JunRN
10-24 12:19 AM
If this becomes a law, the USCIS will draft the rules. Definitely, those who are already in line will be allowed to use the recaptured visas and will pay the fees for that. They will also retain the PD.
I am hoping for the best this time.
I am hoping for the best this time.
wallpaper With 2011 Stanley Cup
user1205
06-10 01:38 PM
The state chapters don't seem to be very effective.
I thought I was a member of the CA chapter but in the last few months I received no information from anybody in this chapter.
I was semi-active, meaning I helped with phone calls, money and prints and that's as much as I could do at this point in time.
And at some point there was a discussion about a new user group of only the people that are active and can contribute and it seems they went through with it.
I understand that some things might be better discussed in a smaller group with the people that can dedicate more time, but there are different levels of commitment and if you're not open and accept that some want to help but can't do as much as others, you're cutting yourself short.
When there is a big initiative or a push for funds and effort, you're not even reaching out to the bigger group; you're relying on the same small number of people and they too have limited resources and energy and will get tired.
Maybe I�m just having a bad day but that was my experience and CA is one of the most active chapters so maybe all is well I�m an isolated case.
That is true and IV core member Nixtor had given details about this visa movement more than a month ago in the all state chapter conference call. This call was strictly for state chapter members of all states. IV core has been meeting DOS and USCIS regularly to find solution to the problems our members have been facing.
Pls take part in the call campaign and contribute funds to be able to find relief.
I thought I was a member of the CA chapter but in the last few months I received no information from anybody in this chapter.
I was semi-active, meaning I helped with phone calls, money and prints and that's as much as I could do at this point in time.
And at some point there was a discussion about a new user group of only the people that are active and can contribute and it seems they went through with it.
I understand that some things might be better discussed in a smaller group with the people that can dedicate more time, but there are different levels of commitment and if you're not open and accept that some want to help but can't do as much as others, you're cutting yourself short.
When there is a big initiative or a push for funds and effort, you're not even reaching out to the bigger group; you're relying on the same small number of people and they too have limited resources and energy and will get tired.
Maybe I�m just having a bad day but that was my experience and CA is one of the most active chapters so maybe all is well I�m an isolated case.
That is true and IV core member Nixtor had given details about this visa movement more than a month ago in the all state chapter conference call. This call was strictly for state chapter members of all states. IV core has been meeting DOS and USCIS regularly to find solution to the problems our members have been facing.
Pls take part in the call campaign and contribute funds to be able to find relief.
I_need_GC
02-28 02:01 PM
Heres the dates just as an fyi.
Filed AP: July 26,08
RD: Aug 16, 08
Took company emergency AP letter to IO by making infopass appointment. Feb 07. Got a letter Feb 12 dated feb 09 application accepted as emergency and will be expedited. Got first link update Feb 19, then Approval on Feb 20, Then another Link up date Feb 21. Attorney received 2 original copies of AP Feb 28. On the AP it has created date Feb 19.
If your AP is still pending call customer service and do open a SR. My case was handled by the Nebraska Center.
Filed AP: July 26,08
RD: Aug 16, 08
Took company emergency AP letter to IO by making infopass appointment. Feb 07. Got a letter Feb 12 dated feb 09 application accepted as emergency and will be expedited. Got first link update Feb 19, then Approval on Feb 20, Then another Link up date Feb 21. Attorney received 2 original copies of AP Feb 28. On the AP it has created date Feb 19.
If your AP is still pending call customer service and do open a SR. My case was handled by the Nebraska Center.
2011 $114.99 $89.99. Reebok
bluekayal
08-23 04:54 PM
Rest easy folks:
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
more...
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
07-29 06:29 PM
hi all,
i also have been ff this blog but have not been sharing much bcoz i dont see a lot of sched a bloggers in here.anyway.please read the hammond law group about an amendment that apparently passed the senate to allocate the unused visa from 2001 till 2004 in which 50% will go to sched a workers.one of the bloggers mentioned so.cant verify the authenticity of such but it certainly lifts my dampen spirit.it is the bill that was introduced by senators hutchison and schumer.i am happy to see the support of the IV members towards the mission of this organization.it has been a great source of info for me.MY PD is oct 2006 and have been separated from my wife for over ayear now and our lil girl is growing up without the presence of her mother.it is very heartbreaking,not to mention my life without her.hope all our sufferings will end soon.
Welcome to our thread and thanks for joining.
i also have been ff this blog but have not been sharing much bcoz i dont see a lot of sched a bloggers in here.anyway.please read the hammond law group about an amendment that apparently passed the senate to allocate the unused visa from 2001 till 2004 in which 50% will go to sched a workers.one of the bloggers mentioned so.cant verify the authenticity of such but it certainly lifts my dampen spirit.it is the bill that was introduced by senators hutchison and schumer.i am happy to see the support of the IV members towards the mission of this organization.it has been a great source of info for me.MY PD is oct 2006 and have been separated from my wife for over ayear now and our lil girl is growing up without the presence of her mother.it is very heartbreaking,not to mention my life without her.hope all our sufferings will end soon.
Welcome to our thread and thanks for joining.
rockstart
07-11 08:30 AM
I agree looks like CIS is getting its act together. but with such a big jump in dates. We will see random approvals like May 2006 before July 2004 etc.
Is this big jump for EB2 due to overflow from other categories? Is this as a result of awareness around visa wastage?
Is this big jump for EB2 due to overflow from other categories? Is this as a result of awareness around visa wastage?
more...
shukla77
01-05 11:15 PM
. I just didnt say IIT but also REC's. REC stands for Regional Engineering Colleges (there are plenty in India) and that is not a payment seat. Education level is well maintained and by entrance examination standard, its far above GRE level. I think your generalization does not make any sense.Yes there are some decent RECs but there are also some very crapy ones.
2010 $299.99 $139.99. Reebok Boston
BEETU
08-02 05:18 PM
Sirkondoji,
Good job and thank you from my heart if this is going to be true. Please find me one more thing, where can i have info for my wife and son's I 94 going to get it, my H1B extension approved on 28th April 2007. Please.
Thanks
Good job and thank you from my heart if this is going to be true. Please find me one more thing, where can i have info for my wife and son's I 94 going to get it, my H1B extension approved on 28th April 2007. Please.
Thanks
more...
sundevil
03-13 02:25 PM
We were getting ready to file 140 but never did. This is(or was) at the time top 5 market cap tech company, so I doubt they went out to make money on it. Its not Software related either and harder to match people to my LC. I was so close yet so far, in those days would have got my GC in less than a year after that point. 3 more LCs and 3 140s including one NIW, I am stuck here now.
You could say Murphy's law aptly applies to my immigration :)
"Everything that can Go Wrong will go wrong" and it did.
You can use that priority date if I140 was filed for you based on that and approved. Was I140 filed for you ? Or you just abandoned it while labor was pending ?? If the later, your employer must have made money when labor substitution was allowed :) (Making a BIG assumption here )
You could say Murphy's law aptly applies to my immigration :)
"Everything that can Go Wrong will go wrong" and it did.
You can use that priority date if I140 was filed for you based on that and approved. Was I140 filed for you ? Or you just abandoned it while labor was pending ?? If the later, your employer must have made money when labor substitution was allowed :) (Making a BIG assumption here )
hair 2011 Stanley Cup JERSEYS
nk2006
10-21 05:24 PM
Some people are abusing (by misguidence of few lawyers, as they claim GC is for future job) AC21, without even working for single day with sponser, trying to get GC. USCIS may be controlling that kind of abuse.
Now, if the visa numbers are continously available (for example EB1, EB2-ROW) USCIS is approving 485 within 6 months, except july 07 fiasco surge. So now AC21 users are only those who suffers in retrogression, not by USCIS administartive delay. That may be the another reason why USCIS becoming hard on AC21.
Thanks Ramba for your insights.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
Now, if the visa numbers are continously available (for example EB1, EB2-ROW) USCIS is approving 485 within 6 months, except july 07 fiasco surge. So now AC21 users are only those who suffers in retrogression, not by USCIS administartive delay. That may be the another reason why USCIS becoming hard on AC21.
Thanks Ramba for your insights.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
more...
CADude
11-14 05:21 PM
It's call reseach topic.. We have to find some USCIS support documents for each case. We need some earlier USCIS decisions for each senarios/theories.
RG provided few supporting CIS rules in earlier post and seems logical. But not sure if RG or RK is right.
It's confusing indeed.
I went thru' both links posted above in thread.
It seems that according to RG, EAD will remain valid till the time to file appeal (MTR), once appeal is filed the applicant would be able to work. He also suggested to go on EAD to save any time remaining from initial 6 years.
According to RK, EAD will be invalidated, person is to be deported as soon as CIS denies 485 in error. He strongly suggest NOT TO GO on EAD if some one has H1 as an option.
According to Chandu's blog, RK seems to be correct; but then RG is also a very reputed and experienced immigration lawyer.
What is correct? Both are 180 degree opposite to each other? Any one?
RG provided few supporting CIS rules in earlier post and seems logical. But not sure if RG or RK is right.
It's confusing indeed.
I went thru' both links posted above in thread.
It seems that according to RG, EAD will remain valid till the time to file appeal (MTR), once appeal is filed the applicant would be able to work. He also suggested to go on EAD to save any time remaining from initial 6 years.
According to RK, EAD will be invalidated, person is to be deported as soon as CIS denies 485 in error. He strongly suggest NOT TO GO on EAD if some one has H1 as an option.
According to Chandu's blog, RK seems to be correct; but then RG is also a very reputed and experienced immigration lawyer.
What is correct? Both are 180 degree opposite to each other? Any one?
hot Cam Neely 2011 Stanley Cup
stldude
08-10 03:29 PM
Congrats - Is u'r 485 processed in NSC. Do you have the SRC** or LIN *** for the receipt no.
All 6 of our checks got cleared today below are the details
I-485/131/765 recd date: 2nd july 07
I-485/131/765 notice date: 06th Aug 07
Service Center send : NSC
I-140 approved : on 31-May-06, TSC
Got Recipts : NO
All 6 of our checks got cleared today below are the details
I-485/131/765 recd date: 2nd july 07
I-485/131/765 notice date: 06th Aug 07
Service Center send : NSC
I-140 approved : on 31-May-06, TSC
Got Recipts : NO
more...
house White 2011 Stanley Cup
akhilmahajan
09-10 09:51 AM
Please call congressmen to support HR5882.
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
GO IV GO.
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
GO IV GO.
tattoo in the Stanley Cup Finals.
ras
07-05 09:26 PM
I think this is a valid question that is being asked and should be answered by IV core. Am always intrigued by our behind the scenes effort and the heck that is going on. I do not want to cross the line and judge the integrity on IV core, but would really like to know exactly what we are up to. At least we need to periodic conf calls and announcement of our efforts (and I understand there needs to be some secrecy with anti-immig watching us closely).
Though IV core has been doing a great job, with the huge member base is it really leveraging the member potential except for donations and stories? May be there should be a change in the strategy leveraging the members thoughts and putting things in perspective. Chances are a few new team members could bring new energy and strategies.
Though IV core has been doing a great job, with the huge member base is it really leveraging the member potential except for donations and stories? May be there should be a change in the strategy leveraging the members thoughts and putting things in perspective. Chances are a few new team members could bring new energy and strategies.
more...
pictures April 1st, 2011
santb1975
06-08 07:49 PM
none at all?? :confused:
dresses Vancouver Canucks 2011 Stanley
reddog
03-12 10:52 AM
Not true. Anybody donates will get Donor status. This is started for last few days, so people who donated in last few days get this. Pappu mentioned that he is planning to cross reference this with old donations but not sure whats happening there.
This is how You release code to PROD? no user testing at all?
and the entire paid thing is the beginning of the end. not good.
why didnt we even have a poll on this? crazy crazy idea.
This is how You release code to PROD? no user testing at all?
and the entire paid thing is the beginning of the end. not good.
why didnt we even have a poll on this? crazy crazy idea.
more...
makeup January 31, 2011 by
singam
09-10 05:17 PM
$100, Google Order #360858396298535
girlfriend Stanley Cup 2011
Macaca
09-14 08:57 PM
A Little-Known Group Claims a Victory on Immigration (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=113489&postcount=730) By ROBERT PEAR (rpear@nytimes.com) | New York Times, July 15, 2007
How Conservatives Enhanced Online Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=98681&postcount=598) - Talk Radio Blends With Blog Postings To Boost Message By JUNE KRONHOLZ (june.kronholz@wsj.com ) and AMY SCHATZ (Amy.Schatz@wsj.com) | The Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2007
Immigration bill ignites grass-roots fire (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=89612&postcount=461) The conservative group NumbersUSA has seen its numbers skyrocket. Activists pressure wavering senators By Nicole Gaouette (nicole.gaouette@latimes.com) | Times Staff Writer, June 24, 2007
Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed By JULIA PRESTON (juliapreston@nytimes.com) | New York Times, June 10, 2007: 1 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80626&postcount=203), 2 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80627&postcount=204)
How Conservatives Enhanced Online Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=98681&postcount=598) - Talk Radio Blends With Blog Postings To Boost Message By JUNE KRONHOLZ (june.kronholz@wsj.com ) and AMY SCHATZ (Amy.Schatz@wsj.com) | The Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2007
Immigration bill ignites grass-roots fire (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=89612&postcount=461) The conservative group NumbersUSA has seen its numbers skyrocket. Activists pressure wavering senators By Nicole Gaouette (nicole.gaouette@latimes.com) | Times Staff Writer, June 24, 2007
Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed By JULIA PRESTON (juliapreston@nytimes.com) | New York Times, June 10, 2007: 1 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80626&postcount=203), 2 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80627&postcount=204)
hairstyles 2011 Stanley Cup NHL Jerseys
little_willy
09-12 11:39 PM
Here are some others that we used during the flower campaign. They were found from different forums at IV
mcuban@hd.net,
wnelson@hd.net,
nytnews@nytimes.com,
news-tips@nytimes.com,
washington@nytimes.com,
AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com,
satya.prakash@hindustantimes.com,
pmagazine@hindustantimes.com,
aditya.ghosh@hindustantimes.com,
Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com,
Drmanny@foxnews.com,
Beltway@foxnews.com,
Myword@foxnews.com,
Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com,
Bigstoryweekend@foxnews.com,
Bullsandbears@foxnews.com,
Cash@foxnews.com,
Cavuto@foxnews.com,
Fncimag@foxnews.com,
Forbes@foxnews.com,
Friends@foxnews.com,
Feedback@foxnews.com,
Jamie@foxnews.com,
Fncspecials@foxnews.com,
FNS@foxnews.com,
Newswatch@foxnews.com,
Foxreport@foxnews.com,
Atlarge@foxnews.com,
Heartland@foxnews.com,
JER@foxnews.com,
Lineup@foxnews.com,
Ontherecord@foxnews.com,
Oreilly@foxnews.com,
Redeye@foxnews.com,
Special@foxnews.com,
Studiob@foxnews.com,
Hemmer@foxnews.com,
Colonelscorner@foxnews.com,
Housecall@foxnews.com,
Hannity@foxnews.com,
Colmes@foxnews.com,
Letters@newsweek.com,
Customer.Care@newsweek.com,
viewerservices@msnbc.com,
today@nbc.com,
wt@nbc.com,
mtp@nbc.com,
abc.news.magazines@abc.com,
letters@msnbc.com
mcuban@hd.net,
wnelson@hd.net,
nytnews@nytimes.com,
news-tips@nytimes.com,
washington@nytimes.com,
AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com,
satya.prakash@hindustantimes.com,
pmagazine@hindustantimes.com,
aditya.ghosh@hindustantimes.com,
Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com,
Drmanny@foxnews.com,
Beltway@foxnews.com,
Myword@foxnews.com,
Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com,
Bigstoryweekend@foxnews.com,
Bullsandbears@foxnews.com,
Cash@foxnews.com,
Cavuto@foxnews.com,
Fncimag@foxnews.com,
Forbes@foxnews.com,
Friends@foxnews.com,
Feedback@foxnews.com,
Jamie@foxnews.com,
Fncspecials@foxnews.com,
FNS@foxnews.com,
Newswatch@foxnews.com,
Foxreport@foxnews.com,
Atlarge@foxnews.com,
Heartland@foxnews.com,
JER@foxnews.com,
Lineup@foxnews.com,
Ontherecord@foxnews.com,
Oreilly@foxnews.com,
Redeye@foxnews.com,
Special@foxnews.com,
Studiob@foxnews.com,
Hemmer@foxnews.com,
Colonelscorner@foxnews.com,
Housecall@foxnews.com,
Hannity@foxnews.com,
Colmes@foxnews.com,
Letters@newsweek.com,
Customer.Care@newsweek.com,
viewerservices@msnbc.com,
today@nbc.com,
wt@nbc.com,
mtp@nbc.com,
abc.news.magazines@abc.com,
letters@msnbc.com
Libra
07-06 03:18 PM
There are many members who think IV and other members are fighting for re-reversal of VB or increase in visa number for 2007....
why dont they understand that we are fighting to avoid rejection, we are not asking them to re-revise bulletin, all we want is just accept the application without rejecting them, so that we can save ourselves from loosing money and time. dont make fun of IV and other members who's putting their efforts in it, no matter what the result is. if you dont want to participate please stop visiting this forum.
Paisa you too man.
definitely if the result on Monday is the reversal of USCIS decision and July is open again.
why dont they understand that we are fighting to avoid rejection, we are not asking them to re-revise bulletin, all we want is just accept the application without rejecting them, so that we can save ourselves from loosing money and time. dont make fun of IV and other members who's putting their efforts in it, no matter what the result is. if you dont want to participate please stop visiting this forum.
Paisa you too man.
definitely if the result on Monday is the reversal of USCIS decision and July is open again.
ps57002
07-28 07:18 PM
are u sure it was atlanta center? they seem to be moving but 2 day approval would be so hard to believe.... not doubting you....just my own ears..well eyes in this case cause am reading
No comments:
Post a Comment