mchundi
01-24 07:12 PM
01/24/2006: AILA Reports Push-Back of Senate Comprehensive Immigration Reform Debate Schedules
AILA reported last week that the Senate Judiciary Committee could start immigration reform debates as early as February 2, but now it reports that the Senate Committee action on immigration legislation may be pushed back until later in February or perhaps into March.
This is not good news. We dont know what happens in the next few weeks. Immigration is not a very high priority for everybody. The closer we go to elections the more the chances for other issues to creep into schedule. I hope they will atleast attach unused VISA numbers to some bill and tackle the immigration beast when they intend to.
--MC
AILA reported last week that the Senate Judiciary Committee could start immigration reform debates as early as February 2, but now it reports that the Senate Committee action on immigration legislation may be pushed back until later in February or perhaps into March.
This is not good news. We dont know what happens in the next few weeks. Immigration is not a very high priority for everybody. The closer we go to elections the more the chances for other issues to creep into schedule. I hope they will atleast attach unused VISA numbers to some bill and tackle the immigration beast when they intend to.
--MC
wallpaper DISCOUNT TIRE CO - Wide View
caliguy
10-26 09:50 PM
Thanks vikki76. Yes, finally I feel like I can breathe again....
Where is your case at? Is it TSC or NSC? If it's TSC, please send me a private message and I will give you the name of the IO. You really need to talk to this IO, and I think you will get the exact info you need.
As one of the posters mentioned earlier, your case with the IO could mean:
1) It's either in the holding area
2) Or with the officer on their desk
You want to somehow get your case to 2 - on the officers desk. If its sitting in the holding area, you can ask the IO (if they are willing to help) to send a polite reminder to the IO who your file has been assigned to letting them know that your case is current and needs to be looked at.
Another thing the IO mentioed to me was that the case could sit in the holding area for long if the IO that the case has been assigned to is on vacation (or out sick). I'm hoping that's not the case with your application
Good luck to you, I hope you get green soon too...
This is really great news. Congratulations caliguy--I have been following your posts since Sept and know that you were quite active (read that perturbed) on your case.
One less thing to worry about in life.
You have been quite persistent in your efforts to get correct answer from IO.
In my case- when I reached IO using POJ- I was told that case has been predjudicated, and now assigned to IO. How do I get more info than this? Even I have multiple 140-so ,I too am bit worried about that part.
Where is your case at? Is it TSC or NSC? If it's TSC, please send me a private message and I will give you the name of the IO. You really need to talk to this IO, and I think you will get the exact info you need.
As one of the posters mentioned earlier, your case with the IO could mean:
1) It's either in the holding area
2) Or with the officer on their desk
You want to somehow get your case to 2 - on the officers desk. If its sitting in the holding area, you can ask the IO (if they are willing to help) to send a polite reminder to the IO who your file has been assigned to letting them know that your case is current and needs to be looked at.
Another thing the IO mentioed to me was that the case could sit in the holding area for long if the IO that the case has been assigned to is on vacation (or out sick). I'm hoping that's not the case with your application
Good luck to you, I hope you get green soon too...
This is really great news. Congratulations caliguy--I have been following your posts since Sept and know that you were quite active (read that perturbed) on your case.
One less thing to worry about in life.
You have been quite persistent in your efforts to get correct answer from IO.
In my case- when I reached IO using POJ- I was told that case has been predjudicated, and now assigned to IO. How do I get more info than this? Even I have multiple 140-so ,I too am bit worried about that part.
singhsa3
08-20 10:37 PM
My understanding is that this is incorrect:
In the old system any unused visa from EB3 Row would got EB1 India/China first and then EB2 -I/C and then Eb3 -I/C.
What you described ("last few rows") is what they are following now, Einstein!!!
[Except this piece EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)]
So what will be the flow? I guess the following
EB1-> EB3-ROW (until current)
EB2-ROW -> EB2-I/C
Once Eb3-ROW becomes current
EB2-ROW -> EB2-I/C
EB3-ROW -> EB3-I/C
EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)
In the old system any unused visa from EB3 Row would got EB1 India/China first and then EB2 -I/C and then Eb3 -I/C.
What you described ("last few rows") is what they are following now, Einstein!!!
