fall2004us
09-14 03:50 PM
listening.......
great job IV....
great job IV....
wallpaper Newt Gingrich, former speaker
matreen
10-12 11:32 PM
Thanks. Can someone get me USCIS contact number to get the status on receipts.....
my_gc_wait
08-10 11:20 AM
1. You can ask them for H1 transfer and AC21 portability of your existing EB3 GC Process.
2. You can also ask them for doing EB2 processing, some employers have policy that they will do it after 6-12 months but you should do it before joining so that they can analyze if position suits EB2 needs.
And both of the above should be done before joining a new employer because before joining you are in better bargaining position provided you rocked the interviews.
2. You can also ask them for doing EB2 processing, some employers have policy that they will do it after 6-12 months but you should do it before joining so that they can analyze if position suits EB2 needs.
And both of the above should be done before joining a new employer because before joining you are in better bargaining position provided you rocked the interviews.
2011 Newt Gingrich Discusses Health
Abhinaym
09-04 02:09 PM
That would be sweet I guess. My PD is Oct. 07. :)
Same here. Would like the prayers along with waitforevergc....
:D
Same here. Would like the prayers along with waitforevergc....
:D
more...
waiting4gc02
01-09 02:05 PM
Guys:
I know it's a drag...but what the heck..!!!
What do you think..the dates are going to move too..!!!
I know it's a drag...but what the heck..!!!
What do you think..the dates are going to move too..!!!
axp817
07-05 11:51 AM
I understand and appreciate people trying to do the whole flower thing, but I am not sure if it will work the way they expect it to.
I once worked in the admissions office at a very selective school. Applicants that didn't get selected resorted to such gimmicks (sending cards, presents, flowers to the dean of admissions), not sure what they expected - The dean to feel bad about his/the dept.'s decision and reconsider?
Anyway, one of my responsibilities was to screen the dept. mail, and sort out what was uselss and trash it.
Chances are, that is what will happen to the flowers sent to USCIS.
I don't mean to discourage anyone, but that money ($25-$40) you spend on flowers, could help IV a lot.
Thanks,
I once worked in the admissions office at a very selective school. Applicants that didn't get selected resorted to such gimmicks (sending cards, presents, flowers to the dean of admissions), not sure what they expected - The dean to feel bad about his/the dept.'s decision and reconsider?
Anyway, one of my responsibilities was to screen the dept. mail, and sort out what was uselss and trash it.
Chances are, that is what will happen to the flowers sent to USCIS.
I don't mean to discourage anyone, but that money ($25-$40) you spend on flowers, could help IV a lot.
Thanks,
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
2010 time magazine newt gingrich
eldrick
08-16 02:12 PM
Thank you guys.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
more...
gc_relief
03-06 01:25 PM
Guys this will be a good idea..If we can send a letter to Pres Obama like we did in the past..Let me know your thoughts..
hair Newt Gingrich 2012
Uncertain
04-15 02:34 PM
I am in.
What do I need to do apart from contributions and convincing other friends to vote on the above thread?
What do I need to do apart from contributions and convincing other friends to vote on the above thread?
more...
mali03
05-25 08:04 AM
called LINDSAY GRAHAM'S office!
hot Gingrich, Newt
GotFreedom?
03-18 01:23 AM
I recently started an LLC here. I looked into several options and learned that LLC is the best way to go if you are a foreign national. I'm working on my H1B and do hold a valid EAD.
Anyone can incorporate an LLC regardless of your immigration status. As an LLC member, you are liable to file for you own tax returns on the profits and any salary drawn from the company. However, the members can choose to file taxes as a corporation as well. The most important part in incorporating a business is to form an Operating Agreement and getting square with IRS by getting the employer Identification number(EIN) so that you can file taxes. None of the banks will let you open a business account with them if you do not have an EIN which is also called as Federal Tax ID number.
You can find a lot of information on the web on this subject. I can shoot you the online service I used in a private message if you are interested. BTW, we formed the LLC in DE and operating from NJ.
Anyone can incorporate an LLC regardless of your immigration status. As an LLC member, you are liable to file for you own tax returns on the profits and any salary drawn from the company. However, the members can choose to file taxes as a corporation as well. The most important part in incorporating a business is to form an Operating Agreement and getting square with IRS by getting the employer Identification number(EIN) so that you can file taxes. None of the banks will let you open a business account with them if you do not have an EIN which is also called as Federal Tax ID number.
You can find a lot of information on the web on this subject. I can shoot you the online service I used in a private message if you are interested. BTW, we formed the LLC in DE and operating from NJ.
more...
house the House Newt Gingrich of
lazycis
12-21 01:31 PM
Here is a shortened version:
1151
d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to—
(A) 140,000, plus
(B) the number computed under paragraph (2). (i.e. unused family-based visas from the previous year)
1153
(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151 (d) of this title for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(EB-1) Priority workers
Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5)
(EB-2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(EB-3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(4) Certain special immigrants
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 1101 (a)(27) of this title (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 1101 (a)(27)(C)(ii) of this title, and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 1101 (a)(27)(M) of this title.
(5) Employment creation
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership)—
i.e. for each country EB1 gets (140,000 + number of unused FB visas from the previous year) * 0.07 * 0.286 = 2802 + something insignificant, same for EB2 and EB3.
If there are unused visas, they go from EB1 to EB2 to EB3, but they are lost at the end of the fiscal year. Unused visas from 4th and 5th category can be added to that number as well (usually in the 4th quarter of the fiscal year). Please note that at the end of the fiscal year per country limits may be lifted if there are unused visas left.
1151
d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to—
(A) 140,000, plus
(B) the number computed under paragraph (2). (i.e. unused family-based visas from the previous year)
1153
(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151 (d) of this title for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(EB-1) Priority workers
Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5)
(EB-2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(EB-3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(4) Certain special immigrants
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 1101 (a)(27) of this title (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 1101 (a)(27)(C)(ii) of this title, and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 1101 (a)(27)(M) of this title.
(5) Employment creation
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership)—
i.e. for each country EB1 gets (140,000 + number of unused FB visas from the previous year) * 0.07 * 0.286 = 2802 + something insignificant, same for EB2 and EB3.
If there are unused visas, they go from EB1 to EB2 to EB3, but they are lost at the end of the fiscal year. Unused visas from 4th and 5th category can be added to that number as well (usually in the 4th quarter of the fiscal year). Please note that at the end of the fiscal year per country limits may be lifted if there are unused visas left.
tattoo Former Speaker Newt Gingrich
JunRN
08-11 06:00 PM
True. But USCIS doesn't care anymore because I-140 is already approved. The ability to pay is for I-140, not for AOS. There is no point for USCIS to get the ability to pay for AC21 cases because the adjudication is based on the approved I-140. If you will read the USCIS guidelines on this, it explains the reasons why.
more...
pictures Newt Gingrich
hiralal
05-13 07:06 AM
I agree with the above ..I guess they come up with visa usage statistics and that will give us an idea ..btw ..unemployment will not come down for years and because of recent swine flu ..CIR will have more opposition .. right wing republicans will call for more deportation rather than more open borders !!!
dresses Newt Gingrich served as
gsvisu
07-13 06:51 AM
Moral : Play Soccer
Leave Doctor, Software, Engineering professions... & play soccer.
Leave Doctor, Software, Engineering professions... & play soccer.
more...
makeup Newt Gingrich
Sandeep
05-22 07:30 PM
US Congress warned on green card backlog
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12919954/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12919954/
girlfriend Newt Gingrich 2012 Exploratory
rskanth
08-08 06:19 PM
And you know this how?:confused:
hairstyles Newt Gingrich declined to
RDB
05-06 02:25 AM
Folks,
I received a Transfer notice today for both me and my wife suggesting that our I-485 petitions have been transferred to the local USCIS office. Below is the exact message.
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On April 30, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our LOS ANGELES, CA location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our LOS ANGELES, CA location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
From what I could find through browsing through various forums is that usually one ends up getting an interview when this happens. Does anybody have any other thoughts? or has anybody received a similar notice recently?
I received a Transfer notice today for both me and my wife suggesting that our I-485 petitions have been transferred to the local USCIS office. Below is the exact message.
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On April 30, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our LOS ANGELES, CA location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our LOS ANGELES, CA location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
From what I could find through browsing through various forums is that usually one ends up getting an interview when this happens. Does anybody have any other thoughts? or has anybody received a similar notice recently?
panini
06-18 04:45 PM
I totally agree!
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
ntpatil
04-26 04:18 PM
Hello All,
Sorry for the post outside immigration boundaries.
My wife with 2 toddler kids will be traveling to India via Lufthansa.
I wanted to know from recent experiences how many check-in bags are allowed per person. My kids are 4 yrs old and they have a full ticket.
I know that some airlines only allow 1 checking per person, but wanted to know about Lufthansa specifically.
I could not find a clear answer on Lufthansa.com for baggage allowance to either India or Asia.
Thanks in advance for all your help.
Sorry for the post outside immigration boundaries.
My wife with 2 toddler kids will be traveling to India via Lufthansa.
I wanted to know from recent experiences how many check-in bags are allowed per person. My kids are 4 yrs old and they have a full ticket.
I know that some airlines only allow 1 checking per person, but wanted to know about Lufthansa specifically.
I could not find a clear answer on Lufthansa.com for baggage allowance to either India or Asia.
Thanks in advance for all your help.
No comments:
Post a Comment