Maverick_2008
02-22 09:32 PM
Even TSC is getting s..l..o..w now for 140.
Maverick_2008
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
Maverick_2008
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
wallpaper Food Chains - Geography For
rani77
02-06 07:30 PM
arjun007
Did u surrender your I 94s when leaving for Canada???
Also if you did ,did the POE officer issue you a new I 94 when you re entered US??
I am asking because i have heard different verisons when u visit canada
Please let me know ,we might be planning a trip to Canada soon
and our H1 stamp is expired so we might go for stamping.
Also please post about your canada visa details.
Thx
Did u surrender your I 94s when leaving for Canada???
Also if you did ,did the POE officer issue you a new I 94 when you re entered US??
I am asking because i have heard different verisons when u visit canada
Please let me know ,we might be planning a trip to Canada soon
and our H1 stamp is expired so we might go for stamping.
Also please post about your canada visa details.
Thx
TeddyKoochu
10-14 04:34 PM
Spring 2010 (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201004&RIN=1615-AB82)
Sakthisagar & RSM144 many thanks for posting, the spring document has a target date of Oct 2010, I believe there is a chance of this happening sometime with the fee increase, they will have a fee for this. Hope this rule comes into play it is good news for us.
Sakthisagar & RSM144 many thanks for posting, the spring document has a target date of Oct 2010, I believe there is a chance of this happening sometime with the fee increase, they will have a fee for this. Hope this rule comes into play it is good news for us.
2011 Boreal food chain
Sheila Danzig
07-25 10:26 AM
In all of the years that I have been doing evaluations I have seen only two cases where a GC had a NOIR (Notice of intent to revoke) for education reasons. Both had 3 year degrees. One case was several years ago and approved and the other was recent and just submitted.
Do you know the reason for your notice?
Hi all,
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
Do you know the reason for your notice?
Hi all,
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
maverick_s39
01-20 11:11 AM
looking at the recent trend i am not so sure if dems are going to do anything on CIR anyway, MA senate race is more like a referendum to president and congress policies, if president or dems think otherwise they are making a huge mistake, time to push aside health care reform and concentrate on economy and jobs, any immigration reform bill in this economy is not going to happen, i hope they do something to revive the economy!
more...
txh1b
04-20 02:25 PM
Thanks for the reply.
We are not in Chicago. Their POE is in Chicago. I may have to go to the local USCIS office and clarify it.
I am also checking with the Attorney.
You can go to the closest international airport's CBP. USCIS local office cannot do anything about it. Only CBP can.
We are not in Chicago. Their POE is in Chicago. I may have to go to the local USCIS office and clarify it.
I am also checking with the Attorney.
You can go to the closest international airport's CBP. USCIS local office cannot do anything about it. Only CBP can.
2010 my Kidspiration Food Web,
gc28262
07-16 06:44 PM
If you have an appointment letter and a relieving letter from your past employer, that should prove that you worked for that employer.
A detailed experience certificate as mentioned above could prove your experience in the specified skillset.
Here is another notarized affidavit format
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT FROM CO-WORKER
I COLLEAGUE residing at COLLEAGUE''s ADDRESS being first duly sworn, depose and state that:
I was an employee of COMPANY NAME, COMPANY ADDRESS from Month-Day-Year to Month-Day-Year.
YOUR NAME was also an employee of company as a YOUR DESIGNATION around this time and I am aware of YOUR NAME�s responsibilities as we were colleagues.
His/Her duties during this period included YOUR SKILL SET HERE
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Colleagues� Name & Signature
Sworn to before me this on MM/DD/YYYY
(Notary Public's signature & seal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed experience certificate as mentioned above could prove your experience in the specified skillset.
Here is another notarized affidavit format
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT FROM CO-WORKER
I COLLEAGUE residing at COLLEAGUE''s ADDRESS being first duly sworn, depose and state that:
I was an employee of COMPANY NAME, COMPANY ADDRESS from Month-Day-Year to Month-Day-Year.
YOUR NAME was also an employee of company as a YOUR DESIGNATION around this time and I am aware of YOUR NAME�s responsibilities as we were colleagues.
His/Her duties during this period included YOUR SKILL SET HERE
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Colleagues� Name & Signature
Sworn to before me this on MM/DD/YYYY
(Notary Public's signature & seal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more...
vxg
09-08 03:01 PM
Got the cards in the mail. My online case status says the application is still pending.
Folks (those whose PDs are current this month),
Check with your attorney, in your mail boxes along with the online USCIS case status. You may get the good news in your mail box or from your attorney's office before your status is updated online.
This is what my attorney had to say:
The USCIS online status system is maintained by contract workers and is often inaccurate.
Thanks for starting this. I am in same boat, i called TSC and the IO told me my case was approved on 9/4/09 and i have an LUD on 9/4/09 however online status says case pending. I asked that to the IO and she says she does not know about the online status but in there system it is approved. I did that after i received a call from an IO from local field office ( i went for Infopass last week at local office) informing that my and my wife's cases were approved on 9/4/09.
I am hoping to get the cards as have to travel to India next week. The IO in Texas advised me to get the Passport stamped.
Folks (those whose PDs are current this month),
Check with your attorney, in your mail boxes along with the online USCIS case status. You may get the good news in your mail box or from your attorney's office before your status is updated online.
This is what my attorney had to say:
The USCIS online status system is maintained by contract workers and is often inaccurate.
Thanks for starting this. I am in same boat, i called TSC and the IO told me my case was approved on 9/4/09 and i have an LUD on 9/4/09 however online status says case pending. I asked that to the IO and she says she does not know about the online status but in there system it is approved. I did that after i received a call from an IO from local field office ( i went for Infopass last week at local office) informing that my and my wife's cases were approved on 9/4/09.
I am hoping to get the cards as have to travel to India next week. The IO in Texas advised me to get the Passport stamped.
hair forest food chain examples
eb3_nepa
10-13 03:11 PM
I have ALWAYS gone in T-shirt and Jeans and never had a problem. They dont really care about your appearance, although it is a good idea to dress decently.
more...
kookoo
08-03 06:17 PM
What the chances are of an inquiry between the USCIS and my Previous Employer?
:confused:
:confused:
hot forest food web examples.
n2b
07-17 01:03 PM
DOS and USCIS are slow. But it would be really helpful if the IV code team can provide some update on our site. I believe over 2.5 hours have passed since the last update regarding some update in 1 hour. I guess we can't do anything if it takes more time but an update always helps! Thank you.
more...
house forest Example food chain
Templarian
11-24 10:02 AM
No members have written a tutorial for Flex as of yet. Kirupa has said it a thousand times there has to be valid tutorials for there to be a forum (a simple search would have shown this).
My suggestion write a few well written tutorials on flex specific topics and submit them to Kirupa.
Also Kirupa is a MS developer so its only inherent that he writes what he knows best... I don't think he really even uses Flash very much anymore, except when he wrote that tutorial about some of the new features.
Search Results:
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=289365
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=276516
My suggestion write a few well written tutorials on flex specific topics and submit them to Kirupa.
Also Kirupa is a MS developer so its only inherent that he writes what he knows best... I don't think he really even uses Flash very much anymore, except when he wrote that tutorial about some of the new features.
Search Results:
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=289365
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=276516
tattoo Forest+food+web+examples
invincibleasian
02-20 06:34 PM
I used the data from this webite to apply for FOIA for I-140
more...
pictures Forest Habitat Food Web
vdixit
04-10 08:00 PM
THere are restrictions on applying H1B via multiple employers. THe candidate will be rejected outright. Read the recent guidance on the USCIS website. So hopefully we will not see multiple applications for the same person this year.
dresses forest food web examples. of a
kumarc123
08-13 02:09 PM
after rolling out the sept visa ... rao saab aaram kar rahe hain...
kindly not "DISTUB"
:D:D:D
(translation : __mr rao is resting__)
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
kindly not "DISTUB"
:D:D:D
(translation : __mr rao is resting__)
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
more...
makeup forest food web examples.
kminkeller
03-09 04:17 PM
Thanks guys. Thanks a lot for all these information.
