immigrant2007
09-10 02:06 PM
They can make a category current when Demand < Supply. So once all I-485s prior to 2007 are approved the monthly demand data they publish will show demand Prior to CY2011 = 200. So unless they use approved I-140 to determine demand , DOS will make the dates current(even if for 1 month). As long as USCIS uses pending I-485 data to determine demand, the July 2007 fiasco will keep on repeating every 3-4 years. The key here is to have USCIS provide the actual demand (people with approved I-140s). It was mentioned somewhere that the current USCIS database is not capable of sorting the I-140s by country of chargebility and hence the I-140 data can't be used to determine per country demand.
If they are giving this reason of not being able to sort 140s then they are really stupid or lying
If they are giving this reason of not being able to sort 140s then they are really stupid or lying
wallpaper Tubing on the Guadalupe River
srkamath
07-20 05:34 PM
The data is organized by Govt Fiscal Year (Oct thru Sept) and by priority date not approval date. Thus anyone applying in Oct-Dec of 2005 will show up in the 2006 file.
You will notice that the PERM receipt date is always between Oct of previous year and Sept of next year. I also think that the pre-PERM data is a little suspect. I am the only GC applicant from my company and my PD is July 2004, but my case does not show up in the 2004 file. I guess during the transfer from DOL to BEC's my case got lost in translation though I got an approval in Feb 2007.
You are right about the gov fiscal being Oct - Sep.
Even if the numbers you stated are for fiscal and not calendar years, there is still an error.
To illustrate my point, there are 2766 India-Approved PERM cases of FY2005 i.e. with PDs between 3/29/2005 and 9/30/2005 in the 2006 data sheets.
Therefore total PERM cases for Fiscal 2005 ~ > 4116
Unfortunately, the 2007 data sheets do not have the "Received Date" field - i'm guessing that is not entirely accidental on part of the DOL.
You will notice that the PERM receipt date is always between Oct of previous year and Sept of next year. I also think that the pre-PERM data is a little suspect. I am the only GC applicant from my company and my PD is July 2004, but my case does not show up in the 2004 file. I guess during the transfer from DOL to BEC's my case got lost in translation though I got an approval in Feb 2007.
You are right about the gov fiscal being Oct - Sep.
Even if the numbers you stated are for fiscal and not calendar years, there is still an error.
To illustrate my point, there are 2766 India-Approved PERM cases of FY2005 i.e. with PDs between 3/29/2005 and 9/30/2005 in the 2006 data sheets.
Therefore total PERM cases for Fiscal 2005 ~ > 4116
Unfortunately, the 2007 data sheets do not have the "Received Date" field - i'm guessing that is not entirely accidental on part of the DOL.
Hermione
09-26 09:32 AM
It is not about politics, it is about ignorance of the people (including reporters). It is explainable, though - what do you know about... I don't know, laws around transporting hazardous materials, something you have never been exposed or subject to? Next to nothing. That's what an average American knows about immigration - their closest brush with that law was when their co-worker adopted a child from abroad. Of course, they do not know the difference between worker visas, and employment based immigrant visas (don't they even sound alike?).
2011 Quote: Tubing on the Guadalupe
Munna Bhai
09-19 06:14 AM
Thank you IV and all volunteers that made this rally happen. It was very well organized and I really enjoyed being part of it!!
I really liked Murthy's speech. Short and to the point. "Legal" is the key.
I also liked Mark's little comedy act.
(Wish more would have shown up to show their support, but I guess some people are content waiting 10 or more years for their GC.)
Suggestions for improvement to next time:
1. I liked that the Chinese group joined the rally, but I didn't like their speaker. He was only talking about Chinese and Indian joining forces, and then making some kind of joke about IC chips are only made by Indians and Chinese. It's ok if you want to be an Indian/Chinese-only group, it is your choice. But if you want to change something about your green cards, you will fail with that attitude. You need to attract and change things for EVERYONE, or no one will listen to you. (If you want IV to be for everyone, IV needs to be more clear on that. There are so many Indians on the forums that ppl might think it is only for Indians.)
2. Minor things... Good job on the signs(!), but there were too many of them. Half would be enough. People had trouble focus on them.
Also, keep the message short. Max a few words. No one can, in a few seconds, read a moving sign containing 4 lines of text with 5 words on each, on an unknown subject. The poor people who tried to read them looked like near-sighted old men. Short and big letters is better. "Shorter wait for legals"
rather than
"Reduce the backlog for highly-skilled legal immigrants so we can live the American dream and not wait for 10 years"
But all in all, I was amazed how well everything was planned. The state flags was a nice touch. Flowers too. Water for the participants. Great! Even the nice DC cops blocking the roads for us seemed very happy with us. Following the law is what legals do...
This is correct!! I think, too many banners will distract..great feedback
I really liked Murthy's speech. Short and to the point. "Legal" is the key.
I also liked Mark's little comedy act.
(Wish more would have shown up to show their support, but I guess some people are content waiting 10 or more years for their GC.)
Suggestions for improvement to next time:
1. I liked that the Chinese group joined the rally, but I didn't like their speaker. He was only talking about Chinese and Indian joining forces, and then making some kind of joke about IC chips are only made by Indians and Chinese. It's ok if you want to be an Indian/Chinese-only group, it is your choice. But if you want to change something about your green cards, you will fail with that attitude. You need to attract and change things for EVERYONE, or no one will listen to you. (If you want IV to be for everyone, IV needs to be more clear on that. There are so many Indians on the forums that ppl might think it is only for Indians.)
2. Minor things... Good job on the signs(!), but there were too many of them. Half would be enough. People had trouble focus on them.
Also, keep the message short. Max a few words. No one can, in a few seconds, read a moving sign containing 4 lines of text with 5 words on each, on an unknown subject. The poor people who tried to read them looked like near-sighted old men. Short and big letters is better. "Shorter wait for legals"
rather than
"Reduce the backlog for highly-skilled legal immigrants so we can live the American dream and not wait for 10 years"
But all in all, I was amazed how well everything was planned. The state flags was a nice touch. Flowers too. Water for the participants. Great! Even the nice DC cops blocking the roads for us seemed very happy with us. Following the law is what legals do...
This is correct!! I think, too many banners will distract..great feedback
more...
nonimmi
03-14 05:42 PM
We sent a letter to USCIS to revoke the existing G-28.
We just sent a letter and 485 receipt for me and my husband.
Just wanted to let u know.
Thanks for sharing the info. Did you get any new attorney?
We just sent a letter and 485 receipt for me and my husband.
Just wanted to let u know.
Thanks for sharing the info. Did you get any new attorney?
vandanaverdia
09-11 12:54 PM
The road to GC is not easy...
Support IV & come to DC!!
Lets get together & support a common cause...
Go IV!!!!
Support IV & come to DC!!
Lets get together & support a common cause...
Go IV!!!!
more...
karanp25
07-14 06:49 PM
7/13 LUD is inconclusive. There's a separate thread on IV discussing this where EB-2 folks have seen a 07/13 LUD w/o AC-21. Do you remember seeing a change in your I-140 LUD after approval in 2006 and before last week when they generated your RFE?
if there was a LUD, this is a high possibility that your previous employer revoked I-140.
This RFE can not be generated out of the blues. Using H-1B Xfr instead of EAD has absolutely nothing to do with validity of your AC-21. At least i am not aware of any correlation between the two.
I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.
if there was a LUD, this is a high possibility that your previous employer revoked I-140.
This RFE can not be generated out of the blues. Using H-1B Xfr instead of EAD has absolutely nothing to do with validity of your AC-21. At least i am not aware of any correlation between the two.
I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.
2010 I am already planning a float
Googler
02-22 11:43 PM
All this discussion about revealing sources and gaining fame is really funny from my pov.
AILA liaison reports routinely name this official, news reports also routinely name this official. He has also testified before Congress and those transcripts are freely available to those who look. If you have not heard his name before and do not know he is the one who sets cutoff dates, it is only because you haven't been paying attention in class...:)
Also in this case it was Ron Gotcher reporting on the AILA So Cal Liaison meeting who revealed his name in the first place.
I should also add that I have no special connection with this or any other official (sigh -- wouldn't I have my greencard already if I did). I've done my share of research since I got stuck in retrogression in Oct 2005, and have exercised my rights as a stakeholder in the immigration process to pick up the phone and ask questions where ever I can. Knowing the sections of the INA, the contents of the Ombudsmans Reports, CRS reports etc. tends to make people very responsive.
As for the reason for me sharing this information -- which after all I could have just sat on for myself -- was because I would want the same -- if someone found out something that potentially was going to affect my greencard I would want to know. I want to know every possible shred of information.
Of course maybe that is what I should do the next time. Just sit tight.:D
AILA liaison reports routinely name this official, news reports also routinely name this official. He has also testified before Congress and those transcripts are freely available to those who look. If you have not heard his name before and do not know he is the one who sets cutoff dates, it is only because you haven't been paying attention in class...:)
Also in this case it was Ron Gotcher reporting on the AILA So Cal Liaison meeting who revealed his name in the first place.
I should also add that I have no special connection with this or any other official (sigh -- wouldn't I have my greencard already if I did). I've done my share of research since I got stuck in retrogression in Oct 2005, and have exercised my rights as a stakeholder in the immigration process to pick up the phone and ask questions where ever I can. Knowing the sections of the INA, the contents of the Ombudsmans Reports, CRS reports etc. tends to make people very responsive.
As for the reason for me sharing this information -- which after all I could have just sat on for myself -- was because I would want the same -- if someone found out something that potentially was going to affect my greencard I would want to know. I want to know every possible shred of information.
Of course maybe that is what I should do the next time. Just sit tight.:D
more...
sats123
12-28 12:57 PM
I had similar problem with United last year. I was flying thruogh Malaysian airlines and United charged me for extra 20 LBs. But it was checked in till India.
Both of the flights were on the same itinerary and were booked through Thai. United was asking for money for international part of the travel because he said that Thai would charge United for the extra weight if United checked in the luggage all the way to Bangkok, which isn't really true because Thai did allow 70 LB then. I am not sure what the regulation is now.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
Both of the flights were on the same itinerary and were booked through Thai. United was asking for money for international part of the travel because he said that Thai would charge United for the extra weight if United checked in the luggage all the way to Bangkok, which isn't really true because Thai did allow 70 LB then. I am not sure what the regulation is now.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
hair Combine River Tubing, Kids
gimme_GC2006
05-15 10:00 AM
If we have all resources required to do MBA fulltime from a reputed school then there is no dilemea, one should opt for it. When resources are limited (need to work fulltime, has family with small kids, limited $$$ etc) then online is a better choice compared with part time. Students working for an Online MBA do develop good network and such degrees are being more and more accepted. Online course needs more descipline and dedication than the regular courses. The interaction between students and professor is more in a online course than in a part time course. You spend more time in research than in travel. Flexibility is another advantage.
My client CIO did MBA from University of Pheonix in 2006 and he was hired as CIO in 2008. I am talking of a company with more than 5000 IT staff. So its my opinion that Online MBA is valued by the industry.
http://rankings.ft.com/exportranking/online-mba-2009/pdf
I totally agree with first para..but your client CIO getting promotion out of a Phoenix university degree surprises me..many people discouraged me from going there as they dont require GMAT to start with.
My client CIO did MBA from University of Pheonix in 2006 and he was hired as CIO in 2008. I am talking of a company with more than 5000 IT staff. So its my opinion that Online MBA is valued by the industry.
http://rankings.ft.com/exportranking/online-mba-2009/pdf
I totally agree with first para..but your client CIO getting promotion out of a Phoenix university degree surprises me..many people discouraged me from going there as they dont require GMAT to start with.
more...
reddymjm
08-16 06:57 PM
Hi Guys,
I got an LUD on 8/14 on mine and my wifes I485s and also on the first EADs filed along with the 485. Anything cooking? I did change my employer in Feb 2010 and yet to file AC21. If any one had similar LUDs please post.
Thanks
I got an LUD on 8/14 on mine and my wifes I485s and also on the first EADs filed along with the 485. Anything cooking? I did change my employer in Feb 2010 and yet to file AC21. If any one had similar LUDs please post.
Thanks
hot The Guadalupe River and the
Canuck
02-13 10:46 PM
Dear friends,
I am appalled and disgusted by the mudslinging going on between ROW and India-born applicants. If any of you remember your history lessons from high school, the English used this exact policy of "Divide and Rule" to keep control over their colonies.
For example, in India, they would go into Moslem dominated cities, discriminate against them for jobs, and put Hindus in more prestigious positions, and vice-versa. They did this after the first war for independence in 1857 where Hindus, Moslems, rich and poor fought to overthrow the British occupation.
The very same policy is used by the U.S. government to control their population:
1) Per country quotas in EB immigration cause infighting
2) Infighting causes immigrant activists like IV to lose focus and weaken the agenda
3) Infighting results in racism between ROW, India, and China, which causes Americans to watch the circus, shake their heads and lobby for more immigration control
4) Poor regulation in the H1B program cause Americans to lose their jobs and blame the Indians and Chinese
...and the elite sit back, sip their martinis, and watch the fun.
So you have two choices before you:
1) Keep fighting, achieve none of the 3 main IV objectives, and continue your bonded slavery or
2) Unite as one to achieve all 3 objectives, and throw off your shackles
Remember, "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere" - Martin Luther King
I am appalled and disgusted by the mudslinging going on between ROW and India-born applicants. If any of you remember your history lessons from high school, the English used this exact policy of "Divide and Rule" to keep control over their colonies.
For example, in India, they would go into Moslem dominated cities, discriminate against them for jobs, and put Hindus in more prestigious positions, and vice-versa. They did this after the first war for independence in 1857 where Hindus, Moslems, rich and poor fought to overthrow the British occupation.
The very same policy is used by the U.S. government to control their population:
1) Per country quotas in EB immigration cause infighting
2) Infighting causes immigrant activists like IV to lose focus and weaken the agenda
3) Infighting results in racism between ROW, India, and China, which causes Americans to watch the circus, shake their heads and lobby for more immigration control
4) Poor regulation in the H1B program cause Americans to lose their jobs and blame the Indians and Chinese
...and the elite sit back, sip their martinis, and watch the fun.
So you have two choices before you:
1) Keep fighting, achieve none of the 3 main IV objectives, and continue your bonded slavery or
2) Unite as one to achieve all 3 objectives, and throw off your shackles
Remember, "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere" - Martin Luther King
more...
house features a Guadalupe River
gauravster
05-26 05:40 PM
This border patrol authority applies 100 miles from International border. Guess what, most of US population is in that region, all of NJ, MA, most of CA, etc etc as all are within 100 miles from the border (including the sea border, which marks international maritime border). Though not normally done, Border Patrol can set up checkpoints anywhere in this region. I remember reading in depth of this ridiculous rule sometime back.
Found this when I googled. Borderpatrol seems to have the authority to do whatever they did within 100 miles off any international border. It falls under 8 CFR 287.1. Entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada.
http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol608_2.htm
Found this when I googled. Borderpatrol seems to have the authority to do whatever they did within 100 miles off any international border. It falls under 8 CFR 287.1. Entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada.
http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol608_2.htm
tattoo about Guadalupe River
bajjuri77
03-09 10:53 AM
Hi,
I have 6,355 miles from Delta. I want to donate these miles to someone who is travelling to DC. Please let me know if I can do this and how to do it.
Thank you and good luck to you all.
I have 6,355 miles from Delta. I want to donate these miles to someone who is travelling to DC. Please let me know if I can do this and how to do it.
Thank you and good luck to you all.
more...
pictures float the Guadalupe River
delax
07-14 07:17 PM
Murthy will never mention Immigrationvoice or our effort on her website.
Murthy will always want to take credit for everything good even if she has no hand in it. She tried to take credit for the June bulletin. But she vanished when the July fiasco happened. Why did she not take credit for the July fiasco if she was so close to DOS and was so easily able to influence the June bulletin. It is publicity stunt of these lawyers and their websites to try to show off how influencial they are so that their clients are simply awed by them and give dollars to them as fees.
I want to ask Murthy this question-- How much money has she given to Immigrationvoice till now?
If she has not given any money, then it means she does not care about immigrants and this cause. It means she wants retrogression to stay so that she can make quick bucks off it.
My friend - I think I need to send you a flower :)
To a few of my misguided friends who seem to not understand the distinction between a lobbying outfit whose goal is to change existing law to better suit reality and a law firm whose goal is to work within existing law. As self-proclaimed proponents of "Gandhigiri" - I see its principles not being applied when dealing with each other. Is Gandhigiri meant only to show USCIS. Would the Mahatma have said the same things mentioned above before asking himself a few questions. I dont think we can question the motives and intention of anybody before fully knowing the facts. As a client of Murthy Law Firm here is a fact:
On her call last week for her clients, she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now.
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
If you feel that she does not work for immigrants you have no locus standi to avail of ANY BENEFIT from the lawsuit and as a true proponent of "Gandhigiri" you should VOLUNTARILY exclude yourself from any such potential benefit.
I know the Mahatma would have done the same thing.
Murthy will always want to take credit for everything good even if she has no hand in it. She tried to take credit for the June bulletin. But she vanished when the July fiasco happened. Why did she not take credit for the July fiasco if she was so close to DOS and was so easily able to influence the June bulletin. It is publicity stunt of these lawyers and their websites to try to show off how influencial they are so that their clients are simply awed by them and give dollars to them as fees.
I want to ask Murthy this question-- How much money has she given to Immigrationvoice till now?
If she has not given any money, then it means she does not care about immigrants and this cause. It means she wants retrogression to stay so that she can make quick bucks off it.
My friend - I think I need to send you a flower :)
To a few of my misguided friends who seem to not understand the distinction between a lobbying outfit whose goal is to change existing law to better suit reality and a law firm whose goal is to work within existing law. As self-proclaimed proponents of "Gandhigiri" - I see its principles not being applied when dealing with each other. Is Gandhigiri meant only to show USCIS. Would the Mahatma have said the same things mentioned above before asking himself a few questions. I dont think we can question the motives and intention of anybody before fully knowing the facts. As a client of Murthy Law Firm here is a fact:
On her call last week for her clients, she mentioned that the Murthy Law Firm is one of the biggest financial contributor to AILF - who by the way are ready to file the class action lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successfull and given AILF's funding source - will you exclude yourself from the potential benefit because Murthy's funds were used to support the litigation - who's piggybacking now.
Again - Its not one against the other - Please bear in mind the DUE PROCESS of LAW has been violated by USCIS resulting in a curtailment of your substantive rights (EAD, Parole, AC21 etc). I would not care who fights on my behalf so long as the outcome is to correct the earlier mistake.
If you feel that she does not work for immigrants you have no locus standi to avail of ANY BENEFIT from the lawsuit and as a true proponent of "Gandhigiri" you should VOLUNTARILY exclude yourself from any such potential benefit.
I know the Mahatma would have done the same thing.
dresses Tubing the Guadalupe River
perm2gc
01-09 08:13 PM
This thread's been silent..whats going on fellas.... Are you guys finding out new forums, new websites to post....... We have to meet our 10K membership......
thanks Bringing up the thread. I will post if i find some new forums.
thanks Bringing up the thread. I will post if i find some new forums.
more...
makeup We normally start the float at Huaco Falls which is about mid river and
amitga
03-11 11:36 PM
Real April fool
girlfriend watch the Guadalupe River
sc3
10-16 06:05 PM
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people’s answers.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
hairstyles The river is a clean,
sasi1234
04-10 09:47 AM
First off, you are looking for a bodyshop. A consulting shop. You would be the consultant if you are hired they would be the consulting firm.
There is a website called http://www.desicrunch.com/ (Desi Crunch) that as reviews of most of Indian Consulting shops. Reviews are posted by individuals themselves so they would be reliable.
Loved desi crunch..especially the tips that you gave for consultants..they make more sense!!
There is a website called http://www.desicrunch.com/ (Desi Crunch) that as reviews of most of Indian Consulting shops. Reviews are posted by individuals themselves so they would be reliable.
Loved desi crunch..especially the tips that you gave for consultants..they make more sense!!
k3GC
11-11 01:01 PM
I think this letter looks good, let us send it. There is no hassle in doing that.
Questions
1. Do we all need to send a copy? Is this like a campaign we are doing?
2. Do we need to send this as IV? Is that possible? Who should we talk to about that?
3. Has somebody sent such letters before the the DOS Visa Office etc. and got anything - may be they can shed some light. I know of folks who have done the the 7001 form DHS | CIS Ombudsman - Case Problems (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0497.shtm). I dont think this falls under that.
My 2 cents is - this is not a campaign, we are asking for a formal answer / clarification and if we can send this as from IV may be we will get an answer.
Questions
1. Do we all need to send a copy? Is this like a campaign we are doing?
2. Do we need to send this as IV? Is that possible? Who should we talk to about that?
3. Has somebody sent such letters before the the DOS Visa Office etc. and got anything - may be they can shed some light. I know of folks who have done the the 7001 form DHS | CIS Ombudsman - Case Problems (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0497.shtm). I dont think this falls under that.
My 2 cents is - this is not a campaign, we are asking for a formal answer / clarification and if we can send this as from IV may be we will get an answer.
gcisadawg
02-13 01:49 PM
Ash, I agree with the message but you need to work on the choice of words. This not ethnic cleansing or lynching or systematic targetting. I'd say America is going into a protectionist mode. When you are in that mode, the first step is to keep aliens at a distance.
