crazyghoda
09-23 04:31 PM
A basic question - Are the months that the numbers are slotted into for the Priority Dates? or are they the recept date or something else....?
If PD, then how come there are numbers for 2008 and 2009? The PD has never been current since July 2007....
If PD, then how come there are numbers for 2008 and 2009? The PD has never been current since July 2007....
wallpaper Tattoo trey songz tattoos
vg1778
09-26 03:21 PM
Guys just want to appreciate the efforts by different members here. At least it gives a sense of support that you are not alone in this whole fiasco when you hear around you people getting their FP or EADs and you are left feeling frustrated and anxious.
This forum actually has become quite important and please keep on posting details and updates.
Wishing that it ends soon for all of us and ease our anxiety.
Cheers!!!!
This forum actually has become quite important and please keep on posting details and updates.
Wishing that it ends soon for all of us and ease our anxiety.
Cheers!!!!
crazyghoda
09-23 04:42 PM
That's exactly what I wrote a few posts above. I think the more basic question is - What does 485 inventory mean? Is it already filed 485 numbers or "can be filed based on approved I-140" numbers?
To the OP: Can you provide the link from where we can open the PDF instead of just throwing the PDF open. Maybe that will provide a better context to the numbers.
If these are pending 485 applications at USCIS, Number of pending applications with PD later than JUL 2007 should be zero.
If these are labor filings, they probably dont include dependents.
To the OP: Can you provide the link from where we can open the PDF instead of just throwing the PDF open. Maybe that will provide a better context to the numbers.
If these are pending 485 applications at USCIS, Number of pending applications with PD later than JUL 2007 should be zero.
If these are labor filings, they probably dont include dependents.
2011 artist trey songz tattoos
bkn96
11-17 10:34 AM
How is response to MTRs sofar. Are they encouraging? What happens if MTR not approved what are the options?
more...
gonecrazyonh4
05-25 05:22 PM
My immigration doctor told me that if i had chickenpox in childhood i do not need the varicella vaccine? Which i did at age 5. Please, let me know if anyone else was told the same , i will be going back to him on Wednesday for the physical exam. I don't want to get a RFE on that.
You need proof that you had chicken pox- a relevant letter or prescription issued at that time. Your Doctor can also order a test to find out the antibodies- the presence of which proves that you had chicken pox, but my Doctor told that it is expensive and easiest thing is to just take a shot. (This is what we did for my Sons school admission here, same provision is applicable for immigration I guess)
You need proof that you had chicken pox- a relevant letter or prescription issued at that time. Your Doctor can also order a test to find out the antibodies- the presence of which proves that you had chicken pox, but my Doctor told that it is expensive and easiest thing is to just take a shot. (This is what we did for my Sons school admission here, same provision is applicable for immigration I guess)
punjabi77
09-09 02:35 PM
I am from Ga.. So i called Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605..
I will try to call some more people..
I will try to call some more people..
more...
WaldenPond
12-31 07:54 PM
Hello Logiclife,
The information you provided is very useful. Will go look for David Heenan's book.
Here is the book that I am trying to read - 'Flight of the Creative Class' by Dr. Richard Florida. Here is the extract from this book -
Chapter 4 – The Closing of America? - Page 112
The rejection rate of H-1B visas (also called “high-skilled visas”), which allow professionals who are not U.S. citizens to work in the country for up to six years, increased from 9.5 to 17.8 percent between 2001 and 2003.
Chapter 4 – The Closing of America? - Page 117
By 2003, antiterrorism measures began to catch up not just with visa applications but also with requests for more permanent U.S. residence. Thanks to delays in the processing of green-card applications, only 705,827 people became legal permanent residents that year, down from 1.06 million in 2002. This decline is the steepest since 1953, when Joseph McCarthy stoked fears that Communists were invading the government and general population. Nearly half of those affected by the government slowdown in 2003 were foreign students, workers, and others already residing in the U.S. and hoping to become permanent residents. Such figures may understate the extent of the problem-which were backlogged to more than 6 million by the end of the fiscal year 2003. Of these over 6 million people whose legal lives as residents were put on hold, roughly 3.6 million have had applications pending for more than six months.
The practical, everyday implications of such a wait can be exasperating. Without a green card, many immigrants are prohibited from traveling, denied the benefit of in-state tuition rates, or even put at risk for job loss and deportation if the wait goes on too long. These risks accrue not only to individuals and families but to the businesses that hire them and need their skills.
There is lot more to share but I am not able to put all this on the discussion forum thread. Will add more to this later.
Here is the link to Dr. Florida's site : http://www.creativeclass.org/.
The information you provided is very useful. Will go look for David Heenan's book.
Here is the book that I am trying to read - 'Flight of the Creative Class' by Dr. Richard Florida. Here is the extract from this book -
Chapter 4 – The Closing of America? - Page 112
The rejection rate of H-1B visas (also called “high-skilled visas”), which allow professionals who are not U.S. citizens to work in the country for up to six years, increased from 9.5 to 17.8 percent between 2001 and 2003.
Chapter 4 – The Closing of America? - Page 117
By 2003, antiterrorism measures began to catch up not just with visa applications but also with requests for more permanent U.S. residence. Thanks to delays in the processing of green-card applications, only 705,827 people became legal permanent residents that year, down from 1.06 million in 2002. This decline is the steepest since 1953, when Joseph McCarthy stoked fears that Communists were invading the government and general population. Nearly half of those affected by the government slowdown in 2003 were foreign students, workers, and others already residing in the U.S. and hoping to become permanent residents. Such figures may understate the extent of the problem-which were backlogged to more than 6 million by the end of the fiscal year 2003. Of these over 6 million people whose legal lives as residents were put on hold, roughly 3.6 million have had applications pending for more than six months.
The practical, everyday implications of such a wait can be exasperating. Without a green card, many immigrants are prohibited from traveling, denied the benefit of in-state tuition rates, or even put at risk for job loss and deportation if the wait goes on too long. These risks accrue not only to individuals and families but to the businesses that hire them and need their skills.
There is lot more to share but I am not able to put all this on the discussion forum thread. Will add more to this later.
Here is the link to Dr. Florida's site : http://www.creativeclass.org/.
2010 images tattoo Trey Songz
rb_248
10-01 06:02 PM
EB3 PD never moved beyond 2006 after July 2007. So how come EB3 case are there ?
Good Point. May be error in the data. Who knows????
Good Point. May be error in the data. Who knows????
more...
jingi1234
01-20 06:52 PM
I called the department of state, visa's section to enquire about this PIMS verification. They said that KCC handles it. When I called KCC they said they cannot check ahead of time :mad:
Folks who had delays in getting H1b stamped due to the PIMS system:
Can you look at your I-797 and see if there was an A number (something like A123 456 789) mentioned under the "Beneficiary" box?
I have A number ...I think that signifies AOS number or something...
What is your point?
Folks who had delays in getting H1b stamped due to the PIMS system:
Can you look at your I-797 and see if there was an A number (something like A123 456 789) mentioned under the "Beneficiary" box?
I have A number ...I think that signifies AOS number or something...
What is your point?
hair tattoo Trey Songz: VIBE Video
sai
12-31 07:57 AM
What are the bills that are comming up in FEB 2006 ?
Can any one post the details please...
Can any one post the details please...
more...
Milind123
01-26 12:42 AM
http://www.britainusa.com/visas/articles_show_nt1.asp?i=65025&L1=41000&a=41448
Found this on the site:
COUNTRY NATIONALS REQUIRING DIRECT AIRSIDE TRANSIT VISA:
AFGHANISTAN, ALBANIA, ALGERIA, ANGOLA, BANGLADESH, BELARUS, BURMA (MYANMAR), BURUNDI, CAMEROON, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA, COLOMBIA, CONGO-BRAZZAVILLE, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (ZAIRE), ECUADOR, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GAMBIA, GHANA, GUINEA, GUINEA-BISSAU, INDIA, IRAN, IRAQ, IVORY COAST, KENYA, LEBANON, LIBERIA, MACEDONIA, MALAWI*, MOLDOVA, MONGOLIA, MONTENEGRO, NEPAL, NIGERIA, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, RWANDA, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SIERRA LEONE, SOMALIA, SRI LANKA, SUDAN, TANZANIA, TURKEY, TRNC, UGANDA, VIETNAM, YUGOSLAVIA, ZAIRE (FORMERLY DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO), ZIMBABWE.
In other words:
Color of Skin: Different shades of Brown.
Language: Predominantly non English.
Facial Features: Non Anglo Saxon (Indian, Arab, Oriental, African)
Economic Condition of the Country: so so to very bad.
If all the above points apply to you, then you must apply for a DAT Visa.
BTW Did they exclude any African country from the list?
Found this on the site:
COUNTRY NATIONALS REQUIRING DIRECT AIRSIDE TRANSIT VISA:
AFGHANISTAN, ALBANIA, ALGERIA, ANGOLA, BANGLADESH, BELARUS, BURMA (MYANMAR), BURUNDI, CAMEROON, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA, COLOMBIA, CONGO-BRAZZAVILLE, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (ZAIRE), ECUADOR, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GAMBIA, GHANA, GUINEA, GUINEA-BISSAU, INDIA, IRAN, IRAQ, IVORY COAST, KENYA, LEBANON, LIBERIA, MACEDONIA, MALAWI*, MOLDOVA, MONGOLIA, MONTENEGRO, NEPAL, NIGERIA, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, RWANDA, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SIERRA LEONE, SOMALIA, SRI LANKA, SUDAN, TANZANIA, TURKEY, TRNC, UGANDA, VIETNAM, YUGOSLAVIA, ZAIRE (FORMERLY DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO), ZIMBABWE.
In other words:
Color of Skin: Different shades of Brown.
Language: Predominantly non English.
Facial Features: Non Anglo Saxon (Indian, Arab, Oriental, African)
Economic Condition of the Country: so so to very bad.
If all the above points apply to you, then you must apply for a DAT Visa.
BTW Did they exclude any African country from the list?
hot Trey Songz Recording artist
EB2IndianGC
09-13 01:33 PM
Hi guys,
How long does it take to receive RFE letter by mail? Can we get a copy of RFE letter at the InfoPass appointment. I don't have patience anymore to wait. At least they can tell us what the RFE is about on the phone. These guys are trying my patience.
How long does it take to receive RFE letter by mail? Can we get a copy of RFE letter at the InfoPass appointment. I don't have patience anymore to wait. At least they can tell us what the RFE is about on the phone. These guys are trying my patience.
more...
house girlfriend tattoo trey songz
pappu
11-06 03:28 PM
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
tattoo trey songz tattoos on chest.
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
more...
pictures 2011 Trey Songz trey songz
svm
10-01 05:19 PM
Got the card production ordered e-mail!!..
dresses tattoo who is trey songz
mhathi
09-15 03:43 PM
Called all but nine of congressmen. Will try to call all of them before 5:00pm eastern
more...
makeup Trey+songz+tattoos+chest
CADude
11-09 12:03 PM
I do received RD as July 2nd and ND: Oct 10 on RN. I am not planning to bug IO@NSC for EAD or NC untill Jan 2008 or I see my PD current per VB.
I called yesterday and spoke to an IO at TSC.. she says I am seen pending for name check as of Oct 17.
I am a July 2 filer.
CAdude.. I have a question for you though.. Did your notices show receipt dates of 2nd July or different.
I spoke to my lawyer about getting it fixed.. but they never responded to me back.
*Happy Diwali*
I called yesterday and spoke to an IO at TSC.. she says I am seen pending for name check as of Oct 17.
I am a July 2 filer.
CAdude.. I have a question for you though.. Did your notices show receipt dates of 2nd July or different.
I spoke to my lawyer about getting it fixed.. but they never responded to me back.
*Happy Diwali*
girlfriend What+does+trey+songz+tattoo
kuhelica2000
11-22 03:17 PM
Here is my take-
Foreclosing on your house is asolutely legal in the USA. You can even declare personal bankruptcy if you are in a real mess.
Ofcourse you need to evaluate the consequences of forclosing or declaring bankruptcy.
Wall Street executives are cahsing in millions of dollars in bonuses while filing for bankruptcy. This is how the system works in a capitalist country. There is no place for morals and ethics in capitalism. It's all about playing by the rules.
I had bought a house 2 years back thinking that i will sell it after couple of years and make money. I know many people might have done that. I didnt knwo that having a house will become a burden for me wrt moving to a different place in search of a job. I do see jobs in cities outside my state and was thinking of applying for those jobs. My problem is that if i sell my house, i will have to pay from my own pocket.
Having a house in this market has become a pain as it has made me immobile with respect to good job offers.
I was thinking that incase i find a job in a different state and cannot travel back home frequently and also renting is not a good option then should i leave the house to the bank for foreclosure?
Will this affect my GC process. I have no plans of buying a house in coming years.
What might be an outcome of foreclosure, keeping in mind that i am wiating for my GC process.
If anyone had an experiecne like this or may know someone, please share ur thought..
Foreclosing on your house is asolutely legal in the USA. You can even declare personal bankruptcy if you are in a real mess.
Ofcourse you need to evaluate the consequences of forclosing or declaring bankruptcy.
Wall Street executives are cahsing in millions of dollars in bonuses while filing for bankruptcy. This is how the system works in a capitalist country. There is no place for morals and ethics in capitalism. It's all about playing by the rules.
I had bought a house 2 years back thinking that i will sell it after couple of years and make money. I know many people might have done that. I didnt knwo that having a house will become a burden for me wrt moving to a different place in search of a job. I do see jobs in cities outside my state and was thinking of applying for those jobs. My problem is that if i sell my house, i will have to pay from my own pocket.
Having a house in this market has become a pain as it has made me immobile with respect to good job offers.
I was thinking that incase i find a job in a different state and cannot travel back home frequently and also renting is not a good option then should i leave the house to the bank for foreclosure?
Will this affect my GC process. I have no plans of buying a house in coming years.
What might be an outcome of foreclosure, keeping in mind that i am wiating for my GC process.
If anyone had an experiecne like this or may know someone, please share ur thought..
hairstyles wallpaper trey songz tattoos
123456mg
09-26 04:54 PM
2 july filer/no cc/no receipt.
cygent
06-29 08:23 PM
if July bulletin is revised on say July2nd or 3rd, What about the cases filed on July 2nd, will it be rejected?
YES
YES
iv_only_hope
01-11 01:53 PM
http://helpniloufer.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment