Openarms
10-16 05:09 PM
This is one of the most important issue on this forum that ever taken care. I will do send letter with in couple of days.
wallpaper Eva Mendes Hair
alex99
07-11 01:50 PM
Request More Eb3 Guys To Participate......
Please....
Please....
leo2606
12-20 04:30 PM
Did you travel outside of USA after that? I mean after 2001 when ever you got into Job?
Folks, I didn't worked for an year(2001) due to, you know what I am saying....
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
Folks, I didn't worked for an year(2001) due to, you know what I am saying....
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
2011 Eva Mendes-Hair-Sherlock
raghu112
11-17 05:08 PM
I totally agree. I did that 1 month back.
Had kept new quota in octo. as deadline. No promising change there.. and I switched job to new employer.. better position, better compensation and better life.
The new employer will start GC PERM labor after 6 months. I have 140 approved from old employer. So I believe I can transfer PD whenever new employer files 140.
Cannot just wait for years waiting for PD to become current and ruin career.
Had kept new quota in octo. as deadline. No promising change there.. and I switched job to new employer.. better position, better compensation and better life.
The new employer will start GC PERM labor after 6 months. I have 140 approved from old employer. So I believe I can transfer PD whenever new employer files 140.
Cannot just wait for years waiting for PD to become current and ruin career.
more...
coopheal
07-02 07:03 AM
Doing more than what IV suggest is good. If you personally take responsibility and make the online petition a success, great... and best luck.
IV core has set their priorities after considerable thinking so please dont be upset if they dont involve in this.
I agree and I support. maybe as some have said that online don't have the same impact ..but there is no harm in doing something extra. also, we will be able to get more supporters for online especially if we send the links to our respective friends, batchmates etc
IV core has set their priorities after considerable thinking so please dont be upset if they dont involve in this.
I agree and I support. maybe as some have said that online don't have the same impact ..but there is no harm in doing something extra. also, we will be able to get more supporters for online especially if we send the links to our respective friends, batchmates etc
Windy
09-19 11:41 AM
I was there in the rally with few other friends. Some friends have already got their greencards. Still, they were there to support the good cause.
Whenever I meet people in this area (especially Indians), they complain of not being able to switch jobs and the delay in green card and so on. There are thousands of greencards seekers in VA and MD area. I didn't see any of these folks who complained. They probably thought that someone else is anyway going to fight it out and they can sit back and enjoy the results without making any effort. It was a shameful thing that they did. Had these folks from VA and MD joined, there would have been over 10,000 participants.
Still, the rally was a huge success and wants to thank IV for making this happen.
Whenever I meet people in this area (especially Indians), they complain of not being able to switch jobs and the delay in green card and so on. There are thousands of greencards seekers in VA and MD area. I didn't see any of these folks who complained. They probably thought that someone else is anyway going to fight it out and they can sit back and enjoy the results without making any effort. It was a shameful thing that they did. Had these folks from VA and MD joined, there would have been over 10,000 participants.
Still, the rally was a huge success and wants to thank IV for making this happen.
more...
srinithati
03-17 11:11 AM
PD April 2004
filed 485,EAD & AP on August 15th 2007.
filed 485,EAD & AP on August 15th 2007.
2010 Eva Mendes Hair
GCAmigo
12-13 10:11 AM
for contacting/fax etc..
more...
johnwright03
07-01 09:38 AM
06/30/2007: Potential EB Visa Number Exhaution in July and Probable Actions of State Department or USCIS
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
hair wallpaper Photos eva mendes hairstyle. Eva Mendes Loose Low Ponytail
greatzolin
08-15 04:18 PM
They should have continued down to EB3 w/ those dates..!
more...
sdrblr
08-21 11:32 AM
I just want to add that "Ignorance of a law is not an excuse" and no court or USCIS will buy that argument.
hot Filed under: Eva Mendes
NKR
10-16 05:04 PM
I think you know pretty well what I am talking about. USCIS has not "reacted" in any malicious way against the immigrant community wrt. to July 07 actions. If you find they have done so they will be severely answerable to various laws in the country. Do you think the lawyers will keep quite when they sense blood in the water? There has been no "reaction" by USCIS, except as a figment of imagination in the minds of this community.
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people�s answers.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn�t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn�t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching�.
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people�s answers.
USCIS has always gone by RD, not PD to a large extent (there have been deviations here and there, but none of them are due to policy issues).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn�t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
PD based processing is not sustainable as I had highlighted before. If you applied for 485 before someone else, you should be approved first. Now I am saying applied for 485, not Labor/Perm. Now dont come back with a post saying I applied July 2 00:01, but someone with July 3rd 23:55 is getting approved before I am. Afford some granularity of a week or so.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
I did not say USCIS is "doodh ka dula", but DoL and USCIS are two different entities. You cant blame one for the problems of the other. USCIS has its share of blames, but to blame everything on USCIS just shows that you have lost your objectivity. You don't want to be blamed for the actions of your colleague, so why do you blame USCIS for things which are not their doing??
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn�t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
If you keep blaming USCIS for everything (I am sure some of you want to blame the economic crisis, the Darfur issue etc. on USCIS too, come on!, you know you wanted to ;) ), the community's credibility comes into question.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
End of the day, you (and/or others) are distracting the OP's idea with FUD. If you have constructive ideas to channel OPs enthusiasm you should suggest alternatives. Not make her/him fearful with untenable accusations of retribution from USCIS.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching�.
more...
house Ok, so apparently the hair
yawl
08-15 04:16 PM
D. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
Due to the return of unused July numbers by consular posts abroad, and the limited amount of pending demand eligible for final processing at consular posts, it has been possible to reestablish cut-off dates in many of the Employment preference categories.
tattoo Eva Mendes Hairstyles
varshadas
12-18 09:11 AM
Hello Everyone,
Can we have the conference call again on Wednesday, 12/20/2006 at 9.00 PM EDT. Also, let me know if you think its a good idea to create an NJ yahoo group so we can all get notified instead of checking back in here every now and then.
Thanks,
Varsha
Can we have the conference call again on Wednesday, 12/20/2006 at 9.00 PM EDT. Also, let me know if you think its a good idea to create an NJ yahoo group so we can all get notified instead of checking back in here every now and then.
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
pictures eva mendes hairstyle.
kumarc123
03-12 02:08 PM
You are accusing IV for cheating before saying IV is a great platform. Can't you make up your mind. You sound more like that Congressman Massa from NY. I am no Glenn beck so now don't start to tickle me.
No one is accusing IV
All we are looking for is some questions, and asking IV to hold something more tangible which attract more members for a cause. A lot of people are loosing faith, to be honest, I lost mine in IV, as I did my contributions pertaining to letters, faxes and other stuff.
However I have not don't any monetary contribution, and the reason is, I want to see some more transparency. I was not a July filer and I have urged IV and Pappu several times to hold something, a rally or some time type of event that attracts attention. But somehow IV does not initiate any attempts.
I want to ask you this, taking the current situations in to consideration, new rules against H1b, more rigidness towards immigrants, why has this organization not initiated something after summer of 2007.
I am sorry, I am not going to buy the notion, we met USCIS and informed them Jack & Jill, in that case where are the results, efficiency is measured by results and not by attempts.
Come back to IV in 2 weeks, and see it for yourself, if this organization attempts to do something or just ignore the posts.
Being a non profit organization, as IV, it runs on people and their involvement. How can organization sustain growth or even stability at this point in time, when no attempts are made to attract new members.
There will be some who will disagree with me, critique me and call me names. But I believe I expressed myself clearly and have not questioned any one's integrity, however I have questioned the efficiency of applied attempts in the past by IV. There are a lot like me, who wants to do something for the cause, bu we need the organization to act like one, and bring in more more transparency to its attempts.
Thank you
No one is accusing IV
All we are looking for is some questions, and asking IV to hold something more tangible which attract more members for a cause. A lot of people are loosing faith, to be honest, I lost mine in IV, as I did my contributions pertaining to letters, faxes and other stuff.
However I have not don't any monetary contribution, and the reason is, I want to see some more transparency. I was not a July filer and I have urged IV and Pappu several times to hold something, a rally or some time type of event that attracts attention. But somehow IV does not initiate any attempts.
I want to ask you this, taking the current situations in to consideration, new rules against H1b, more rigidness towards immigrants, why has this organization not initiated something after summer of 2007.
I am sorry, I am not going to buy the notion, we met USCIS and informed them Jack & Jill, in that case where are the results, efficiency is measured by results and not by attempts.
Come back to IV in 2 weeks, and see it for yourself, if this organization attempts to do something or just ignore the posts.
Being a non profit organization, as IV, it runs on people and their involvement. How can organization sustain growth or even stability at this point in time, when no attempts are made to attract new members.
There will be some who will disagree with me, critique me and call me names. But I believe I expressed myself clearly and have not questioned any one's integrity, however I have questioned the efficiency of applied attempts in the past by IV. There are a lot like me, who wants to do something for the cause, bu we need the organization to act like one, and bring in more more transparency to its attempts.
Thank you
dresses Eva Mendes long casual
rajuseattle
07-14 07:48 PM
One more thing AC-21 is not a formal USCIS form which one can fill in and send it over to USCIS, its just a letter wherein you or your legal representative informs USCIS about the change in employment, be it a job promotion with same employer or u switching the Job using the AC-21 provisions.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
As explained earlier in this forum, 180 day rule interpretation is solely USCIS's descretion, if USCIS adjudicator who is working on your case accepts your new EVL and approves your case you are good to go, but for some reason the adjudicator keeps sending more RFE then you will need someone who can answer them in a legal language and thats where attorney services comes in handy.
I am hoping for the best for you that once they see your new EVL, they are satisfied and sends you GC.
more...
makeup Stunning Eva Mendes manages to
ItIsNotFunny
03-10 04:22 PM
Until Economy is back on track and unemployment rate is back to below 5%, do not attempt anything that pisses of American public. It is not the public perse, but those anti-immigration idiots will cry foul and make GC process even harder.
Right now, sit tight and wither the financial storm. The best action is to unlink I-485 adjudication to priority date. So, I-485 is approved and status changed to "Approved, awaiting VISA number".
They should create a list where approved I-485s with VISA number pending will be placed in a queue based on original PD. They should get automatic VISA number as soon as one is available in that order. Then the system automatically orders a GC. This should be automated so that another IO shouldn't mess with it.
They can also link this database with FBI or crime database so that if anyone is convicted, it will automatically generate a flag and USCIS can decide what to do with that approved 485. So, this will keep bad guys out if they commit any crimes while 485 is awaiting VISA number.
IV core, think about this.
All of above suggestions needs a strong case building. Getting real information about queue is key factor in case. This is why we have FOIA action item running on full force. Would you like to contribute? http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=325183#post325183
Right now, sit tight and wither the financial storm. The best action is to unlink I-485 adjudication to priority date. So, I-485 is approved and status changed to "Approved, awaiting VISA number".
They should create a list where approved I-485s with VISA number pending will be placed in a queue based on original PD. They should get automatic VISA number as soon as one is available in that order. Then the system automatically orders a GC. This should be automated so that another IO shouldn't mess with it.
They can also link this database with FBI or crime database so that if anyone is convicted, it will automatically generate a flag and USCIS can decide what to do with that approved 485. So, this will keep bad guys out if they commit any crimes while 485 is awaiting VISA number.
IV core, think about this.
All of above suggestions needs a strong case building. Getting real information about queue is key factor in case. This is why we have FOIA action item running on full force. Would you like to contribute? http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=325183#post325183
girlfriend Eva Mendes - Medium hair updos
vgayalu
11-02 02:45 PM
any one got approval after submitting recent RFE?
In my kids case after one week we got approval notice. In general it takes two / three days.
In my kids case after one week we got approval notice. In general it takes two / three days.
hairstyles eva mendes holiday hair
gc28262
07-18 04:50 PM
Keep predicting and calculating. USCIS will prove you wrong once again.:)
suriajay12
02-19 07:21 AM
And who do you think is going to process the paperwork for illegals? ... guess again, the same agency that is processing for Legal would-be-could-be immigrants. So how is it not going to increase processing time which would ultimately result in further delay?
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
qesehmk
02-12 02:46 PM
No rally, No pubic initiative.
You mean PUBLIC !!
Thanks .... you made me laugh after greyhair beat the daylights out of me!!
You mean PUBLIC !!
Thanks .... you made me laugh after greyhair beat the daylights out of me!!
No comments:
Post a Comment