[Except this piece EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)]
So what will be the flow? I guess the following
EB1-> EB3-ROW (until current)
EB2-ROW -> EB2-I/C
Once Eb3-ROW becomes current
EB2-ROW -> EB2-I/C
EB3-ROW -> EB3-I/C
EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)
2011 hair discount tire company.
goel_ar
03-29 10:46 AM
I wish it should be current or atleast near to current.
i wish i could grant your wish.
i wish i could grant your wish.
more...
greencardvow
07-31 05:50 PM
You are trying to say I can sign an application then mail it with just fee. You think they will accept without any Initial Evidence. I know about them relaxing condition on Medical. When did they relax it for all other Initial Evidence as well.
Not this time. USCIS clearly mentioned that Completed application with Signatures, Correct Fees should be sufficient. They are even accepting without medicals.
Not this time. USCIS clearly mentioned that Completed application with Signatures, Correct Fees should be sufficient. They are even accepting without medicals.
akred
01-24 12:33 PM
the way i see..if indian airlines were upto the task.. we could have direct flights from all major cities in US..but then again how can I simply blame the British govt. for tormenting us..its the Indian govt. who can't sort this..either encourage big businesses to launch international flights with world class service..that's something which we have to wait!
Patience :). Air India, Jet and Kingfisher have plenty of long range airliners on order with Boeing (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=timeperiodselection.cfm&pageid=m15523) and Airbus (http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/).
Patience :). Air India, Jet and Kingfisher have plenty of long range airliners on order with Boeing (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=timeperiodselection.cfm&pageid=m15523) and Airbus (http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/).
more...
aristotle
05-22 06:32 PM
If you can restart ur app in Eb2, you should be fine dates wise. Unless CIR messes it up.
Approximately 2 months for PERM and then you can file 140+485 concurrently.
All the best!
Company A applied for my GC in Oct 2002. I received I140 and left the company on good terms and joined company B. company A promised that when my date becomes current they will authorize my 485. Now that my date is current, the company A is saying they cannot give me an employment letter because they are not doing well financially. The company has not more than 3-4 employees and they had been suffering losses for last few years. Now even if they have good intentions for me, they are unable to file for me.
What options do I have now? restart GC process with company B and utilize my priority date?
Please help. For a day I was excited about my date getting current but after al there was no reason for me to be happy.
thanks,
Kapil
Approximately 2 months for PERM and then you can file 140+485 concurrently.
All the best!
Company A applied for my GC in Oct 2002. I received I140 and left the company on good terms and joined company B. company A promised that when my date becomes current they will authorize my 485. Now that my date is current, the company A is saying they cannot give me an employment letter because they are not doing well financially. The company has not more than 3-4 employees and they had been suffering losses for last few years. Now even if they have good intentions for me, they are unable to file for me.
What options do I have now? restart GC process with company B and utilize my priority date?
Please help. For a day I was excited about my date getting current but after al there was no reason for me to be happy.
thanks,
Kapil
2010 discount tire company,
royus77
06-29 04:05 PM
Looks like we are Doooooooooooooooooooooooomed one more time
more...
krishmunn
03-31 11:50 AM
Hi GC ON DEMAND, I think you are right... Looks like we did not receive any spill over from EB1 and EB2 ROW --- Here are the calcs...
Regular EB2 ROW gets 34,436 -- see below for break down
We know that EB2 gets 140,000 * 28.6% of visas which is 40,040.
Out of 40,040, 7% is allocated to china and an other 7% goes to India.
So EB2 ROW = 40,040 - 2*(40,040*7%) = 34,436 -------------------------------------------- (1)
In the document that you have, EB2 ROW received 27, 406 visas... How? see below
Total allocation for Eb2 (A1) - 53,872
India received (B1) - 19,961
China's received (C1) - 6,505
-------------------------------------------------
EB2 (ROW) net = A1-(B1+C1) = 27,406 -------------------------------------------------------- (2)
--------------------------------------------------
EB2 (I&C) Regular quota {2*(40,040*7%)} = 5,604 -------------------------------------------(3)
(1) - (2) - (3) gives the spill over from EB2 ROW to EB2 (I&C), which is 1,426
Which means EB2 ROW to EB2 I&C spill over is mere 1,426 ???? Hope we are wrong... this looks scary...
The calculation looks incorrect.
You considered the I+ C allocations and subtracted those in line 1. You again subtracted those in your final calculation.
The straight forward calculation is EB2 ROW is entitled to 34,436 (1) and they used 27,406 (2). So splillover was around 7 K.
Regular EB2 ROW gets 34,436 -- see below for break down
We know that EB2 gets 140,000 * 28.6% of visas which is 40,040.
Out of 40,040, 7% is allocated to china and an other 7% goes to India.
So EB2 ROW = 40,040 - 2*(40,040*7%) = 34,436 -------------------------------------------- (1)
In the document that you have, EB2 ROW received 27, 406 visas... How? see below
Total allocation for Eb2 (A1) - 53,872
India received (B1) - 19,961
China's received (C1) - 6,505
-------------------------------------------------
EB2 (ROW) net = A1-(B1+C1) = 27,406 -------------------------------------------------------- (2)
--------------------------------------------------
EB2 (I&C) Regular quota {2*(40,040*7%)} = 5,604 -------------------------------------------(3)
(1) - (2) - (3) gives the spill over from EB2 ROW to EB2 (I&C), which is 1,426
Which means EB2 ROW to EB2 I&C spill over is mere 1,426 ???? Hope we are wrong... this looks scary...
The calculation looks incorrect.
You considered the I+ C allocations and subtracted those in line 1. You again subtracted those in your final calculation.
The straight forward calculation is EB2 ROW is entitled to 34,436 (1) and they used 27,406 (2). So splillover was around 7 K.
hair 2010 Discount Tire Company
waitnwatch
08-21 01:06 PM
I think it would be fair to split the leftover numbers the same way they split whole year quota.
50% of leftover should be given to EB2 (based on PD) and 50% of leftover should be given to EB3. Does it sound fair?
I'm wondering why you ask this question. It's not your or my perception of "fair" that will drive the DOS or USCIS but the letter of law. The law is not easy to change but the interpretation of the law which shows up in the US Code (USC) can be changed. Therefore the DOS changed their interpretation to match the INA better and my or your perception of "fair" will not change anything. On the other hand it will only lead to heartbreak and destructive discussions that lead nowhere.
50% of leftover should be given to EB2 (based on PD) and 50% of leftover should be given to EB3. Does it sound fair?
I'm wondering why you ask this question. It's not your or my perception of "fair" that will drive the DOS or USCIS but the letter of law. The law is not easy to change but the interpretation of the law which shows up in the US Code (USC) can be changed. Therefore the DOS changed their interpretation to match the INA better and my or your perception of "fair" will not change anything. On the other hand it will only lead to heartbreak and destructive discussions that lead nowhere.
more...
gc28262
06-12 09:43 PM
It is not just Gantuteli doing this. Almost every other poster on this board seems to be doing the same. Any opinion expressed against the visa fraud perpetrated by these outsourcing cos is met with derision, ridicule and contempt. Of course, the poster is immediately labelled as an anti immigrant or a tunnel rat.
Why do the posters have to resort to ad hominem arguments ? Why dont posters consider the merits/demerits of an argument and then provide civil responses ? In my opinion even if anti immigration activitists, barring the racists, post arguments or views, those views need to be considered on due merits. Many people across a borad spectrum, including current H1B holders, GC and naturalized citizens, believe that these outsourcing cos are abusing the L1 visa and are contributing to the unemployment of high skilled labor. Is it anti immigration to raise our voices against such corrupt practices that impact our standard of living ?
dilipcr,
You (or people like you) are not "fighting" corruption or injustice, you are just serving your interests. Al least have the guts to admit that.
When did you guys start fighting corruption, injustice and fraud ? Maybe you guys were always excited about Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa all your life ! Be straightforward. There are no kindergarten students on this forum. We all know your intentions.
Again we all know outsourcing is going to hurt everyone. That doesn't mean I will try to shut the doors behind me. Many of us were not brought up that way.
Why do the posters have to resort to ad hominem arguments ? Why dont posters consider the merits/demerits of an argument and then provide civil responses ? In my opinion even if anti immigration activitists, barring the racists, post arguments or views, those views need to be considered on due merits. Many people across a borad spectrum, including current H1B holders, GC and naturalized citizens, believe that these outsourcing cos are abusing the L1 visa and are contributing to the unemployment of high skilled labor. Is it anti immigration to raise our voices against such corrupt practices that impact our standard of living ?
dilipcr,
You (or people like you) are not "fighting" corruption or injustice, you are just serving your interests. Al least have the guts to admit that.
When did you guys start fighting corruption, injustice and fraud ? Maybe you guys were always excited about Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa all your life ! Be straightforward. There are no kindergarten students on this forum. We all know your intentions.
Again we all know outsourcing is going to hurt everyone. That doesn't mean I will try to shut the doors behind me. Many of us were not brought up that way.
hot discount tire company
pappu
08-21 12:38 PM
The law unambiguously states that for employment based categories - EB1 spillover should first go to EB2 and whatever is not required by both EB1 and EB2 will spillover to EB3. If the USCIS has been doing something different previously they were actually not following the letter of the law.
