pappu
09-30 06:17 PM
Don't expect anything from Nebraska Service Center today. Somebody from site who live few minutes away from NSC said that the parking lot at NSC is empty today. Yesterday, she saw that it was full from 7 to 12 nn but was empty in the afternoon.
What we can expect is only automatic LUDs. No overtime work for NSC. Have they used up all the FY2007 visas? They must have....if not, this fact can be used against them when we file a complain.
Its interesting to find someone 'tracking' the NSC parking lot this weekend!!:D
I have found some interesting posts by people. See below:
1. I check on this site every hour or everytime whenever i can
2. I check if i have LUD first thing in the morning and in the evening
3. I check my bank account and wish checks for EAD and AP are encashed
4. I keep on logging on online forums(murthy.com, immigrationvoice, immigration portal..etc)
5. I keep calling USCIS hotline for some questions
6. I cant wait for my FP notice
7. I always go to snail mailbox and hope i got something immigration related
8. I call my friends and guess what we end up talking about? immigration matters
9. I'm jealous of people who have gotten their greencards
10. I cant get this Greencard off my mind!!!!
Have i gone greencard crazy? :)
LIFE?
L- LUD
I- Immigration Notices/RFEs/IO
F- Forums
E- e-mail from CRIS
What we can expect is only automatic LUDs. No overtime work for NSC. Have they used up all the FY2007 visas? They must have....if not, this fact can be used against them when we file a complain.
Its interesting to find someone 'tracking' the NSC parking lot this weekend!!:D
I have found some interesting posts by people. See below:
1. I check on this site every hour or everytime whenever i can
2. I check if i have LUD first thing in the morning and in the evening
3. I check my bank account and wish checks for EAD and AP are encashed
4. I keep on logging on online forums(murthy.com, immigrationvoice, immigration portal..etc)
5. I keep calling USCIS hotline for some questions
6. I cant wait for my FP notice
7. I always go to snail mailbox and hope i got something immigration related
8. I call my friends and guess what we end up talking about? immigration matters
9. I'm jealous of people who have gotten their greencards
10. I cant get this Greencard off my mind!!!!
Have i gone greencard crazy? :)
LIFE?
L- LUD
I- Immigration Notices/RFEs/IO
F- Forums
E- e-mail from CRIS
Napoleon
03-11 01:25 AM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
Question #3 and #4 should conclude this discussion.
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
Question #3 and #4 should conclude this discussion.
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
chanduv23
06-10 10:48 AM
Why not do a flower campaign or the like, that we did last time? Clearly that worked and the phone campaign doesnt "have the appearance" of working. I am not saying it is not working, it just isint having the same media impact as last time. It doesnt have to be the flower campaign again, heck we can do a fruit basket deal this time.
Our message should be "Please stop punishing people that came here the right way, in order to help the people that did not". We are not against undocumented workers getting amnesty, we just dont want their issues to hold up everyone else's.
There are reasons we MUST NOT do anything like that. Lobbying works on the long run. These days lawmmakers are more informed about the situation and it is just a matter of time.
Do not lose hope - we will succeed.
Please convince your friends and coworkers to make phone calls and visits to law makers offices.
Our message should be "Please stop punishing people that came here the right way, in order to help the people that did not". We are not against undocumented workers getting amnesty, we just dont want their issues to hold up everyone else's.
There are reasons we MUST NOT do anything like that. Lobbying works on the long run. These days lawmmakers are more informed about the situation and it is just a matter of time.
Do not lose hope - we will succeed.
Please convince your friends and coworkers to make phone calls and visits to law makers offices.
sukhwinderd
03-10 08:54 AM
i have friends who had issues with suntrust, boa etc. but they gave references of people who were approved from the same banks while on adjustment of status and they were finally approved. my loan is with Amtrust and did not have any issues, i am on EAD, no H1.
more...
JunRN
05-15 11:20 PM
Thanks for your wishes.
I agree with you regarding the timeline and evidence. I have mentioned it to my attorney numerous times. My attorney was insistent that adjudicating officers can see all my info on their computer screens. It is only a matter of looking at the info correctly.
It looks like the first MTR went to the same IO who denied my I-485. I could say it from ID in both the denial letters.
Sometimes lawyers are used to their old ways of doing things. However, IOs are not the same people of the old. Most IOs are new hires and still in their learning curve.
I think the problem with your info. on USCIS screen is that the previously approved I-140 was changed to "denied" on same date it was approved. USCIS probably didn't have a log of the change.
The only evidence to prove that it was "approved" before is your copy of approval notice and it seems they don't believe the legitimacy of your copy. USCIS relied solely in their faulty database system.
Did you have a screen capture of the I-140 approval in CRIS? I screened captured mine just in case because it's another proof that one point in time, I-140 was approved.
I agree with you regarding the timeline and evidence. I have mentioned it to my attorney numerous times. My attorney was insistent that adjudicating officers can see all my info on their computer screens. It is only a matter of looking at the info correctly.
It looks like the first MTR went to the same IO who denied my I-485. I could say it from ID in both the denial letters.
Sometimes lawyers are used to their old ways of doing things. However, IOs are not the same people of the old. Most IOs are new hires and still in their learning curve.
I think the problem with your info. on USCIS screen is that the previously approved I-140 was changed to "denied" on same date it was approved. USCIS probably didn't have a log of the change.
The only evidence to prove that it was "approved" before is your copy of approval notice and it seems they don't believe the legitimacy of your copy. USCIS relied solely in their faulty database system.
Did you have a screen capture of the I-140 approval in CRIS? I screened captured mine just in case because it's another proof that one point in time, I-140 was approved.
needhelp!
09-10 08:00 PM
gctoget, rajamanikannan, hemants
more...
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:06 PM
Sorry for posting everything onto the forum. I had to do this after several attempts to post the zipped file did not work out.
Anyways I just wanted to post this list so that we have an idea about who are the newly elected Reps in CA. This will help us if we decide to meet some of them in future.
Anyways I just wanted to post this list so that we have an idea about who are the newly elected Reps in CA. This will help us if we decide to meet some of them in future.
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
more...
punjabi
08-13 04:52 PM
Hi buddyinus,
We all are going through hard time, but we do not need to display our hard feelings for someone through the forum! If you are upset at someone or if you have complains, email the Admin or a Super Moderator.
Do not write rude. Be a little professional at your behavior and communicate professionally.
Now, the fool is trying to change the subject by asking ppl to join the rally. Why in the world wud ppl trust him? The thread is barely 10 pages and after realizing that therez no point in discussing about what this thread is all about, he has shifted subject loyalites. How lame and insane is this guy? Pappu, LogicLife where r u guyz? Why dont u ban him?
We all are going through hard time, but we do not need to display our hard feelings for someone through the forum! If you are upset at someone or if you have complains, email the Admin or a Super Moderator.
Do not write rude. Be a little professional at your behavior and communicate professionally.
Now, the fool is trying to change the subject by asking ppl to join the rally. Why in the world wud ppl trust him? The thread is barely 10 pages and after realizing that therez no point in discussing about what this thread is all about, he has shifted subject loyalites. How lame and insane is this guy? Pappu, LogicLife where r u guyz? Why dont u ban him?
vgayalu
06-01 09:55 AM
My PD : 10/04. I got 45 days letter in May last week as per attorney.
My attorney is Stupid . She never gives any information and says it is the property of employer( Even LIN numbers)
I don't know when they can approve my labour.
:confused:
My attorney is Stupid . She never gives any information and says it is the property of employer( Even LIN numbers)
I don't know when they can approve my labour.
:confused:
more...
genscn
08-11 10:12 AM
I thought I will share my experience with all members who are facing processing delay for their I-140. My I-140 was filed at NSC on March 21, 2007 and got transferred to TSC on May 21, 2008. Since then, I see no activities (I believe TSC was treating transfer date as receipt date and they didn’t bother to look at my case). On July 29, 2008, I asked my Lawyer to initiate the inquiry about the delay and his paralegal took the “service center request” from USCIS for my I-140 and service center issued a confirmation number (ETCXXXXXXXXXXXXX) for further inquiry.
Within 10 days of initiating the inquiry, my case was approved on August 9, 2008. Please do so if you think it will help.
Within 10 days of initiating the inquiry, my case was approved on August 9, 2008. Please do so if you think it will help.
smuggymba
08-23 03:22 PM
I know a Controller making 70K and got his GC via L1-A in 6 months. I make 50% more than him and got my PERM approved in EB2 2 weeks ago. Life isn't fair, take it easy.
How can a multinational executive make 70K and qualify for L1-A?
How can a multinational executive make 70K and qualify for L1-A?
more...
saimrathi
07-06 03:26 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=49
can someone tell me who is core? I hear core mentioned all the time here
can someone tell me who is core? I hear core mentioned all the time here
santb1975
05-31 09:04 AM
Yes we have to
more...
unseenguy
02-08 05:24 AM
You need to take control of your family. The problem is that you allowed your inlaws to take control of your family. Second problem is that at the time of delivery the girl probably wanted her parents to come to US but you probably called your parents and she didnt like this nor did her parents. But that does not mean her parents will emotionally blackmail her.
1) You should tell your inlaws politely and candidly that they are interfering in your family and that needs to stop. Also communicate with your inlaws through your wife. Do not communicate with them directly. You did not marry them. They are no body to you, legally.
2) Your wife is under immense stress due to baby and parental pressure to control her. Her parents are trying to control your family through her. This is not the time to talk about separation because she has a young baby and she needs you as much as you need your baby. So you have to tell your wife what your inlaws are doing is not acceptable and just be firm that you will not tolerate it if she wants to live with you. And let her choose between her parents and you. This will be hard but you have to show some mental toughness.
3) When you got married , you started new family, you moved out of family of your parents. Though you dont have to break up with them, there may be some things that your parents do, that your wife does not like. You might think it is OK for your parents to advise or ask her to do things in certain fashion, but, it is NOT OK if she doesn't like it. She is a matured adult and can take care of her new family. So if you wish good of your parents, you have to "keep them at a safe distance." They should not interfere in your affairs.
4) You both husband and wife, need to handle each others parents in a matured way without insulting them. Both of you cant change your biological parents, but you can handle them diplomatically without insulting.
If this doesnt work, and you really want to separate, just tell your wife, that to allow things to cool down, you can live some place else for 3 months and assure her that you will take care of her and the baby. That will send a very clear message to your inlaws of the things to come. You just cant threaten to separate and run away.
Last, I do not know again how you treat your wife and inlaws. I dont mean to judge but do you treat them right? Why are they so desperate in this situation? Also I do not know any money transactions you have with inlaws, but, I would say, its not a good idea to involve inlaws in any kind of money. You invite 50% problems there.
Also I am confused, are you living in India or US?
1) You should tell your inlaws politely and candidly that they are interfering in your family and that needs to stop. Also communicate with your inlaws through your wife. Do not communicate with them directly. You did not marry them. They are no body to you, legally.
2) Your wife is under immense stress due to baby and parental pressure to control her. Her parents are trying to control your family through her. This is not the time to talk about separation because she has a young baby and she needs you as much as you need your baby. So you have to tell your wife what your inlaws are doing is not acceptable and just be firm that you will not tolerate it if she wants to live with you. And let her choose between her parents and you. This will be hard but you have to show some mental toughness.
3) When you got married , you started new family, you moved out of family of your parents. Though you dont have to break up with them, there may be some things that your parents do, that your wife does not like. You might think it is OK for your parents to advise or ask her to do things in certain fashion, but, it is NOT OK if she doesn't like it. She is a matured adult and can take care of her new family. So if you wish good of your parents, you have to "keep them at a safe distance." They should not interfere in your affairs.
4) You both husband and wife, need to handle each others parents in a matured way without insulting them. Both of you cant change your biological parents, but you can handle them diplomatically without insulting.
If this doesnt work, and you really want to separate, just tell your wife, that to allow things to cool down, you can live some place else for 3 months and assure her that you will take care of her and the baby. That will send a very clear message to your inlaws of the things to come. You just cant threaten to separate and run away.
Last, I do not know again how you treat your wife and inlaws. I dont mean to judge but do you treat them right? Why are they so desperate in this situation? Also I do not know any money transactions you have with inlaws, but, I would say, its not a good idea to involve inlaws in any kind of money. You invite 50% problems there.
Also I am confused, are you living in India or US?
Ram_C
09-12 07:28 PM
How do I place the google order? This is going to be my first contribution..
check this link http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=44(you need to scroll down to find google checkout)
check this link http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=44(you need to scroll down to find google checkout)
more...
needhelp!
09-10 05:08 PM
Send your donation to:
Immigration Voice
PO Box 114
Dayton, NJ - 08810
Telephone: (202) 386-6250
Hello!
If possible can you allow people to donate any amount they want?
I did $100 donation and transaction Id is 4V64496321804025H. I have sent this information to all of my friends. There might be some people who want to donate but less than $100 one time donation.
My understanding is that IV is having around 24,000 members and even if everybody donates $2 then it will be around $46K. So if possible please send a mail to all the members to do at least $5 donation.
Thanks and Regards
Immigration Voice
PO Box 114
Dayton, NJ - 08810
Telephone: (202) 386-6250
Hello!
If possible can you allow people to donate any amount they want?
I did $100 donation and transaction Id is 4V64496321804025H. I have sent this information to all of my friends. There might be some people who want to donate but less than $100 one time donation.
My understanding is that IV is having around 24,000 members and even if everybody donates $2 then it will be around $46K. So if possible please send a mail to all the members to do at least $5 donation.
Thanks and Regards
Totoro
05-02 09:33 AM
Hello,
Just wanted to let you know that I received my refund yesterday. My wife and I filed a joint return. We both have SSN's. Just relax folks if you filed your taxes you will receive the refund. I had hoped the money could have been put to better use but oh well the politicians know better.
PD Oct 2002 ROW
485 files in June 2007
Still waiting for that darn GC
If you both have SSNs, you WILL get the payment. However, if one person has an ITIN, nobody will get it.
Just wanted to let you know that I received my refund yesterday. My wife and I filed a joint return. We both have SSN's. Just relax folks if you filed your taxes you will receive the refund. I had hoped the money could have been put to better use but oh well the politicians know better.
PD Oct 2002 ROW
485 files in June 2007
Still waiting for that darn GC
If you both have SSNs, you WILL get the payment. However, if one person has an ITIN, nobody will get it.
aquarianf
08-26 01:25 PM
I'm looking for homeloan options in India. Which bank would be good to apply for home loans.
Was thinking about ICICI bank but got scared after going through the other thread about how ICICI bank is into stealing.
I would appreciate it if anyone can give me few suggestions on this.
Thank you.
As many members posted, avoid ICICI. When you apply for loan, they will come to you and lick your feet and will do all sorts of promise about services. But after you take loan, you won't find same level of service.
But whatever bank you decide to go with, DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. It is not safe at all in their hand. Some banks requires SSN and some don't. ICICI requires SSN and credit report authorization. Negotiate with them. We negotiated with them and refused to give them social security number. We generated credit report ourselves and crossed out SSN and all account numbers from it properly. We did the same thing with other documents ie paystubs etc.
We have two home loans one with ICICI and another with SBI. We have better experience with SBI. My parents are power of attorney holder and they mostly deal with bank and according to them SBI is much better then ICICI do deal with locally. We have now decided to prepay our loan with ICICI in next 6 months in full.
Again remember DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
Was thinking about ICICI bank but got scared after going through the other thread about how ICICI bank is into stealing.
I would appreciate it if anyone can give me few suggestions on this.
Thank you.
As many members posted, avoid ICICI. When you apply for loan, they will come to you and lick your feet and will do all sorts of promise about services. But after you take loan, you won't find same level of service.
But whatever bank you decide to go with, DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. It is not safe at all in their hand. Some banks requires SSN and some don't. ICICI requires SSN and credit report authorization. Negotiate with them. We negotiated with them and refused to give them social security number. We generated credit report ourselves and crossed out SSN and all account numbers from it properly. We did the same thing with other documents ie paystubs etc.
We have two home loans one with ICICI and another with SBI. We have better experience with SBI. My parents are power of attorney holder and they mostly deal with bank and according to them SBI is much better then ICICI do deal with locally. We have now decided to prepay our loan with ICICI in next 6 months in full.
Again remember DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
$eeGrEeN
09-10 12:40 PM
request to all help increase my rep. points////
ickeys
07-29 10:02 AM
Hi, the website says my case was certified but my employer and my lawyer did not receive the hard copy yet. It got certified July 17. How long does it take for me to receive it? What should I do?
No comments:
Post a Comment