av2307
09-03 03:12 PM
what if the company revokes the I140 ??? Do i still hold the original priority date . I have checked out various forums and it seems there seems to be some confusion regarding the I140 revocation aspect.
Any pointers would be highly appreciated-
thnx
-A
Any pointers would be highly appreciated-
thnx
-A
wallpaper Used 2005 Fiat Multipla for
mrsr
02-20 10:37 AM
Thank you very much sir, I really Appriciate your help.
anilsal
09-15 09:55 PM
No place for you, if you are neither.:D
2011 2000 Fiat Multipla concept,
freddyCR
January 4th, 2005, 07:35 PM
Found this picture waiting for me in the poor side of town.
Comments appreciated
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/2555new_matress_bw_landscape_Medium_.jpg
Comments appreciated
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/2555new_matress_bw_landscape_Medium_.jpg
more...
eb3_nepa
01-14 03:07 PM
Only H1 reform is likely by feb 15th.
Ok so any news on that front as to when the H1B increase bill will be introduced? Is that bill still on target?
Ok so any news on that front as to when the H1B increase bill will be introduced? Is that bill still on target?
intheyan
07-17 05:17 PM
Murthy ji and Rajiv.S.Kanna are very good lawyers. Please don't use any bad words. You will really be in trouble.
more...
waitin_toolong
07-18 07:03 PM
what if for some reason you miss the flight or it gets canceled, give yourself some buffer time and save a lot of grief.
Decide a few dollars is more important than getting I-485 on time or not.
I have seen the same thing with B1 people, first they forget the rule is 180 days not six months then they book last day flight and are here beyond I-94 date.
Decide a few dollars is more important than getting I-485 on time or not.
I have seen the same thing with B1 people, first they forget the rule is 180 days not six months then they book last day flight and are here beyond I-94 date.
2010 Fiat Multipla 1.9 Jtd.
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
more...
belmontboy
01-24 04:32 PM
In 2010 - around 20K visa is issued in EB2 and around 3K in EB3...
Does anyone know the exact demands for each year from 2005 ,2006,2007,2008, 2009 ,2010,2011 -- then it will give clear picture .
Yes.
Thread titled "Eb2 calculations..." has the information you need.
Does anyone know the exact demands for each year from 2005 ,2006,2007,2008, 2009 ,2010,2011 -- then it will give clear picture .
Yes.
Thread titled "Eb2 calculations..." has the information you need.
hair Fiat Multipla 1.6 16v SX
nixstor
08-08 09:53 PM
I guess he is trying to lift the sunken spirits of the IV members. But I feel that if SKIL goes through, we will be fine. It all depends on SKIL
more...
joydiptac
11-18 05:52 PM
Timeline is from Dec 16 2006(Previous H1B expired on this date) to July 18 2007. This is when my H1B extension was pending due to an RFE. USCIS received my 485 application on July 18.
Hi,
Sorry to hear about your case and specially since you haven't broken any law. Technically this should be fairly simple case if you have a receipt of filing the H1B. Every time you file for H1B you get a receipt sent to your employer & a copy for u from USCIS. Then that is what enables you to legally stay (overstay). If you can find that you should not have any problems. If you have copy of the RFE that came for this application even better. Assuming you have neither you should definitely be having the WAC number for the pending H1B application. If you can provide that USCIS can verify that what you are saying is true. I believe the reason why they must've flagged your case is the gap of more than 6 months.
Let's say you do not have any of the above. Call your previous employer and explain to them what soup you are in. They will help you regardless of how bad your relations where when u left the company. All HRs have to keep copy of the H1B, applications, receipts, RFEs & approval (by law). So you should be OK.
All the best,
JC
Hi,
Sorry to hear about your case and specially since you haven't broken any law. Technically this should be fairly simple case if you have a receipt of filing the H1B. Every time you file for H1B you get a receipt sent to your employer & a copy for u from USCIS. Then that is what enables you to legally stay (overstay). If you can find that you should not have any problems. If you have copy of the RFE that came for this application even better. Assuming you have neither you should definitely be having the WAC number for the pending H1B application. If you can provide that USCIS can verify that what you are saying is true. I believe the reason why they must've flagged your case is the gap of more than 6 months.
Let's say you do not have any of the above. Call your previous employer and explain to them what soup you are in. They will help you regardless of how bad your relations where when u left the company. All HRs have to keep copy of the H1B, applications, receipts, RFEs & approval (by law). So you should be OK.
All the best,
JC
hot Fiat Multipla
gman
07-29 09:55 PM
Safer way is to get legally married before GC gets approved. You can file her I-485 when she comes to the US.
more...
house Pictures of 2002 FIAT MULTIPLA
GooblyWoobly
09-25 03:19 PM
Let me clarify point 3) again
I told it because the same way my spouse received SSN# < 10days but those people will say it take minimum 15days or so.But before you go to SSN office you need proof of EAD approval or best is EAD card,passport handly.
HTH,
No, No. Your answer was perfectly correct. But the OP had asked this:
"Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?"
So, I thought he is probably asking if there is any time limit by which you have to get SSN or you don't get SSN at all.
It's better to apply ASAP. In my wife's case, after her H1 came along, we just took two weeks to apply after she started working. The result was, at the end of the month, we were in a legal limbo. The company (one of the big companies in the valley) couldn't pay her because she doesn't have her SSN. The company cannot keep the money as she is legally employed, and has worked. So, not paying her that month will break the H1B terms. Luckily for us, SSN arrived on 29th of that month!!
I told it because the same way my spouse received SSN# < 10days but those people will say it take minimum 15days or so.But before you go to SSN office you need proof of EAD approval or best is EAD card,passport handly.
HTH,
No, No. Your answer was perfectly correct. But the OP had asked this:
"Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?"
So, I thought he is probably asking if there is any time limit by which you have to get SSN or you don't get SSN at all.
It's better to apply ASAP. In my wife's case, after her H1 came along, we just took two weeks to apply after she started working. The result was, at the end of the month, we were in a legal limbo. The company (one of the big companies in the valley) couldn't pay her because she doesn't have her SSN. The company cannot keep the money as she is legally employed, and has worked. So, not paying her that month will break the H1B terms. Luckily for us, SSN arrived on 29th of that month!!
tattoo Fiat Multipla Revealed
onemorecame
03-25 03:09 PM
In transit Visa how many days/long one can stay in dubai.Any idea?
more...
pictures 1 LHD FIAT MULTIPLA
a_yaja
06-25 10:34 AM
I though such contracts are illegal in US?....It is employment at will.....that means they can kick you out anytime or you can leave anytime....maybe someone can clarify
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
dresses 2006 Fiat Multipla
Better_Days
12-21 01:45 AM
I just read at TOI that Dr Manmohan Singh's daughter Amrit Singh is a staff attorney at ACLU.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PMs_daughter_puts_White_House_in_the_dock/articleshow/2639327.cms
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda. Has IV core considered contacting her.
As a card carrying member of ACLU, all I can say is that I am proud to have the lady at ACLU :)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/PMs_daughter_puts_White_House_in_the_dock/articleshow/2639327.cms
Can she be of any help to IV's Agenda. Has IV core considered contacting her.
As a card carrying member of ACLU, all I can say is that I am proud to have the lady at ACLU :)
more...
makeup Fiat Multipla. Renault 4cV
needhelp!
03-16 02:50 PM
I got this letter from USCIS last week, but wasn't aware of this action item. I hope it's not too late.
Thnaks!
Please fax/email if any of you get the responses.
Thnaks!
Please fax/email if any of you get the responses.
girlfriend Fiat Multipla 600 1960 Fiat
nozerd
02-24 12:20 PM
pitha,
they dont need tuition waiver. they pay in state anyway. Only drawback is they cant get on campus job and cant get OPT.
Advantage is they can go part time and take less coursework (dont have to take min 9 credit hrs). They can even take a semester off without worrying about status.
they dont need tuition waiver. they pay in state anyway. Only drawback is they cant get on campus job and cant get OPT.
Advantage is they can go part time and take less coursework (dont have to take min 9 credit hrs). They can even take a semester off without worrying about status.
hairstyles fiat multipla 1.6m
maacho
02-13 02:05 PM
IV fluid for ur greencard ;)
bestia
08-08 09:08 PM
...you can also consider getting married :) which will open up more options for you
... as well as closing down many other... ;)
... as well as closing down many other... ;)
mzafar125
08-19 12:40 AM
Folks,
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario