Trust me when there was SLAVERY in the US , it was defined LEGAL.
freedom_fighter, your words are very strong but everything you say is a truth.
Something is seriously screwed up with this. This is no different than a pseudo-SLAVERY. Now all of a sudden most of you will say, no one put a gun on your head to work. Ofcourse not, but why hell do they create a dual intent H1FU?K Visa where they show you the carrot and create a indentured servant system and discriminate on the basis of the country of your birth. It is discrimination. Trust me when there was SLAVERY in the US , it was defined LEGAL.
freedom_fighter, your words are very strong but everything you say is a truth.
hair external image odysseus.jpg
Macaca
06-17 10:15 AM
The Ombudsman agrees with the assessment of many case workers and supervisors at USCIS field offices and service centers that the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction.
The Ombudsman recommended in the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 25) that the FBI name check process be re-examined. Delays in the name check process actually prolong an individual’s presence in the United States while the check is pending. In this sense, the current USCIS name check policy may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country.
Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military. Many individuals subject to lengthy name checks are either already green card holders or have been issued Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). These documents allow them to receive Social Security cards and state drivers’ licenses. Most green card applicants are also eligible to receive advance parole enabling them to travel outside the United States and return as long as their cases are pending, which can be for many years under the current process. (page 43)
As Dawn Lurie, a Vienna immigration lawyer, put it: "If there's a security reason [for the delay], then what are those people still doing here? . . . And if there isn't a security reason, then why are we making them wait for so long?" (Washington Post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=85213&postcount=365))
FBI name checks disclose information to USCIS that is otherwise not available. Information contained in 39 [percent] of the FBI positive responses (letterhead memoranda) received in FY 06 was not contained in IBIS/TECS, USCIS’ primary background check tool. . ..
Use of the 39 percent positive response rate as referenced by USCIS to justify continuing this program may exaggerate the value of the FBI name check. It is unclear how many of the FBI name check “responses” also were revealed by one or more of the other security checks conducted for the applications. To date, the Ombudsman has been unable to ascertain from USCIS the total number of actual problem cases that the agency discovered exclusively as a result of the FBI name check. The Ombudsman understands that most, if not all, of the problem cases which would result in an eventual denial of benefits also can be revealed by the other more efficient, automated criminal and security checks that USCIS initiates.
While USCIS declined to provide the number or percentage of annual name checks that result in denials, the FBI has reported that less than 1 percent of 1.5 million names are ultimately tied to potentially damaging information.(Washington Post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=85213&postcount=365))
The Ombudsman recommended in the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 25) that the FBI name check process be re-examined. Delays in the name check process actually prolong an individual’s presence in the United States while the check is pending. In this sense, the current USCIS name check policy may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country.
Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military. Many individuals subject to lengthy name checks are either already green card holders or have been issued Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). These documents allow them to receive Social Security cards and state drivers’ licenses. Most green card applicants are also eligible to receive advance parole enabling them to travel outside the United States and return as long as their cases are pending, which can be for many years under the current process. (page 43)
As Dawn Lurie, a Vienna immigration lawyer, put it: "If there's a security reason [for the delay], then what are those people still doing here? . . . And if there isn't a security reason, then why are we making them wait for so long?" (Washington Post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=85213&postcount=365))
FBI name checks disclose information to USCIS that is otherwise not available. Information contained in 39 [percent] of the FBI positive responses (letterhead memoranda) received in FY 06 was not contained in IBIS/TECS, USCIS’ primary background check tool. . ..
Use of the 39 percent positive response rate as referenced by USCIS to justify continuing this program may exaggerate the value of the FBI name check. It is unclear how many of the FBI name check “responses” also were revealed by one or more of the other security checks conducted for the applications. To date, the Ombudsman has been unable to ascertain from USCIS the total number of actual problem cases that the agency discovered exclusively as a result of the FBI name check. The Ombudsman understands that most, if not all, of the problem cases which would result in an eventual denial of benefits also can be revealed by the other more efficient, automated criminal and security checks that USCIS initiates.
While USCIS declined to provide the number or percentage of annual name checks that result in denials, the FBI has reported that less than 1 percent of 1.5 million names are ultimately tied to potentially damaging information.(Washington Post (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=85213&postcount=365))
more...
waitingnwaiting
05-31 11:11 AM
h1techSlave you are right about why EB3 not working because they have no hope and not because they have gone back and/or ported.
Surprising when i say thE same i get a lot of reds :D
Because you say and not do anything.
Surprising when i say thE same i get a lot of reds :D
Because you say and not do anything.
hot Odysseus was held by the
Canadian_Dream
10-12 06:58 PM
You are talking about taking an article and putting a perspective on it. Can you be more elaborate? If you are talking about articles being written on us, I believe there are not a lot.
My last post in the matter. By our perspective, what I meant was, if you see an article talking about common topics such American Compititiveness or Illegal immigration you can always send an e-mail to the reporter and talk about plight legal immigrants. In most cases you will see a response from the reporter, whether they publish it or not is generally a matter of who you represent and audicences to the cause and other issues . That's why I said if IV as an organisation sends an e-mail (it could be me or you but representing IV itself) there is a possiblity that you will be taken seriously. But repeating the same issue to the same reporter 100 times will not make it any important it might even have a deleterious effect. I have seen this method working in the past. If you disagree with my approach, let's agree to dissagree on our approaches.
What if the reporter you are writing to has an opinion similar to that of Tancredo on H1B?
If this is the case no matter how many e-mail we send it will not have any impact on him/her. That debate is almost like Conservative vs. Liberal debate and no amount of convincing can convince the other side.
How ever, I do not agree that we will be considered SPAM unless its the same message COPY/PASTE. 1000 emails?? Are you kidding me? I am sure it hasnt gone beyond 10 and will not go beyond 25 in the worst case.
I thought that was what we are doing. 25, 10, 1000 are all numbers, if 1000 is a spam why 25 isn't a spam. I think it is subjective.
Anyway, I will contact a local reporter and see how it goes, but I will not send e-mail to this editor becasue there are already e-mails sent by others conveying the same thing.
My last post in the matter. By our perspective, what I meant was, if you see an article talking about common topics such American Compititiveness or Illegal immigration you can always send an e-mail to the reporter and talk about plight legal immigrants. In most cases you will see a response from the reporter, whether they publish it or not is generally a matter of who you represent and audicences to the cause and other issues . That's why I said if IV as an organisation sends an e-mail (it could be me or you but representing IV itself) there is a possiblity that you will be taken seriously. But repeating the same issue to the same reporter 100 times will not make it any important it might even have a deleterious effect. I have seen this method working in the past. If you disagree with my approach, let's agree to dissagree on our approaches.
What if the reporter you are writing to has an opinion similar to that of Tancredo on H1B?
If this is the case no matter how many e-mail we send it will not have any impact on him/her. That debate is almost like Conservative vs. Liberal debate and no amount of convincing can convince the other side.
How ever, I do not agree that we will be considered SPAM unless its the same message COPY/PASTE. 1000 emails?? Are you kidding me? I am sure it hasnt gone beyond 10 and will not go beyond 25 in the worst case.
I thought that was what we are doing. 25, 10, 1000 are all numbers, if 1000 is a spam why 25 isn't a spam. I think it is subjective.
Anyway, I will contact a local reporter and see how it goes, but I will not send e-mail to this editor becasue there are already e-mails sent by others conveying the same thing.
more...
house Calypso#39;s island, Odysseus
kondur_007
09-29 11:05 AM
The way USCIS functions, I would rather see the movement of the dates back rather than forward...why?
This is the time when USCIS actually TRIES to follow FIFO: meaning tries to work on old cases. Last quarter is usually a mess and approval pattern goes to TB to BB (top of the box to bottom of the box).
So, It is a actually a good thing, if PD stays there or moves back; that will make USCIS work on approving older cases at this time.
It is also a good sign that DOS mentioned that "they are waiting from USCIS for pending numbers": that means, they actually asked for those!!!!!! AND USCIS is working on it (or atleast told them so). This has been the crux of all the visa number movements including random approvals. If this is sorted out somehow, it will be a great deal of improvement in implementing FIFO system to some extent. If USCIS gives that info to DOS, there will be someone (DOS) to ask USCIS: WHY DO YOU NEED TO MOVE PD FORWARD TO 2008 WHILE YOU HAVE SO MANY THOUSANDS OF CASES FROM 2000-2005 PENDING??
Unfortunately, they now will not have any excuses (with security check and name check moving towards "current": thanks to FBI), they WILL have to increase their efficiency in processing the cases!:)
This is the time when USCIS actually TRIES to follow FIFO: meaning tries to work on old cases. Last quarter is usually a mess and approval pattern goes to TB to BB (top of the box to bottom of the box).
So, It is a actually a good thing, if PD stays there or moves back; that will make USCIS work on approving older cases at this time.
