leo2606
07-14 08:35 PM
first day (not ended yet) looks very good.
Close to $600.00.
All, Please forward this link to your friends new or inactive members.
Close to $600.00.
All, Please forward this link to your friends new or inactive members.
Libra
09-10 01:36 PM
Thank you guys, you guys are the best. It would be really great if you all can make it to rally. who can't make it, thanks for contribution.
ameryki
01-10 07:37 PM
Hello All I just received mine and my wifey's AP's. We weren't able to track our file since did not get a receipt and did not have the file numbers. But to my knowledge my lawyer had sent our app's on Aug 1st. The AP shows approved on Dec 7th and we received it from the lawyer today now when I checked online status with the file number stated on the approval it shows "On December 26, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file". So in practicality out of the 12 months an applicant looses a month in transition time from being approved to physically seeing the approval in hand.
jonty_11
07-24 02:52 PM
I don't know much about the process, I just came to America less than 1 year back, but I know my lawyer was supposed to mail application to reach on July 2, 2007 instead he made a mistake to reach on June 29, 2007 because he said July 1, 2007 was a Sunday so he would rather be early than late. USCIS accepted and receipted me.
I am the manager in my brother's gas station in LA. He got a investor visa when he came from Punjab but now he is citizen. I am on EB3. I have Bachelors in Business Administration from Panjab University in Chandigarh. I can't be EB1 or EB2, I barely made it through college :D
makes no sense.....
EB3 India setp 2006 wasnt even current in Jun 2007....
I am the manager in my brother's gas station in LA. He got a investor visa when he came from Punjab but now he is citizen. I am on EB3. I have Bachelors in Business Administration from Panjab University in Chandigarh. I can't be EB1 or EB2, I barely made it through college :D
makes no sense.....
EB3 India setp 2006 wasnt even current in Jun 2007....
more...
trueguy
08-14 10:50 PM
actually people are already complacent ..eb2 is in joy and waiting impatiently, eb3 people have given up hope and there is not much news from core. people may not like my post but that is the fact
I agree. Nobody wants to talk about EB3-I, not even core IV.
I agree. Nobody wants to talk about EB3-I, not even core IV.
trueguy
08-14 11:40 AM
Mr. Ron Gotcher believes that it means "Mexico F2A and [Mexico] employment third preference cut off dates.� Had they meant Worldwide, they would have said so explicitly".
Relax guys.:)
Mexico EB3 has been Unavailable since last 2 months so why USCIS will make a special comment about that country.
I am sure DOS is referring to entire EB3 Category in their Sep'08 Visa Bulletin. No hopes for EB3-I if PD goes back to Apr'2001 again.
Relax guys.:)
Mexico EB3 has been Unavailable since last 2 months so why USCIS will make a special comment about that country.
I am sure DOS is referring to entire EB3 Category in their Sep'08 Visa Bulletin. No hopes for EB3-I if PD goes back to Apr'2001 again.
more...
spicy_guy
11-08 05:17 PM
If my Wife's employer starts GC for her on EB2, can my case be ported / interfile to her's? She is dependent on my GC application. :eek:
I have exact same Q. Any inputs?
I have exact same Q. Any inputs?
skv
06-18 04:01 PM
I don't think it's possible, or people will all file to Chicago. There is one thing you can do though, which is to write to Atlanta center and express your concerns. Probably also write to the higher officials to the Department of Labor. I believe the more people write to them, the more chances they will look at it seriously.
I have wrote to the office of DOL secretary, Elaine Chao, to express my concern and that the deplay could mean seriously delay for us, who live and work in the country legally, pay taxes and fees, to file for green card application. I suggest you all to do this.
I agree. Email and call below dol personnnel as well.
Tom Coyne on 312.596.5435.
E-mail : coyne.tom@dol.gov
I have wrote to the office of DOL secretary, Elaine Chao, to express my concern and that the deplay could mean seriously delay for us, who live and work in the country legally, pay taxes and fees, to file for green card application. I suggest you all to do this.
I agree. Email and call below dol personnnel as well.
Tom Coyne on 312.596.5435.
E-mail : coyne.tom@dol.gov
more...
gene77
04-03 12:22 AM
RFE requests an updated G325-A and an EVL from the new employer. Haven't responded yet.
PBECVictim
05-18 06:15 PM
Jumbo loans are not getting approved for EAD status. Banks are rejecting Jumbo loans (> 417K) if your immigration status is EAD or AOS. I don't have any idea about normal loans (< 417K). But banks are giving Jumbo loans if the status is H-1B.
But noone is rejecting loan, if your down payment is 20% of the value of the home.
But noone is rejecting loan, if your down payment is 20% of the value of the home.
more...
gc_aspirant_prasad
07-05 07:54 PM
Hi Folks-
We (5 People) work for IBM company, SFO, today we went personally to the congress men and we submit the letter which is provided in this forum and after that we called state senator office and we explained about our problem. We faxed and email the letter to the senator office, staff had taken my contact details and they told me that they will inform the solution in 2days.
Thx
Aj
Way to go !!
We (5 People) work for IBM company, SFO, today we went personally to the congress men and we submit the letter which is provided in this forum and after that we called state senator office and we explained about our problem. We faxed and email the letter to the senator office, staff had taken my contact details and they told me that they will inform the solution in 2days.
Thx
Aj
Way to go !!
gjoe
10-03 04:47 PM
We have to first fight to get all visa number allocated. How?
1) Assign visa numbers to all I485 cases based on PD at the begining of each year
2) After assigning the visa number they can do the rest of the processing
3) If application is denied they can transfer the visa number to the next application in queue as per the PD
I think this is a good start and fair system which would slove some of the problem we have today.
We can work on getting the backlog eliminated seperately because this issue is going to take lot of efforts, money and politics.
1) Assign visa numbers to all I485 cases based on PD at the begining of each year
2) After assigning the visa number they can do the rest of the processing
3) If application is denied they can transfer the visa number to the next application in queue as per the PD
I think this is a good start and fair system which would slove some of the problem we have today.
We can work on getting the backlog eliminated seperately because this issue is going to take lot of efforts, money and politics.
more...
jonty_11
05-01 02:31 PM
The meeting really saddens me though. That is the extent of anyone's power to get USCIS moving? Just hinting to King that the congress is displeased?
I mean I'm pretty sure King is gonna just shrug it off. Listen to how deluded the man sounds. He thinks USCIS is doing a great job, what with all that bragging about efficiency. Obviously he doesn't realize he's standing there, in that meeting. because the efficiency he's bragging about is clearly NOT ENOUGH. In fact, it's pretty much shitty.
To make things worse, those people in there are controlling the fates of thousands of waiting applicants. And they don't even seem to know the difference btw H1 and 485.
I don't want to just go on feeding this negative train of thought. I just wish something more effective can be done. Isn't there a better solution?
IV is our best chance...Lets hope the bills Iv is pushing get some floor time. I will again say that as difficult and impossible as it may sound (given election yr n'all) IV is the only entity that we can pin our hopes on.
I mean I'm pretty sure King is gonna just shrug it off. Listen to how deluded the man sounds. He thinks USCIS is doing a great job, what with all that bragging about efficiency. Obviously he doesn't realize he's standing there, in that meeting. because the efficiency he's bragging about is clearly NOT ENOUGH. In fact, it's pretty much shitty.
To make things worse, those people in there are controlling the fates of thousands of waiting applicants. And they don't even seem to know the difference btw H1 and 485.
I don't want to just go on feeding this negative train of thought. I just wish something more effective can be done. Isn't there a better solution?
IV is our best chance...Lets hope the bills Iv is pushing get some floor time. I will again say that as difficult and impossible as it may sound (given election yr n'all) IV is the only entity that we can pin our hopes on.
mkashif4
10-05 10:52 AM
14 years and still waiting for GC. Switched several companies and working on EAD now.
more...
eb3_nepa
07-14 02:45 PM
I am trying to pay thru PNC Bank. When trying to add IV, there are 2 options. One is With number and the second Without number.
eb3_nepa: Could you please put some guidelines on how to use BillPAy? Sorry for the ignorance.
Can anyone using PNC bank please help Caliber? Surely someone or the other uses PNC bank on here.
eb3_nepa: Could you please put some guidelines on how to use BillPAy? Sorry for the ignorance.
Can anyone using PNC bank please help Caliber? Surely someone or the other uses PNC bank on here.
ChainReaction
01-05 09:49 AM
my labor was filled from ny june 2003 and i still didn't get the 45 days letter yet from PBC?:confused:
Isthere anyone else in the same boat ?
