zuhail
04-11 01:23 AM
A very useful piece of information has been brought to our attention by shiankuraaf.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
wallpaper Pay for R. Kelly - TP-2.com .
imv116
04-02 03:59 PM
I can put 100 arguments in support of MS students graduating and trying to get into a new job. Similarly you can come up with 100 other arguments that they are all non ethical and lies.
It is more costly for companies big and small to hire a new grad, train and eventually have him work on the business and that process is carried only by a minute percentage of all the companies that do business and also they look at elite schools.
Every MS student has to undergo a vigorous financial crisis situation there by the time they graduate they are left with no choice other than accepting what ever comes there way, at the earliest.
They don't have the liberty financially as well as law wise to sit and try for 1 year to get into a full time job. Given those kind of situations it is nothing wrong in projecting themselves to certain years of experience.
At the same, contracting, consulting is all about this. When no party likes, they can always let go.
-the116
It is more costly for companies big and small to hire a new grad, train and eventually have him work on the business and that process is carried only by a minute percentage of all the companies that do business and also they look at elite schools.
Every MS student has to undergo a vigorous financial crisis situation there by the time they graduate they are left with no choice other than accepting what ever comes there way, at the earliest.
They don't have the liberty financially as well as law wise to sit and try for 1 year to get into a full time job. Given those kind of situations it is nothing wrong in projecting themselves to certain years of experience.
At the same, contracting, consulting is all about this. When no party likes, they can always let go.
-the116
xyz2005
07-18 11:25 AM
OK just called USCIS with great difficulty they escalated it to Supervisor , He took my details and informed and nothing is in system yet. Then i asked him about procedural changes , as per him everything "SHOULD" be on HOLD earlier. Hence he expressed concern that none MIGHT have returned . BUT he adviced me to call back during last week of July just to be safe on side so that we can make sure they are through atleast by deadline of Aug 17. For me what he told makes sense.
I think next time any one of us talks to USCIS, we should ask this question as to "Whether they have generated any rejection notices for apps received on July 2 2007 and have they mailed them".....my attorney says so far they have not received any rejection notices for apps filed on July 2 2007.
I think next time any one of us talks to USCIS, we should ask this question as to "Whether they have generated any rejection notices for apps received on July 2 2007 and have they mailed them".....my attorney says so far they have not received any rejection notices for apps filed on July 2 2007.
2011 Ignition Remix by R. Kelly
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
more...
redindian
07-16 07:00 PM
I think we need to counter act and stop this kind of False Propagandas
Core Team Please draft a Letter in accordance to this we will all send Web faxes...
Not every Senator has time to learn the facts they would only believe any statement or propaganda somebody is making. we should strongly object it..
Again it is my personal view..
the fax contents has been like this since last year - so i think they are just pathetic liars/losers who just want to spread false information about us.
i am sure they know that we pay tax/social security - but it doesnt help their case.... no difference between these racists and AlQda madarassas
Core Team Please draft a Letter in accordance to this we will all send Web faxes...
Not every Senator has time to learn the facts they would only believe any statement or propaganda somebody is making. we should strongly object it..
Again it is my personal view..
the fax contents has been like this since last year - so i think they are just pathetic liars/losers who just want to spread false information about us.
i am sure they know that we pay tax/social security - but it doesnt help their case.... no difference between these racists and AlQda madarassas
needhelp!
09-26 11:04 AM
This should be made an URGENT action item!! I hope everyone on IV mails the editors about this glaring error. How COULD they get it wrong?? Did they not visit the IV website before writing this article? Did they not read the press release?? This looks intentional to me.
Here is the article, and the link to email the editor is at the bottom of the article:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
Here is the article, and the link to email the editor is at the bottom of the article:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
more...
srkamath
07-13 02:30 PM
I agree. Infact my application hasnt even been touched once (July 2, RD), no soft LUD either, even after FP .. makes me believe that there might be other applications out there too that have never been touched so far..so we cant assume that all the cases prior to July 2007 have already been pre-adjudicated, just because the processing-dates at NSC say July 2007. I think the processing dates reflect only those cases whose PD was current when the processing-dates timeframe came out. We will know more accurately when the processing-dates are updated next month. If the processing-dates, even after next month's update remain at July, 2007, then we can probably assume that our cases have already been pre-adjudicated. (still makes me wonder how that can happen without any soft LUDs at all, but anything is possible). I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
2010 R. Kelly#39;s “Ignition” live
minimalist
09-10 03:08 PM
So there you have it - no vote on the bill today...
I don't get it guys - what's up with this country - is this really what it's come down? Give me your tired, your poor - but DEFINITELY don't give me your talented, your educated and your promising. Because really - what are we going to do with people who actually pay taxes, contribute to the community and help bring prosperity.
We would love to have just your best cotton-pickers...this is just a little disappointing - and yet I ask, what should we do now? We have 2 months to go - it's time to make a HUGE difference...
Is the bill tabled or something?
I don't get it guys - what's up with this country - is this really what it's come down? Give me your tired, your poor - but DEFINITELY don't give me your talented, your educated and your promising. Because really - what are we going to do with people who actually pay taxes, contribute to the community and help bring prosperity.
We would love to have just your best cotton-pickers...this is just a little disappointing - and yet I ask, what should we do now? We have 2 months to go - it's time to make a HUGE difference...
Is the bill tabled or something?
more...
rpatel
07-24 08:42 AM
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
hair +kelly+music Oozes r b album
Nikith77
03-12 08:57 AM
Why is this info no in the USCIS web site.
more...
bfadlia
02-03 02:46 PM
Do you only do what IV support ? Did I say anywhere I want IV o endorse it ?
I did not mean to run you down, but was questioning whether such thread can get us anywhere.. u obviously can't do this by yourself and if u seek the support of some IV members to do something that will harm other IV members this will only divide and make us weaker in seeking a siolution that helps us all
I did not mean to run you down, but was questioning whether such thread can get us anywhere.. u obviously can't do this by yourself and if u seek the support of some IV members to do something that will harm other IV members this will only divide and make us weaker in seeking a siolution that helps us all
hot Ignition — (R. Kelly/ Eminem
Jaime
09-11 02:48 PM
Come on guys! Make up your minds and attend the rally! You still have time! We'll help you! LET'S GO!!! Let's make history!!!
more...
house free r kelly ignition mashup
cool_guy_onnet1
02-20 03:29 PM
Dude. I am *so* not Ron Gotcher. :)
He was rushing and didn't give me any specifics for EB-3 India.
Just don't exhaust this resource and keep it down low.
Lets wait and watch- Go IV
He was rushing and didn't give me any specifics for EB-3 India.
Just don't exhaust this resource and keep it down low.
Lets wait and watch- Go IV
tattoo R. Kelly – Ignition (DJ YoBro
reddog
09-19 11:50 AM
nojoke, do you even have a job?
why on earth are you so worried.
Your rants are getting endless, you are spreading pessimism everywhere. like you were a hedge fund manager and are going to file bankruptcy.
btw, during the dotcom thing, just the telecom company hit was close to $750 billion. And with the big VC funded ventures completely got wiped out, the losses were much large.
also the people that were affected, huge job losses. thousands of people showing up at small job fairs. it was a recession. economies go into recession, and come out of it.
And media likes pessimism, they like destruction, mayhem. If you have not figured that out yet, it is time.
yes, some of the concerns are valid, but you talk like nostradamus, as if you know whats happenin. like the country is going to pack its bags and every citizen is going back to where their ancestors came from. get real.
economies fail, its how much time it takes to bounce back is what matters.
I would say just chill, spend quality hours at your job then you did before, keep it secure, spend time with your family. live your life happily.
We are citizens of the world and with the globalization that has spread, the ripple effect is going to be felt far and wide.
These Investment banks has presence in over 50 countries worldwide.
You can run, but you cannot hide.
Everybody understands that we get this ups and down. The cycles once in a while gets bad. Very bad. We had great depression. This could be a great depression for the financial market. Lehman, which has survived 150 years and many economic cycles closed 2 days ago. So did Bear strerns fold. The dotcom bubble is what - 100 billion max? 200 billion? Here we are talking about trillion dollars.
FDIC has only 50 billion. It can cover a big bank like washington mutual. Can it take another big bank? Wachovia?
This time it is not going to strengthen US position. China is talking about creating a separate world currency and they are not happy with US currency. If china dumps, dollars, a lot of countries will follow.
This is just financial institues. It will have ripple effect on rest of the economy.
FDIC doesn't protect more than 100K if you open different accounts in the same bank. However joint accounts and beneficiary can get you protected for 200K.
why on earth are you so worried.
Your rants are getting endless, you are spreading pessimism everywhere. like you were a hedge fund manager and are going to file bankruptcy.
btw, during the dotcom thing, just the telecom company hit was close to $750 billion. And with the big VC funded ventures completely got wiped out, the losses were much large.
also the people that were affected, huge job losses. thousands of people showing up at small job fairs. it was a recession. economies go into recession, and come out of it.
And media likes pessimism, they like destruction, mayhem. If you have not figured that out yet, it is time.
yes, some of the concerns are valid, but you talk like nostradamus, as if you know whats happenin. like the country is going to pack its bags and every citizen is going back to where their ancestors came from. get real.
economies fail, its how much time it takes to bounce back is what matters.
I would say just chill, spend quality hours at your job then you did before, keep it secure, spend time with your family. live your life happily.
We are citizens of the world and with the globalization that has spread, the ripple effect is going to be felt far and wide.
These Investment banks has presence in over 50 countries worldwide.
You can run, but you cannot hide.
Everybody understands that we get this ups and down. The cycles once in a while gets bad. Very bad. We had great depression. This could be a great depression for the financial market. Lehman, which has survived 150 years and many economic cycles closed 2 days ago. So did Bear strerns fold. The dotcom bubble is what - 100 billion max? 200 billion? Here we are talking about trillion dollars.
FDIC has only 50 billion. It can cover a big bank like washington mutual. Can it take another big bank? Wachovia?
This time it is not going to strengthen US position. China is talking about creating a separate world currency and they are not happy with US currency. If china dumps, dollars, a lot of countries will follow.
This is just financial institues. It will have ripple effect on rest of the economy.
FDIC doesn't protect more than 100K if you open different accounts in the same bank. However joint accounts and beneficiary can get you protected for 200K.
more...
pictures R.Kelly Album: Chocolate
spicy_guy
07-27 05:18 PM
Everest Consulting Group Inc is really good. I know them personally for more than 10 years now & they do what they say and do NOT torture their employees like many other consulting firms. I just got my GC thru them :)
I hope this helps somebody & please let me know if I can be any further help!
Thanks.
Ramesh.
Are you sure you are no way associated with them (of course, other than being a consultant to them)? ;)
I hope this helps somebody & please let me know if I can be any further help!
Thanks.
Ramesh.
Are you sure you are no way associated with them (of course, other than being a consultant to them)? ;)
dresses During the 90#39;s R Kelly could
.jpg "R. Kelly - Did You Ever Think")
willgetgc2005
04-20 02:37 PM
Logiclife,
If you have contacts in Cisco, Intel etc in bay area , can you please spread the word so morepeople turn out. I am about 8 hours drive form San Jose. will try to make it. This is awesome. We need to get as many people as possible on war footing.
Maybe no banners or signs because this is a town-hall style meeting and not a rally. I'll let you know if its ok to do that.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
If you have contacts in Cisco, Intel etc in bay area , can you please spread the word so morepeople turn out. I am about 8 hours drive form San Jose. will try to make it. This is awesome. We need to get as many people as possible on war footing.
Maybe no banners or signs because this is a town-hall style meeting and not a rally. I'll let you know if its ok to do that.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
more...
makeup View artist page for R. Kelly
leoindiano
03-17 09:59 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
girlfriend DJ Kool Kid amp; R. Kelly – DJ
anu007us
07-28 04:09 PM
Never join Alphanet Corp (Alpha Net Consulting LLC (http://www.anetcorp.com))... Stay away from this fraud company... Immigration fraud..
hairstyles Pay for R. Kelly - Untitled .
amitjoey
07-05 12:34 PM
I just contributed my first $100.00. Go IV!
Thanks map_bolier
Thanks map_bolier
jsb
07-16 08:07 AM
Interesting that I did fingerprinting only in 2007 Nov/Dec after applying for I485 during the July 2007 fiasco. I have not received any fingerprinting notice since then. Guess I made an impression with my fingers. :)
I wonder why people are getting fingerprinting notices every year? I read a couple of cases about it.
Getting my EAD renewed, even though i am not on it. Renewal Package sent to USCIS.
Getting my AP renewed. Our company Attorney does it even though i don't use it and i am on H-1. Renewal Package Sent to USCIS.
Getting my H-1 renewed as it expires this Oct 10. Finished my 6yrs on H-1. Renewal Package Sent to USCIS.
If i get my I485 Approved in August, then USCIS gets all the money from the renewals that were sent for my case.
Your company should be quite rich to keep paying for EAD's and AP's you don't need, with their periodical extensions, and also for your H1 renewals....
I wonder why people are getting fingerprinting notices every year? I read a couple of cases about it.
Getting my EAD renewed, even though i am not on it. Renewal Package sent to USCIS.
Getting my AP renewed. Our company Attorney does it even though i don't use it and i am on H-1. Renewal Package Sent to USCIS.
Getting my H-1 renewed as it expires this Oct 10. Finished my 6yrs on H-1. Renewal Package Sent to USCIS.
If i get my I485 Approved in August, then USCIS gets all the money from the renewals that were sent for my case.
Your company should be quite rich to keep paying for EAD's and AP's you don't need, with their periodical extensions, and also for your H1 renewals....
dotnetguru
04-08 11:11 PM
Well..you cut your BS first..just because Its not first hand doesnt mean it is unreal..just because I posted on IV doesnt mean I expected IV to take up this case..just b'coz sucker like you saw two different lanes in the airport doesnt mean all airports are like that..I posted my experience in the airport I travelled thru..I dont have to prove to morons like you.
You dont need to be best and brightest to tell me that Airports have different lanes..Oh..yeah...how will I know..I sneaked through Texas border...I never said all ppl stand in the same lane..I said, queues are different but unless you are deaf to your a** you can hear most of the conversation..atleast I did..I dont care if you didnt in your case?
different lanes means like up to 5 to 20 lanes for only citizens and gc holders.there will be some space with the division with that belt u see in airports and then up to 5 to 20 lanes for visa holders.number of lanes differ based on the size of the airport.this is what i have seen in newark,ATL,PHI,CLT,MIA.now ur friends might be in corner lane and then there is space and then that visa holder who got sent back is also in corner lane to be able to hear if at all it is possible to hear.so now tell me which airports do not have separation like that. any one can pitch in.i could hardly hear the next person questions how come ur friend had heard in the above scenario.beats me...
You dont need to be best and brightest to tell me that Airports have different lanes..Oh..yeah...how will I know..I sneaked through Texas border...I never said all ppl stand in the same lane..I said, queues are different but unless you are deaf to your a** you can hear most of the conversation..atleast I did..I dont care if you didnt in your case?
different lanes means like up to 5 to 20 lanes for only citizens and gc holders.there will be some space with the division with that belt u see in airports and then up to 5 to 20 lanes for visa holders.number of lanes differ based on the size of the airport.this is what i have seen in newark,ATL,PHI,CLT,MIA.now ur friends might be in corner lane and then there is space and then that visa holder who got sent back is also in corner lane to be able to hear if at all it is possible to hear.so now tell me which airports do not have separation like that. any one can pitch in.i could hardly hear the next person questions how come ur friend had heard in the above scenario.beats me...
No comments:
Post a Comment