gc4me
04-24 11:29 AM
Another silent deshi employer here trying to scar H1s not to sue. I guess he created his ID (Join Date: Apr 2008) just for this.
Go and create another website in favour of deshi blood su&^%$rs called reverse-IV.org. Don't try to mock here.
Did you ask Attorney what happens if your employer still choose to Sue you? My friend's attorney told most of cases will be settled, but we might loose money up to 10K. Is it woth it doing? Also if we choose to fight, we might have to attend hearing (may be in different state based on your agreement). I am an employee too, and with you on this. I'd say if attorney guarentees he'll win our case we can go ahead.
Go and create another website in favour of deshi blood su&^%$rs called reverse-IV.org. Don't try to mock here.
Did you ask Attorney what happens if your employer still choose to Sue you? My friend's attorney told most of cases will be settled, but we might loose money up to 10K. Is it woth it doing? Also if we choose to fight, we might have to attend hearing (may be in different state based on your agreement). I am an employee too, and with you on this. I'd say if attorney guarentees he'll win our case we can go ahead.
wallpaper lady gaga without makeup and
capriol
09-12 05:06 PM
Congratulations, mine (485 and 765 for my husband) was received by TSC on July 24th but no receipt, no checks cashed nothing yet. It seems TSC is really slow in receipting the applications. My husband needs to travel abroad soon and we're anxiously waiting for the receipt...[/QUOTE]
Hello: I am in the same boat with you; received 485 at TSC on July 25, 2007 but no news of checks being cashed. In that context I have a question:
Can we start a thread only for those sending 485s to the TSC say after July 17, 2007? (This is because most postings are for the NSC).
Thanks.
Hello: I am in the same boat with you; received 485 at TSC on July 25, 2007 but no news of checks being cashed. In that context I have a question:
Can we start a thread only for those sending 485s to the TSC say after July 17, 2007? (This is because most postings are for the NSC).
Thanks.
madhu345
07-20 07:06 AM
Extra 100$ in addition to recurring contribution.
-Madhu
-Madhu
2011 makeup lady gaga without
belmontboy
09-27 04:42 PM
CO's words have been mostly pessimistic..and upsetting so far...
It's the reality.
It's the reality.
more...
gcsucks
05-02 12:33 PM
Section 205. Retaining Workers Subject to Green Card Backlog.
Allows foreign workers who have started the green card process, but who are subject to green card backlogs, to pay a $500.00 supplemental fee to file an application to adjust status. This change would enable foreign workers to remain in the U.S. until the green card becomes available
Section 201 item two says exemption for all advanced degree holder who worked in US for atleast 3 years in a "related" field. I know there might be issues with definition of "related" but seems job can be EB2/EB3 as long as the beneficiary has an advanced degree and the job is in related field - they are exempt. Am I reading it correctly? I think is how its in STEM right now. A very good back bill for us (if CIR fails to materialize).
Allows foreign workers who have started the green card process, but who are subject to green card backlogs, to pay a $500.00 supplemental fee to file an application to adjust status. This change would enable foreign workers to remain in the U.S. until the green card becomes available
Section 201 item two says exemption for all advanced degree holder who worked in US for atleast 3 years in a "related" field. I know there might be issues with definition of "related" but seems job can be EB2/EB3 as long as the beneficiary has an advanced degree and the job is in related field - they are exempt. Am I reading it correctly? I think is how its in STEM right now. A very good back bill for us (if CIR fails to materialize).
mmk123
11-18 07:19 PM
action item done by me and my wife.
more...
desi3933
07-12 06:43 PM
.....
If AC21 memo is non-binding, which immigartion law is binding? We can go with only current rules/laws; the rest is speculation.
USCIS memoranda articulate internal guidelines for agency personnel; they do not establish judicially enforceable standards.
http://www.uscis.gov/err/D7%20-%20Intracompany%20Transferees%20(L-1A%20and%20L-1B)/Decisions_Issued_in_2008/Nov032008_17D7101.pdf (http://www.uscis.gov/err/D7%20-%20Intracompany%20Transferees%20%28L-1A%20and%20L-1B%29/Decisions_Issued_in_2008/Nov032008_17D7101.pdf)
CIS memoranda articulate internal guidelines for agency personnel; they do not establish judicially enforceable standards. Agency interpretations that are not arrived at through precedent decision or notice and comment rule making such as those in opinion letters, policy statements, agency manuals, and lack the force of law
.
If AC21 memo is non-binding, which immigartion law is binding? We can go with only current rules/laws; the rest is speculation.
USCIS memoranda articulate internal guidelines for agency personnel; they do not establish judicially enforceable standards.
http://www.uscis.gov/err/D7%20-%20Intracompany%20Transferees%20(L-1A%20and%20L-1B)/Decisions_Issued_in_2008/Nov032008_17D7101.pdf (http://www.uscis.gov/err/D7%20-%20Intracompany%20Transferees%20%28L-1A%20and%20L-1B%29/Decisions_Issued_in_2008/Nov032008_17D7101.pdf)
CIS memoranda articulate internal guidelines for agency personnel; they do not establish judicially enforceable standards. Agency interpretations that are not arrived at through precedent decision or notice and comment rule making such as those in opinion letters, policy statements, agency manuals, and lack the force of law
.
2010 lady gaga without makeup on. lady gaga without makeup on.
smuggymba
07-20 10:34 AM
IV could not even collect 20K in the Washington DC drive. I hardly saw EB3 folks contributing (based on my observation, I might be wrong so take it easy). If every EB3 person contributes 50USD, it will be enough to run a campaign. Action is the key, not posting in forums. Hope we get out of this EB2 vs EB3 and as focus on visa recapture.
more...
delhiguy
07-08 05:54 PM
No onde denies that we cannot vote. But we have the basic rights, like being treated "equally and fairly". For example, if some employer violates labor law and did not pay you for your work, I am sure you can sue, even though you are not a citizen. There are some basic rights that everyone has, esp. if you hold good fainth and are damaged. Statement that you do not have any rights as you are not a citizen is just wrong. I am wondering how this will impact people's (esp. people from other countries) perception about this. :confused:
Sir,
What i said are my views after reading through the internet, I may be wrong.
We would now have to wait for the lawsuite judgement , to know where we stand.
I planned to sue my previous employer and i called a labor lawyer , when i told him i am on h1b , he said that i need to call some lawyers who specialize in h1b labor law, as his expertise is in labor law specific to us citizens..
Sir,
What i said are my views after reading through the internet, I may be wrong.
We would now have to wait for the lawsuite judgement , to know where we stand.
I planned to sue my previous employer and i called a labor lawyer , when i told him i am on h1b , he said that i need to call some lawyers who specialize in h1b labor law, as his expertise is in labor law specific to us citizens..
hair lady gaga without makeup and wig. Lady+gaga+without+makeup+
nogreen4decade
08-25 12:08 PM
I never had a soft LUD on my 485 because of EAD renewal.... But one time I saw it, but my lawyers filed AC21 around the same time.... So I would think it was because of AC21.... So I was always under the impression that EAD renewal has no LUD's on 485, based on my experience
My wife got a soft LUD on 8/21. She has PD of Dec 2005 EB2 (I). I wa shappy to see some activity but then i saw the following thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599851-ead-renewal-but-i-485-update.html#post1981520) . It looks like some got the soft LUD on their 485 but their EAD was in process and same is the case wiht my wife. She applied for EAD renewal last month.
My wife got a soft LUD on 8/21. She has PD of Dec 2005 EB2 (I). I wa shappy to see some activity but then i saw the following thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599851-ead-renewal-but-i-485-update.html#post1981520) . It looks like some got the soft LUD on their 485 but their EAD was in process and same is the case wiht my wife. She applied for EAD renewal last month.
more...
SGP
11-18 01:56 PM
"There is no harm in trying. Leave no stone unturned."
This may sound optimistic and promising, but in essence sending random rhetoric using off message statements like "Erase Backlog Now" conflicts with our targeted messaging. To the observer on the Hill (i.e. in Congress) it all sounds more like a noise without a coherent message.
I'm sure you would agree that "no harm in trying" and "Leave no stone unturned" doesn't mean diluting our effort or sending incoherent message. That is why we need to have a single voice sending the same targeted message each time, otherwise we will just sound like awkward noise.
Can't agree less. We all have one goal. We are all one voice. In my personal opinion, I always try and stay optimistic.
This may sound optimistic and promising, but in essence sending random rhetoric using off message statements like "Erase Backlog Now" conflicts with our targeted messaging. To the observer on the Hill (i.e. in Congress) it all sounds more like a noise without a coherent message.
I'm sure you would agree that "no harm in trying" and "Leave no stone unturned" doesn't mean diluting our effort or sending incoherent message. That is why we need to have a single voice sending the same targeted message each time, otherwise we will just sound like awkward noise.
Can't agree less. We all have one goal. We are all one voice. In my personal opinion, I always try and stay optimistic.
hot lady gaga without makeup and
GreeNever
05-03 10:48 AM
I don't mean this to be subjective. Earlier, I hv also seen a few others raise this question on the Advanced Degrees and exemptions.
Master's Degree in the US from an accredited Instituiton plus five years of related Work experience but the employer may have chosen to file under EB3. In my case, my employer does not acknowledge the Advanced Degree indicating that the position for which the labor was granted for did not warrant a Master's Degree.
What are my options for availing the SKIL or STEM/PACE provisions? I seem to meet all clauses to be deemed portable. Can I port to a different employer who may be able to further the process through these provisions, as and when they come into effect and continue being on EB3, but being exempt from the limit? Does this shake the grounds of the labor approval (for EB3 and the position not mandating an Advanced Degree)? Am I stuck? I have even considered changing my category to EB2 and being able to avail the priority date...
Master's Degree in the US from an accredited Instituiton plus five years of related Work experience but the employer may have chosen to file under EB3. In my case, my employer does not acknowledge the Advanced Degree indicating that the position for which the labor was granted for did not warrant a Master's Degree.
What are my options for availing the SKIL or STEM/PACE provisions? I seem to meet all clauses to be deemed portable. Can I port to a different employer who may be able to further the process through these provisions, as and when they come into effect and continue being on EB3, but being exempt from the limit? Does this shake the grounds of the labor approval (for EB3 and the position not mandating an Advanced Degree)? Am I stuck? I have even considered changing my category to EB2 and being able to avail the priority date...
more...
house lady gaga without makeup or wig. indiana jones, Lady; indiana jones, Lady
PDOCT05
08-28 10:49 AM
I sent my 485 to NSC on JUL 3rd, my 140 approved NSC, no receipts from
TSC yet. Does any body got receipts who applied on JUL 3rd...?
If your 140 Approved from NSC then you should get receipts from NSC. Not from TSC.
TSC yet. Does any body got receipts who applied on JUL 3rd...?
If your 140 Approved from NSC then you should get receipts from NSC. Not from TSC.
tattoo lady gaga without makeup before and. Lady+gaga+without+makeup+efore
gauravster
07-08 04:30 PM
You are incorrect on multiple accounts.
But, before going there, let me ask you this. What is your legal reasoning to dispute the case you have mentioned?
.
The legal reasoning is "Civil Rights Act of 1964" which applies to all individuals employed by a US employer in the US and to US citizens employed by US employers outside the US.
But, before going there, let me ask you this. What is your legal reasoning to dispute the case you have mentioned?
.
The legal reasoning is "Civil Rights Act of 1964" which applies to all individuals employed by a US employer in the US and to US citizens employed by US employers outside the US.
more...
pictures lady gaga no makeup.
nozerd
05-03 05:22 PM
Cornyn bill as I read it is better than the other bills for US Masters holders in non STEM area ex someone like myself with an MBA.
As far as I read it basically it says to be quota exempt you should
1) Have Masters or higher from US Univ.
2) Have Masters in STEM and 3 yrs exp. (even if Masters is from outside US).
So based on this logic even if someone has MA in English from US Univ they will be quota exempt, correct ???
The �SKIL� Bill
Short Title: Securing Knowledge Innovation and Leadership (SKIL)
Title I � Access to High Skilled Foreign Workers
Section 101. H-1B Visa Holders
Exempts professionals who have earned advanced degrees (e.g. Master�s degree or higher) from accredited United States universities and those who have been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States from the annual H-1B cap.
Section 102. Market-Based Visa Limits
Raises the H-1B (specialty occupation) cap from 65,000 to 115,000 and creates a flexible system that adjusts with the market.
Title II � Retaining Foreign Workers Educated in the United States
Section 201. United States Educated Immigrants.
Exempts U.S.-educated professionals with advanced degrees and those who have been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States from the annual green card (i.e. immigrant visa) cap.
Exempts professionals who have earned advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering or math, and who worked in the U.S. for at least three years in a related field, from the immigrant visa cap.
Exempts spouse and minor children of professionals from the employment-based cap. Under current law, only about fifty percent of employment-based visas go to actual workers.
Section 202. Immigrant Visa Backlog Reduction.
Raises the immigrant visa (i.e. green card) cap from 140,000 to 290,000 and allows unused visas to fall forward annually.
Exempts aliens of extraordinary ability, and outstanding researchers and professors from the annual green card limit.
Section 203. Student Visa Reform.
Many employers seek to hire U.S. educated students full-time upon graduation, and this change would enable the employer to start the green card process while the foreign worker is on a student visa (F-1) during Optional Practical Training (OPT). Codifies OPT; which will allow U.S. educated foreign students to work in their field for up to two years after graduation.
Section 204. L-1 Visa Holders Subject to Visa Backlog.
Allows an extension of an L-1 (intracompany transfer) visa beyond the fifth or seventh year if the individual has a green card application pending and is simply caught in the green card backlog. This extension is currently allowed for H-1B (specialty occupation) visa holders, but not for L-1 visa holders.
Section 205. Retaining Workers Subject to Green Card Backlog.
Allows foreign workers who have started the green card process, but who are subject to green card backlogs, to pay a $500.00 supplemental fee to file an application to adjust status. This change would enable foreign workers to remain in the U.S. until the green card becomes available.
Title III � Business Facilitation Through Immigration Reform
Section 301. Streamlining the Adjudication Process for Established Employers.
Requires the creation of a pre-certification program that streamlines the adjudication process, and reduces paperwork burdens, for employers who file multiple applications and who have no history of fraud or abuse. Pre-certification would allow those employers to file a petition on a separate review track and not submit repetitive organizational documentation.
Section 302. Providing Premium Processing of Employment-Based Visa Petitions.
Requires USCIS to allow employers to file a �premium processing� fee for expedited adjudication of employment-based immigrant petitions, as well as for administrative appeals of any decision on an employment-based immigrant petition.
Section 303. Eliminating Procedural Delays in Labor Certification Process.
Requires the Department of Labor to process all applications filed prior to the electronic PERM system within six months of enactment. Clarifies the Department of Labor�s process in providing prevailing wage determinations and requires the Department of Labor to establish a website to post open job orders.
Title IV. Miscellaneous
Section 401. Completion of Background and Security Checks.
Requires that no immigration application may be approved until the appropriate background and security checks are completed and any allegations of fraud have been resolved.
Section 402. Visa Revalidation.
Allows temporary workers who have not violated their status to renew their visa from within the United States.
Section 403. Severability.
Clarifies that if any part of this act is determined to be invalid it will have no effect on the remainder of the provisions.
As far as I read it basically it says to be quota exempt you should
1) Have Masters or higher from US Univ.
2) Have Masters in STEM and 3 yrs exp. (even if Masters is from outside US).
So based on this logic even if someone has MA in English from US Univ they will be quota exempt, correct ???
The �SKIL� Bill
Short Title: Securing Knowledge Innovation and Leadership (SKIL)
Title I � Access to High Skilled Foreign Workers
Section 101. H-1B Visa Holders
Exempts professionals who have earned advanced degrees (e.g. Master�s degree or higher) from accredited United States universities and those who have been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States from the annual H-1B cap.
Section 102. Market-Based Visa Limits
Raises the H-1B (specialty occupation) cap from 65,000 to 115,000 and creates a flexible system that adjusts with the market.
Title II � Retaining Foreign Workers Educated in the United States
Section 201. United States Educated Immigrants.
Exempts U.S.-educated professionals with advanced degrees and those who have been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States from the annual green card (i.e. immigrant visa) cap.
Exempts professionals who have earned advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering or math, and who worked in the U.S. for at least three years in a related field, from the immigrant visa cap.
Exempts spouse and minor children of professionals from the employment-based cap. Under current law, only about fifty percent of employment-based visas go to actual workers.
Section 202. Immigrant Visa Backlog Reduction.
Raises the immigrant visa (i.e. green card) cap from 140,000 to 290,000 and allows unused visas to fall forward annually.
Exempts aliens of extraordinary ability, and outstanding researchers and professors from the annual green card limit.
Section 203. Student Visa Reform.
Many employers seek to hire U.S. educated students full-time upon graduation, and this change would enable the employer to start the green card process while the foreign worker is on a student visa (F-1) during Optional Practical Training (OPT). Codifies OPT; which will allow U.S. educated foreign students to work in their field for up to two years after graduation.
Section 204. L-1 Visa Holders Subject to Visa Backlog.
Allows an extension of an L-1 (intracompany transfer) visa beyond the fifth or seventh year if the individual has a green card application pending and is simply caught in the green card backlog. This extension is currently allowed for H-1B (specialty occupation) visa holders, but not for L-1 visa holders.
Section 205. Retaining Workers Subject to Green Card Backlog.
Allows foreign workers who have started the green card process, but who are subject to green card backlogs, to pay a $500.00 supplemental fee to file an application to adjust status. This change would enable foreign workers to remain in the U.S. until the green card becomes available.
Title III � Business Facilitation Through Immigration Reform
Section 301. Streamlining the Adjudication Process for Established Employers.
Requires the creation of a pre-certification program that streamlines the adjudication process, and reduces paperwork burdens, for employers who file multiple applications and who have no history of fraud or abuse. Pre-certification would allow those employers to file a petition on a separate review track and not submit repetitive organizational documentation.
Section 302. Providing Premium Processing of Employment-Based Visa Petitions.
Requires USCIS to allow employers to file a �premium processing� fee for expedited adjudication of employment-based immigrant petitions, as well as for administrative appeals of any decision on an employment-based immigrant petition.
Section 303. Eliminating Procedural Delays in Labor Certification Process.
Requires the Department of Labor to process all applications filed prior to the electronic PERM system within six months of enactment. Clarifies the Department of Labor�s process in providing prevailing wage determinations and requires the Department of Labor to establish a website to post open job orders.
Title IV. Miscellaneous
Section 401. Completion of Background and Security Checks.
Requires that no immigration application may be approved until the appropriate background and security checks are completed and any allegations of fraud have been resolved.
Section 402. Visa Revalidation.
Allows temporary workers who have not violated their status to renew their visa from within the United States.
Section 403. Severability.
Clarifies that if any part of this act is determined to be invalid it will have no effect on the remainder of the provisions.
dresses lady gaga without makeup or wig. Lady+gaga+without+makeup+
chanduv23
07-08 11:23 AM
I agree. Since Employment based immigration is driven by Employer needs, employer has the bigger say.
Since the process is driven by Employer needs, whole immigration process depends on it. Is it fair from employee point of view? Most likely, not. But, thats how current laws are in place. Changing these laws are not easy, to say the least.
This is really a very unfortunate situation.
The big difference between EAD (for AC-21) and GC is that AC-21 employer has to provide supporting EVL document to continue pending I-485. Now, it is upto the applicant how he/she passes this information to the employer when he/she joins that AC-21 job.
Now, many would pass clear info to AC21 employer that they would EVL to support their GC process (I-485) and no other sponsorship is required. Now, its upto their mutual agreement on EVL. Employer is, within his rights, not to support or issue AC-21 EVL letter.
On the practical side, vast majority of employer have no issues with such EVL letters.
Big companies, of course, go with their legal team recommendation as their main purpose to run their business with least legal hassels.
It is two-way street. If employer is really good, employee will make extra effort on his job. IF employee is valuable (from employer's point of view), most employer will go extra mile to retain him/her. I have seen many such incidents in 12+ years of professional career.
There is, of course, work politics involved too. Bitching about co-worker, a$$ kissing, nepotism is part of it.
I have seen cases, where one team member is making 115k and another team member, at same role, is making just 85k. This may be unfair, but legal.
---------------
Life is not fair; get used to it. - Bill Gates
Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates
.
Your perspectives go well beyond what an average immigrant thinks about the whole EB system.
I have seen people "NOT" being themselves and do everything at workplace ONLY because their GC is pending and they do not want to have issues with employer for the sake of GC.
In my opinion, which also complements urs, the whole employment thing - if viewed from the eyes of a common man - one whose immigration status is not tied up with employer, is completely different.
I have seen people facing cultural issues, community issues and a wide range of issues - such things get masked when one's focus is on the GC process, heck leave alone GC - people struggle for even getting h1b and maintaining it.
A lot of people I talk to who come fresh out of school or have 2 years of experience or so, think that they have certain skills and employers would not live without them - whereas it is THEIR struggle to maintain h1b and also work towards GC on long run. All this is nothing but lack of thought process that people must apply but will not because their primary aim is to work out a sponser.
I am not blaming an employee or employer for this but this entire EB based system is set up in that way.
Since the process is driven by Employer needs, whole immigration process depends on it. Is it fair from employee point of view? Most likely, not. But, thats how current laws are in place. Changing these laws are not easy, to say the least.
This is really a very unfortunate situation.
The big difference between EAD (for AC-21) and GC is that AC-21 employer has to provide supporting EVL document to continue pending I-485. Now, it is upto the applicant how he/she passes this information to the employer when he/she joins that AC-21 job.
Now, many would pass clear info to AC21 employer that they would EVL to support their GC process (I-485) and no other sponsorship is required. Now, its upto their mutual agreement on EVL. Employer is, within his rights, not to support or issue AC-21 EVL letter.
On the practical side, vast majority of employer have no issues with such EVL letters.
Big companies, of course, go with their legal team recommendation as their main purpose to run their business with least legal hassels.
It is two-way street. If employer is really good, employee will make extra effort on his job. IF employee is valuable (from employer's point of view), most employer will go extra mile to retain him/her. I have seen many such incidents in 12+ years of professional career.
There is, of course, work politics involved too. Bitching about co-worker, a$$ kissing, nepotism is part of it.
I have seen cases, where one team member is making 115k and another team member, at same role, is making just 85k. This may be unfair, but legal.
---------------
Life is not fair; get used to it. - Bill Gates
Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates
.
Your perspectives go well beyond what an average immigrant thinks about the whole EB system.
I have seen people "NOT" being themselves and do everything at workplace ONLY because their GC is pending and they do not want to have issues with employer for the sake of GC.
In my opinion, which also complements urs, the whole employment thing - if viewed from the eyes of a common man - one whose immigration status is not tied up with employer, is completely different.
I have seen people facing cultural issues, community issues and a wide range of issues - such things get masked when one's focus is on the GC process, heck leave alone GC - people struggle for even getting h1b and maintaining it.
A lot of people I talk to who come fresh out of school or have 2 years of experience or so, think that they have certain skills and employers would not live without them - whereas it is THEIR struggle to maintain h1b and also work towards GC on long run. All this is nothing but lack of thought process that people must apply but will not because their primary aim is to work out a sponser.
I am not blaming an employee or employer for this but this entire EB based system is set up in that way.
more...
makeup lady gaga without makeup
kopguy
07-21 12:41 PM
I do agree severely retrogressed folks do need some concessions and I appreciate guys like Sanhari highlighting this issue. I think we should mobilize the opinion and assert it in a positive way. IV core members have a lot of experience in dealing with the DC system and USCIS let us take advantage of this so that we are not reinventing the wheel.
girlfriend 2011 lady gaga no makeup 2010.
venkybr
08-27 12:58 PM
I-485 application reached NSC on July 11th 9:13 am, signed by K.LAWSON. No receipts yet.
PD - 06/2006, EB-3, INDIA
I-140 - Approved NSC, 10/2006
PD - 06/2006, EB-3, INDIA
I-140 - Approved NSC, 10/2006
hairstyles tattoo lady gaga without
GCNaseeb
08-30 05:55 PM
Some one should create or re-create the thread at Members only forum so it will be seen from the main page.
Please create link to main page Forum So that everyone can access easily.
Please create link to main page Forum So that everyone can access easily.
PBECVictim
08-01 05:24 PM
On July 25th lawyer sent my documents 140 & 485 concurrent, PD port from previous I-140 approval (approved at Nebraska).
Reached Nebraska Service Centre on July 26th.
Will it be processed at Nebraska Service centre or Texas Service centre? According to new direct filing instructions my employer and my residence comes under Texas Service centre.
Reached Nebraska Service Centre on July 26th.
Will it be processed at Nebraska Service centre or Texas Service centre? According to new direct filing instructions my employer and my residence comes under Texas Service centre.
glus
07-02 09:43 AM
Fed-Ex sent today july 2nd.:)
Note: Iam not sure if anyone should have posted on jun 30 to be delivered on july 2nd. But again, i don't know.:mad:
REceived date is important, not the mailed date. So if one sent on jun 30 that's ok.
Note: Iam not sure if anyone should have posted on jun 30 to be delivered on july 2nd. But again, i don't know.:mad:
REceived date is important, not the mailed date. So if one sent on jun 30 that's ok.
No comments:
Post a Comment