perm
06-19 09:36 AM
What should be the answer to this question on I-485 part 2- out of following 2 options for my dependents ? to me it seems #b is the right answer for my family members 485 and #a for me. BUt some how teh legal guys are changing this from #b to #a for my dependents!!
a. an immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been
approved. (Attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile or
special immigrant military visa petition filed with this application that will give you an
immediately available visa number, if approved.)
b.an immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been
approved. (Attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile or
special immigrant military visa petition filed with this application that will give you an
immediately available visa number, if approved.)
In your post both #a and #b are the same text. anyways. any updates on this one? I also have the same question
a. an immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been
approved. (Attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile or
special immigrant military visa petition filed with this application that will give you an
immediately available visa number, if approved.)
b.an immigrant petition giving me an immediately available immigrant visa number has been
approved. (Attach a copy of the approval notice, or a relative, special immigrant juvenile or
special immigrant military visa petition filed with this application that will give you an
immediately available visa number, if approved.)
In your post both #a and #b are the same text. anyways. any updates on this one? I also have the same question
wallpaper view large. Sunan Airport in
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
CADude
10-10 05:54 PM
I send my Employment based I-485/I-765/I-131 application on June 29th 2007 and received at NSC on July 2nd 2007 (USPS Express mail tracking no. XXXX). It�s more than 100 days and I didn�t even received the Receipt Number for all the applications.
I have following question for CIS Ombudsman�s office:
1) Per US Law, I have to get the EAD in 90 days of filling of my application? How I can get the EAD in 90 days where I didn�t even get the Receipt Number after 100 days?
2) Why �First In First Out (FIFO)� process is not followed by USCIS for receipting? It�s unfair to applicant like me when application filed on August 17th 2007 enjoying the EAD card and able to work.
3) What action you can will take to force USCIS follow their own operational manual guidelines and follow FIFO in future?
I have following question for CIS Ombudsman�s office:
1) Per US Law, I have to get the EAD in 90 days of filling of my application? How I can get the EAD in 90 days where I didn�t even get the Receipt Number after 100 days?
2) Why �First In First Out (FIFO)� process is not followed by USCIS for receipting? It�s unfair to applicant like me when application filed on August 17th 2007 enjoying the EAD card and able to work.
3) What action you can will take to force USCIS follow their own operational manual guidelines and follow FIFO in future?
2011 Pyongyang, North Korea.
MeraNaamJoker
08-16 10:04 AM
I Have opened an SR on Aug 6th and then sent an email to TSC followup . I got a response from them on friday " We are currently researching this situation and will contact you with an update." HAs anybody this kind of response?
Thank you
I had created two different SRs, one for myself and kids and one for my wife. The SR which I created for my wife got a response with Card Production Ordered and for the SR I created for myself, the status in the response was "currently under the review". The date was one day before my CPO mail date.
I guess you have nothing to worry. This seems to me as a standard response.
Thank you
I had created two different SRs, one for myself and kids and one for my wife. The SR which I created for my wife got a response with Card Production Ordered and for the SR I created for myself, the status in the response was "currently under the review". The date was one day before my CPO mail date.
I guess you have nothing to worry. This seems to me as a standard response.
more...
gc_on_demand
09-12 11:43 AM
They will resume to talk on bill next week. Every thing can happen in flash.
I would not only call those committe members but we should start calling local lawmakers.
I would not only call those committe members but we should start calling local lawmakers.
ArkBird
09-09 04:57 PM
<bump>
call call call
</bump>
call call call
</bump>
more...
Meghna
05-10 07:25 AM
hi,
My lawyer filed for my EAD in April 2005. I have been working on H1 all the time and i was not aware that he filed for my EAD.
HE filed for my AP at the same time and i got it. When i asked him about EAD , he said its not required and that he did not file it.
Yesterday he mailed me a set of copies in which i found receipt notice for EAD.I checked the status and it says that my case is pending since April 2005.
There was no request for any proof or anything. It just says we mailed you notice of action and the case is pending.
I need EAD now. What should i do?
I called the USCIS and they said that it is out of processing time and filed a service request.
All my friends who filed their I-485 recently got their Biometrics notice and i didn't get any. Whats wrong with my case?
I am confused , what am i supposed to do?
Appreciate your suggestion
My lawyer filed for my EAD in April 2005. I have been working on H1 all the time and i was not aware that he filed for my EAD.
HE filed for my AP at the same time and i got it. When i asked him about EAD , he said its not required and that he did not file it.
Yesterday he mailed me a set of copies in which i found receipt notice for EAD.I checked the status and it says that my case is pending since April 2005.
There was no request for any proof or anything. It just says we mailed you notice of action and the case is pending.
I need EAD now. What should i do?
I called the USCIS and they said that it is out of processing time and filed a service request.
All my friends who filed their I-485 recently got their Biometrics notice and i didn't get any. Whats wrong with my case?
I am confused , what am i supposed to do?
Appreciate your suggestion
2010 Pyongyang, North Korea.
prinive
07-11 11:30 AM
ABC NEWS missing.
ALL NEWS with PICTURES AND VIDEO : http://www.touchdownusa.org/floral/FloralProtest.html
ALL NEWS with PICTURES AND VIDEO : http://www.touchdownusa.org/floral/FloralProtest.html
more...
_0407_-_Labor_Camp.jpg "tattoo Pyongyang, North Korea")
eb_retrogession
01-23 07:36 PM
Guys,
Have we contacted national newspapers New York Times,Washington Post ?
In effort to make legislators and people aware of legal immigration issues, we should take help of media.This would be most effective.
Hiring a lobbying firm to pursue our issues with legislators is a good idea but it should be accompanied with media awareness as well.This is money intensive project and it will take time to reach its target of 100k.We need some other channel of awareness open as well and we need to do that soon so that it has some effect on Feb bills.
People are not aware that we are going thru such long waits to get immigrate legally.This issue needs to be highlighted.
Lawmakers would listen to legal immigration issues if they read in leading newspapers NYT and Washington Post. These newspapers are very influential.
Java,
We are working on it. Media coverage isn't easy and immediate. They check us out, and take their time to research facts before even considering.
But the process has started.
If you know of any serious contacts that can help out, or have any suggestions about regional/local media pls send a note to info@immigrationVoice.org with "Media" as the subject, and it'll come to me
Thanks
Have we contacted national newspapers New York Times,Washington Post ?
In effort to make legislators and people aware of legal immigration issues, we should take help of media.This would be most effective.
Hiring a lobbying firm to pursue our issues with legislators is a good idea but it should be accompanied with media awareness as well.This is money intensive project and it will take time to reach its target of 100k.We need some other channel of awareness open as well and we need to do that soon so that it has some effect on Feb bills.
People are not aware that we are going thru such long waits to get immigrate legally.This issue needs to be highlighted.
Lawmakers would listen to legal immigration issues if they read in leading newspapers NYT and Washington Post. These newspapers are very influential.
Java,
We are working on it. Media coverage isn't easy and immediate. They check us out, and take their time to research facts before even considering.
But the process has started.
If you know of any serious contacts that can help out, or have any suggestions about regional/local media pls send a note to info@immigrationVoice.org with "Media" as the subject, and it'll come to me
Thanks
hair in Pyongyang - North Korea
ndialani
10-14 06:46 PM
Congrats!
I m Aug'04 filer/TSC
ND:Oct 5th.
SR: 9/5
Very similar situation...
But i recieved a letter to wait for 6 months...:(
Any suggestions????
I didn't get an email but got an sms from USCIS about the case status change to Decision. Here's the update :)
Decision
On October 13, 2009, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Does that mean an 'Approval'. Between we moved to AZ from FL this week and I'm sending my AR-11 and changed the address over the phone. Is there anything else I need to do ?
I m Aug'04 filer/TSC
ND:Oct 5th.
SR: 9/5
Very similar situation...
But i recieved a letter to wait for 6 months...:(
Any suggestions????
I didn't get an email but got an sms from USCIS about the case status change to Decision. Here's the update :)
Decision
On October 13, 2009, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Does that mean an 'Approval'. Between we moved to AZ from FL this week and I'm sending my AR-11 and changed the address over the phone. Is there anything else I need to do ?
more...
pappu
09-21 12:04 PM
Congrats ski_dude12. My personal opinion is that this may have delayed your greencard since July. Sometimes people get too anxious once their date is current and want to try everything that is possible to get approval. There is so much information and misinformation on forums.
hot in Pyongyang, North Korea,
gccovet
10-30 09:10 AM
done my part.
GCCovet.
GCCovet.
more...
house pyongyang north korea map.
brshankar
08-07 12:28 PM
All,
Lets do another flower campaign to wish get well soon to SunnySurya and Rooling_flood.
Get well soon Mamu...
If you look at the profile of the members who voted yes in this poll. They all have EB2 PD from June 2006 to 2007 except one or two. These guys will never understand the wait of a 2001 or 2002 filer. They dont know what it means to wait in limbo for years.
Can you guys who voted yes please share your qualifications and the kind of work you are doing?
Lets do another flower campaign to wish get well soon to SunnySurya and Rooling_flood.
Get well soon Mamu...
If you look at the profile of the members who voted yes in this poll. They all have EB2 PD from June 2006 to 2007 except one or two. These guys will never understand the wait of a 2001 or 2002 filer. They dont know what it means to wait in limbo for years.
Can you guys who voted yes please share your qualifications and the kind of work you are doing?
tattoo pyongyang north korea map.
kushaljn
01-17 02:36 PM
Hello, I can understand your pain as I was in a similar situation as you are. I would recommend to wait for atleast 2 weeks. I interviewed on 28th Dec and finally got the email on 9th Jan and the pp stamped on 10th Jan and took the flight on 12th Jan.
If you have an upcoming travel which is in next week, please try to reschedule it as it is not certain on how much time does it take in such cases.
I do not think getting the employer involved into this will help. VFS office will have no clue on this and they will answer only Questions on the process. Writing to the US consulate will also give you a general answer. It is sad that there is no accountability in cases like these. Please keep the faith.
I am in the same situation. Appeared for interview on 8th jan in Mumbai. They returned my PP, I-797 with a yellow paper and asked me to wait for email. Haven't recieved any email yet. Do I need to contact my employer? Does my employer need to call someone in US for approval? Or shall I just keep waiting? It is very frustrating. I called VFS office but they don't know anything.. If anyone has received email or approval please keep us posted as this is the only source of information.
If you have an upcoming travel which is in next week, please try to reschedule it as it is not certain on how much time does it take in such cases.
I do not think getting the employer involved into this will help. VFS office will have no clue on this and they will answer only Questions on the process. Writing to the US consulate will also give you a general answer. It is sad that there is no accountability in cases like these. Please keep the faith.
I am in the same situation. Appeared for interview on 8th jan in Mumbai. They returned my PP, I-797 with a yellow paper and asked me to wait for email. Haven't recieved any email yet. Do I need to contact my employer? Does my employer need to call someone in US for approval? Or shall I just keep waiting? It is very frustrating. I called VFS office but they don't know anything.. If anyone has received email or approval please keep us posted as this is the only source of information.
more...
pictures Pyongyang Map
gc28262
09-04 03:26 PM
Here is the taxes for Lingo service for VA.
Federal Taxes & Fees: 0.36
Universal Services: 4.64
State Taxes & Surcharges: 3.37
County/Local Taxes: 0.00
Presubscribed Inter-exchange Carrier Chrg: 0.00
Regulatory Recovery Fee for XXXXX 1.99
Emergency Services Fee for XXXXXX 1.99
---------------------------------------------------
Total Fees, Taxes & Surcharges: 12.35
Talked to lingo Customer Service now.
When existing customers change to the new Max plan, they have to sign up for a new 2 year contract.
Also have to wait till the next billing cycle for the plan to take effect.
Federal Taxes & Fees: 0.36
Universal Services: 4.64
State Taxes & Surcharges: 3.37
County/Local Taxes: 0.00
Presubscribed Inter-exchange Carrier Chrg: 0.00
Regulatory Recovery Fee for XXXXX 1.99
Emergency Services Fee for XXXXXX 1.99
---------------------------------------------------
Total Fees, Taxes & Surcharges: 12.35
Talked to lingo Customer Service now.
When existing customers change to the new Max plan, they have to sign up for a new 2 year contract.
Also have to wait till the next billing cycle for the plan to take effect.
dresses Pyongyang, North Korea
ena23
04-07 11:41 AM
May 2011 Visa Bulletin Predictions - EB Category US Non-Immigrants: Home to All Non Immigrants (http:///2011/03/may-2011-visa-bulletin-predictions-eb.html)
date will move
EB2-India would see movement till 15 December 2006 (based on EB1 spillover of 12000, half yearly EB2-demand and half-yearly unused EB4 and EB5 numbers).
EB2-China could advance to 15 December 2006.
any comments?
date will move
EB2-India would see movement till 15 December 2006 (based on EB1 spillover of 12000, half yearly EB2-demand and half-yearly unused EB4 and EB5 numbers).
EB2-China could advance to 15 December 2006.
any comments?
more...
makeup tattoo Pyongyang, North Korea
desi3933
06-17 01:33 PM
......You are NOT supposed to have immigration intent when you apply F1. .....
Correct. You are right.
One must not have immigration intent at the time of applying for F1 visa or entering USA using F1 visa. However, intent can change over time. Please google for 30-60-90 day rule.
In fact, one can file for I-485 after 90 days of F1 visa status, if he/she is otherwise eligible.
.
Correct. You are right.
One must not have immigration intent at the time of applying for F1 visa or entering USA using F1 visa. However, intent can change over time. Please google for 30-60-90 day rule.
In fact, one can file for I-485 after 90 days of F1 visa status, if he/she is otherwise eligible.
.
girlfriend Map of North Korea taken by
jungalee43
11-14 08:42 PM
He has many posts on this forum. Click on his user ID and send him PM. Additionally this thread should help you.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22398
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22398
hairstyles and Bing#39;s Pyongyang map had
funny
09-15 02:01 PM
Guys even if you have called last week, Please call again...
drona
07-11 02:59 AM
Posted by Afriquenligne.fr
US Immigrants protest Green Card delays with flowers
taken from Wikinews
Hundreds of legal, highly-skilled workers in the United States sent hundreds of flowers to the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Emilio Gonzalez as part of a symbolic and peaceful protest over what they said was a "flip-flop" by the State Department and the USCIS on eliminating Green card processing delays.
Dr. Gonzalez announced on the USCIS website late last night that the flowers will be forwarded to the injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
In response, Immigration Voice, a non-profit organization representing skilled, legal immigrants, said that they welcome the fact that Dr. Gonzalez acknowledged the symbolic gesture of our protest and are overjoyed that these flowers will brighten the day of the injured service brethren.
Immigration Voice also said that it is their sacrifice for American freedom that has made this country great and such a desirable destination for multitude of people from around the world and that they wanted to say "Thank you and god bless you" to the servicemen.
http://www.afriquenligne.fr/news/daily_news/us_immigrants_protest_green_card_delays_with_flowe rs_200707112234/
US Immigrants protest Green Card delays with flowers
taken from Wikinews
Hundreds of legal, highly-skilled workers in the United States sent hundreds of flowers to the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Emilio Gonzalez as part of a symbolic and peaceful protest over what they said was a "flip-flop" by the State Department and the USCIS on eliminating Green card processing delays.
Dr. Gonzalez announced on the USCIS website late last night that the flowers will be forwarded to the injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
In response, Immigration Voice, a non-profit organization representing skilled, legal immigrants, said that they welcome the fact that Dr. Gonzalez acknowledged the symbolic gesture of our protest and are overjoyed that these flowers will brighten the day of the injured service brethren.
Immigration Voice also said that it is their sacrifice for American freedom that has made this country great and such a desirable destination for multitude of people from around the world and that they wanted to say "Thank you and god bless you" to the servicemen.
http://www.afriquenligne.fr/news/daily_news/us_immigrants_protest_green_card_delays_with_flowe rs_200707112234/
Dakota Newfie
05-23 11:16 AM
For those of us who have become "current" with the latest VB movements, I have some discouraging news for you: at least for the Nebraska Processing Center, the current processing date for an employment-based I-485 has retrogressed from September to August,2006. Only a small step backwards but a step backwards all the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment