bestin
10-23 06:09 PM
Appreciate your dedication WD/CC.I am kind of busy this week.Will get back to u this weekend.
wallpaper pic Lil Wayne#39;s house,
crystal
10-12 08:35 PM
Is it posted erlier? They updated with some more info today
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=82b06a9fec745110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=2411c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=82b06a9fec745110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=2411c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
jkays94
05-03 11:40 AM
Understood, I fully concur and if we remain on focus and on target with the message regarding legal immigrants we will get there. I will play my part by sending the reporter an email (as an individual incase the core has something in mind).
2011 Lil-Wayne-House
sukhwinderd
03-07 09:57 AM
out of the country indefinitely and then come back lets say after 10 yrs?
more...
greencardfever5
08-24 01:18 AM
poorslumdog,
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
dpsg
03-28 05:48 PM
I agree although absolute aim is getting GC , But It is too vague to put as a clearly defined objective.
Whereas asking for "current Priority Date for every category above EB3" clearly defines our goal.I think categories below EB3 is beyond the scope of this forum.
It is more complicated/different and there are forums which knows the issues clearly and are adressing them
Whereas asking for "current Priority Date for every category above EB3" clearly defines our goal.I think categories below EB3 is beyond the scope of this forum.
It is more complicated/different and there are forums which knows the issues clearly and are adressing them
more...
brav
07-31 11:20 AM
After going through all this , now we are hearing discussions that it is safe to maintain a H1B, (just) in case the 485 gets denied.
I for one would take my chances and switch from H1B to EAD.
I for one would take my chances and switch from H1B to EAD.
2010 Lil Wayne#39;s Luxurious Miami
ushkand
09-15 10:27 PM
For the main applicant (me) under
Section: Adjustment as direct beneficiary of immigrnt petition
For spouse
Section: Derivtive Adjustment
Maybe you need to call an attorney and eventuallu USCIS to get this corrected.
Section: Adjustment as direct beneficiary of immigrnt petition
For spouse
Section: Derivtive Adjustment
Maybe you need to call an attorney and eventuallu USCIS to get this corrected.
more...
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
hair Lil#39; Wayne performs “We Be
Leo07
06-18 04:52 PM
But, I'm not sure if EB row would care that much...since their dates are ALWAYS current?
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
Why would you divide employment based immigration in to ROW vs non-ROW? Do you think folks from ROW don't deserve any relief? This is the kind of mentality which divides this small community of EB immigrants. This community is extremely small as it is in grand scheme of things so please don't try to divide it any further and make this community so small that it becomes irrelevant. Just a piece of advise.
more...
perm2gc
12-20 01:34 AM
Hi,
I have my I-140 approved in EB2 category (applied in Feb 06), at present
in H1b (paperwork valid till Nov. 07). I would like to know
whether there are any problems in going to India and getting
my visa stamping done.
Are there any legal issues - like you cannot travel abroad while your I-140 is
approved and do not have AP and EAD ?? (I cannot apply for I-485 and also AP/EAD as
I have filed my I-140 petition in Feb 06; and the processing date for EB2 (India)
is Jan 03).
Any suggestions/comments/advice greatly appreciated.
pradeep
You will have no problems.Take all the regular paper work and also take a copy of your labor and I140.
I have my I-140 approved in EB2 category (applied in Feb 06), at present
in H1b (paperwork valid till Nov. 07). I would like to know
whether there are any problems in going to India and getting
my visa stamping done.
Are there any legal issues - like you cannot travel abroad while your I-140 is
approved and do not have AP and EAD ?? (I cannot apply for I-485 and also AP/EAD as
I have filed my I-140 petition in Feb 06; and the processing date for EB2 (India)
is Jan 03).
Any suggestions/comments/advice greatly appreciated.
pradeep
You will have no problems.Take all the regular paper work and also take a copy of your labor and I140.
hot Lil Wayne Not Collaborating
vladdrac
06-11 09:11 AM
I like what is going on with what you are doing. The one thing that doesn't look good is that you have shadows going in different directions (i.e. chess pieces, clock, text). The board does not have a shadow at all. I think if you had added a shadow from the board it would look way more realistic.
other than that, pretty good
other than that, pretty good
more...
house generate Lil+waynes+house
HRPRO
02-24 08:41 AM
I am not sure if BS (3 yrs) + MCA is considered to be equivalent to MS or not. But if it is, then you can definitely file for EB2 (MS +0). However, your company will need to have a job that requires these qualifications.
Also, I am not sure why you couldn't use the experience gained with your employer. If the job description is at least 50% different than your EB3 job, you can certainly use the experience gained at your current employer.
I am also planning to file under EB2 using the experience gained with current employer. However, I have been concerned about possible audit. Nonetheless, when I asked the audit question (in a different thread), couple of folks shared their personal experience who had gotten approval (using experience gained at same employer) without any audit.
Has anyone seen a case where someone got audited for using the experience gained with the same employer? I think this will be a useful information for several others as well...
Sorry Bostongc
I am certain you cannot count expeience gained from your current employer even if you are applying for another position. All attorneys are aware of this and will advice you not to do.
Sorry for not being able to give an answer in the affirmative but that is the fact.
Also, I am not sure why you couldn't use the experience gained with your employer. If the job description is at least 50% different than your EB3 job, you can certainly use the experience gained at your current employer.
I am also planning to file under EB2 using the experience gained with current employer. However, I have been concerned about possible audit. Nonetheless, when I asked the audit question (in a different thread), couple of folks shared their personal experience who had gotten approval (using experience gained at same employer) without any audit.
Has anyone seen a case where someone got audited for using the experience gained with the same employer? I think this will be a useful information for several others as well...
Sorry Bostongc
I am certain you cannot count expeience gained from your current employer even if you are applying for another position. All attorneys are aware of this and will advice you not to do.
Sorry for not being able to give an answer in the affirmative but that is the fact.
tattoo Lil+waynes+house+inside
mna123
07-30 08:04 PM
Thanks Ray and Kondur for your replies.
So my understanding is that if I file for CP then I would be asked to interview in home country for my GC and it could take long once again if it gets stuck in name check.
But if I wait for H-1 name check clearance then I could enter to US and apply for I 485 and even if it takes longer than 6 months, I would get I 185 approved.
The thing is I am not sure how long it would take to get my name check clearance so I am thinking of CP.
Another thing is that I am on unpaid leave for last 3 months. My company let me worked for first 6 months remotely but then asked me to take unpaid leave. Would it be an issue when I go for interview for CP. Let's assume that if I get interview for CP after a year, wont they ask that I am not working for my current company so why are they doing CP for me.
And one more thing how long does it take generally to get interview once a person has applied for CP ??
I am so confuse and cursing myself why did I leave US. My apartment, my car , my belongings every thing is back in US and I am stuck here :-(
So my understanding is that if I file for CP then I would be asked to interview in home country for my GC and it could take long once again if it gets stuck in name check.
But if I wait for H-1 name check clearance then I could enter to US and apply for I 485 and even if it takes longer than 6 months, I would get I 185 approved.
The thing is I am not sure how long it would take to get my name check clearance so I am thinking of CP.
Another thing is that I am on unpaid leave for last 3 months. My company let me worked for first 6 months remotely but then asked me to take unpaid leave. Would it be an issue when I go for interview for CP. Let's assume that if I get interview for CP after a year, wont they ask that I am not working for my current company so why are they doing CP for me.
And one more thing how long does it take generally to get interview once a person has applied for CP ??
I am so confuse and cursing myself why did I leave US. My apartment, my car , my belongings every thing is back in US and I am stuck here :-(
more...
pictures Lil Wayne is charged with an
gceb3holder
02-27 08:09 AM
Right, the problem is: I do travel a lot and that makes a part time job difficult to find....
Other thing, the 6 months, is counted from the receipt date or the approval date?
Other thing, the 6 months, is counted from the receipt date or the approval date?
dresses Lil Wayne House In Houston.
harrydr
08-03 09:36 AM
Hello IV friends,
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
more...
makeup Miamidecqueue lil wayne new
immi_enthu
12-28 10:07 AM
I have three friends waiting for I - 140 approval whose date are between Feb 16 - 22, 2007 and all are still waiting for approvals. online status show case pending. And dates in NSC shows April 6, 2007.
This is not the first time. It's so frustrating . Well, that's USCIS for you.
This is not the first time. It's so frustrating . Well, that's USCIS for you.
girlfriend house
Oasis52
05-16 09:06 AM
Thanks you are right on consular processing and you are also right that on transfer receipt one can start working
But I am still confused on entering USA. I read on all the forums, you can enter usa with a Transfer Receipt if your h1 stamp is still valid.
So thats something i am trying to sort out.
But I am still confused on entering USA. I read on all the forums, you can enter usa with a Transfer Receipt if your h1 stamp is still valid.
So thats something i am trying to sort out.
hairstyles lil wayne tattoos up close
GotGC??
03-27 12:03 PM
And this "attorney" was actually paid for filing this PERM application?
The educational requirements specified in the PERM may give you some room to wriggle out of this.
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
The educational requirements specified in the PERM may give you some room to wriggle out of this.
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
Beemar
04-02 12:56 AM
Babu Moshay, control your temper. As it is we dont have many non-indians in our group. You are putting off stray non-indians who come here to seek advice. (This guy is from Romania).
If you cannot f***ing write that you are visiting your parents then you better not live in a country like thatt...are you a fool or what??
If you cannot f***ing write that you are visiting your parents then you better not live in a country like thatt...are you a fool or what??
n_2006
02-10 12:21 AM
Infact, I got good news today. My MTR approved after 3 months. My 485 was denied due to withdrawal of I140 by previous employer (AC21 case).
So I had applied MTR and approved today. Looks like USCIS understood the error and approving all MTR (I didn't hear a single MTR rejection on AC21 case )
Did you work during this period?
So I had applied MTR and approved today. Looks like USCIS understood the error and approving all MTR (I didn't hear a single MTR rejection on AC21 case )
Did you work during this period?
No comments:
Post a Comment