vrbest
11-26 06:49 PM
I am not expecting anyone to agree with me.. I dont depend on the company I work with.. I have seen almost all companies , they would keep you until they need you and then throw you away.. It is upto us to take smarter decisions.. I always felt there are 100's of opportunities for those believe in it.. We can't just say with GC life will change.. We stil live in the same world where things will keep changing. I would say after GC people will think of Citizenship and so on.. there is no end to this and life is always be like this (there will be no end to what we want in life). so when are we going to take our own decision?
I strongly feel that if I want to do something and If I feel it is good for me, then I will definetly do it.
just my thoughts!!!
I dont expect everyone to agree with me - esp those who already have houses. my point was for those who are renting to keep on renting.
btw you can also rent a house - and those are quite cheap too nowadays.
everyone is 200% safe in their jobs till they lose it ..btw some of the big banks may fold too.
it is not necessary that yr friends cannot do what you have done - maybe they are smarter and more patient than you ..
here is an good article for reading ...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-economy-melting-down/story.aspx?guid=%7B744EEE81%2D4F92%2D4A09%2DA142%2 D4A17CFD35C6D%7D&dist=MostReadHome
I strongly feel that if I want to do something and If I feel it is good for me, then I will definetly do it.
just my thoughts!!!
I dont expect everyone to agree with me - esp those who already have houses. my point was for those who are renting to keep on renting.
btw you can also rent a house - and those are quite cheap too nowadays.
everyone is 200% safe in their jobs till they lose it ..btw some of the big banks may fold too.
it is not necessary that yr friends cannot do what you have done - maybe they are smarter and more patient than you ..
here is an good article for reading ...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-economy-melting-down/story.aspx?guid=%7B744EEE81%2D4F92%2D4A09%2DA142%2 D4A17CFD35C6D%7D&dist=MostReadHome
wallpaper free animated desktop
ndny
07-25 02:24 PM
I gets very severe migraine attack almost everyday thinking about the GC !! I took so many pain killers(acetameno) almost everyday ..now they also stopped working on me...and due to these apin killers ..I became acidic ..acidity everyday..even without eating spicy things...my wife says, probably my lever damaged ..don't like to visit doctors ...will it get worse ? I can't escape visiting IV everyday !! Any remedy for me will be highly appreciated....
sanbaj
07-31 11:01 AM
I called USCIS NSC yesterday and asked if my new approved I-140 was interfiled with my pending I-485. The IO asked me for my A# and then told me that she doesn't see the new I-140 starting with SRC on the system. She only sees the original I-140 with the LIN. It was very frustrating to hear this as I had called NSC a week before and the IO told me that the new I-140 is in the system and visa was available for me. However, I remembered that last week the IO did not ask me for my A#. She only asked for the receipt numbers of my pending I-485 and the new I-140.
Friends, what else can I do to make sure that my newly approved I-140 under EB2 is interfiled?
Speaking from my case, I called NSC for the same reason multiple times and every time the information I got (now looking back) was either useless or insignificant. Only one procedural info I got once was correct. They informed me that when you Interfile, your request goes into your file and no receipt or any other update is done to your case. When your 485 app RD becomes current and an IO picks up the case to work on it, should consider the Interfiling request. If your PD is then current due to the Interfiling request and every other detail on your 485 app is complete, your case is approved immediately. That is exactly what happened to my case. Calling them is less fruitful and more frustation. I only called them once a month after they changed their processing dates for the month just in the hope I may get lucky with an IIO who may give some info. Never did. I also took an Infopass, but that was fruitless too, as they also could not provide any information. Just asked me to wait until my RD becomes current.
Hope this gives you some perspective and lowers your anxiety.
Friends, what else can I do to make sure that my newly approved I-140 under EB2 is interfiled?
Speaking from my case, I called NSC for the same reason multiple times and every time the information I got (now looking back) was either useless or insignificant. Only one procedural info I got once was correct. They informed me that when you Interfile, your request goes into your file and no receipt or any other update is done to your case. When your 485 app RD becomes current and an IO picks up the case to work on it, should consider the Interfiling request. If your PD is then current due to the Interfiling request and every other detail on your 485 app is complete, your case is approved immediately. That is exactly what happened to my case. Calling them is less fruitful and more frustation. I only called them once a month after they changed their processing dates for the month just in the hope I may get lucky with an IIO who may give some info. Never did. I also took an Infopass, but that was fruitless too, as they also could not provide any information. Just asked me to wait until my RD becomes current.
Hope this gives you some perspective and lowers your anxiety.
2011 windows 7 animated desktop
milind70
06-19 02:38 PM
Were u in EB2 or EB3 catergory???
more...
somegchuh
01-05 01:48 PM
As a PMP who works in a large corporation let me give you another side of the story.
1. PMP certification can get you a PM job and boost your earnings but if you hate having to deal with lots of people PM job is not for you.
2. PMP is for large projects in large corporations. If you like working in fast paced tech companies stay away from PMP. Basically PMP is meant to manage all the fluff that exists in large corporations.
3. Also, be ready for insults from technical staff. They treat PM's like idiots and quite frankly a lot of PM's are merely schedule jockeys. Very few PM's are true to their profession.
4. Bottomline: $500 is worth the investment. Do not shy away from it if you like PM kind of work.
1. PMP certification can get you a PM job and boost your earnings but if you hate having to deal with lots of people PM job is not for you.
2. PMP is for large projects in large corporations. If you like working in fast paced tech companies stay away from PMP. Basically PMP is meant to manage all the fluff that exists in large corporations.
3. Also, be ready for insults from technical staff. They treat PM's like idiots and quite frankly a lot of PM's are merely schedule jockeys. Very few PM's are true to their profession.
4. Bottomline: $500 is worth the investment. Do not shy away from it if you like PM kind of work.
ChainReaction
04-02 12:55 PM
sent both faxes #10 & 11 :)
more...
leo2606
08-07 11:59 PM
I would suggest to marry a girl who is in USA with EB3-I 2007 or later PD, that way your marriage problem will be solved and you are helping a poor sole.
Just kidding man... don't make me communist by giving REDs. :)
Even if I back date my marriage (as advised) , How can I get my future wife to USA?. I cannot get her on depend status as my H1-B (I believe) got canceled on approval of GC.
Issues I see,
1. The back date of marriage must match to my stay at India.
2. I did not visit India in the last one year.
3. I applied my I-485 in the August 2008 time. So (I must mention my marriage and dependents in the application). Which I did not . So this does not work.
See the troubles I have now.
P.S: I did not want to cheat USA Immigration Dept. Not a good practice
Let me know if there are any guanine ways.
Just kidding man... don't make me communist by giving REDs. :)
Even if I back date my marriage (as advised) , How can I get my future wife to USA?. I cannot get her on depend status as my H1-B (I believe) got canceled on approval of GC.
Issues I see,
1. The back date of marriage must match to my stay at India.
2. I did not visit India in the last one year.
3. I applied my I-485 in the August 2008 time. So (I must mention my marriage and dependents in the application). Which I did not . So this does not work.
See the troubles I have now.
P.S: I did not want to cheat USA Immigration Dept. Not a good practice
Let me know if there are any guanine ways.
2010 animated wallpaper windows 7.
cbpds
01-28 05:38 PM
ICE: "Sham" University, Cover For Illegals - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/28/ice-sham-university-cover-illegals/?test=latestnews)
Why is everyone blaming just the Chinese University for trying to circumvent the immigration system? It says 95% of the students were from Andhra Pradesh. These are the people who are causing delays in reforms and we pay the price by being stuck in the hole. The founders and all these students should be deported and banned from entering the US for life.
Why is everyone blaming just the Chinese University for trying to circumvent the immigration system? It says 95% of the students were from Andhra Pradesh. These are the people who are causing delays in reforms and we pay the price by being stuck in the hole. The founders and all these students should be deported and banned from entering the US for life.
more...
satishku_2000
07-13 03:49 PM
Should we be worried about the DREAM ACT?
Only if you have kids who are old enough ot age out ... I dont have kids but I can support the bill if the bill caters to dreams of legal kids too ..
Only if you have kids who are old enough ot age out ... I dont have kids but I can support the bill if the bill caters to dreams of legal kids too ..
hair Add life to your desktop
a1b2c3
10-11 01:41 PM
I know one of my friends got his GC in April this year EB3 India, PD Aug 2001.
So they did approve some cases, very few though.
Is this something to be concerned of, Absolutely. USCIS should release the monthly statistics of approvals in each category.
We need USCIS to publish
a. Future projections - projection of monthly cutoff dates every quarter
b. Historical data - A histogram of 485 approvals in the last quarter based on PD buckets (May-June 02 would be a bucket).
c. Case updates like NC clearances and so on, without having to go through infopass and waste everyone's time.
d. Timely updates on processing times for cases like I-140.
Given that the three databases are being consolidated into one, I don't think it should be difficult for USCIS to publish this data.
You can't just say "Hey, we made every category current in July 07, now the dates are going to go into 10,000 B.C?"
So they did approve some cases, very few though.
Is this something to be concerned of, Absolutely. USCIS should release the monthly statistics of approvals in each category.
We need USCIS to publish
a. Future projections - projection of monthly cutoff dates every quarter
b. Historical data - A histogram of 485 approvals in the last quarter based on PD buckets (May-June 02 would be a bucket).
c. Case updates like NC clearances and so on, without having to go through infopass and waste everyone's time.
d. Timely updates on processing times for cases like I-140.
Given that the three databases are being consolidated into one, I don't think it should be difficult for USCIS to publish this data.
You can't just say "Hey, we made every category current in July 07, now the dates are going to go into 10,000 B.C?"
more...
Karthikthiru
02-06 05:53 PM
Myself and my wife sent letters to President and ImmigrationVoice
Karthik
Karthik
hot free animated desktop
vin13
06-24 04:17 PM
From Washington Post:Senate Subcommittee Chair Lays Out Priorities for Immigration Reform - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062402244.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
Congress can pass a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws as soon as this year if it prioritizes a crackdown on illegal immigration, including a new national identity card that will verify workers' eligibility, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said today.
Speaking one day before President Obama is to host lawmakers from both parties at the White House to discuss prospects for an immigration bill, the head of the Senate's main immigration subcommittee laid out key legislative priorities, including requiring that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants register with the government and "submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status" or face immediate deportation.
Legislation must also create mechanisms to attract high-skilled immigrants, control the flow of low-skilled immigrants and protect native-born workers, Schumer said, without providing specifics. He did not propose an expanded guest-worker program, a linchpin of overhaul efforts that failed in 2006 and 2007 under President George W. Bush.
In laying down a road map for legislation, Schumer set the groundwork for tomorrow's White House meeting, a long-awaited session that immigrant advocates and Latino leaders have demanded as proof that Obama will fulfill a campaign pledge to move forward on immigration legislation this year.
Schumer said he expects Obama to show his "unyielding commitment" toward the goal but demanded that advocates recognize that Democrats must show the American people they believe that "illegal immigration is wrong -- plain and simple."
"All of the fundamental building blocks are in place to pass comprehensive immigration reform this session and, even possibly, later this year," Schumer said. "I truly believe that [President Obama's] leadership will be the critical difference in getting us over the hump this time around."
However, Schumer added, "the American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration. . . . Advocates understand the need to embrace this principle during the current debate."
As examples, the New York Democrat -- who has taken the lead in the Senate immigration debate in the place of the ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is focusing on health-care legislation -- said the federal government must achieve "operational control" of the nation's borders within a year and develop new ways to enforce laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
Schumer's proposal for a national "biometric" identification system to verify work documents -- based on fingerprints, iris scans or digital photographs -- stems from a key weakness of past immigration overhaul efforts. A 1986 law required workers to fill out I-9 forms and present identification documents, but it lacked provisions to crack down on unscrupulous employers or job seekers with fake IDs, creating a booming fraudulent ID industry.
"I'm sure the civil liberties groups will object to some type of biometric card -- it will be something with all kinds of protections -- but we're going to have to do it. It's the only way to do it," Schumer said, referring to enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
Congress can pass a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws as soon as this year if it prioritizes a crackdown on illegal immigration, including a new national identity card that will verify workers' eligibility, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said today.
Speaking one day before President Obama is to host lawmakers from both parties at the White House to discuss prospects for an immigration bill, the head of the Senate's main immigration subcommittee laid out key legislative priorities, including requiring that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants register with the government and "submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status" or face immediate deportation.
Legislation must also create mechanisms to attract high-skilled immigrants, control the flow of low-skilled immigrants and protect native-born workers, Schumer said, without providing specifics. He did not propose an expanded guest-worker program, a linchpin of overhaul efforts that failed in 2006 and 2007 under President George W. Bush.
In laying down a road map for legislation, Schumer set the groundwork for tomorrow's White House meeting, a long-awaited session that immigrant advocates and Latino leaders have demanded as proof that Obama will fulfill a campaign pledge to move forward on immigration legislation this year.
Schumer said he expects Obama to show his "unyielding commitment" toward the goal but demanded that advocates recognize that Democrats must show the American people they believe that "illegal immigration is wrong -- plain and simple."
"All of the fundamental building blocks are in place to pass comprehensive immigration reform this session and, even possibly, later this year," Schumer said. "I truly believe that [President Obama's] leadership will be the critical difference in getting us over the hump this time around."
However, Schumer added, "the American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration. . . . Advocates understand the need to embrace this principle during the current debate."
As examples, the New York Democrat -- who has taken the lead in the Senate immigration debate in the place of the ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is focusing on health-care legislation -- said the federal government must achieve "operational control" of the nation's borders within a year and develop new ways to enforce laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
Schumer's proposal for a national "biometric" identification system to verify work documents -- based on fingerprints, iris scans or digital photographs -- stems from a key weakness of past immigration overhaul efforts. A 1986 law required workers to fill out I-9 forms and present identification documents, but it lacked provisions to crack down on unscrupulous employers or job seekers with fake IDs, creating a booming fraudulent ID industry.
"I'm sure the civil liberties groups will object to some type of biometric card -- it will be something with all kinds of protections -- but we're going to have to do it. It's the only way to do it," Schumer said, referring to enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
more...
house Get our Windows 7 MAC theme
senocular
02-05 04:43 PM
ooooo, aaaah, oooooh .... wtf. They're all GREAT and I save EGs for last because it was the highest rated (yeah LOTS on that one too) and its not there! pfffft. lol
:searches franticly:
:searches franticly:
tattoo animated desktop wallpapers
JakeLeone
07-21 06:57 PM
Hi,
If you check the bright future jobs website, you will not find any reference to such a "Call".
Beware, calling the number might expose your phone number, and you might become a victim.
Please be aware law enforcement has been notified, if anyone encounters any problems as a result, please contact law enforcement.
I hope the deranged person who originally posted the message can receive help soon.
BTW, if "Antis" is your calling card (it's rarely used in reference to those participating in the immigration debate) you might have exposed yourself a little too much.
If you check the bright future jobs website, you will not find any reference to such a "Call".
Beware, calling the number might expose your phone number, and you might become a victim.
Please be aware law enforcement has been notified, if anyone encounters any problems as a result, please contact law enforcement.
I hope the deranged person who originally posted the message can receive help soon.
BTW, if "Antis" is your calling card (it's rarely used in reference to those participating in the immigration debate) you might have exposed yourself a little too much.
more...
pictures Vista. Free Animated
GSingh
04-02 09:09 PM
Send Both
dresses animated desktop wallpapers
thankgod
05-12 01:29 PM
The Dream act is supposed to happen only in your dreams.... Keep Dreaming:eek:
Thats a good one. Completely accepting.
Thats a good one. Completely accepting.
more...
makeup Animated Windows 7 Wallpaper
ilikekilo
04-07 10:02 AM
Thanks for contacting IV with your SOS.
An IV core member is going to be helping you to fix this with USCIS. Let us know if you need help. He already tried contacting you yesterday.
As IV grows maybe this is a help IV can extend to all its donor members and help them if they get in such extreme distress situations. This is one of the ideas we are thinking for our members in the donor group.
I absolutely support this idea, hopefully this would strengthen the donor base as well and encourage people to come out and help themselves..
Its good to see these kind of innovative ideas coming out..
An IV core member is going to be helping you to fix this with USCIS. Let us know if you need help. He already tried contacting you yesterday.
As IV grows maybe this is a help IV can extend to all its donor members and help them if they get in such extreme distress situations. This is one of the ideas we are thinking for our members in the donor group.
I absolutely support this idea, hopefully this would strengthen the donor base as well and encourage people to come out and help themselves..
Its good to see these kind of innovative ideas coming out..
girlfriend Windows 7 Animated Desktop
texcan
09-10 02:28 PM
Requirements to change employer when GC is pending:
It is best to not to change to an employer offering you anything less than the wage rate specified in the GC labor certification. On the higher side, it is better not to take up a job that offers more than 4% more salary of that specified in the GC labor certification. It is hard to resist 20-30K higher salary, but one would have to resist the temptation for taking the job offering higher salary. Otherwise, there is a risk of USCIS denying the GC application.
USCIS doesn�t account for dollar appreciation or devaluation. USCIS also doesn�t account for annual inflation when calculating the wage rate. So even if your labor certification was applied in 2003, you still have to continue at the job with the salary specified in the GC labor certification. If GC application takes another 5-7 years, then you have to continue with the salary specified in GC labor certification application.
Hope this is useful.
One quick question about salary limitation. Where is this mentioned. I went through the following link posted on this thread earlier ( see below). It says clearly no restrictions on wage. Please suggest, why is this a issue.
Please understand, i am trying to learn from others experience and definaltely not contradicting any one here.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html#8
Q) If I change jobs, does the new employer have to pay the wage stated on the labor certification? TOP
No. As explained by the INS in the June 2001 Interim Guidance Memo, the new job does not have to be at the same wage level, nor is there any requirement that the new position pay a rate equal to the "prevailing" wage. The only restrictions are that the pay must be sufficient to demonstrate that the person will be self-supporting and not become a "public charge."
It is best to not to change to an employer offering you anything less than the wage rate specified in the GC labor certification. On the higher side, it is better not to take up a job that offers more than 4% more salary of that specified in the GC labor certification. It is hard to resist 20-30K higher salary, but one would have to resist the temptation for taking the job offering higher salary. Otherwise, there is a risk of USCIS denying the GC application.
USCIS doesn�t account for dollar appreciation or devaluation. USCIS also doesn�t account for annual inflation when calculating the wage rate. So even if your labor certification was applied in 2003, you still have to continue at the job with the salary specified in the GC labor certification. If GC application takes another 5-7 years, then you have to continue with the salary specified in GC labor certification application.
Hope this is useful.
One quick question about salary limitation. Where is this mentioned. I went through the following link posted on this thread earlier ( see below). It says clearly no restrictions on wage. Please suggest, why is this a issue.
Please understand, i am trying to learn from others experience and definaltely not contradicting any one here.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html#8
Q) If I change jobs, does the new employer have to pay the wage stated on the labor certification? TOP
No. As explained by the INS in the June 2001 Interim Guidance Memo, the new job does not have to be at the same wage level, nor is there any requirement that the new position pay a rate equal to the "prevailing" wage. The only restrictions are that the pay must be sufficient to demonstrate that the person will be self-supporting and not become a "public charge."
hairstyles Windows 7 Wallpaper Download
arnet
06-18 02:48 PM
i support this initiative too.
Macaca
09-03 08:50 AM
In a key finding, government data document that a moratorium on legal immigrants entering the country could devastate the Social Security system by ballooning the size of the actuarial deficit by almost one-third -- 31 percent -- over a 50-year period. (page 1)
To compensate for the loss of revenue caused by a moratorium would require increasing Social Security taxes on Americans by $506 billion in present value over 50 years and $611 billion over 75 years. Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $1,860 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years.
A forty-one percent reduction in legal immigration, which Congress considered in 1996, would increase the actuarial deficit by 13 percent over 50 years and require $212 billion in tax increases (in present value) over 50 years (and $246 billion over 75 years) to make up for the lost revenue caused by the severe legal immigration reductions.
A thirty-three percent reduction in legal immigration would increase the actuarial deficit by 10 percent over 50 years and result in lost revenues of $163 billion in present value over 50 years and $207 billion over 75 years, which would need to be made up for through higher taxes or other means.
Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $720 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years, in the case of a 41% reduction in legal immigration, and $600 over the next 10 years for a 33% legal immigration reduction.
Increases in legal immigration would provide a significant boost to Social Security. The size of the actuarial deficit would be reduced over 50 years by 10 percent if legal immigration increased 33 percent (an additional 264,000 immigrants a year) and by 6 percent for a 20 percent rise in legal immigration annually (160,000 more immigrants a year.)
A 33 percent increase in legal immigration would increase revenues to Social Security by a present value of $169 billion over 50 years and $216 billion over 75 years. A 20 percent legal immigration increase would add $101 billion in present value to the trust fund over 50 years and $128 billion over a 75-year period.
A thirty-three percent increase in legal immigration would mean that an
American earning $60,000 in 2004 could have their Social Security taxes reduced by $600 over 10 years (or $360 in the case of a 160,000 legal immigration rise) and Social Security would maintain the actuarial balance that is currently projected over that period.
Halting legal immigration to the United States would reduce both the growth rate of the U.S. labor force and the rate of the country�s economic growth (the rate of growth of the nation�s Gross Domestic Product) by approximately one quarter of one percent (0.25%) per year, initially, a notable amount.
To compensate for the loss of revenue caused by a moratorium would require increasing Social Security taxes on Americans by $506 billion in present value over 50 years and $611 billion over 75 years. Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $1,860 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years.
A forty-one percent reduction in legal immigration, which Congress considered in 1996, would increase the actuarial deficit by 13 percent over 50 years and require $212 billion in tax increases (in present value) over 50 years (and $246 billion over 75 years) to make up for the lost revenue caused by the severe legal immigration reductions.
A thirty-three percent reduction in legal immigration would increase the actuarial deficit by 10 percent over 50 years and result in lost revenues of $163 billion in present value over 50 years and $207 billion over 75 years, which would need to be made up for through higher taxes or other means.
Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $720 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years, in the case of a 41% reduction in legal immigration, and $600 over the next 10 years for a 33% legal immigration reduction.
Increases in legal immigration would provide a significant boost to Social Security. The size of the actuarial deficit would be reduced over 50 years by 10 percent if legal immigration increased 33 percent (an additional 264,000 immigrants a year) and by 6 percent for a 20 percent rise in legal immigration annually (160,000 more immigrants a year.)
A 33 percent increase in legal immigration would increase revenues to Social Security by a present value of $169 billion over 50 years and $216 billion over 75 years. A 20 percent legal immigration increase would add $101 billion in present value to the trust fund over 50 years and $128 billion over a 75-year period.
A thirty-three percent increase in legal immigration would mean that an
American earning $60,000 in 2004 could have their Social Security taxes reduced by $600 over 10 years (or $360 in the case of a 160,000 legal immigration rise) and Social Security would maintain the actuarial balance that is currently projected over that period.
Halting legal immigration to the United States would reduce both the growth rate of the U.S. labor force and the rate of the country�s economic growth (the rate of growth of the nation�s Gross Domestic Product) by approximately one quarter of one percent (0.25%) per year, initially, a notable amount.
ramudu
10-29 10:26 AM
My EAD is now pending 96 days..no luck..not going anywhere with USCIS - they have stopped responding also.
All your posting makes sense but I suggest each of us write a letter to CISOmbudsman explaining your case so that it gets documented and they can put some pressure on USCIS on explaining as to why across the board they are dealyed i issuing EAD renewal. USCIS keeps claiming its only 1.3% of cases thats pending but why? What reason? We all understand they may be loaded but atleast if they cant handle the laod they should admit it and issue interim EAD. Just keping mum does not help. What i cant understand is if they can approve my AP on time whats the issue with EAD?
I have really started questioning myself as to why i am in this country. Its no more a land of oppurtunity..its really disccouraging for the young graduates who are heading to this country or graduating in US Universities.
All your posting makes sense but I suggest each of us write a letter to CISOmbudsman explaining your case so that it gets documented and they can put some pressure on USCIS on explaining as to why across the board they are dealyed i issuing EAD renewal. USCIS keeps claiming its only 1.3% of cases thats pending but why? What reason? We all understand they may be loaded but atleast if they cant handle the laod they should admit it and issue interim EAD. Just keping mum does not help. What i cant understand is if they can approve my AP on time whats the issue with EAD?
I have really started questioning myself as to why i am in this country. Its no more a land of oppurtunity..its really disccouraging for the young graduates who are heading to this country or graduating in US Universities.
No comments:
Post a Comment