Isthere anyone else in the same boat ?
more...
jojet
03-04 02:33 PM
HI GUYS,
me and my spouse filed 1485 in july 2007 with a received date of 10/07/07.
we donot see anychanges online other than the case received and pending notice.
is there a way we can find the status of our case.if name check is cleared,any further finger printing as we only did once in 2007.ours is eb3.any input highly appreciated.
me and my spouse filed 1485 in july 2007 with a received date of 10/07/07.
we donot see anychanges online other than the case received and pending notice.
is there a way we can find the status of our case.if name check is cleared,any further finger printing as we only did once in 2007.ours is eb3.any input highly appreciated.
john2255
07-20 12:20 PM
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110f0ODXJ:e32253:
That means we have lost around 2,40,000 unused visas. I heard that there is a total amount of 3,00,000 unused employment visas of the previous years due to the great efficiency of USCIS. Out of this 61,000 is kept apart for Schedule A nurses and PT's and the remaining 2,40,000 thousand would have been divided amoung employment catagories if the amendment had passed,clearing lot of our backloggs.
REMEMBER, THE RECAPTURE OF UNUSED VISAS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITIES OF CORE AND THE DOOR IS SLAMMED ON OUR FACES AGAIN BY HYPOCRITES LIKE HILARY AND CALIFORNIA SENATORS.
Its the high time we convince the senators who said NAYS. Lets start SOME KIND OF CAMPAIN aiming these guys. I am sure that core's hands are there behind this amendment. Well done IV. Don't get dissappointed, keep trying for Skill bill or for similar amendments. Its really unfortunate that we lost a very very big chance. Lets do something immediately.
Following is the text of amendment.
`(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110f0ODXJ:e32253:
That means we have lost around 2,40,000 unused visas. I heard that there is a total amount of 3,00,000 unused employment visas of the previous years due to the great efficiency of USCIS. Out of this 61,000 is kept apart for Schedule A nurses and PT's and the remaining 2,40,000 thousand would have been divided amoung employment catagories if the amendment had passed,clearing lot of our backloggs.
REMEMBER, THE RECAPTURE OF UNUSED VISAS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITIES OF CORE AND THE DOOR IS SLAMMED ON OUR FACES AGAIN BY HYPOCRITES LIKE HILARY AND CALIFORNIA SENATORS.
Its the high time we convince the senators who said NAYS. Lets start SOME KIND OF CAMPAIN aiming these guys. I am sure that core's hands are there behind this amendment. Well done IV. Don't get dissappointed, keep trying for Skill bill or for similar amendments. Its really unfortunate that we lost a very very big chance. Lets do something immediately.
Following is the text of amendment.
`(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
makemygc
10-25 11:59 PM
I've sent the mails and strongly encourage everyone to come out and take an early action before this gets worse. Even if you are not affected right now, support the cause to make sure that you will not be affected in the future.
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
nyte_crawler
04-25 05:25 PM
Seriously it is impossible to change anything with the back-dated 100k applications. The only thing that could be done is help the future immigrants in a much better fashion. The only solution I see is, apply this rule after 1/1/2006. By applying this rule to back-dated applications will only create more chaos. Why would anybody would want to change the line again, because it is a different situation now. I would'nt. If that is the case, then USCIS should withdraw all their approved out-of-line GCs during 2004, atleast the retrogression will not be this bad. The best idea would be to wait and see if the current bill makes it out to the president with all the amendments included. That should relieve some or most of the retrogression.
somegchuh
01-02 06:43 PM
Folks,
I know this has been discussed in the past on this and other message boards but I wanted to hear some more opinions about it. What is the value of green card to you?
I know different ppl have different reasons like ability to switch jobs, ability to travel freely, ability to have a job for spouse etc. All said and done how many of you would like to go back to your home countries in the next 5-6 years? I know a lot of people have issues such as aging parents back home or they simply don't see themselves living in a foreign land forever. I guess my question is what percentage of ppl aspiring for a GC view it as a convenience vs percentage of ppl who actually see it as a path to settling down in US for good.
Thanks
I know this has been discussed in the past on this and other message boards but I wanted to hear some more opinions about it. What is the value of green card to you?
I know different ppl have different reasons like ability to switch jobs, ability to travel freely, ability to have a job for spouse etc. All said and done how many of you would like to go back to your home countries in the next 5-6 years? I know a lot of people have issues such as aging parents back home or they simply don't see themselves living in a foreign land forever. I guess my question is what percentage of ppl aspiring for a GC view it as a convenience vs percentage of ppl who actually see it as a path to settling down in US for good.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment