lazycis
04-25 09:16 PM
ask lawyer to file MTR and resend response to RFE along with it. You should get a quick response (within 4-6 weeks). If MTR is denied, ask to file appeal, but sometimes it's better to change employer and start from scratch. Appeal can be a long process.
wallpaper lauren conrad hair up.
abhijitp
11-20 05:19 PM
No. It is not from IV Core again. Once Core team makes their decision on this they will post it separately.
This is confusing.
In the meantime, IVMovies, please update your IV profile as Pappu requested in that thread.
This is confusing.
In the meantime, IVMovies, please update your IV profile as Pappu requested in that thread.
jnraajan
04-07 10:35 AM
Good Points. I also brought this up in one of the threads earlier. What are we going to do to atleast make sure, Visa numbers dont go waste this year as well.
2011 lauren conrad hair color
learning01
04-13 09:46 PM
Such a loss of talent and skill should be pointed out publicly by the employers and research institutions, rather than us. They primarily will stand to gain more, then this great country and last we mortals. What do you say?
Excellent point!
Maybe the IV team, when interacting with legislators, can also highlight cases of exceptional persons who got tired of waiting for their green card and are now productively employed in their home country. That will be a nice complement to the stories of people like us who have still not given up.
Excellent point!
Maybe the IV team, when interacting with legislators, can also highlight cases of exceptional persons who got tired of waiting for their green card and are now productively employed in their home country. That will be a nice complement to the stories of people like us who have still not given up.
more...
vinicola78
11-04 03:22 PM
It has been 5 months now since I left my job and invoked AC21.
JunRN
12-18 04:44 PM
So people should stop asking, right? Every now and then, people are asking whether it is from Receipt Date or from Notice Date.
People calling the USCIS Customer Service for EAD (90 days) always get an answer that it is from Notice Date. We know it is from Receipt date, not notice date.
Anyway, as I was saying, it is your path. I have chosen mine.
People calling the USCIS Customer Service for EAD (90 days) always get an answer that it is from Notice Date. We know it is from Receipt date, not notice date.
Anyway, as I was saying, it is your path. I have chosen mine.
more...
geesee
07-13 10:42 AM
^^^^
gg10004 - Great news !!!
Keeping fingures crossed
gg10004 - Great news !!!
Keeping fingures crossed
2010 lauren conrad hair up.
kokil
03-09 07:57 PM
Here is more detail about the degree from University of Melbourne
Melbourne students set to study online : News : The University of Melbourne (http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/2547/)
Melbourne students set to study online : News : The University of Melbourne (http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/2547/)
more...
vaishnavilakshmi
07-20 12:37 PM
Hi gurus
I look for a help in terms of clarification for birth cert,,
1. Born in 70 but my birth was registered in 2005 when I wanted a birth certificate, BC issued in aug 2005 and says registered in 2005. Is it ok I use them or I need an affidavit also from my parents?
2. There is one letter written wrongly in my name.. can i send or get a new one??
I would greatly appreciate your advise on this
Thanks in advance for your help
Gclong
Hi friend,
1st question). As per immigration rules,if ur birth is registered on or after 1year of ur birth till date,u got to submit two additional sworn affidavits along with the birth certificate as proof.
So in ur case since ur birth was registered in 2005 and got a new birth certificate in 2005 u need to submit the following :
Birth certificate(which u have now with u..issued in august 2005)
+
Two sworn affidavits from any two blood relatives(mom,dad,siblings,aunt,uncle) older and get notarised
by any attorney/magitrate.The following is the format.
************************************************** ********
AFFIDAVIT REGARDING BIRTH
I __________________ (name) being the _________________ (relationship father, mother, sister, brother, aunt, uncle), to ______________ (FN name), reside at ___________________ (address, including country), do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
I declare that _________________ is my (son/daughter/brother/sister/niece/
nephew). He/She was born on __(Date)_____ in (town, country) and that ______________ (father’s name) is his/her father and _____________ (mother’s name) is his/her mother.
______________________________
Signature of Deponent
AFFIDAVITS MUST BE PROVIDED BY TWO (2) BLOOD RELATIVES, (MOTHER, FATHER, AUNT, UNCLE), AND THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE WITNESSED AND STAMPED BY AN ADVOCATE/NOTARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF YOUR COUNTRY.
************************************************** ********
Note :
whatever be the case,combined affidavit will not work.Please ask any two of ur blood relations to give them individually.in my case My dad gave me one affidavit and my aunt gave me one affidavit,coz my mom was in usa that time with me.please check with ur lawyer.this format was 2months old format.i got it done in May 2007.
2 question).Name spelling mispelt in birth certificate needs a combined affidavit from parents and notarised.
Please check with ur lawyer too,
Goodluck,
Vaishu
I look for a help in terms of clarification for birth cert,,
1. Born in 70 but my birth was registered in 2005 when I wanted a birth certificate, BC issued in aug 2005 and says registered in 2005. Is it ok I use them or I need an affidavit also from my parents?
2. There is one letter written wrongly in my name.. can i send or get a new one??
I would greatly appreciate your advise on this
Thanks in advance for your help
Gclong
Hi friend,
1st question). As per immigration rules,if ur birth is registered on or after 1year of ur birth till date,u got to submit two additional sworn affidavits along with the birth certificate as proof.
So in ur case since ur birth was registered in 2005 and got a new birth certificate in 2005 u need to submit the following :
Birth certificate(which u have now with u..issued in august 2005)
+
Two sworn affidavits from any two blood relatives(mom,dad,siblings,aunt,uncle) older and get notarised
by any attorney/magitrate.The following is the format.
************************************************** ********
AFFIDAVIT REGARDING BIRTH
I __________________ (name) being the _________________ (relationship father, mother, sister, brother, aunt, uncle), to ______________ (FN name), reside at ___________________ (address, including country), do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
I declare that _________________ is my (son/daughter/brother/sister/niece/
nephew). He/She was born on __(Date)_____ in (town, country) and that ______________ (father’s name) is his/her father and _____________ (mother’s name) is his/her mother.
______________________________
Signature of Deponent
AFFIDAVITS MUST BE PROVIDED BY TWO (2) BLOOD RELATIVES, (MOTHER, FATHER, AUNT, UNCLE), AND THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE WITNESSED AND STAMPED BY AN ADVOCATE/NOTARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF YOUR COUNTRY.
************************************************** ********
Note :
whatever be the case,combined affidavit will not work.Please ask any two of ur blood relations to give them individually.in my case My dad gave me one affidavit and my aunt gave me one affidavit,coz my mom was in usa that time with me.please check with ur lawyer.this format was 2months old format.i got it done in May 2007.
2 question).Name spelling mispelt in birth certificate needs a combined affidavit from parents and notarised.
Please check with ur lawyer too,
Goodluck,
Vaishu
hair Lauren Conrad, 2009
nixstor
07-16 09:59 AM
What is Ron basing his prediction on... I am not sure the trend says so... Can anyone please share his logic?
2 months before, IV has learned from CA/VO at the State Dept that 80-85% of all the visa numbers have been allocated for the fiscal year. I am sure that the actual usage by now is probably more than the 85%. If I am not mistaken, DOS considered 95% utilization as best in the past. It seems to me that they want to get close to the 100%. If you look at the last few bulletins, the cut off dates moved by one month and not by leaps and bounds. Clearly there was demand. I can see EB-2 I & C with PD's of 2002 getting approvals. The demand for EB-2 I & C still exists. DOS just gave USCIS an opportunity to USCIS to utilize the visa numbers. We all know that there is no such thing called FIFO with CIS. I have said this before and will say again one more time.
In the last 2 months, Some one with a PD of Jan 06 might get approved and some one with Jun 02 will be sulking. Just because EB-2 I & C dates have moved to 06 for a brief time does not mean that EB-3 I & C are the only ones that will be left sulking for ever. EB-2 I & C will join the lines in no time. The comparative pain & wait time for EB-3 I & C is more, but what difference does it make if it takes 6 years vs 10 years. Any solutions or thoughts to our issues that are designed entirely on a EB category basis, IMO are not good.
2 months before, IV has learned from CA/VO at the State Dept that 80-85% of all the visa numbers have been allocated for the fiscal year. I am sure that the actual usage by now is probably more than the 85%. If I am not mistaken, DOS considered 95% utilization as best in the past. It seems to me that they want to get close to the 100%. If you look at the last few bulletins, the cut off dates moved by one month and not by leaps and bounds. Clearly there was demand. I can see EB-2 I & C with PD's of 2002 getting approvals. The demand for EB-2 I & C still exists. DOS just gave USCIS an opportunity to USCIS to utilize the visa numbers. We all know that there is no such thing called FIFO with CIS. I have said this before and will say again one more time.
In the last 2 months, Some one with a PD of Jan 06 might get approved and some one with Jun 02 will be sulking. Just because EB-2 I & C dates have moved to 06 for a brief time does not mean that EB-3 I & C are the only ones that will be left sulking for ever. EB-2 I & C will join the lines in no time. The comparative pain & wait time for EB-3 I & C is more, but what difference does it make if it takes 6 years vs 10 years. Any solutions or thoughts to our issues that are designed entirely on a EB category basis, IMO are not good.
more...
vin
09-17 02:32 PM
techbuyer... If you don't mind, What's your nationality? You're a citizen of which country?
hot lauren conrad hair. clothing
gautamagg
07-20 02:27 AM
As some of you know that I don't really post on IV after the belittling of my posts and stand regarding F1 visas and support to Mr , I was asked by another IV loyalist friend who felt it was relevant I shared a letter I had sent to Mr. E Gonzalez over email yesterday as learnt of this issue yesterday.
Dear Mr. Gonzalez
I wanted to thank you for the announcement that has brought relief for many of us it is still the beginning of our fight for better processes and improved and updated laws for employment based green cards. I still don't see the light at the end of the tunnel with so many pending applications. I have already been 3 years in the process and my lawyers think I would be out for another 2 if not 3 after having gained premier advanced education from the US. The reasons are many fold. Some are process delays related and some due to statutory guidelines per the legislations. I wanted to document a few issues that if resolved can bring in a lot a relief. Also, I need to introduce you to an issue I was made aware of by a close friend who was surprisingly unhappy with yesterday's announcement.
Process delays on the part of USCIS have caused many delays in employment based visas to be issued. And based on how annual caps are counted and met, many EB based visas have been lost. (~500,000 in the last few years per the Ombudsman's office i.e. almost 4 years worth of visas). This has created a chicken and an egg problem. Because of the USCIS delays, the visa numbers have cumulatively got lost and there is no way to recapture them without a legislation change. No one seems to address the former issue. The Congress does not really have anything planned for the recapture to happen. As a result the 4 year backlog will become 5 and 5 will become 6 and so on. Not only are skilled workers left frustrated with stagnant careers, they are also left unheard and asked to look at other greener pastures outside of the US. This is hurting the US economy in many ways but one. Employers such as Microsoft are unable to retain people and therefore opening offices offshore - this will only promote job off shoring that middle class America is most worried about. Action needs to be taken on the part of the USCIS and Congress; else this situation will have ripple effects for many years to come that may reshape the American Society - more in negative ways than positive.
The next issue I wanted to discuss was something even crueler. Apparently people have been fighting for this issue from 1990 under many organizations with Unitefamilies.org being most active. Under the current legislation, a non immigrant long term visa holder such as F1, H1, L1, J1, etc. are allowed to immediately get their families (spouses and children) on similar dependent categories like F4, H4, etc. Also Green Card applicants can add the names of their spouses and children on their AOS applications (I-145) easily and create a primary-derivative pending application. But a Green Card holder who wishes to marry someone can not get his/ her spouse in the United States for over 6 years. The current legislation allows immediate family members such as spouse and children of citizens to be in the country in around 6 to 9 months but not so much for the permanent resident (PR). This leaves the PR holder with one of two options: live without family for 6 years or move with the family back to another country. The former is resulting in many broken families and against the American history that promotes family values. The latter is not feasible because PR laws require Green Card holders to be in the US for over 6 months a year to maintain the PR status. Is this really what our lawmakers want us to live with - 2 choices that change people's life for the worst?
On further understanding of the issue, I realize that legislation change is needed to allow reuniting families. This needs to be sorted out, I want the lawmakers to consider people who became PRs through an H1 or L1 employment route be given the benefit of getting their families more easily since they had those benefits when on the Non-Immigrant Visa. Then why stop a permanent resident from being with his/ her family? The lawmakers may be concerned that allowing all Green card holders to do so will increase the misuse of this option and promote marriages of convenience; but the beneficiaries through employment category should be allowed because they could avail of it while in the pending state in any case. This needs a legislation change and may address a big chunk of the issue at hand.
The one last scenario that I feel is a no brainier and needs no legislation change but more of a USCIS policy change is very straight forward and it becomes more relevant in this age of retrogression. This is the reason why my friend was unhappy and I have a feeling I may end up in this situation too and therefore will use myself as an example:
Based on yesterday's announcement I apply for my AOS. As mentioned in earlier emails the benefits of the AOS pending let me come out a of a stagnant career path. I am single and 30 years old. Since I do not have a wife, my application has no derivative. 2 months down the line I find the love of my life and get married in 3-4 months - before my AOS has been approved. Now I want to have my wife get the benefit of the AOS as well such that I can get her the Green Card too - to avoid the 6 year waiting time she will have if I apply after I get approved. But by then the retrogression dates move back again and my PD is not current anymore. Per the current USCIS process one can not apply for AOS if the date is not current. That process is also extrapolated to derivative applicants where the primary is pending and therefore the derivative has to wait for the dates to get current. The problem with this issue is that because no one has visibility into how USCIS approves application the primary may get approved as soon as the dates become current before the derivative could apply for the AOS. The derivative will not be able to apply for AOS and will have to go back of the country and wait outside for 6 years to file using the other path. Even though the marriage took place before the primary got approved but a process guideline prevents the derivative to apply. This is a very cruel process for people who are about to get married but do not want to risk a broken family and are delaying filing their AOS even though the visa bulletin allows them to. God knows when this window will open again. My friend has to choose between filing his own AOS or marriage. A simple process update can help us fix this situation. While the USCIS and people are still debating allowing filing of 485s with retrogressed PDs, this is a side issue that is recommending allowing filing of 485 for derivatives ASAP (instead of waiting for the primary's PD to become current again) if the 485 of the primary is already pending to avoid long waiting years for a couple to be together.
After hearing this issue, I am worried. My AOS was sent on Jul 2 and I am considering getting married by October. My PD is Dec 2004 EB2 India and may stay retrogressed for sometime. Per current process I will not be able to add my wife until my PD becomes current again and fear that my GC might get approved before I could do that...Ironically I am praying for a delay in my approval just so that I can build a family. This does not need a legislation change but a process review and change by the USCIS. This will help reduce the confusion on interfiled application and also reduce the strain on the 5-6 years of follow-on green cards.
Please feel free to contact me to further understand this issue. Read the following complicated analysis attorney Murthy has laid out to explain this situation: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_retspo.html
Thanks
Gautam
Dear Mr. Gonzalez
I wanted to thank you for the announcement that has brought relief for many of us it is still the beginning of our fight for better processes and improved and updated laws for employment based green cards. I still don't see the light at the end of the tunnel with so many pending applications. I have already been 3 years in the process and my lawyers think I would be out for another 2 if not 3 after having gained premier advanced education from the US. The reasons are many fold. Some are process delays related and some due to statutory guidelines per the legislations. I wanted to document a few issues that if resolved can bring in a lot a relief. Also, I need to introduce you to an issue I was made aware of by a close friend who was surprisingly unhappy with yesterday's announcement.
Process delays on the part of USCIS have caused many delays in employment based visas to be issued. And based on how annual caps are counted and met, many EB based visas have been lost. (~500,000 in the last few years per the Ombudsman's office i.e. almost 4 years worth of visas). This has created a chicken and an egg problem. Because of the USCIS delays, the visa numbers have cumulatively got lost and there is no way to recapture them without a legislation change. No one seems to address the former issue. The Congress does not really have anything planned for the recapture to happen. As a result the 4 year backlog will become 5 and 5 will become 6 and so on. Not only are skilled workers left frustrated with stagnant careers, they are also left unheard and asked to look at other greener pastures outside of the US. This is hurting the US economy in many ways but one. Employers such as Microsoft are unable to retain people and therefore opening offices offshore - this will only promote job off shoring that middle class America is most worried about. Action needs to be taken on the part of the USCIS and Congress; else this situation will have ripple effects for many years to come that may reshape the American Society - more in negative ways than positive.
The next issue I wanted to discuss was something even crueler. Apparently people have been fighting for this issue from 1990 under many organizations with Unitefamilies.org being most active. Under the current legislation, a non immigrant long term visa holder such as F1, H1, L1, J1, etc. are allowed to immediately get their families (spouses and children) on similar dependent categories like F4, H4, etc. Also Green Card applicants can add the names of their spouses and children on their AOS applications (I-145) easily and create a primary-derivative pending application. But a Green Card holder who wishes to marry someone can not get his/ her spouse in the United States for over 6 years. The current legislation allows immediate family members such as spouse and children of citizens to be in the country in around 6 to 9 months but not so much for the permanent resident (PR). This leaves the PR holder with one of two options: live without family for 6 years or move with the family back to another country. The former is resulting in many broken families and against the American history that promotes family values. The latter is not feasible because PR laws require Green Card holders to be in the US for over 6 months a year to maintain the PR status. Is this really what our lawmakers want us to live with - 2 choices that change people's life for the worst?
On further understanding of the issue, I realize that legislation change is needed to allow reuniting families. This needs to be sorted out, I want the lawmakers to consider people who became PRs through an H1 or L1 employment route be given the benefit of getting their families more easily since they had those benefits when on the Non-Immigrant Visa. Then why stop a permanent resident from being with his/ her family? The lawmakers may be concerned that allowing all Green card holders to do so will increase the misuse of this option and promote marriages of convenience; but the beneficiaries through employment category should be allowed because they could avail of it while in the pending state in any case. This needs a legislation change and may address a big chunk of the issue at hand.
The one last scenario that I feel is a no brainier and needs no legislation change but more of a USCIS policy change is very straight forward and it becomes more relevant in this age of retrogression. This is the reason why my friend was unhappy and I have a feeling I may end up in this situation too and therefore will use myself as an example:
Based on yesterday's announcement I apply for my AOS. As mentioned in earlier emails the benefits of the AOS pending let me come out a of a stagnant career path. I am single and 30 years old. Since I do not have a wife, my application has no derivative. 2 months down the line I find the love of my life and get married in 3-4 months - before my AOS has been approved. Now I want to have my wife get the benefit of the AOS as well such that I can get her the Green Card too - to avoid the 6 year waiting time she will have if I apply after I get approved. But by then the retrogression dates move back again and my PD is not current anymore. Per the current USCIS process one can not apply for AOS if the date is not current. That process is also extrapolated to derivative applicants where the primary is pending and therefore the derivative has to wait for the dates to get current. The problem with this issue is that because no one has visibility into how USCIS approves application the primary may get approved as soon as the dates become current before the derivative could apply for the AOS. The derivative will not be able to apply for AOS and will have to go back of the country and wait outside for 6 years to file using the other path. Even though the marriage took place before the primary got approved but a process guideline prevents the derivative to apply. This is a very cruel process for people who are about to get married but do not want to risk a broken family and are delaying filing their AOS even though the visa bulletin allows them to. God knows when this window will open again. My friend has to choose between filing his own AOS or marriage. A simple process update can help us fix this situation. While the USCIS and people are still debating allowing filing of 485s with retrogressed PDs, this is a side issue that is recommending allowing filing of 485 for derivatives ASAP (instead of waiting for the primary's PD to become current again) if the 485 of the primary is already pending to avoid long waiting years for a couple to be together.
After hearing this issue, I am worried. My AOS was sent on Jul 2 and I am considering getting married by October. My PD is Dec 2004 EB2 India and may stay retrogressed for sometime. Per current process I will not be able to add my wife until my PD becomes current again and fear that my GC might get approved before I could do that...Ironically I am praying for a delay in my approval just so that I can build a family. This does not need a legislation change but a process review and change by the USCIS. This will help reduce the confusion on interfiled application and also reduce the strain on the 5-6 years of follow-on green cards.
Please feel free to contact me to further understand this issue. Read the following complicated analysis attorney Murthy has laid out to explain this situation: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_retspo.html
Thanks
Gautam
more...
house Lauren Conrad is the queen of
snarla
06-25 03:36 PM
gcnirvana,
I guy at the CBP office said that since my passport will be expiring on July 2007, i should have gotten my I94 stamped only till July 2007 instead of till September 2007 which is whenmy visa stamp will expire ... I am planning to try my luck again once i get my new passport ...
I guy at the CBP office said that since my passport will be expiring on July 2007, i should have gotten my I94 stamped only till July 2007 instead of till September 2007 which is whenmy visa stamp will expire ... I am planning to try my luck again once i get my new passport ...
tattoo Lauren Conrad may not have won
pcs
01-03 08:26 PM
Can you get AC 21 advantage if you just wait ( NOT WORK in case of a friendly past employer) after filing 485 ?
Is it necessary to work for 180 days ?
If working for 180 days is not required then, one can work for someone else on H1B & file 485 from the past employer. After 180 days of filing, one could use AC21 to move from one job to another.
Can some one give expert advise ?
Thanks
Is it necessary to work for 180 days ?
If working for 180 days is not required then, one can work for someone else on H1B & file 485 from the past employer. After 180 days of filing, one could use AC21 to move from one job to another.
Can some one give expert advise ?
Thanks
more...
pictures lauren conrad hair up.
go_guy123
12-25 04:31 PM
I am getting mentally prepared for much much longer wait.
Thanks
meaning you are also planning to marry a US citizen....nothing wrong
This trend will accelerate more in years to come.
When i first came in 1999 marrying us citizen was sort of heard of by IT folks.
by 2003 i was coming across so many cases of marrying us citizen.
among non indians its very common resulting in their PD being more recent.
In fact my friends who went for marrying citizen ...are way better placed in life.
It become so hard to marry from india now with contract jobs lasting short time and salary being so low after cut form h1b vendors. eventually teh pain will reach the point of yield.
Thanks
meaning you are also planning to marry a US citizen....nothing wrong
This trend will accelerate more in years to come.
When i first came in 1999 marrying us citizen was sort of heard of by IT folks.
by 2003 i was coming across so many cases of marrying us citizen.
among non indians its very common resulting in their PD being more recent.
In fact my friends who went for marrying citizen ...are way better placed in life.
It become so hard to marry from india now with contract jobs lasting short time and salary being so low after cut form h1b vendors. eventually teh pain will reach the point of yield.
dresses Lauren Conrad celebrity
willwin
08-13 05:53 PM
I wanted to get an idea how many EB2 guys would be willing to visit DC to meet lawmakers to help out our EB3 brothers. Unquestionably all EB3 should be willing to visit. This is the chance to show that IV is indeed one.
Refering to this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20858
So, obviously, you are not expecting any EB3 I to vote, right?
Or do you want EB3 I also to vote?
Refering to this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20858
So, obviously, you are not expecting any EB3 I to vote, right?
Or do you want EB3 I also to vote?
more...
makeup Lauren Conrad Stops Off For a
dallasdude
05-27 11:19 AM
This is just a humour but has a meaning underneath if you try to understand. I am comparing USCIS to a product selling company. If USCIS was a TV selling company what would happen to the customers the way it acts ?
You could buy a TV but you will not know when you will get it. It could be shipped the next week, the next month, next year or never.
The credit card will be charged once, may be charged twice or a valid CC may get rejected.
Somebody who buys a TV from USCSIS a 2 years after you do, he may get it sooner than you do.
USCIS has no way of knowing how many TVs have been ordered and how many of them are in stock.
In case you do not receive your TV in two years, USCIS acknowledges that there is a long wait time for some and does not do anything about it. USCIS thinks acknowledgment of wait time is more than enough that it has done for the customers. Customers did not deserve this but USCIS did a favour to them being a good "Customer Service" company
There would be an online survey after you buy it which would never get submitted 99% of the times.
In case it did get submitted, somebody will read one out of 10,000.
After reading it he will throw it in the trash can.
If you get a defective TV (which is quite likely), you have a chance to file appeal by paying the same amount of money for the TV again so that your case can be re-opened.
I wonder how many customers would USCIS have eventually ??? Any guesses ??? :-)
So....What's the point? The employees at USCIS are humans too. Give them a break will ya? They are doing the best they can to accomodate everyone in here.
You could buy a TV but you will not know when you will get it. It could be shipped the next week, the next month, next year or never.
The credit card will be charged once, may be charged twice or a valid CC may get rejected.
Somebody who buys a TV from USCSIS a 2 years after you do, he may get it sooner than you do.
USCIS has no way of knowing how many TVs have been ordered and how many of them are in stock.
In case you do not receive your TV in two years, USCIS acknowledges that there is a long wait time for some and does not do anything about it. USCIS thinks acknowledgment of wait time is more than enough that it has done for the customers. Customers did not deserve this but USCIS did a favour to them being a good "Customer Service" company
There would be an online survey after you buy it which would never get submitted 99% of the times.
In case it did get submitted, somebody will read one out of 10,000.
After reading it he will throw it in the trash can.
If you get a defective TV (which is quite likely), you have a chance to file appeal by paying the same amount of money for the TV again so that your case can be re-opened.
I wonder how many customers would USCIS have eventually ??? Any guesses ??? :-)
So....What's the point? The employees at USCIS are humans too. Give them a break will ya? They are doing the best they can to accomodate everyone in here.
girlfriend 2011 lauren conrad hair up. lauren lauren conrad dark brown hair. lauren
GCard_Dream
02-14 05:47 PM
Senate majority leader and the bill sponsors have said before that they would like senate to take up this issue in March and a final vote sometime in April. Now whether you can trust these guys for what they say or if the political situation in March will allow this to happen, no one really knows. To some extent, it's like visa bulletin prediction where we almost never get it right. Just do your own research and by March 30th, we'll all know if it was taken up or not. If not, we'll predict that it will be taken up by April .. and the saga will continue. After few hundred posts, you'll learn not to ask these kind of questions which no one has any answer for. :D
hairstyles lauren conrad hair up.
bekugc
04-18 03:23 PM
bitu,
when did u apply or ur 485? im asking for ur RD/ND on the 485.
also which service center.
thanks
when did u apply or ur 485? im asking for ur RD/ND on the 485.
also which service center.
thanks
ski_dude12
04-22 11:37 PM
Please do not give these kind of title for hypothetical cases.. I think we need tofocus on finding resolution to current stagnation than doing analysis paralysis.
Yeah scared the hell out of me too.
Yeah scared the hell out of me too.
nk2006
09-22 02:42 PM
Just posting the phone numbers on this thread (incase you didnt see them on other threads) - Please call. Lets keep our sceptisism aside for a while (just for 24 hours :)) and call. There is still some chance (otherwise why would they schedule to discuss it).
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