Here are the relevant sections of the INA which unambiguosly states the above.
Here is what Section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states -
EB1 -
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5),...............
EB2 -
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1) ...............
EB3 -
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), .........
If all these years they were misinterpreting the law, where were lawyers and AILA raising their voice to correct this mistake? This error was deeply affecting the clients of lawyers.
We need to see more proactive activism of lawyers in matters such as these that are very important for the community. If not, members need to learn the law and do such research themselves. IV core team has been trying its best to read the law and create presentations and research documents whenever we have an important action item or bill on the floor. I would urge the community to read the law on their own as and when needed and raise their awareness.
Here are the relevant sections of the INA which unambiguosly states the above.
Here is what Section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states -
EB1 -
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5),...............
EB2 -
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1) ...............
EB3 -
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.-
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), .........
If all these years they were misinterpreting the law, where were lawyers and AILA raising their voice to correct this mistake? This error was deeply affecting the clients of lawyers.
We need to see more proactive activism of lawyers in matters such as these that are very important for the community. If not, members need to learn the law and do such research themselves. IV core team has been trying its best to read the law and create presentations and research documents whenever we have an important action item or bill on the floor. I would urge the community to read the law on their own as and when needed and raise their awareness.
more...
house pictures dresses DISCOUNT TIRE
chanduv23
10-29 07:31 AM
Dear IVans - there will be more discussions and analysis coming on IV in the coming days.
At this time, please participate actively in this campaign.
If anyone thinks that this does not affect me because my ex employer won't revoke 140 or I am having US masters or I work for best company or I have unique skills and whatever you think , you are making a big mistake by taking this issue for granted.
AC21 Memos (Yates & Aytes Memos) are not legally binding. They are just USCIS guidelines and not legally-binding (on USCIS) regulations.
So, potentially anyone can be a victim.
At this time, please participate actively in this campaign.
If anyone thinks that this does not affect me because my ex employer won't revoke 140 or I am having US masters or I work for best company or I have unique skills and whatever you think , you are making a big mistake by taking this issue for granted.
AC21 Memos (Yates & Aytes Memos) are not legally binding. They are just USCIS guidelines and not legally-binding (on USCIS) regulations.
So, potentially anyone can be a victim.
tattoo Discount Tire Co/America#39;s
capriol
01-08 11:15 AM
Dear Friends:
Any visa stamsping experiences at Kolkata Consulate through PIMS system?
Please share. Thanks
Any visa stamsping experiences at Kolkata Consulate through PIMS system?
Please share. Thanks
more...
pictures The Legend of Discount Tire Co
CADude
09-25 01:45 PM
Recent approved 140s (i.e. sept 2006 or later) has A#. Not all Approved 140 has A#. So don't worry. Earlier applicants used to get A# after filing AOS. Still in AOS process, CRU[one dept of USCIS] will verify the written A# or assign new to each applicant.
on my i-140 I have A#
on my i-140 I have A#
dresses discount tire co.
immigc06
06-21 08:37 AM
Hi Gurus,
Please advice on the following situation. If you file a 485 thru company B as future employment(used substitution labor) and if company A for which i am currently employed agrees to file labor and assuming the dates would be current and labor is approved. Can i cancel the 485 applied thru company B and apply thru company A for which i am currently workin?
Appreciate your replys.
Thanks.
Please advice on the following situation. If you file a 485 thru company B as future employment(used substitution labor) and if company A for which i am currently employed agrees to file labor and assuming the dates would be current and labor is approved. Can i cancel the 485 applied thru company B and apply thru company A for which i am currently workin?
Appreciate your replys.
Thanks.
more...
makeup hot Discount Tire Company
sotaz
01-24 04:07 PM
Flying through Asian Countires is not an option for people residing in East Coast. I am travelling to India in the next week Via Amsterdam. I am told by the consulate that we do not need Transit Visas. My H1B Visa is expired and I am travelling on AP. Did any one hear differently?
Thanks
Thats correct - they don't need transit visas - I did in mid-Dec, 2007 - absolutely no hassle. Also, I find Schipol one of the most pleasant airports in Europe (barring Munich).
Thanks
Thats correct - they don't need transit visas - I did in mid-Dec, 2007 - absolutely no hassle. Also, I find Schipol one of the most pleasant airports in Europe (barring Munich).
girlfriend dresses DISCOUNT TIRE CO
n_2006
11-06 10:05 AM
Too lazy
Too scary
Too selfish
So far I am lazy. I am sending them today.
Just 51? Only 51 members used AC21 or what?
What will it take the rest to participate? USCIS sending denials to your address? If this campaign fails there is no one to help you if this happens.
Send those letters ASAP
Too scary
Too selfish
So far I am lazy. I am sending them today.
Just 51? Only 51 members used AC21 or what?
What will it take the rest to participate? USCIS sending denials to your address? If this campaign fails there is no one to help you if this happens.
Send those letters ASAP
hairstyles discount tire company,
waitnwatch
08-21 12:33 PM
Yes, the same law can be interpreted like this:
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
The bottom line is that there should not exist such severe retrogression and that is what all of us should work to remove. But the law is what it is -
The law makes allotment between categories (EB1, EB2 and EB3) in Sec. 203 of the INA. Section 202 talks about country limit (note the exception clause which provides for the parallel distribution as the country limit becomes invalid if more visas are available in a category than is consumed using per country limitation).
Excerpt from Section 202 of the INA
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
EB1-ROW unused visa will go to EB2-ROW
EB2-ROW unused visa will go to EB3-ROW
Same for each country.
But its not happening. What actually is happening that they are giving unused visa from EB1-ROW to EB2-ROW to EB2-I/C. WHY?
So EB3-ROW is retrogressed bcoz it doesn't get any spillover and hence it affect EB3-I.
So where is the correct interpretation? Does any body know?
Don't take me wrong here. I don't favor EB3-ROW or any particular category. I am EB3-I with PD Nov 2002.
The bottom line is that there should not exist such severe retrogression and that is what all of us should work to remove. But the law is what it is -
The law makes allotment between categories (EB1, EB2 and EB3) in Sec. 203 of the INA. Section 202 talks about country limit (note the exception clause which provides for the parallel distribution as the country limit becomes invalid if more visas are available in a category than is consumed using per country limitation).
Excerpt from Section 202 of the INA
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
delhirocks
06-29 05:05 PM
Heard the same from my lawyer, she has changed her tune completely in 2 days. Now she says that she is hearing the same thing and is possible. They are working through the weekend and has asked me to keep my blackberry on me at all times as they will be providing emails updates every 4 hours or if and when the said bulletin is released.
We are hearing from multiple sources that, on Monday or Tuesday of next week, State Department plans to issue a revised Visa Bulletin for July 2007. This revised Bulletin would retrogress some or all of the employment-based categories, very likely to the point of unavailable. Reports from AILA members about unusual levels and types of activities by USCIS indicate a particular push to adjudicate employment-based adjustments currently in the pipeline so as to exhaust visa numbers for fiscal year 2007.
This follows the actions of USCIS in June, when it began rejecting EB-3 "Other Worker" adjustment applications even though the Visa Bulletin showed an October 2001 cut-off date, on the basis that the "Other Worker" numbers for the year had been exhausted:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
We are hearing from multiple sources that, on Monday or Tuesday of next week, State Department plans to issue a revised Visa Bulletin for July 2007. This revised Bulletin would retrogress some or all of the employment-based categories, very likely to the point of unavailable. Reports from AILA members about unusual levels and types of activities by USCIS indicate a particular push to adjudicate employment-based adjustments currently in the pipeline so as to exhaust visa numbers for fiscal year 2007.
This follows the actions of USCIS in June, when it began rejecting EB-3 "Other Worker" adjustment applications even though the Visa Bulletin showed an October 2001 cut-off date, on the basis that the "Other Worker" numbers for the year had been exhausted:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
jkays94
06-18 12:33 PM
I think you can go ahead to the HR and just ask for a letter stating that your position xxxx is still available for you and that you are paid xxxx. If not, you may receive a RFE for the letter. I have seen some people not getting a RFE for letters if they attached most recent pay stubs showing they are paid prevailing wage.
This is the letter I got for support of my I485:
[...]
Hope this helps
Many thanks for your response. Yes this does help and answers many questions about what the format should be like. I have also just seen a caution on Matthew Oh's site where he indicates that USCIS may not issue RFE's but issue outright denials if the "initial evidence" is missing. See the post for 06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
This is the letter I got for support of my I485:
[...]
Hope this helps
Many thanks for your response. Yes this does help and answers many questions about what the format should be like. I have also just seen a caution on Matthew Oh's site where he indicates that USCIS may not issue RFE's but issue outright denials if the "initial evidence" is missing. See the post for 06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing (http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html)