It is also a good sign that DOS mentioned that "they are waiting from USCIS for pending numbers": that means, they actually asked for those!!!!!! AND USCIS is working on it (or atleast told them so). This has been the crux of all the visa number movements including random approvals. If this is sorted out somehow, it will be a great deal of improvement in implementing FIFO system to some extent. If USCIS gives that info to DOS, there will be someone (DOS) to ask USCIS: WHY DO YOU NEED TO MOVE PD FORWARD TO 2008 WHILE YOU HAVE SO MANY THOUSANDS OF CASES FROM 2000-2005 PENDING??
Unfortunately, they now will not have any excuses (with security check and name check moving towards "current": thanks to FBI), they WILL have to increase their efficiency in processing the cases!:)
tattoo Circe and Calypso
vikki76
04-08 01:52 PM
Yes-excellent suggestion.India is a thriving democratic free sovereign nation.It is high time next Google,Yahoo and Oracle came from India.
If we all recent US returned people form our own corporation back in India-I am sure next generation of innovation will come from there.(Why software?-thankfully, Indian govt has kept that sector free from its regulation)
Reliance,Wipro and Infosys have made a big name.We need new self driven stories.
If we all recent US returned people form our own corporation back in India-I am sure next generation of innovation will come from there.(Why software?-thankfully, Indian govt has kept that sector free from its regulation)
Reliance,Wipro and Infosys have made a big name.We need new self driven stories.
more...
pictures Calypso kept Odysseus
chinna2003
06-03 12:16 PM
From reading all the testimonies , I didnot see any argument of unfairness to employment based immigrants.
Senate was interested in hearing the plight of a gay american citizen who could not live with his gay partner because his student visa was refused on reentry from Brazil and this gentleman couldnot sponsor him as a family member because the immigration act doesnt recognize gay partners as family members.
I suppose being a gay is going to be a much faster way to becoming a legal permanet resident rather than being a highly skilled indian immigrant.
Senate was interested in hearing the plight of a gay american citizen who could not live with his gay partner because his student visa was refused on reentry from Brazil and this gentleman couldnot sponsor him as a family member because the immigration act doesnt recognize gay partners as family members.
I suppose being a gay is going to be a much faster way to becoming a legal permanet resident rather than being a highly skilled indian immigrant.
dresses Odysseus-Calypso.jpg
Humhongekamyab
01-15 02:53 PM
I wonder whether proper first aid was given to the person.
People do normally survive gunshots to leg!!
"He was near his home when somebody perhaps demanded some money. He was fired at and bullets hit him in the leg. Due to this, his arteries bled profusely which led to kidney failure," Murthy said.
People do normally survive gunshots to leg!!
"He was near his home when somebody perhaps demanded some money. He was fired at and bullets hit him in the leg. Due to this, his arteries bled profusely which led to kidney failure," Murthy said.
more...
makeup CALYPSO amp; ODYSSEUS
gcseeker2002
12-06 12:28 PM
So they refused to acknowledge that it is pending more than 90 days?
They are technically right, the regulations say "within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application".
Talk about broken promises. Write to the USCIS ombudsman.
Emails to USCIS ombudsman just generate a standard response, nothing more, asking to submit form 7001. They should be swamped with 7001s by now, so they should create a processing-times for the form7001s.
They are technically right, the regulations say "within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application".
Talk about broken promises. Write to the USCIS ombudsman.
Emails to USCIS ombudsman just generate a standard response, nothing more, asking to submit form 7001. They should be swamped with 7001s by now, so they should create a processing-times for the form7001s.
girlfriend O clever Odysseus, will you
willwin
09-23 10:11 AM
PLEASE KEEP CALLING.
You still have 3 more hours to call.
You still have 3 more hours to call.
hairstyles Odysseus and Calypso
mahendra_t
07-19 01:54 PM
Please let us know when your check get cashed. This will indicate that they actualy start processing our application and First application check is passed.
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cissop.html
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cissop.html
nashim
06-30 01:48 PM
Is finger print required for AP efiling? thanks
gatec77
08-11 05:33 AM
May be the person who leaked this news and the person who posted in post 3205 is the same. He purposefully leaked same dates at 6.35 PM and later leaked this.
But also it looks like the firm may have got hold of a draft bulletin from somebody in the USCIS.
Very tricky, I would say the chances the bulletin is true is 70 - 30
But also it looks like the firm may have got hold of a draft bulletin from somebody in the USCIS.
Very tricky, I would say the chances the bulletin is true is 70 - 30
No comments:
Post a Comment