FinalGC
09-01 10:58 AM
How am I being a racist? I'm just pointing out the fact that North and South Indians belong to different races and USCIS should stop clubbing them together.
Pooja.......The way you are going, very soon, you will start saying Northeast guys vs MidWest vs Mountain Time people vs...Pacific Time people.......If you continue with this attitude, all you do is DIVIDE, rather than UNITE.....Maybe you need to understand that such comments are considered racists
Pooja.......The way you are going, very soon, you will start saying Northeast guys vs MidWest vs Mountain Time people vs...Pacific Time people.......If you continue with this attitude, all you do is DIVIDE, rather than UNITE.....Maybe you need to understand that such comments are considered racists
wallpaper standard tattoo swallow,
shyamkishore
11-17 09:43 PM
Just sent the email ...
eyeswe
05-01 10:38 AM
Thanks for bringing this up. In the byzantine world of USCIS regs this probably got lost somewhere?
But i agree with the post above .. we are really stuck between a rock anda hard place on this issue..If we ask them to move all spouse visa numbers to Family , which is how it should be based on the legislations you are quoting, then our partners will have to wait for more number of years than EB categories. It does not matter that EB3 is now U. my feeling is in the long run EB is a better category than FB....
Also it could present more issue for all those aged out folks who are at least in EB where the gravy train seems to be inching unlike the FB train... And we don't even need to scenario plan the FB if all our spouse appln goes in to taht bucket.. But there is an advantage.. the primary applicant could get their GC cards faster (I am assuming) and this probably may be truer (if there is anything like that) for India and China, where usually the EB applicantion includes spouse/child visa reequest as well..
Very hard to choose.. Also what happens if the primary applicant gets the GC, but the spouse cannot.. On waht visa he/she will continue? May be that is the reason why they assumed all spouse visa application as EB?
But i agree with the post above .. we are really stuck between a rock anda hard place on this issue..If we ask them to move all spouse visa numbers to Family , which is how it should be based on the legislations you are quoting, then our partners will have to wait for more number of years than EB categories. It does not matter that EB3 is now U. my feeling is in the long run EB is a better category than FB....
Also it could present more issue for all those aged out folks who are at least in EB where the gravy train seems to be inching unlike the FB train... And we don't even need to scenario plan the FB if all our spouse appln goes in to taht bucket.. But there is an advantage.. the primary applicant could get their GC cards faster (I am assuming) and this probably may be truer (if there is anything like that) for India and China, where usually the EB applicantion includes spouse/child visa reequest as well..
Very hard to choose.. Also what happens if the primary applicant gets the GC, but the spouse cannot.. On waht visa he/she will continue? May be that is the reason why they assumed all spouse visa application as EB?
2011 Swallow tattoo designs can
bindoke
08-24 01:33 PM
got approvals for wife and myself today
PD Jan 22 2006.
Infopass on Aug 3rd said everything is good to go.
opened SR no.1 for primary on aug 4th, was told cases were assigned on aug 3
Level 2 cust service said cases pre-adjudicated.
Reply to SR no.1 was standard - wait for 30 days.blah blah.
Congressman inquiry said cases assigned to officer.
opened SR no.2 for dependent on Aug 19.
i think the Aug 19 SR did the trick.
thanks a lot for moral support all this while everyone !
i will donate soon !
PD Jan 22 2006.
Infopass on Aug 3rd said everything is good to go.
opened SR no.1 for primary on aug 4th, was told cases were assigned on aug 3
Level 2 cust service said cases pre-adjudicated.
Reply to SR no.1 was standard - wait for 30 days.blah blah.
Congressman inquiry said cases assigned to officer.
opened SR no.2 for dependent on Aug 19.
i think the Aug 19 SR did the trick.
thanks a lot for moral support all this while everyone !
i will donate soon !
more...
485Mbe4001
07-28 12:29 PM
good post with good points.
Additionally EB3 ROW will also suffer because the overflow will be allocated to EB2 first. You will see more and more countries getting retrogressed in EB3. It is not a case of being envious about EB2's, it is simply the fact that EB3's as a whole are screwed very bad and EB3 I in particular will never be current.
(On paper) This visa bulletin looks like an attempt to sow discontent among the nascent EB organizations (IV in particular) and it seems to have succeeded. EB 3 have dropped off from state chapters(I have). It exposed the worst from all the groups. 2007 VB fiasco helped many, but it also created many issues for DOL and USCIS that its payback time for us, they will go through each rule with a fine tooth comb and make sure that this will never happen again. it is my opinion that in the end we lost big time.
Sorry to read blaming debates between eb3 and eb2. Insted of blaming, it is better to take some action. Based on current practice by DOS, EB3-I will be like this for ever, unless more number opens up by any legislative changes. As per law, each EB catagories are allowed to have 40K visas. As demand for EB2 is more, (paricularly by In,Ch) one can not expect any flow from EB2 to EB3 . This is law one can not change it.
Now I am coming to important point to take some action by EB3-I. The law says, 7% country quota will be applied in each prefrence catagory if worldwide demand for visas is more than supply in that catagory. But the law does not set any time frame. Therefore, the real threat for EB3-I is EB3-ROW. As per current practice, untill EB3-ROW become "current" EB3-I will get only 3000 visas per year. What happen if EB3-ROW never become "current" for next 50 years? EB3-I will be stuck in 2001 or 2002 for ever. To add my point, let us imagine a hypothetical case. Lets say in 2010 about 1 million ROW guys neend EB3 visa number. All has PD 2010. EB3-In will be stuck in 2001 till one million EB-ROW with PD 2010 recives GC. In nut shell, a EB3-ROW with latest PD will be given more preference than EB3-In with PD 2001. As current practice does not set any time limit, new flow of applications keeps retrogressed countries stuck for ever. This point has to be conveyed to DOS and USCIS to change the practice. Applications receviced in one fiscal year has to be cleared (grant GC) to process the application from next year. This way new applications from ROW will not stuck the retrogreesd countries for ever.
Additionally EB3 ROW will also suffer because the overflow will be allocated to EB2 first. You will see more and more countries getting retrogressed in EB3. It is not a case of being envious about EB2's, it is simply the fact that EB3's as a whole are screwed very bad and EB3 I in particular will never be current.
(On paper) This visa bulletin looks like an attempt to sow discontent among the nascent EB organizations (IV in particular) and it seems to have succeeded. EB 3 have dropped off from state chapters(I have). It exposed the worst from all the groups. 2007 VB fiasco helped many, but it also created many issues for DOL and USCIS that its payback time for us, they will go through each rule with a fine tooth comb and make sure that this will never happen again. it is my opinion that in the end we lost big time.
Sorry to read blaming debates between eb3 and eb2. Insted of blaming, it is better to take some action. Based on current practice by DOS, EB3-I will be like this for ever, unless more number opens up by any legislative changes. As per law, each EB catagories are allowed to have 40K visas. As demand for EB2 is more, (paricularly by In,Ch) one can not expect any flow from EB2 to EB3 . This is law one can not change it.
Now I am coming to important point to take some action by EB3-I. The law says, 7% country quota will be applied in each prefrence catagory if worldwide demand for visas is more than supply in that catagory. But the law does not set any time frame. Therefore, the real threat for EB3-I is EB3-ROW. As per current practice, untill EB3-ROW become "current" EB3-I will get only 3000 visas per year. What happen if EB3-ROW never become "current" for next 50 years? EB3-I will be stuck in 2001 or 2002 for ever. To add my point, let us imagine a hypothetical case. Lets say in 2010 about 1 million ROW guys neend EB3 visa number. All has PD 2010. EB3-In will be stuck in 2001 till one million EB-ROW with PD 2010 recives GC. In nut shell, a EB3-ROW with latest PD will be given more preference than EB3-In with PD 2001. As current practice does not set any time limit, new flow of applications keeps retrogressed countries stuck for ever. This point has to be conveyed to DOS and USCIS to change the practice. Applications receviced in one fiscal year has to be cleared (grant GC) to process the application from next year. This way new applications from ROW will not stuck the retrogreesd countries for ever.
knnmbd
05-03 11:58 AM
thanks for responding...any contradicting/second opinions? What is the exemption towards - both filing for 485 and processing of 485 too, right? Isn't it an exemption from the EB quota?
The exemption is just to file, the processing will however take what ever the regular processing time would at that point of time. I am sure that there is no provision to expedite the "processing" of I145.
The exemption is just to file, the processing will however take what ever the regular processing time would at that point of time. I am sure that there is no provision to expedite the "processing" of I145.
more...
akhilmahajan
02-10 04:04 PM
Thanks a lot preethamsp.
Grand Total - $1220
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
Hi,
Just sent money thru paypal for $51.
Transaction ID #21052831UU2493611.
I know that it was requested to send in checks, so as to avoid the processing fees etc from paypal, but i thought this could be the fastest way to send money, hence hv put in $51
I pledge to make another $101 as soon as we hit $5000.00 mark.
c'mon folks dont make me wait too long for my pledge.
Thanks to those who have made the contribution.
A humble request to the newbies and casual visitors to contribute at this crucial juncture.
Freeriders, here's a chance to redeem yourself and payback for any help/information you might have got from IV.
Grand Total - $1220
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
Hi,
Just sent money thru paypal for $51.
Transaction ID #21052831UU2493611.
I know that it was requested to send in checks, so as to avoid the processing fees etc from paypal, but i thought this could be the fastest way to send money, hence hv put in $51
I pledge to make another $101 as soon as we hit $5000.00 mark.
c'mon folks dont make me wait too long for my pledge.
Thanks to those who have made the contribution.
A humble request to the newbies and casual visitors to contribute at this crucial juncture.
Freeriders, here's a chance to redeem yourself and payback for any help/information you might have got from IV.
2010 Swallow Tattoos
reddymjm
06-09 05:29 AM
probably Texas, that is where my I-140 was approved.
Cancelled 4 tickets and lost 1000 bucks. Was to fly on 6th. Never expected dates will move. MY PD Nov 2001 EB3 India.
Hoping to get receipts by 20th. Is that a fair assumption? Planning to re-book for 22nd.
Don't want to lose another dime on cancellations and re-bookings.
Advice and share your thoughts.
I am not sure man. How long is your trip? If they sent a finger print notice while you are in India will you be able to come back. I woluld say complete finger prints and go..
Cancelled 4 tickets and lost 1000 bucks. Was to fly on 6th. Never expected dates will move. MY PD Nov 2001 EB3 India.
Hoping to get receipts by 20th. Is that a fair assumption? Planning to re-book for 22nd.
Don't want to lose another dime on cancellations and re-bookings.
Advice and share your thoughts.
I am not sure man. How long is your trip? If they sent a finger print notice while you are in India will you be able to come back. I woluld say complete finger prints and go..
more...
anzerraja
07-20 12:26 AM
Thanks !!!
You are the 320 guys group. You know what i mean :)
$200 from me.
You are the 320 guys group. You know what i mean :)
$200 from me.
hair Swallow Tattoo
glus
07-09 05:51 PM
awsome ...did you get the list of emails i sent you via email :)
yes, I did. Thanx.
yes, I did. Thanx.
more...
rahulp
09-10 08:52 PM
My sincere apologies for being harsh on IV members, I sincerely appreciate the efforts.
I guess Oct bulletin (EB3 - I) got me going there...
I realize it's not fair to criticize when I am just sitting on the sidelines and not contributing to the cause.
Peace.
I guess Oct bulletin (EB3 - I) got me going there...
I realize it's not fair to criticize when I am just sitting on the sidelines and not contributing to the cause.
Peace.
hot tattoo swallow.
vengaiah
04-29 06:55 PM
I thinks EB3 INDIA will move between 9/11/2001 to JAN 2004 , because after 9/11 probably few people applied for GreenCrd because of market condition, even h1b quotas are not used for 2002 and 2003, i applied for h1b on 2004 April , no surprise the quota available because of market condition.
more...
house Swallow tattoos designs
sparklinks
09-08 05:53 PM
I expertise my EAD and today I got a letter saying wait until 90 days....what the Heck is this... Current one exp. in 2 weeks..... RD 06/18/2008
tattoo tattoo design swallow.
jindhal
09-27 04:39 PM
Sorry for my French guys...I generally dont like to use bad words, but this Charles Oppenheim boils my blood...
Look at all his previous statements...I dont know under what kind of influence he makes his statements...
He has BSed us in the past (look at his prior statement that he made in VEGAS) ....
Now he is BSing us again....
And we take his words seriously and start another set of arguments....
God bless every one; I need to calm down now. If possible please ignore this Oppehemi guy; he is just another joker.
CO's words have been mostly pessimistic..and upsetting so far...
Look at all his previous statements...I dont know under what kind of influence he makes his statements...
He has BSed us in the past (look at his prior statement that he made in VEGAS) ....
Now he is BSing us again....
And we take his words seriously and start another set of arguments....
God bless every one; I need to calm down now. If possible please ignore this Oppehemi guy; he is just another joker.
CO's words have been mostly pessimistic..and upsetting so far...
more...
pictures Swallow Tattoo: swallow this
dontcareanymore
07-28 12:48 AM
1) First of all this is not the response to just the quoted post, but many on the same lines, especially from delax and others.
2)I believe that that whole process is so screwed up that it is never fair and never will be. Irrespective of what Eb3s hope for and try , Eb2 folks are going to get their GCs and Eb3s will have to wait until stars align for them.
3) I don't really care one way or other , because what you wish,hope or try to do will have no bearing on the outcome.
<Those who think 2 year EADs are because of your letters , stay in the dreamland - ignorance is bliss >
4) I am really happy for Eb2 folks (No way jealous) , just pissed by some attitude here.
Now that I have the disclaimers out of the way, Here is what I have to say:
Why the heck you never made the argument that "law is law" and "There is no compassion" before law crap when you were retrogressed ?
What happened to what law says , when attempts were made to grab visas from ROW with the same "It is not fair" argument ?
What is the yardstick for EB2 ? It is just what your employer says it is. I know so many in body shops with Eb2 apps while others languish in Eb3 queue.
You can't extend the logic to all EB1 categories. At least in some of the EB categories one has to have published research work in peer reviewed journals.
Will give you an example :
Know some one who came here as postdoc with PHD in life sciences (zoology) and self filed for GC EB1and now runs an Indian grocery just after being in job for less than a year. How do you justify that GC is in the interest of US than a person who is working in a company for 10 years ?
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by “All Other Countries” were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
2)I believe that that whole process is so screwed up that it is never fair and never will be. Irrespective of what Eb3s hope for and try , Eb2 folks are going to get their GCs and Eb3s will have to wait until stars align for them.
3) I don't really care one way or other , because what you wish,hope or try to do will have no bearing on the outcome.
<Those who think 2 year EADs are because of your letters , stay in the dreamland - ignorance is bliss >
4) I am really happy for Eb2 folks (No way jealous) , just pissed by some attitude here.
Now that I have the disclaimers out of the way, Here is what I have to say:
Why the heck you never made the argument that "law is law" and "There is no compassion" before law crap when you were retrogressed ?
What happened to what law says , when attempts were made to grab visas from ROW with the same "It is not fair" argument ?
What is the yardstick for EB2 ? It is just what your employer says it is. I know so many in body shops with Eb2 apps while others languish in Eb3 queue.
You can't extend the logic to all EB1 categories. At least in some of the EB categories one has to have published research work in peer reviewed journals.
Will give you an example :
Know some one who came here as postdoc with PHD in life sciences (zoology) and self filed for GC EB1and now runs an Indian grocery just after being in job for less than a year. How do you justify that GC is in the interest of US than a person who is working in a company for 10 years ?
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by “All Other Countries” were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
dresses stock vector : Tattoo swallow
jindhal
09-24 01:35 PM
I have no problem with porting, but the priority date should be starting from when they acquired required qualifications for the job.
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
Thank you!!
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
Thank you!!
more...
makeup swallow tattoo. by Big Moon
mita
08-12 02:31 PM
Did anyone receive card mailed e-mail/status update? I saw one member receive that.
girlfriend swallow tattoo designs.
pappu
12-15 10:58 AM
Guys check out this article on Washington Post's website:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401362.html
A whole lot of anti-immigrant folks are posting their comments. All the eloquent members of IV, please mount a counter attack!
contact the author
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/jacoby.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401362.html
A whole lot of anti-immigrant folks are posting their comments. All the eloquent members of IV, please mount a counter attack!
contact the author
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/jacoby.htm
hairstyles swallow tattoo design. a rose
vicks_don
04-20 04:05 PM
I currently have a job offer from the client .
My previous company has applied in perm as Software engineer , Applications as Job Title and Job Description is PeoplesoftSoft, Peopletools ,SQR
My client would like to hire me as Peoplesoft Developer. but I am expecting a raise in salary of atleast 30%.
Would this be a problem ?
When you say Job description should be more or less same what exactly does that mean. Should it be exactly different or some minor change is ok ?
Help me out as I have to decide on the offer by weekend.
All
I have changed jobs twice keeping more or less same job description but salary wise much more what i used to get.
No need to inform INS. I know most of us little concerned to use AC21 for better job and salary but i never heard of anyone (atleast from my circle ) denied GC for changing job.
I encourage everybody who come across good opportunity to go for it. Keep same job description ( atleast on paper).
My previous company has applied in perm as Software engineer , Applications as Job Title and Job Description is PeoplesoftSoft, Peopletools ,SQR
My client would like to hire me as Peoplesoft Developer. but I am expecting a raise in salary of atleast 30%.
Would this be a problem ?
When you say Job description should be more or less same what exactly does that mean. Should it be exactly different or some minor change is ok ?
Help me out as I have to decide on the offer by weekend.
All
I have changed jobs twice keeping more or less same job description but salary wise much more what i used to get.
No need to inform INS. I know most of us little concerned to use AC21 for better job and salary but i never heard of anyone (atleast from my circle ) denied GC for changing job.
I encourage everybody who come across good opportunity to go for it. Keep same job description ( atleast on paper).
nixstor
07-08 11:24 AM
no it will not be voilation of the law at all. consider this scenario thats been going on for the last 30+ years. For example July 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was jan 2003 and the August 2006 visa bulletin for EB2 india was unavailable. EB2 india visa numbers might have already been used up when the August 2006 visa bulletin was released but they still accepted the AOS petitions filed until the end of July 2006, they did not issue an updated visa bulletin or a revised visa bulletin saying eb2 india numbers are used up and they will not accept eb2 india aos applications, they continued accpeting AOS applications until the end of july 2006.
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
Absolutely, Those who filed in June 2006 had a visa number available which were exhausted by the month of Aug 2006. I am not saying that there is a one to one match between availability of visa number and adjudication of visa number. To be more clear, DOS and USCIS might have took 30K applications when there were 20k visa numbers. I am totally aware of this. How ever, all these went unnoticed because there was not a deluge of applications like this and USCIS did not care much about the extra 10K, who will wait until they are available. It could also be possible that they were doing this so randomly like they have done right now, with out proper communication and have not hurt each other. But the deluge of applications sure did bothered USCIS and hence they worked over time to exhaust numbers. As we all know, there is no rule to say that if there are 20K visa numbers, stop accepting applications once you reach 20K, they have to honor the VB for that month even though they get 200k applications. Thats why they exhausted the number by July 1st and when they could not complete by Jun 30th. I feel that USCIS will have a tough time answering
a) How USCIS used the numbers before the start of the quarter, even though they are not authorized to?
b) How USCIS approved some folks on July 1st , when the July VB is already effective?
c) lastly the poor communication between agencies and the grievances suffered by every one involved, if at all.
If you have the patience you can go through the visa bulletin archieves and find many such examples. The point is for the last 30+ years USCIS\DOS accepted applications according to the visa bulletin even when visa numbers were used up, they could have just followed the same precedent that they themselves set for the last 30+ years and accepted the applications this time as well without issuing a revised visa bulletin. I am no legal expert but that is how i see it.
Absolutely, Those who filed in June 2006 had a visa number available which were exhausted by the month of Aug 2006. I am not saying that there is a one to one match between availability of visa number and adjudication of visa number. To be more clear, DOS and USCIS might have took 30K applications when there were 20k visa numbers. I am totally aware of this. How ever, all these went unnoticed because there was not a deluge of applications like this and USCIS did not care much about the extra 10K, who will wait until they are available. It could also be possible that they were doing this so randomly like they have done right now, with out proper communication and have not hurt each other. But the deluge of applications sure did bothered USCIS and hence they worked over time to exhaust numbers. As we all know, there is no rule to say that if there are 20K visa numbers, stop accepting applications once you reach 20K, they have to honor the VB for that month even though they get 200k applications. Thats why they exhausted the number by July 1st and when they could not complete by Jun 30th. I feel that USCIS will have a tough time answering
a) How USCIS used the numbers before the start of the quarter, even though they are not authorized to?
b) How USCIS approved some folks on July 1st , when the July VB is already effective?
c) lastly the poor communication between agencies and the grievances suffered by every one involved, if at all.
sina
08-26 11:18 AM
Hi Gccovet,
So you mean - I and ajaykk will get the EADs within next 10 days even if our applications haven't been looked at yet? Did this happen to you. I am not too much bothered about this at this point as I am working on H1. But just thought would reply to ajaykk since we had similar experience.
Sina
So you mean - I and ajaykk will get the EADs within next 10 days even if our applications haven't been looked at yet? Did this happen to you. I am not too much bothered about this at this point as I am working on H1. But just thought would reply to ajaykk since we had similar experience.
Sina
No comments:
Post a Comment