So for Consular processing I need to go back to my country and get it done through the Embassy right? What are the chances of getting denied? Also, what are the chances of getting your labor and I140 denied? If GOD forbid, it got denied, will my EAD still be valid and my EB3 application still be in the place? will it jeopardize my EB3 application?
Thanks.
So for Consular processing I need to go back to my country and get it done through the Embassy right? What are the chances of getting denied? Also, what are the chances of getting your labor and I140 denied? If GOD forbid, it got denied, will my EAD still be valid and my EB3 application still be in the place? will it jeopardize my EB3 application?
Thanks.
girlfriend Food web
eb3retro
03-15 01:38 PM
eb3retro,
Your concerns are well placed. Please be rest assured that we're working on reinstating the AC21 clause on per country limits.
Due to the sensitive nature of lobbying, we're sorry that we will not be able to divulge any more detailed information.
Thanks for the response admin, I understand your concerns.
Your concerns are well placed. Please be rest assured that we're working on reinstating the AC21 clause on per country limits.
Due to the sensitive nature of lobbying, we're sorry that we will not be able to divulge any more detailed information.
Thanks for the response admin, I understand your concerns.
hairstyles forest food web examples. to
mchundi
02-14 07:42 PM
It is almost 3-4 months for me tracking the progress of S-1932 and the comprehensive immigration reform process. I know some of u here have been lobbying for this even longer.
To begin with a few of the immigration bills were to be taken up last september, then Bill Frist said "he will schedule immigration bills in 2006 only". Well i thought we have to wait till jan '06. Then from the blue came the S-1932, it had everything in it that i was waiting for. It was definitely an overkill, No wonder it did not go thru. If it had just the recapture of the unused numbers it would have probably gone thru.
Now the comprehensive immigration bill is not likely to be taken up until end march. If something else more important comes in, then it might be postponed to the next year.
We r caught in the politics of one-upmanship. The administration wants immigration reform. May be it wants to take credit for it. Some dont want it. The Senate majority leader is not interested in it. May be it is him we should lobby.
May be we should change of tactic now. PACE has a good chance of going thru this year. May be we should lobby to tag the unused numbers into the PACE. That will atleast keep the PD current for a couple of years, before which the CIR can be taken up.
Just a thought.
--MC
To begin with a few of the immigration bills were to be taken up last september, then Bill Frist said "he will schedule immigration bills in 2006 only". Well i thought we have to wait till jan '06. Then from the blue came the S-1932, it had everything in it that i was waiting for. It was definitely an overkill, No wonder it did not go thru. If it had just the recapture of the unused numbers it would have probably gone thru.
Now the comprehensive immigration bill is not likely to be taken up until end march. If something else more important comes in, then it might be postponed to the next year.
We r caught in the politics of one-upmanship. The administration wants immigration reform. May be it wants to take credit for it. Some dont want it. The Senate majority leader is not interested in it. May be it is him we should lobby.
May be we should change of tactic now. PACE has a good chance of going thru this year. May be we should lobby to tag the unused numbers into the PACE. That will atleast keep the PD current for a couple of years, before which the CIR can be taken up.
Just a thought.
--MC
9411b
03-06 12:56 PM
You are not alone.
We have the same problem.
EAD applied in July 07, EAD card received in Oct 07 and the card was made expired 01/01/07 by WAC.
Called USCIS hotline, tried new applications with WAC, TSC and Info pass, still waiting if WAC is going to correct its own mess.
Big headache.
Good luck everyone.
J
PS. concurrently filing with NSC then moved to WAC then to TSC. Now pending!!!!:(:(
We have the same problem.
EAD applied in July 07, EAD card received in Oct 07 and the card was made expired 01/01/07 by WAC.
Called USCIS hotline, tried new applications with WAC, TSC and Info pass, still waiting if WAC is going to correct its own mess.
Big headache.
Good luck everyone.
J
PS. concurrently filing with NSC then moved to WAC then to TSC. Now pending!!!!:(:(
neelu
01-02 02:34 PM
Please anyone.........help me.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment