singhsa3
07-18 09:54 AM
Please explain Greg's comment,
"We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing."
Shouldn't any application rejected on July 2nd have already reached our lawyer's office by now?
Also, if my appliction, filled on July 2nd,reached 11:34 AM CST, has not been returned yet, shouldn't we assume that it will be accepted?
"We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing."
Shouldn't any application rejected on July 2nd have already reached our lawyer's office by now?
Also, if my appliction, filled on July 2nd,reached 11:34 AM CST, has not been returned yet, shouldn't we assume that it will be accepted?
wallpaper michael fassbender stelios.
nojoke
10-20 12:15 AM
I don't get it why our folks blindly follow the dems, and somehow think Obama is our savior when in fact it's contrary. Obama can talk so smoothly that you'll leave feeling that he's for you even if he was saying the opposite. Time to wake up and look at the facts. Go Mccain.
Just like how you blindly think green card is the only thing that matters in this world. McCain lies, runs slimy sleazy adds that tell what kind of person he is. He doesn't have the depth of knowledge that Obama has nor does he have moral values. Time for you to wake up. Go Obama
Just like how you blindly think green card is the only thing that matters in this world. McCain lies, runs slimy sleazy adds that tell what kind of person he is. He doesn't have the depth of knowledge that Obama has nor does he have moral values. Time for you to wake up. Go Obama
gautamagg
04-23 04:46 PM
I came with 4 other people and NONE are IV members and nor did we approach any - infact the white shirt dude was surprised to know we were not part of IV and offended. As I said passive movements dont make a difference.
technically you are an IV member because you have an ID, that you created on your own. You probably went to the meeting with the IV crowd then branched out..good for you. Wonder why the Stanfords and Harvards are dying to admit you:D
Obviously you seem to be in a very unique situation, and you are taking steps to solve your issues in your own way, nothing wrong with that. good luck, to each his own.
technically you are an IV member because you have an ID, that you created on your own. You probably went to the meeting with the IV crowd then branched out..good for you. Wonder why the Stanfords and Harvards are dying to admit you:D
Obviously you seem to be in a very unique situation, and you are taking steps to solve your issues in your own way, nothing wrong with that. good luck, to each his own.
2011 #michael fassbender #300
gc28262
03-10 03:27 PM
Before taking up any agenda, check with IV core whether it is the right time.
If it was the right time, why wouldn't IV core initiate any action items when members are so willing to take up those ?
If it was the right time, why wouldn't IV core initiate any action items when members are so willing to take up those ?
more...
axp817
02-13 02:54 PM
Congratulations on the new job, glad everything worked out for you, even in these difficult times. The hard part is behind you now, replying to the RFE shouldn't be an issue anymore.
Godspeed.
Godspeed.
chanduv23
08-05 11:00 PM
Please join us for a tri state lunch meet. We would like to start working on volunteers/ mobilizing members for the DC rally. Even if you cannot take the day off and come to DC please come by for the lunch. We could really use help with banners/posters/ and ideas to make this a success.
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
TIME: 1:30 pm
ALSO- PLEASE DO UPDATE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION
Thank you!
NJ members please join the tri state chapter by clicking on the link in my signature (NY chapter is now tri state chapter)
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
TIME: 1:30 pm
ALSO- PLEASE DO UPDATE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION
Thank you!
NJ members please join the tri state chapter by clicking on the link in my signature (NY chapter is now tri state chapter)
more...
vdlrao
06-09 02:58 AM
"It has been necessary to retrogress the Mexico Family First and Third preference cut-off dates, as well as the China Employment Second preference cut-off date for July to keep visa issuances within those annual category numerical limits. "
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4512.html
This seems to be that the Spill Over Hasnt Occured Yet for this year.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4512.html
This seems to be that the Spill Over Hasnt Occured Yet for this year.
2010 michael fassbender stelios.
rajuseattle
07-15 11:10 AM
Ajthakur,
Please be truthful to the IV members.
You should have stayed back with this blood sucker or whatever name you want to say at least until 6 months after filing I-485. Whole IT world knows that AC-21 is safe after 180 days, even if the greedy employer revoke I-140, you were eligible for AC-21 portability.
Anyways now that you know the I-140 was revoked, find out when did he do that and if he has done that 180 days after your filing your I-485, you can still win your case by hiring a good attorney who can demonstarte to USCIS that your employment circumstances forced you to resign from the blood sucker and your adjustment application should be looked at as AC-21 portability.
You still consider you r the smart guy and can handle this RFE very well, then I can only wish you a good luck.
If I were you, I would have suffer for 6 months and then carry over the EB-2 PD with a good employer using either EAD or H1B, their is something fishy i can smell here...and folks here are not getting the true information.
Please be truthful to the IV members.
You should have stayed back with this blood sucker or whatever name you want to say at least until 6 months after filing I-485. Whole IT world knows that AC-21 is safe after 180 days, even if the greedy employer revoke I-140, you were eligible for AC-21 portability.
Anyways now that you know the I-140 was revoked, find out when did he do that and if he has done that 180 days after your filing your I-485, you can still win your case by hiring a good attorney who can demonstarte to USCIS that your employment circumstances forced you to resign from the blood sucker and your adjustment application should be looked at as AC-21 portability.
You still consider you r the smart guy and can handle this RFE very well, then I can only wish you a good luck.
If I were you, I would have suffer for 6 months and then carry over the EB-2 PD with a good employer using either EAD or H1B, their is something fishy i can smell here...and folks here are not getting the true information.
more...
Almond
07-05 12:44 PM
I agree that you can get free information any where on the internet. But what about the main goal of getting funds? Do we care about the main agenda behind this website? Are we doing any thing to do our part by contributing? You only get very succinct info on murthy chat and khanna phone calls. You might get more info on their fourms. They are running those forums not only for community sake but also to get "invaluable" publicity that makes them "the name" in immigration. I got an answer on Murthy forum/Khanna forum indirectly translates into name/fame for the attorneys, which means more business for them. I got an answer on IV neither directly nor inidrectly translates into what??? Nothing.. As long as we tell ourselves that we get info for free, google is our friend, We are just substantiating our thoughts on "How NOT to pay". Nothing else.
And there is nothing wrong with that, right, because in the end you do not know what the financial situation of people on here is. One guy suggested a monthly contribution of 20 bucks, I laughed myself off the chair when I saw that. You're right, this is about "how not to pay" and why shouldn't it be. I don't make a lot, the lawyer's sucking me dry (in more ways than one if it were up to him), I've been waiting for this for ever, I have a family to support, etc.
Well, in the end you all do what you want, don't worry, be happy :D
And there is nothing wrong with that, right, because in the end you do not know what the financial situation of people on here is. One guy suggested a monthly contribution of 20 bucks, I laughed myself off the chair when I saw that. You're right, this is about "how not to pay" and why shouldn't it be. I don't make a lot, the lawyer's sucking me dry (in more ways than one if it were up to him), I've been waiting for this for ever, I have a family to support, etc.
Well, in the end you all do what you want, don't worry, be happy :D
hair Michael Fassbender,
andycool
03-16 02:04 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Hello Desi,
"Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
1. If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
2. Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
more...
when
02-20 03:47 PM
When EB3 India........:(:confused:
hot Michael Fassbender
%2B(2006).jpeg "Stelios (Michael Fassbender)")
piyu7444
01-30 04:15 PM
Good. That means you were in-status at the I-485 filing. Submit documents mentioned in RFE and you should be good.
>> My question is - Is the time I haven't been working considered as Out of Status?
No you are not. Like I said out of status UNTIL date of I-485 application is most important.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
I read the thread and have a question for Desi3933 as he seems to have knowledge about how this works..........
I am on h1b with employer B.
Employer A had my h1b and had processed my GC. I applied for 485 in Jul 07 and then in Jun 08 I transfered my h1b to Employer B. I did not notify USCIS about this job change so I did not invoke AC21. (Lawyer suggested to leave it in case we get a RFE)
Now my wife's 485 application is tied with mine. She is on h1b with employer C. Employer C is a consulting agency and her contract will end today Jan 30 2009. Also we are expecting hence she will take a 3 month time off / vacation for the baby (permissible under law) starting End of April 2009. Further she will travel to India on Aug 1 2009 and will return around Nov 15 09.
She has worked only 1 month in 2009 this will be reflected on 2009 w-2. I have couple of questions:
Will she be considered as "out of status" from Feb 1 to April end?
She has h1b valid till 2010 so when she returns back to US in Nov 09 shall she use h1b or enter US on AP given the fact that 485 is pending?
Will you recommend getting paid from Feb thru May to cover the gap? (this could be done with as the employer is willing to help)
Thanks
>> My question is - Is the time I haven't been working considered as Out of Status?
No you are not. Like I said out of status UNTIL date of I-485 application is most important.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
I read the thread and have a question for Desi3933 as he seems to have knowledge about how this works..........
I am on h1b with employer B.
Employer A had my h1b and had processed my GC. I applied for 485 in Jul 07 and then in Jun 08 I transfered my h1b to Employer B. I did not notify USCIS about this job change so I did not invoke AC21. (Lawyer suggested to leave it in case we get a RFE)
Now my wife's 485 application is tied with mine. She is on h1b with employer C. Employer C is a consulting agency and her contract will end today Jan 30 2009. Also we are expecting hence she will take a 3 month time off / vacation for the baby (permissible under law) starting End of April 2009. Further she will travel to India on Aug 1 2009 and will return around Nov 15 09.
She has worked only 1 month in 2009 this will be reflected on 2009 w-2. I have couple of questions:
Will she be considered as "out of status" from Feb 1 to April end?
She has h1b valid till 2010 so when she returns back to US in Nov 09 shall she use h1b or enter US on AP given the fact that 485 is pending?
Will you recommend getting paid from Feb thru May to cover the gap? (this could be done with as the employer is willing to help)
Thanks
more...
house Michael Fassbender
%2B(2006).jpeg "Stelios (Michael Fassbender)")
delax
07-20 02:28 PM
delax,
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
The data is organized by Govt Fiscal Year (Oct thru Sept) and by priority date not approval date. Thus anyone applying in Oct-Dec of 2005 will show up in the 2006 file.
You will notice that the PERM receipt date is always between Oct of previous year and Sept of next year. I also think that the pre-PERM data is a little suspect. I am the only GC applicant from my company and my PD is July 2004, but my case does not show up in the 2004 file. I guess during the transfer from DOL to BEC's my case got lost in translation though I got an approval in Feb 2007.
There is a mistake in your numbers, thousands of cases applied for in 2005 were approved in 2006.
If you look at the 2006 PERM Data Sheet, there are 7290 Approved, India cases with receipt dates in the year 2005.
I'm assuming PD = PERM Receipt Date (correct me if i'm wrong)
Similarly for 2006 in the 2007 tables.
Therefore there are ~ 8700 - EB1, EB2, EB3 cases in 2005 and not 1350.
The data is organized by Govt Fiscal Year (Oct thru Sept) and by priority date not approval date. Thus anyone applying in Oct-Dec of 2005 will show up in the 2006 file.
You will notice that the PERM receipt date is always between Oct of previous year and Sept of next year. I also think that the pre-PERM data is a little suspect. I am the only GC applicant from my company and my PD is July 2004, but my case does not show up in the 2004 file. I guess during the transfer from DOL to BEC's my case got lost in translation though I got an approval in Feb 2007.
tattoo Michael Fassbender
ashwin_27
02-07 06:09 PM
I will be traveling from the west coast and am trying to find other South Cal folks who are travelling to the event. Maybe we can coordinate travel, if possible.
Also, would appreciate any car pooling options when in DC/VA.
Also, would appreciate any car pooling options when in DC/VA.
more...
pictures of Michael Fassbender.
kutra
03-04 07:29 AM
I agree with the above !! an idea is like a spark ..once one media picks this up others will follow and you never know what it leads to. opposing an idea is Worse than doing nothing. BTW the way things are going ...GC may soon lose its grand appeal (it will still be in huge demand though ). the following article is a must read - if you have few minutes to spare --written by prominent economist. maybe a worst case scenario --but as scary as a horror movie
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/tragedy-recession-its-bad-ending/story.aspx?guid=%7B5D72D7E3%2D76BB%2D4CAB%2DB4D0%2 D60F87DA734B7%7D&dist=MostReadHome
Exactly. An idea is like a spark, but you have to be mindful of what we are pledging. Can someone in one single sentence write down the intent of this poll? If I understand correctly, the idea is to alert the media/USCIS and let them know that hey if you give us GCs, we will buy a house!
So far people have only voted that they will buy a house when their I-485 gets approved. Yes, but when? The next day, next year, 2010, 2015?
singhsa3/abhijitp/etc. Just write down the idea in one sentence or at least very clearly what it is that we are saying we will do in return for a GC and by when will we deliver on our promise. And then if the idea seems doable or worth pursuing, all of us can support it.
In all reality, this is a far-fetched idea which cannot be legally binding so it would be tough for USCIS to enforce it. Flower campaign worked because USCIS knew they had done something illegal. IV has a tough time getting people here to contribute in return for getting a GC and here we are promising USCIS that we will buy a house in return for a GC. Hmmm...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/tragedy-recession-its-bad-ending/story.aspx?guid=%7B5D72D7E3%2D76BB%2D4CAB%2DB4D0%2 D60F87DA734B7%7D&dist=MostReadHome
Exactly. An idea is like a spark, but you have to be mindful of what we are pledging. Can someone in one single sentence write down the intent of this poll? If I understand correctly, the idea is to alert the media/USCIS and let them know that hey if you give us GCs, we will buy a house!
So far people have only voted that they will buy a house when their I-485 gets approved. Yes, but when? The next day, next year, 2010, 2015?
singhsa3/abhijitp/etc. Just write down the idea in one sentence or at least very clearly what it is that we are saying we will do in return for a GC and by when will we deliver on our promise. And then if the idea seems doable or worth pursuing, all of us can support it.
In all reality, this is a far-fetched idea which cannot be legally binding so it would be tough for USCIS to enforce it. Flower campaign worked because USCIS knew they had done something illegal. IV has a tough time getting people here to contribute in return for getting a GC and here we are promising USCIS that we will buy a house in return for a GC. Hmmm...
dresses Stelios (Michael Fassbender)
ujayra01
03-17 10:41 AM
EB3-India
PD: Dec 2003
EAD-AP approved, FP done
PD: Dec 2003
EAD-AP approved, FP done
more...
makeup Stelios (Michael Fassbender)
vinod_gvk
09-26 11:58 AM
They Changed and uploaded it around 12.15PM
girlfriend michael fassbender stelios 300
![michael fassbender stelios. Michael Fassbender [Actor]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/smonie/300abs.jpg "Michael Fassbender [Actor]")
feedfront
10-07 12:27 PM
Received email about change in status to 'Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review'. USCIS should have received it yesterday and today it changed to response review.
RFE email: Sept 10, 2010
RFE received by attorney: Sept 21, 2010 [Civil Surgeon was not in current list of authorised civil surgeon + x-ray report was missing]
Reponse to RFE sent on : Oct 05, 2010 via USPS
Soft LUD/email: Oct 07, 2010 @10.30PM PST [Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review]
RFE email: Sept 10, 2010
RFE received by attorney: Sept 21, 2010 [Civil Surgeon was not in current list of authorised civil surgeon + x-ray report was missing]
Reponse to RFE sent on : Oct 05, 2010 via USPS
Soft LUD/email: Oct 07, 2010 @10.30PM PST [Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review]
hairstyles Michael Fassbender in 300 as
vgayalu
07-25 12:12 PM
Dear Friends,
What is availability means available for persons applied before cut of dates? or not at all available like present Eb2.
A Person can apply only when visa's are available. For example right now there are no Visas for EB2. So no one can apply for I 485 under EB2 category. But when visas are available like EB3 why do not we apply. Cut off dates are USCIS created ones for their work conveninece by allowing few applicants . It is not law. There is no such hard and fast law stating that the applicants having priority dates before cut off dates can only apply for I 485. Just USCIS can issue a Circular to allow I 485 against to visa dates.
If it is really a law then they should say aome thing about the method of calculating cut off dates.
Why do not we write atleast a letter to allow to apply I 485 when visas are avaible by ignoring USCIS defined cut off dates.
Please discuss with senior attorneys and DHS and DGS officials.
With regards,
vgayalu
What is availability means available for persons applied before cut of dates? or not at all available like present Eb2.
A Person can apply only when visa's are available. For example right now there are no Visas for EB2. So no one can apply for I 485 under EB2 category. But when visas are available like EB3 why do not we apply. Cut off dates are USCIS created ones for their work conveninece by allowing few applicants . It is not law. There is no such hard and fast law stating that the applicants having priority dates before cut off dates can only apply for I 485. Just USCIS can issue a Circular to allow I 485 against to visa dates.
If it is really a law then they should say aome thing about the method of calculating cut off dates.
Why do not we write atleast a letter to allow to apply I 485 when visas are avaible by ignoring USCIS defined cut off dates.
Please discuss with senior attorneys and DHS and DGS officials.
With regards,
vgayalu
piperwarrior
07-16 09:42 PM
I am just re-posting something that I had posted elsewhere. I really think that we have to be professional and mature in our response. Does anyone know how one can go about writing an op-ed in the New York Times?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Clearly, this is a task for IV (advocacy, lobbying, public opinion, etc.). The response needs to be succint, cogent and factual, without getting into any rhetoric about the value immigrants provide. Facts will discredit NumbersUSA...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Clearly, this is a task for IV (advocacy, lobbying, public opinion, etc.). The response needs to be succint, cogent and factual, without getting into any rhetoric about the value immigrants provide. Facts will discredit NumbersUSA...
cookbook
11-27 09:22 AM
I am trying to self file I765, I want to paperfile since I don't want to go for photos and other stuff to the Uscis center. My lawyer has filed my earlier applications for employment authorization and parole. He has filled all my previous employment authorization dates on the I765 forms, however I cannot fill more than 2 dates on the I765 forms, do I convert the form into word and fill it and reconvert it back? I have to file next week, please help.
No comments:
Post a Comment