if u can keep thd same PD whenu change from eB3 to eB2..you should do it immediately!
Hi,
Can someone please tell if we can port to EB2 from EB3 even after using AC21 and statred working on EAD??
-THanks
Hi,
Can someone please tell if we can port to EB2 from EB3 even after using AC21 and statred working on EAD??
-THanks
wallpaper Garrett Hedlund Tron Premiere
bump..
To be able to use the AC21, should the I-140 be already approved for 180 days or more?
2011 garrett hedlund tron legacy
I have no idea. The first time I called them was in May (couple of weeks after I did my fingerprints). And was told NC is clear and yet not picked up by any IO for review as they are processing 08/2006 RD cases and my RD is 03/2007. So I have to wait for my turn.
That's all I know.
That's all I know.
Did you read undocumented guys are trying to push their cause and by putting legals aside, which the goverment seems to be hearing. What makes you feel we must wait.. Just because you cannot contribute anything except for yourself. .People waiting for close to 10 years are usually in a position to create value and they are tied to this backlogs. We know EB2 is going at some pace.. How much time do you think is needed for EB2 to be in bin, into the same state as EB3 is in, right now.
Sri1309
illegals are pushing for what ? Didn't you read CIR will be later this year not in April or May ? Any piecemeal immi bill will not make through committe , as CHC wants CIR 2009. We can do add amendment for recapture in CIR 2009 or just 2-3 months before when actul movement for CIR starts. You can send faxes or letters to Lawmakers but no bill will be on table so they will just put ur faxes on side .. wouldn't it better to start aggressive campaign when something is cooking.
Sri1309
illegals are pushing for what ? Didn't you read CIR will be later this year not in April or May ? Any piecemeal immi bill will not make through committe , as CHC wants CIR 2009. We can do add amendment for recapture in CIR 2009 or just 2-3 months before when actul movement for CIR starts. You can send faxes or letters to Lawmakers but no bill will be on table so they will just put ur faxes on side .. wouldn't it better to start aggressive campaign when something is cooking.
Please email the names with phone #s.....
------------------------------------------------
URGENT
------------------------------------------------
We need 4-5 volunteers to make phone calls to IV members in CA. The purpose of the call is to inform and invite IV members in CA about this event so that we all could be well represented at this event. Please post a message or send a private message if you would like to voluneer for this effort. We will provide you with all the information required to make the phone calls to IV members. This task involves volunteering 30-45 minutes of your time. Please help this cause to help us all.
Thanks,
------------------------------------------------
URGENT
------------------------------------------------
We need 4-5 volunteers to make phone calls to IV members in CA. The purpose of the call is to inform and invite IV members in CA about this event so that we all could be well represented at this event. Please post a message or send a private message if you would like to voluneer for this effort. We will provide you with all the information required to make the phone calls to IV members. This task involves volunteering 30-45 minutes of your time. Please help this cause to help us all.
Thanks,
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
2010 garrett hedlund tron
My guess is that except for the early years (2001, maybe 2002), EB-2 timelines will be almost identical to EB-3.
Supporting reasons are -
1. As things stand today, EB-2 differs from EB-3 only in the amount of wages required when filing the petition.
2. EB-3 filers will naturally earn more money with experience and file fresh for EB-2 when they can.
Other things such as qualifications and 5 years of experience are easily obtained and not relevant with such long timelines.
Supporting reasons are -
1. As things stand today, EB-2 differs from EB-3 only in the amount of wages required when filing the petition.
2. EB-3 filers will naturally earn more money with experience and file fresh for EB-2 when they can.
Other things such as qualifications and 5 years of experience are easily obtained and not relevant with such long timelines.
Mine is EB3, 17th June 2002
hair garrett hedlund tron pics.
Updated my profile.
At this time, IV is analyzing the impact of the speculation around the July visa bulletin closure, and is reaching out to attorneys, including AILA and planning next steps. tomorrow being a working day will also help us get more information and opportunity to reach appropriate levels of government . We will share more information with you as soon as there are developments. In the meanwhile, you should go about business as usual, and file your 485/140 applications as planned.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
At this time, IV is analyzing the impact of the speculation around the July visa bulletin closure, and is reaching out to attorneys, including AILA and planning next steps. tomorrow being a working day will also help us get more information and opportunity to reach appropriate levels of government . We will share more information with you as soon as there are developments. In the meanwhile, you should go about business as usual, and file your 485/140 applications as planned.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
Just to give some of the members information on how airline miles could be used.
typically we would need at least 25,000 miles to redeem a round trip ticket.
Sometimes some individuals may have let say 20,000 miles. they are 5,000 short of a round trip. Then, we can use someone else who may have about 5000 miles to transfer to the individual with 20,000 to make up the 25,000 for redeeming.
There is always a transfer fee associated. typically transferring 5000 miles will cost about $50.
It is not practical to combine several accounts of 2000, 5000, etc to make up 25,000 miles because the transfer fee alone will get to be around $250 to $300. For $300 you might as well just buy the ticket.
Some of you have been willing to offer a couple of thousand miles. this would be used only if i can find someone who is just a few thousand miles short of 25000 so we can combine.
I am keeping a log of all the miles donors. Please be aware that not all miles can be used especially when they are just a few thousand miles.
Miles Donors when you PM me, please mention how many miles you would like to donate. Some of you are sending me a message that you would like to donate some miles. But if you do not mention how much miles you have, i cannot decide if we can use them.
Also individuals who need air ticket please PM me.
thanks
typically we would need at least 25,000 miles to redeem a round trip ticket.
Sometimes some individuals may have let say 20,000 miles. they are 5,000 short of a round trip. Then, we can use someone else who may have about 5000 miles to transfer to the individual with 20,000 to make up the 25,000 for redeeming.
There is always a transfer fee associated. typically transferring 5000 miles will cost about $50.
It is not practical to combine several accounts of 2000, 5000, etc to make up 25,000 miles because the transfer fee alone will get to be around $250 to $300. For $300 you might as well just buy the ticket.
Some of you have been willing to offer a couple of thousand miles. this would be used only if i can find someone who is just a few thousand miles short of 25000 so we can combine.
I am keeping a log of all the miles donors. Please be aware that not all miles can be used especially when they are just a few thousand miles.
Miles Donors when you PM me, please mention how many miles you would like to donate. Some of you are sending me a message that you would like to donate some miles. But if you do not mention how much miles you have, i cannot decide if we can use them.
Also individuals who need air ticket please PM me.
thanks
hot garrett hedlund tron legacy
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!
house garrett hedlund tron shirtless
I can donate about 30K Continental miles. Please let me know the procedure.
Thanks,
Thanks,
tattoo garrett hedlund tron
Get a new attorney. Seriously.
pictures garrett hedlund tron shirtless
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
dresses garrett hedlund tron legacy shirtless. flowing golden locks.
http://immigrationportal.com/announcement.php?f=190&a=95
It is possible. Such an action would be illegal, but CIS has already stopped accepting I-485 applications for another category known as “Other Workers,” despite June Visa Bulletin showing that category is current. My advice to all of you is keep filing all through the month of July. For all we know, they may never issue such an illegal policy or they might lose a lawsuit filed against them. So keep filing. Regards to all. Rajiv.
__________________
Rajiv S. Khanna; Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna
It is possible. Such an action would be illegal, but CIS has already stopped accepting I-485 applications for another category known as “Other Workers,” despite June Visa Bulletin showing that category is current. My advice to all of you is keep filing all through the month of July. For all we know, they may never issue such an illegal policy or they might lose a lawsuit filed against them. So keep filing. Regards to all. Rajiv.
__________________
Rajiv S. Khanna; Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna
makeup garrett hedlund tron legacy shirtless. Garrett Hedlund Photos - Tron
[
JunRN
Senior Member
what's ur reasoning behind ur statement?
QUOTE=JunRN;150114]To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.[/QUOTE]
JunRN
Senior Member
what's ur reasoning behind ur statement?
QUOTE=JunRN;150114]To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.[/QUOTE]
girlfriend garrett hedlund tron
Instead of letting members open 4 different threads, it is best that IV core itself opens the thread in RED so that it catches people's eyes and they post their comments in one spot rather than 4. AND it helps highlight the fact the bulletin is actually out.
hairstyles pictures garrett hedlund tron
after going through Logiclife's posts, I remembered all the horror stories I see happening aroung me since past 6 years, I also had arole in one of them.
Just thought a low-budget film about 'H-Horror' will be a good idea to expose these desi companies.
Just thought a low-budget film about 'H-Horror' will be a good idea to expose these desi companies.
My PD is March 2010 EB2 so i'm not even in this race yet but help me in understanding one thing.
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
Yes EB3 was in Jun 2003 in Jun 2007 bulliten and July 2007 all were Current. EB3 was in 2001 or so till May 2007 Bulliten. Most of them waited few years to file 485.
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
Yes EB3 was in Jun 2003 in Jun 2007 bulliten and July 2007 all were Current. EB3 was in 2001 or so till May 2007 Bulliten. Most of them waited few years to file 485.
What is the next step? Do I need to follow up with another letter?
imneedy, as you very well know USCIS asked for money. Many members received similar letter from USCIS. IV did the campaign to collect $10000 for the USCIS Fees related legal fees. Many members just like you contributed for it. Updates to whats happening with the FOIA is available in donor forum.
Donor forum is available to folks who make financial contributed of $25 or more. If you really trust IV and are looking for next step, then start contributing to IV (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/misc.php?do=donate).
imneedy, as you very well know USCIS asked for money. Many members received similar letter from USCIS. IV did the campaign to collect $10000 for the USCIS Fees related legal fees. Many members just like you contributed for it. Updates to whats happening with the FOIA is available in donor forum.
Donor forum is available to folks who make financial contributed of $25 or more. If you really trust IV and are looking for next step, then start contributing to IV (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/misc.php?do=donate).
