I changed employer and location. So I was asked to clarify the location change if I am still with the sponsoring employer or submit a letter from a current employer stating duties salary etc. Replied to them and they are evaluating the response.
How many days have passed snce they received your response? Was yours similar to mine. Please look at Page 1 of this thread of my detailed RFE. Did the sttus change for you to "Review"? Sorry so many questions but my attorney is sending the response overnight today and i am so nervous and anxious and scared and.... etc.
How many days have passed snce they received your response? Was yours similar to mine. Please look at Page 1 of this thread of my detailed RFE. Did the sttus change for you to "Review"? Sorry so many questions but my attorney is sending the response overnight today and i am so nervous and anxious and scared and.... etc.
wallpaper purple desktop wallpaper.
Hello Everyone,
I have created google group for NJ Chapter and there are four members in this group so far. If you can send me your email ID then I will let you join..
Varsha: I will see if I can change ownership of group to you. It is much easier to communicate through emails then looking at chapter posting..
Thank you
ak27
I have created google group for NJ Chapter and there are four members in this group so far. If you can send me your email ID then I will let you join..
Varsha: I will see if I can change ownership of group to you. It is much easier to communicate through emails then looking at chapter posting..
Thank you
ak27
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
2011 3d abstract desktop wallpaper
I think after next October PD will be 2005 or later for EB2 and 2002 or later for EB3. The argument of taking 10 years for EB3 is just speculation and that much worse situation will never happen unless if they increase H1b numbers so much. Even after increasing H1b for US MS degree holders EB2 situation was not worst. Still I think less than 20% of H1b persons are applying GC. Reason is Top 4 Indian companies and some american consulting companies are not processing gc.
Unfortunately, China and ROW EB2 are 2 and 3 years ahead of INDIA EB2!!!
Hopefully, INDIA EB2 and EB3 moves forward in OCT with new allocation.
The DOS method of PIECE MEAL ALLOCATION NEEDS TO CHANGE!!
Unfortunately, China and ROW EB2 are 2 and 3 years ahead of INDIA EB2!!!
Hopefully, INDIA EB2 and EB3 moves forward in OCT with new allocation.
The DOS method of PIECE MEAL ALLOCATION NEEDS TO CHANGE!!
at which point it will be alottery again ..until dates move back to the stone age..in August 2009
We need to focus immigration issue rather than talking about 'thali' or 'wali' bans. Some people coming to this forum to have fun and writing non sense. Please concentrate on our goal. ' make every EB based immigration current'. !!!
Guys... can we drop the whole discussion about this guy's name.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
Guys... can we drop the whole discussion about this guy's name.
It is no advisable to discuss such topics in public forums on the internet. These keywords attract unwarranted attention.
Questions about Quarterly Spill Over with respect to Yearly Country Limit.
Since we are on this Topic, Do any IV Users know or can point links to articles/statute for the following questions to gain a better understanding ?
- Is the ‘Yearly per Country Quota’ broken down and established for every Quarter? I.e. 1/4th of the 7% yearly limit
- So if assuming the quarterly Country quota holds and the USCIS does the spillover to the over subscribed countries in one quarter.
Then for the next quarter what numbers will they assess for the quota count? Is it just the standard quarterly limit or the ‘quarterly limit + the spill over that they did the previous quarter’? And what if that exceeds the 7% yearly limit and how will they proceed forward from there.
Thanks.
Since we are on this Topic, Do any IV Users know or can point links to articles/statute for the following questions to gain a better understanding ?
- Is the ‘Yearly per Country Quota’ broken down and established for every Quarter? I.e. 1/4th of the 7% yearly limit
- So if assuming the quarterly Country quota holds and the USCIS does the spillover to the over subscribed countries in one quarter.
Then for the next quarter what numbers will they assess for the quota count? Is it just the standard quarterly limit or the ‘quarterly limit + the spill over that they did the previous quarter’? And what if that exceeds the 7% yearly limit and how will they proceed forward from there.
Thanks.
2010 Right-click on the Wallpaper
I got a reply from USCIS saying that they can process the request sorted by priority date and country of birth of the applicant. Processing time will be around 15 months and that they have got their answer on priority date.
what are the next steps?
Thanks for sending the letter to USCIS and now posting the response here. IV has taken action in this regards.
what are the next steps?
Thanks for sending the letter to USCIS and now posting the response here. IV has taken action in this regards.
It's out now EB2 I and C are 08JAN05.
Visa Bulletin September 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4558.html)
Visa Bulletin September 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4558.html)
hair desktop wallpaper with quotes.
I am sorry if I offended anyone. I don't recall how.
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
Thanks again for supporting IV. Only point I was against was your support of racism of 40's. Anywaz I understand that you want to convey some other message but probably used the wrong link. Peace and Unity !!
and by the way, my friend, you really really need a life :-) That's the last thing you'll hear from me on this subject.
peace out
Thanks again for supporting IV. Only point I was against was your support of racism of 40's. Anywaz I understand that you want to convey some other message but probably used the wrong link. Peace and Unity !!
Current as per the April'08 bulletin
Adv congrats!! dude
Adv congrats!! dude
hot Find more desktop wallpapers
You might want to research your options some more. Maybe, have a talk with someone who is a more senior colleague or mentor, preferably one who has an MBA.
It appears from your comment on investment banking that you haven't done your research. IBs usually recruit only from the top-10 type schools.
Good Luck!
thepaew, right, I understand IB needs from top-10..it was more of "I wish I had" stuff..I am not serious on that.
Coming to why "online" ? Because I cant go fulltime on college (I have to quit my job...means no salary for 2 years...not possible..I am not that filthy rich :D)
moreover there is increased trend in acceptance of online MBA as major universities are coming online now.
It appears from your comment on investment banking that you haven't done your research. IBs usually recruit only from the top-10 type schools.
Good Luck!
thepaew, right, I understand IB needs from top-10..it was more of "I wish I had" stuff..I am not serious on that.
Coming to why "online" ? Because I cant go fulltime on college (I have to quit my job...means no salary for 2 years...not possible..I am not that filthy rich :D)
moreover there is increased trend in acceptance of online MBA as major universities are coming online now.
house Abstract city desktop
EB3 ROW has been retrogressed as predicted in Oh's website.
All non-India EB3 are at March 03 now....
Will they keep them at March 03 for few months and give a bump to EB3?
Something is cooking...Otherwise they wouldn't retrogress ROW by almost 2 years...
From the bulletin -
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or �unavailability� at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
All non-India EB3 are at March 03 now....
Will they keep them at March 03 for few months and give a bump to EB3?
Something is cooking...Otherwise they wouldn't retrogress ROW by almost 2 years...
From the bulletin -
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or �unavailability� at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
tattoo Abstract Wallpapers
I got a reply from USCIS saying that they can process the request sorted by priority date and country of birth of the applicant. Processing time will be around 15 months and that they have got their answer on priority date.
what are the next steps?
Thanks for sending the letter to USCIS and now posting the response here. IV has taken action in this regards.
what are the next steps?
Thanks for sending the letter to USCIS and now posting the response here. IV has taken action in this regards.
pictures wallpapers abstract. hd
I wasn't going to jump in the debate on what was Murthy's intention when she published that letter. But I can't help noting something odd in the posts where some are claiming she will try to take credit later on for making this "big development" happen. We don't even know what this big development is!! All we have is a posting by the Core Group and couple of attorneys' websites' speculation. I am hoping it's will be a big positive development for us when it is announced, but right now we are counting our chickens before they are hatched and denouncing someone's intention based on speculations and guesses!
dresses Free desktop wallpaper
Bumping up!
makeup free 3d abstract wallpapers
other than some quoting did you know any of your friends or your attorneys cases getting rejected.
girlfriend Red Wallpaper Abstract
Finally, I understood the purpose of this forum. No, the title is not wrong.
I understand that you are
1. explaining retrogression, and
2. predicting time it will take a person to get GC.
The above are based on
1. applications with USCIS, and
2. USCIS policy to approve GC.
If this is true, it is the first good idea I have seen here. Alisa for president! (Arnold, California Gov, is working on changing rules for naturalized citizens).
I have the following suggestions. I will help after I read everything. Give me some time.
1. Indians are over-represented in IV. Consider the case of a country that is doing better and mention countries that are worst.
2. Write a short paragraph that goes in IV email sales pitch. This has a URL to this complete report.
3. This complete report has URL to USCIS data.
4. We work on similar report (with URLs) on lobbying effort and funding level of anti-immigration organizations.
USCIS numbers and rules are not the only factors against us. The anti-immigrants are a much bigger factor.
5. IV email sales pitch has a para with URL on
a. explaining retrogression (this report).
b. lobbying effort and funding level of opponents (next report).
c. IV's experience with legislation.
d. BEGing for contributions.
6. KISS principle baby: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Too much gymnastics in IV writeups.
I understand that you are
1. explaining retrogression, and
2. predicting time it will take a person to get GC.
The above are based on
1. applications with USCIS, and
2. USCIS policy to approve GC.
If this is true, it is the first good idea I have seen here. Alisa for president! (Arnold, California Gov, is working on changing rules for naturalized citizens).
I have the following suggestions. I will help after I read everything. Give me some time.
1. Indians are over-represented in IV. Consider the case of a country that is doing better and mention countries that are worst.
2. Write a short paragraph that goes in IV email sales pitch. This has a URL to this complete report.
3. This complete report has URL to USCIS data.
4. We work on similar report (with URLs) on lobbying effort and funding level of anti-immigration organizations.
USCIS numbers and rules are not the only factors against us. The anti-immigrants are a much bigger factor.
5. IV email sales pitch has a para with URL on
a. explaining retrogression (this report).
b. lobbying effort and funding level of opponents (next report).
c. IV's experience with legislation.
d. BEGing for contributions.
6. KISS principle baby: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Too much gymnastics in IV writeups.
hairstyles Abstract Desktop Wallpaper
All,
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Attorneys make their living by scaring people. They may not always be sharper than an IT professional like you.
Rajiv had in one call said"I do not know why we are charging as much for such a simple thing. Unless there are complications, you can do it yourself"
Unless there are complications, look for good templates on immigration.com forums. You can as well spend that money on better things.
Rajiv had in one call said"I do not know why we are charging as much for such a simple thing. Unless there are complications, you can do it yourself"
Unless there are complications, look for good templates on immigration.com forums. You can as well spend that money on better things.
eb3_nepa,
FBI/Name check clearance is not a sub-issue. I have posted the link where you find tons of people waiting to get 485 cleared. See the linkif you need to understand the issue
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=174845
It is not a sub issue and it is part of the green card process. I lament ( for lack of an apt word) your compariosn of name check to spouses not able to work.
You will realize how big a problem when you reach there.
Logiclife,
This forum has started recently and did not address "name check" as an issue. Its one of the burning issues for many of us ( most likely will impact all those who just want to clear the hurdle of labour clearnace). Believe, I was stuck in labor for 2 years ( due to Bush adminstration's decision to leagalize illegals) and I really thought that labor was the only hurdle. Atleast you could contact USCIS to track your progress. Now I am stuck in security clearance AKA name check. Now I am in totallly in darkness and nowhere to check what is happenning. FBI used to repond to e-mails( 6 months wait period)/phone messages two years ago.Now they have totally stopped it.
There are many like me and it is not just individual cases. Even at the bottom of my heart I feel those who are in labor stage whom you are representing should not have to face it. But the be realistic and I would see 80% of those in current labor would get stuck at this name check process unless some measure are taken by us.
Good luck if you guys think it is a "sub issue"
FBI/Name check clearance is not a sub-issue. I have posted the link where you find tons of people waiting to get 485 cleared. See the linkif you need to understand the issue
http://immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=174845
It is not a sub issue and it is part of the green card process. I lament ( for lack of an apt word) your compariosn of name check to spouses not able to work.
You will realize how big a problem when you reach there.
Logiclife,
This forum has started recently and did not address "name check" as an issue. Its one of the burning issues for many of us ( most likely will impact all those who just want to clear the hurdle of labour clearnace). Believe, I was stuck in labor for 2 years ( due to Bush adminstration's decision to leagalize illegals) and I really thought that labor was the only hurdle. Atleast you could contact USCIS to track your progress. Now I am stuck in security clearance AKA name check. Now I am in totallly in darkness and nowhere to check what is happenning. FBI used to repond to e-mails( 6 months wait period)/phone messages two years ago.Now they have totally stopped it.
There are many like me and it is not just individual cases. Even at the bottom of my heart I feel those who are in labor stage whom you are representing should not have to face it. But the be realistic and I would see 80% of those in current labor would get stuck at this name check process unless some measure are taken by us.
Good luck if you guys think it is a "sub issue"
