zbd
10-29 07:43 PM
It depends on amendments. If there is no one, just after the president's signature. But the good thing about 90 days is, they can add/update things behind the seen.
wallpaper To be clear, my children were
reedandbamboo
09-14 11:04 AM
I am a member of the Tri-State Chapter. I've been meaning to ask you, could you take a look at this letter and the posters and bring it to the attention of the Tri-State members?
Here it is: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21340&page=5
Could the rest of you'll following this thread bring these materials to the notice of your respective State Chapters?
Thanks all!
Here it is: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21340&page=5
Could the rest of you'll following this thread bring these materials to the notice of your respective State Chapters?
Thanks all!
xlr8r
05-27 07:22 PM
Done.
2011 School Children Looking Out
Michael chertoff
12-17 12:49 PM
You may want to focus on (and be thankful for) what you have out of the following:
1. Good health (which we often take for granted)
2. US born kids (at least they are citizens, if that's important to you)
3. US education (a different experience for sure)
4. Good savings (all said and done, your bank balance is very important no matter where you stay in the world)
5. Good work experience (this is transferable and more or less ensures a decent future)
6. Loving/caring family/friends (who will always love you the same and couldn't care less about GC or citizenship)
This obviously is not a all-inclusive list. You may have your own things to add here. To me, having all these priceless gifts on the one hand and not having a GC on the other is clearly lopsided for you to be happy!
And after all, we are not "permanent" residents of anywhere, right? :) So, why attach more than necessary importance to a piece of paper during our prime time?
Cheers,
GG_007
1. Good health (which we often take for granted)
YEs
2. US born kids (at least they are citizens, if that's important to you)
Not married no kids
3. US education (a different experience for sure)
No us education
4. Good savings (all said and done, your bank balance is very important no matter where you stay in the world)
No savings no big salary
5. Good work experience (this is transferable and more or less ensures a decent future)
Yeah just started career
6. Loving/caring family/friends (who will always love you the same and couldn't care less about GC or citizenship)
Dont know about that
Been herr from 7 years..
1. Good health (which we often take for granted)
2. US born kids (at least they are citizens, if that's important to you)
3. US education (a different experience for sure)
4. Good savings (all said and done, your bank balance is very important no matter where you stay in the world)
5. Good work experience (this is transferable and more or less ensures a decent future)
6. Loving/caring family/friends (who will always love you the same and couldn't care less about GC or citizenship)
This obviously is not a all-inclusive list. You may have your own things to add here. To me, having all these priceless gifts on the one hand and not having a GC on the other is clearly lopsided for you to be happy!
And after all, we are not "permanent" residents of anywhere, right? :) So, why attach more than necessary importance to a piece of paper during our prime time?
Cheers,
GG_007
1. Good health (which we often take for granted)
YEs
2. US born kids (at least they are citizens, if that's important to you)
Not married no kids
3. US education (a different experience for sure)
No us education
4. Good savings (all said and done, your bank balance is very important no matter where you stay in the world)
No savings no big salary
5. Good work experience (this is transferable and more or less ensures a decent future)
Yeah just started career
6. Loving/caring family/friends (who will always love you the same and couldn't care less about GC or citizenship)
Dont know about that
Been herr from 7 years..
more...
pani_6
07-27 11:17 AM
I was looking at the comments of one "sodepressed" in the Ron gothcer's forum..I am feeling really bad for this guy..I dont know what logic USCIS follows..but I assure you EB-3 I will fight for fair share and get it..with in 140 K numbers or thro Visa recapture #'s..first is to highlight our problems..so lets do it in creative ways...
EB-3 I I can see we progressing very soon..lets send out those letters..
:)
LEGAL AND STUCK IN - 7 YRS. ILLEGAL AND SNUCK IN - 7 MINS. CHOOSE!
It is a fact that EB3 India is a FORGOTTEN category. There appears to be a sense of intra-category elitism within the larger community that comes together at IV. EB3 I's make feeble attempts to be heard and some take a shot at innovative marketing campaigns to call attention to the plight of being stuck for over 6 ot 7 years in some cases. EB2 I's immediately respond with a self protectionist attitude and preach a higher calling that focuses on comprehensive solutions instead of piecemeal solutions. EB1 I's obviously choose to remain outside the fray, since these are matter of concern to vox populi, not them.
Some EB2's and EB3's then analyse the hell out of USCIS logic, to the extent that they could become full time spin meisters for ANY public organization. With very little fact, a healthy dose of opinion and a mish mash of 'logic', they piece together their 'strong' arguments -one way or the other.
Lost in this useless din of irrelevant analysis paralysis is the real misery of thousands of EB3 I's (such as myself) that have been stuck for years for no fault of ours. By the way, I happen to be a highly educated (for those that care) Executive that went to Top Private Universities in the US that happens to be stuck in EB3 ONLY because the company HR rep and lawyer at the time, chose to go down this path. POint being, there is no reason for EB2 I's to pontificate from a sense of elitist protectionism because there are EB3 I's like me that can outsmart a bunch of you in no time. Seriously. (This is for those that preach that if you are 'smart' you should be in EB2. Go read those threads).
So bottomline, let us stop behaving like CIS vs Anti CIS camps and instead UNITE towards the common cause. Let EB3I's air their frustrations. If you can come to help, do so. If not, stay out of it completely. No more half ass 'logic', please.
Thanks!
EB-3 I I can see we progressing very soon..lets send out those letters..
:)
LEGAL AND STUCK IN - 7 YRS. ILLEGAL AND SNUCK IN - 7 MINS. CHOOSE!
It is a fact that EB3 India is a FORGOTTEN category. There appears to be a sense of intra-category elitism within the larger community that comes together at IV. EB3 I's make feeble attempts to be heard and some take a shot at innovative marketing campaigns to call attention to the plight of being stuck for over 6 ot 7 years in some cases. EB2 I's immediately respond with a self protectionist attitude and preach a higher calling that focuses on comprehensive solutions instead of piecemeal solutions. EB1 I's obviously choose to remain outside the fray, since these are matter of concern to vox populi, not them.
Some EB2's and EB3's then analyse the hell out of USCIS logic, to the extent that they could become full time spin meisters for ANY public organization. With very little fact, a healthy dose of opinion and a mish mash of 'logic', they piece together their 'strong' arguments -one way or the other.
Lost in this useless din of irrelevant analysis paralysis is the real misery of thousands of EB3 I's (such as myself) that have been stuck for years for no fault of ours. By the way, I happen to be a highly educated (for those that care) Executive that went to Top Private Universities in the US that happens to be stuck in EB3 ONLY because the company HR rep and lawyer at the time, chose to go down this path. POint being, there is no reason for EB2 I's to pontificate from a sense of elitist protectionism because there are EB3 I's like me that can outsmart a bunch of you in no time. Seriously. (This is for those that preach that if you are 'smart' you should be in EB2. Go read those threads).
So bottomline, let us stop behaving like CIS vs Anti CIS camps and instead UNITE towards the common cause. Let EB3I's air their frustrations. If you can come to help, do so. If not, stay out of it completely. No more half ass 'logic', please.
Thanks!
gc28262
07-19 07:56 PM
My thoughts:
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
I understand and share the despair and hopelessness felt by EB3 guys.
Unfortunately when Visa bulletin comes out and when EB2 progresses, we EB3 guys are suddenly aware of our plight and switch to action mode. After a while this enthusiasm fades away till the next bulletin. These emotional responses won't get us anywhere. If we need to get our issues resolved, we need to work on a consistent basis irrespective of the visa bulletin status. We all need to take more active participation in IVs action items as well as contributing to IV efforts as much as we can. IMO signing up for contributions is the easiest thing to do.
Spillover issues:
Upto 2007 these spillovers were coming to EB3. Some folks analysed INA and figured it out that USCIS/DOS was interpreting spillovers incorrectly and that it should flow across. So they contacted USCIS with their findings and argued for their cause. Since then USCIS/DOS interpretation of spillover interpretation changed. Remember these folks did a thorough analysis of the laws and then approached USCIS/DOS. So to change it the other way you have to have a solid legal basis. Writing to lawmakers just out of frustration will not help. If USCIS/DOS is interpreting spillovers correctly as per law, there isn't much anyone can change it without a legislative change.
If we have to go through legislative path, there are easier fixes that can be achieved by legislative fixes like visa recapture etc. That is the reason, IV has planned a long term strategy to end retrogression for all categories. We all need to participate in these action items, contact lawmakers etc with our issues.
Here is an official IV discussion about spillover rules:
ImmigrationVoice.org - USCIS data analysis (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36#_Toc246743452)
Visa spillage rules
There is a supply of 140,000 permanent visas in the EB category for a year. EB1, EB2, EB3 have an equal share of 28.6% or 40,040 visas per year. There is a 7% cap per country on the overall legal immigration including family and skill based. This amounts to 25,620 visas for a single country in EB category. There is a rule to cap 27% of a category in a quarter. So in the first quarter only 10,811 (rounded) visas can be given in any of the categories.
If the supply exceeds demand capped by per country, then per country quota is relaxed to the matching ratio of family based approvals. For practical consideration, it means that the spillover visas beyond 25,620 to a single country can’t be given in the first 3 quarters. The last quarter spillover will need to be first in first out for all the retrogressed countries. This should not limit immigrants from other countries to use up their quota.
Following is the rule from INA Section 201to maintain ratio. There is a different section to override this logic in the last quarter of any calendar year.
(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling. - If it is determined that the total number of immigrant visas made available under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year, in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section and section 203) in a manner so that
(1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to such level under section 201 (d);
(2) except as provided in subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(a), and
(3) 3/ except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of the visa numbers made available under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas made available under the respective paragraph to the total number of visas made available under section 203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 203(b) or 203(a) , respectively, or as limiting the number of visas that may be issued under section 203(a)(2)(A) pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).
more...
GCneeded
05-23 01:04 PM
Sent Email to all 10 senators + 2 senators from CA
2010 to children. From a school
drirshad
05-06 03:54 PM
Use the letter to modify for our cause, May 14 is the start day for CIR discussion in Senate ......
http://capwiz.com/justiceforimmigrants/issues/alert/?alertid=9714021&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id]
U.S. SENATE TO CONSIDER IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION
CONTACT YOUR SENATORS TODAY
U.S. SENATE TO CONSIDER IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION
Background. Democratic and Republican Senators, along with the Bush Administration, are currently negotiating compromise immigration reform legislation which could be considered on the floor of the U.S. Senate beginning the week of May 14. Should these negotiations falter, the Democratic leadership could choose to bring the STRIVE Act, or a similar bill, to the floor for immediate consideration. It is important that you contact your Senators in the next few days and ask for their support for a just and humane immigration reform bill.
USCCB Position. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and other organizational members of the Justice for Immigrants (JFI) Campaign are working to ensure that any compromise immigration legislation includes the principles set forth by the U.S. bishops. Any legislation which would warrant USCCB support would include:
1. a legalization program for the undocumented which includes family unity and a realistic path to citizenship;
2. a new worker program with worker protections and a path to citizenship; and
3. the preservation of family reunification as a cornerstone of our immigration system and the elimination of family backlogs and waiting times.
To contact your Senators, call 202-224-3121. The sample letter can be accessed via the JFI website at www.justiceforimmigrants.org or can be faxed to the Senators� offices. Use link below to Email the Senators.
http://capwiz.com/justiceforimmigrants/issues/alert/?alertid=9714021&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id]
http://capwiz.com/justiceforimmigrants/issues/alert/?alertid=9714021&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id]
U.S. SENATE TO CONSIDER IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION
CONTACT YOUR SENATORS TODAY
U.S. SENATE TO CONSIDER IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION
Background. Democratic and Republican Senators, along with the Bush Administration, are currently negotiating compromise immigration reform legislation which could be considered on the floor of the U.S. Senate beginning the week of May 14. Should these negotiations falter, the Democratic leadership could choose to bring the STRIVE Act, or a similar bill, to the floor for immediate consideration. It is important that you contact your Senators in the next few days and ask for their support for a just and humane immigration reform bill.
USCCB Position. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and other organizational members of the Justice for Immigrants (JFI) Campaign are working to ensure that any compromise immigration legislation includes the principles set forth by the U.S. bishops. Any legislation which would warrant USCCB support would include:
1. a legalization program for the undocumented which includes family unity and a realistic path to citizenship;
2. a new worker program with worker protections and a path to citizenship; and
3. the preservation of family reunification as a cornerstone of our immigration system and the elimination of family backlogs and waiting times.
To contact your Senators, call 202-224-3121. The sample letter can be accessed via the JFI website at www.justiceforimmigrants.org or can be faxed to the Senators� offices. Use link below to Email the Senators.
http://capwiz.com/justiceforimmigrants/issues/alert/?alertid=9714021&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id]
more...
sk2006
09-03 03:50 PM
Congrats n enjoy freedom
Just curious: Did you registered/sign up for CRIS mail?.
I believe it is really a nice surprise if we see the card rather than customary bunch mails.
Sheela,
I have signed up for cris mails.
I do get and did get emails on every update.
Online status shows the most recent update.
Just curious: Did you registered/sign up for CRIS mail?.
I believe it is really a nice surprise if we see the card rather than customary bunch mails.
Sheela,
I have signed up for cris mails.
I do get and did get emails on every update.
Online status shows the most recent update.
hair Mellon#39;s Children#39;s School
chantu
08-20 12:04 PM
No need to send any cover letter. Rest all docs you mentioned are correct. No more docs needed.
All,
Sorry if I am posting on wrong thread. I am in the process of sending my documents for EAD renewal and had few questions
Do we need to include a cover letter ?
Also I am sending the following documents.
1) copy I-485 receipt notice
2) copy of EAD (front and back)
3) two color photos
4) Filing fee check $340
5) Mailer stub received from previous EAD.
Am I missing anything else?
All,
Sorry if I am posting on wrong thread. I am in the process of sending my documents for EAD renewal and had few questions
Do we need to include a cover letter ?
Also I am sending the following documents.
1) copy I-485 receipt notice
2) copy of EAD (front and back)
3) two color photos
4) Filing fee check $340
5) Mailer stub received from previous EAD.
Am I missing anything else?
more...
abhijitp
07-10 01:54 AM
Here is some more fax numbers (older entries moved to the bottom of this post):
From http://www.edgar.k12.wi.us/cloverbelt/medialist.htm
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1-715-858-7308
Wausau Daily Herald 1-715-848-9361
Chippewa Herald Telegram 1-715-723-9644
Marshfield News Herald 1-715-387-4175
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 1-715-848-9361
St. Point Journal 1-715-344-7229
Medford Star News 1-715-748-2699
TV 7 – Wausau 1-715-842-0879
TV 9 – Wausau 1-715-848-0195
TV 13 – Eau Claire 1-715-832-0246
TV 18 – Eau Claire 1-715-831-1859
From http://www.nynjtc.org/issues/natmedia.html
New York Times: FAX: 212.556.7614
Washington Post: FAX: 310.277.3704
Time Magazine: FAX: 212.522.1530
Newsweek: FAX: 212.445.4120
USA Today: FAX: 703.247.3108
Wall Street Journal: FAX: 202.862.9266
NPR: FAX: 202.414.3329
AP: FAX: 202.776.9570
CNN: FAX: 404.681.3578
Chicago Tribune: FAX: 202.824.8302
Los Angeles Times: FAX: 213.237.7968
San Francisco Chronicle: email: letters@sfchronicle.com
San Diego Union: FAX: 619.293.1440
Sacramento Bee: FAX: 916.321.1196
Oakland Tribune: FAX: 510.208.6477
Long Beach Press Telegram: FAX: 562.499.1277
Monterey County Herald: FAX: 831.372.8401
___________________________________
Here is the list copied from http://www.patrickcrusade.org/Fax.html:
ABC WASHINGTON DC 202-887-7684
ABC 20/20 NEW YORK NY 212-456-2969
ABC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
ABC TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-557-5210
ABC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-954-7633
ABC WORLD NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
AP LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-1200
AP SAN DIEGO CA 619-291-2098
AP WASHINGTON DC 202-828-6422
AP (BROADCAST) WASHINGTON DC 202-955-7367
ASSOCIATED PRESS BOSTON MA 617-338-8125
ASSOCIATED PRESS LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-9836
ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOENIX AZ 602-254-9573
ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-552-9430
ASSOCIATED PRESS MN MINNEAPOLIS MN 612-332-4245
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3183
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3192
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3490
BOSTON GLOBE NEWSRM BOSTON MA 617-929-3186
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-426-1865
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-542-1315
C-SPAN WASHINGTON DC 202-737-6226
CBS NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS WASHINGTON DC 202-659-2586
CBS (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-659-5578
CBS EVE NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-975-2115
CBS MORNING WASHINGTON DC 202-331-1765
CBS NEWS LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0285
CBS NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CBS NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0321
CBS TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES CHICAGO IL 312-321-3084
CHICAGO TRIBUNE CHICAGO IL 312-222-3143
CHRISTIAN SCI. MON. BOSTON MA 617-450-2317
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MO BOSTON MA 617-289-5352
CNBC HOLLYWOOD CA 213-465-1034
CNN LOS ANGELES CA 213-460-5081
CNN SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-398-4049
CNN PRESIDENT ATLANTA GA 404-827-1575
FORBES LOS ANGELES CA 213-478-8437
GANNETT WASHINGTON DC 202-243-0190
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA 916-446-7326
LOS ANGELES TIMES CHATSWORTH CA 818-772-3338
LOS ANGELES TIMES COSTA MESA CA 714-966-7711
LOS ANGELES TIMES LOS ANGELES CA 213-237-4712
LOS ANGELES TIMES SACRAMENTO CA 916-322-2422
LOS ANGELES TIMES VENTURA CA 805-658-5547
NBC WASHINGTON DC 202-362-2009
NBC (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 703-685-2197
NBC NEWS BURBANK CA 818-840-4275
NBC NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-956-2140
NBC NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NBC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-315-4037
NBC TV LOS ANGELES CA 818-840-4275
NBC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NEW YORK POST NEW YORK NY 212-732-4241
NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NEWSWEEK LOS ANGELES CA 213-444-5287
NEWSWEEK NEW YORK NY 212-421-4993
NEWSWEEK SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-788-4437
NEWSWEEK WASHINGTON DC 202-783-6512
NPRRADIO SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-553-2241
NY TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NY TIMES SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-421-2684
NY TIMES WASHINGTON DC 202-862-0340
REUTERS LOS ANGELES CA 213-622-0056
REUTERS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-986-5147
REUTERS WASHINGTON DC 202-898-8383
TIME LOS ANGELES CA 213-824-7205
TIME SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-434-5209
TIME WASHINGTON DC 202-463-5005
TIME MAGAZINE NEW YORK NY 212-522-0451
UPI BOSTON MA 617-338-9774
UPI LOS ANGELES CA 213-620-1237
UPI SEATTLE WA 206-283-0408
UPI WASHINGTON DC 202-789-2362
UPI (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-842-3625
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT WASHINGTON DC 202-955-2713
USA RADIO NETWORK DALLAS TX 214-243-3489
USA TODAY WASHINGTON DC 202-276-5527
WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON DC 202-862-9266
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ANGELES CA 213-658-3828
WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK NY 212-416-2658
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON DC 202-334-4480
Here is the list copied from http://www.mothersalert.org/mediafax.html
CNN: 404-681-3578
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 773-702-0725
New York Times: 212-556-7306
Washington Post: 202-496-3936
LA Times: 213-237-4712
CBS-TV Nightly News: 212-975-1893
60 Minutes: 212-975-2019
ABC Nightly News: 212-456-3720
UPI: 202-898-8057
AP: 212-621-7529
AFP [Agences France Presse]: 202-414-0524
Time Magazine: 212-522-0323
Newsweek Magazine: 212-212-445-5844
US News & World Report: 212-916-7400 or 212-716-6800 -- May or May Not Still Be Working
USA Today: 212-371-0241
CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]: 416-205-7459
Australian Broadcasting Corp.: 202-626-5188
Greenpeace USA: 202-462-4507
All International Greenpeace Fax#s Should be Accessable through: http://www.greenpeace.org
Center For Defense Information: 202-462-4559
Jim Hightower Show: 512-478-8536
Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now": 212-747-1698 and 202-588-0896
Boston Globe: 617-929-2019
Der Speigel: 212-302-6258
Reuters: 202-898-8401
PBS' "Frontline: 617-254-0243
Penthouse Magazine:212-702-6279
Ralph Nader: 202-234-5176
Las Vegas Sun: 702-383-7264
NPR's "Talk of the Nation": 202-414-3329
Pacifica Radio, KPFK: 818-763-7526
Pacifica Radio, WPFW: 202-588-0561
Pacifica Radio, KPFT: 713-526-5750
Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2653
Christian Science Monitor: 212-764-9648
From http://www.edgar.k12.wi.us/cloverbelt/medialist.htm
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1-715-858-7308
Wausau Daily Herald 1-715-848-9361
Chippewa Herald Telegram 1-715-723-9644
Marshfield News Herald 1-715-387-4175
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 1-715-848-9361
St. Point Journal 1-715-344-7229
Medford Star News 1-715-748-2699
TV 7 – Wausau 1-715-842-0879
TV 9 – Wausau 1-715-848-0195
TV 13 – Eau Claire 1-715-832-0246
TV 18 – Eau Claire 1-715-831-1859
From http://www.nynjtc.org/issues/natmedia.html
New York Times: FAX: 212.556.7614
Washington Post: FAX: 310.277.3704
Time Magazine: FAX: 212.522.1530
Newsweek: FAX: 212.445.4120
USA Today: FAX: 703.247.3108
Wall Street Journal: FAX: 202.862.9266
NPR: FAX: 202.414.3329
AP: FAX: 202.776.9570
CNN: FAX: 404.681.3578
Chicago Tribune: FAX: 202.824.8302
Los Angeles Times: FAX: 213.237.7968
San Francisco Chronicle: email: letters@sfchronicle.com
San Diego Union: FAX: 619.293.1440
Sacramento Bee: FAX: 916.321.1196
Oakland Tribune: FAX: 510.208.6477
Long Beach Press Telegram: FAX: 562.499.1277
Monterey County Herald: FAX: 831.372.8401
___________________________________
Here is the list copied from http://www.patrickcrusade.org/Fax.html:
ABC WASHINGTON DC 202-887-7684
ABC 20/20 NEW YORK NY 212-456-2969
ABC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
ABC TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-557-5210
ABC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-954-7633
ABC WORLD NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
AP LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-1200
AP SAN DIEGO CA 619-291-2098
AP WASHINGTON DC 202-828-6422
AP (BROADCAST) WASHINGTON DC 202-955-7367
ASSOCIATED PRESS BOSTON MA 617-338-8125
ASSOCIATED PRESS LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-9836
ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOENIX AZ 602-254-9573
ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-552-9430
ASSOCIATED PRESS MN MINNEAPOLIS MN 612-332-4245
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3183
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3192
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3490
BOSTON GLOBE NEWSRM BOSTON MA 617-929-3186
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-426-1865
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-542-1315
C-SPAN WASHINGTON DC 202-737-6226
CBS NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS WASHINGTON DC 202-659-2586
CBS (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-659-5578
CBS EVE NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-975-2115
CBS MORNING WASHINGTON DC 202-331-1765
CBS NEWS LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0285
CBS NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CBS NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0321
CBS TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES CHICAGO IL 312-321-3084
CHICAGO TRIBUNE CHICAGO IL 312-222-3143
CHRISTIAN SCI. MON. BOSTON MA 617-450-2317
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MO BOSTON MA 617-289-5352
CNBC HOLLYWOOD CA 213-465-1034
CNN LOS ANGELES CA 213-460-5081
CNN SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-398-4049
CNN PRESIDENT ATLANTA GA 404-827-1575
FORBES LOS ANGELES CA 213-478-8437
GANNETT WASHINGTON DC 202-243-0190
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA 916-446-7326
LOS ANGELES TIMES CHATSWORTH CA 818-772-3338
LOS ANGELES TIMES COSTA MESA CA 714-966-7711
LOS ANGELES TIMES LOS ANGELES CA 213-237-4712
LOS ANGELES TIMES SACRAMENTO CA 916-322-2422
LOS ANGELES TIMES VENTURA CA 805-658-5547
NBC WASHINGTON DC 202-362-2009
NBC (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 703-685-2197
NBC NEWS BURBANK CA 818-840-4275
NBC NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-956-2140
NBC NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NBC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-315-4037
NBC TV LOS ANGELES CA 818-840-4275
NBC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NEW YORK POST NEW YORK NY 212-732-4241
NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NEWSWEEK LOS ANGELES CA 213-444-5287
NEWSWEEK NEW YORK NY 212-421-4993
NEWSWEEK SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-788-4437
NEWSWEEK WASHINGTON DC 202-783-6512
NPRRADIO SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-553-2241
NY TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NY TIMES SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-421-2684
NY TIMES WASHINGTON DC 202-862-0340
REUTERS LOS ANGELES CA 213-622-0056
REUTERS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-986-5147
REUTERS WASHINGTON DC 202-898-8383
TIME LOS ANGELES CA 213-824-7205
TIME SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-434-5209
TIME WASHINGTON DC 202-463-5005
TIME MAGAZINE NEW YORK NY 212-522-0451
UPI BOSTON MA 617-338-9774
UPI LOS ANGELES CA 213-620-1237
UPI SEATTLE WA 206-283-0408
UPI WASHINGTON DC 202-789-2362
UPI (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-842-3625
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT WASHINGTON DC 202-955-2713
USA RADIO NETWORK DALLAS TX 214-243-3489
USA TODAY WASHINGTON DC 202-276-5527
WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON DC 202-862-9266
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ANGELES CA 213-658-3828
WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK NY 212-416-2658
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON DC 202-334-4480
Here is the list copied from http://www.mothersalert.org/mediafax.html
CNN: 404-681-3578
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 773-702-0725
New York Times: 212-556-7306
Washington Post: 202-496-3936
LA Times: 213-237-4712
CBS-TV Nightly News: 212-975-1893
60 Minutes: 212-975-2019
ABC Nightly News: 212-456-3720
UPI: 202-898-8057
AP: 212-621-7529
AFP [Agences France Presse]: 202-414-0524
Time Magazine: 212-522-0323
Newsweek Magazine: 212-212-445-5844
US News & World Report: 212-916-7400 or 212-716-6800 -- May or May Not Still Be Working
USA Today: 212-371-0241
CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]: 416-205-7459
Australian Broadcasting Corp.: 202-626-5188
Greenpeace USA: 202-462-4507
All International Greenpeace Fax#s Should be Accessable through: http://www.greenpeace.org
Center For Defense Information: 202-462-4559
Jim Hightower Show: 512-478-8536
Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now": 212-747-1698 and 202-588-0896
Boston Globe: 617-929-2019
Der Speigel: 212-302-6258
Reuters: 202-898-8401
PBS' "Frontline: 617-254-0243
Penthouse Magazine:212-702-6279
Ralph Nader: 202-234-5176
Las Vegas Sun: 702-383-7264
NPR's "Talk of the Nation": 202-414-3329
Pacifica Radio, KPFK: 818-763-7526
Pacifica Radio, WPFW: 202-588-0561
Pacifica Radio, KPFT: 713-526-5750
Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2653
Christian Science Monitor: 212-764-9648
hot 19 - 5 - 2010
hindu_king
03-06 04:26 PM
What pisses me off is that there are 220,000 visa numbers every year for family based GCs while skilled immigrants get only 140,000. Nothing wrong with immigrants wanting to bring immediate family members but this is causing nothing but chain migration. I think USA give more GCs to cab drivers than skilled immigrants.
more...
house Primary school
sankap
07-10 12:19 PM
@desi3933:
What's a "bona fide" job? Where did you see that a job needs to be"bona fide?"
Also, if you're self-employed, why can't you show that's a "legitimate" business? Who's asking for a business plan--and why should that be difficult to make if you're self-employed? Please, let's not *assume* things. We should base our opinions only on facts and evidence.
Its not ability to pay issue? The main point is to show that job is real, and bonafine.
May I ask, how do you plan to demonstate that job offered in self employment is same/similar to I-140 job and it is bonafide job offer?
.
What's a "bona fide" job? Where did you see that a job needs to be"bona fide?"
Also, if you're self-employed, why can't you show that's a "legitimate" business? Who's asking for a business plan--and why should that be difficult to make if you're self-employed? Please, let's not *assume* things. We should base our opinions only on facts and evidence.
Its not ability to pay issue? The main point is to show that job is real, and bonafine.
May I ask, how do you plan to demonstate that job offered in self employment is same/similar to I-140 job and it is bonafide job offer?
.
tattoo children from school in
anukcs
09-30 03:13 PM
I'm currently on my 4th EAD & AP, and I used AC21 twice so far to switch jobs (similar job descriptions, including the specific technologies I worked on). On both occasions, I have not informed USCIS. My attorney said one is not legally required to do so, and that we could respond if there is any RFE.
But I also know that there are lot of attorneys out there who recommend informing USCIS about the job change. I don't personally know of anyone who have used AC21 and went on to get the green card, so I can't really tell which approach is better. In either case, make sure to have all relevant paper work with you - specifically the experience letters from old employers with proper job descriptions.
As for the salary increases when changing jobs, I did talk to more than one attorney about this. And what I heard consistently was that higher salary is not as much of a problem as lower salary could be. In my case, I had salary increases of more than 30% each time I changed jobs, and I am doing fine so far. Whether that becomes a problem for me or not, I will deal with it when it happens.
I traveled out of the country a couple of times using AP. On my return to US, at the port of entry (SFO), I was asked if I still worked for the company that originally sponsored my GC application. I told them I changed employers using AC21, and that I was not legally required to inform USCIS about the job change. And they let me go without causing any trouble. Not sure if anyone else had different experiences in such case, but the immigration officers at SFO seem to be somewhat easier to deal with (assuming you haven't done anything wrong, of course).
I did have trouble with AC21 once. I ended up having a gap between my 2nd and 3rd EADs (so did my wife too), as we tried to do too much 'optimization' of EADs. Well, we learned the hard way that 'optimization' effort is bad, as both of us had to stop working during the gap. It's not a very pleasant feeling having to explain our respective employers that we had such issue. We lost money too, as we couldn't be legally paid during the gap - in addition to the unnecessary stress. I wish USCIS issues EADs with longer validity period - something like 3 years (but I once heard Aman say that they couldn't do so due to a software glitch in their system!!). In any case, we are now filing for EAD renewals well in advance of the current one's expiry.
Other issues with AC21 that we faced are things like having to pay for EAD and AP renewals every year, which is quite expensive. I guess you could negotiate this with your new employer when changing jobs. And the sheer inability to change your job roles or take on more responsibilities (on paper too!) is frustrating, but that is more of a lengthy GC processing symptom than an AC21 issue.
All things considered, I think AC21 is good. It's got it's set of issues, especially if you don't use it wisely, but it at least lets you have some kind of progress in your careers. The way I see it, if there is no career progress, I can at least make more money. You got to gain something over years of waiting to keep you going!
Thanks for the info. How early we should renew the EAD? TIA. anukcs
But I also know that there are lot of attorneys out there who recommend informing USCIS about the job change. I don't personally know of anyone who have used AC21 and went on to get the green card, so I can't really tell which approach is better. In either case, make sure to have all relevant paper work with you - specifically the experience letters from old employers with proper job descriptions.
As for the salary increases when changing jobs, I did talk to more than one attorney about this. And what I heard consistently was that higher salary is not as much of a problem as lower salary could be. In my case, I had salary increases of more than 30% each time I changed jobs, and I am doing fine so far. Whether that becomes a problem for me or not, I will deal with it when it happens.
I traveled out of the country a couple of times using AP. On my return to US, at the port of entry (SFO), I was asked if I still worked for the company that originally sponsored my GC application. I told them I changed employers using AC21, and that I was not legally required to inform USCIS about the job change. And they let me go without causing any trouble. Not sure if anyone else had different experiences in such case, but the immigration officers at SFO seem to be somewhat easier to deal with (assuming you haven't done anything wrong, of course).
I did have trouble with AC21 once. I ended up having a gap between my 2nd and 3rd EADs (so did my wife too), as we tried to do too much 'optimization' of EADs. Well, we learned the hard way that 'optimization' effort is bad, as both of us had to stop working during the gap. It's not a very pleasant feeling having to explain our respective employers that we had such issue. We lost money too, as we couldn't be legally paid during the gap - in addition to the unnecessary stress. I wish USCIS issues EADs with longer validity period - something like 3 years (but I once heard Aman say that they couldn't do so due to a software glitch in their system!!). In any case, we are now filing for EAD renewals well in advance of the current one's expiry.
Other issues with AC21 that we faced are things like having to pay for EAD and AP renewals every year, which is quite expensive. I guess you could negotiate this with your new employer when changing jobs. And the sheer inability to change your job roles or take on more responsibilities (on paper too!) is frustrating, but that is more of a lengthy GC processing symptom than an AC21 issue.
All things considered, I think AC21 is good. It's got it's set of issues, especially if you don't use it wisely, but it at least lets you have some kind of progress in your careers. The way I see it, if there is no career progress, I can at least make more money. You got to gain something over years of waiting to keep you going!
Thanks for the info. How early we should renew the EAD? TIA. anukcs
more...
pictures The children of school
rsharma
09-24 12:35 PM
I have no problem with porting, but the priority date should be starting from when they acquired required qualifications for the job.
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
The priority date should be always based on the particular labor filling or the filing of I140 (which ever applicable)
I am not against anyone getting GC. If everyome gets GC today, I am all for it. But no solution is in sight. But that does not mean someone elase will try to push EB2 back.
Therefore just wanted to let EB2 guys realize what will happen to them if no action is taken.
This is very simillar to labor substitution...
Example, if someone with B.S and 2 years experience had applied in EB3 in 2005 and tries to port now I think it is fair to have the ported PD not in 2005, but 2008 when the person acquired B.S + 5 years experience.
This would automatically address all those folks who deserved to be in EB2 but couldnt either becuase lawyer screwed up or issues with sponsoring company.
The priority date should be always based on the particular labor filling or the filing of I140 (which ever applicable)
I am not against anyone getting GC. If everyome gets GC today, I am all for it. But no solution is in sight. But that does not mean someone elase will try to push EB2 back.
Therefore just wanted to let EB2 guys realize what will happen to them if no action is taken.
This is very simillar to labor substitution...
dresses schools in Turkey?
gccovet
02-12 10:52 AM
bump^^^^^^^
more...
makeup a school for all children!
amitjoey
07-09 04:58 PM
There is a 99% chance of a TV crew covering this event. I just spoke with them and they are just working out the logistics. They will reach the USCIS office at around 12 PM and said that it would be great if some of us are available around that time to talk to them.
Any D.C. area people interested in going there, please send me a private message with your name and phone number so that we can talk and work out the logistics.
Man, that is interesting. Great effort by english_august. I am in california, otherwise would have definately been there.
Any D.C. area people interested in going there, please send me a private message with your name and phone number so that we can talk and work out the logistics.
Man, that is interesting. Great effort by english_august. I am in california, otherwise would have definately been there.
girlfriend school children long ago
leo4ever
02-20 09:00 PM
Your transaction ID for this payment is: 2ES10053VD0206641.
and also sent the email to IV.
I feel bad, i can not participate in the Advocacy days but i am spreading the word to all my friends.
-Leo
and also sent the email to IV.
I feel bad, i can not participate in the Advocacy days but i am spreading the word to all my friends.
-Leo
hairstyles off to primary school this
conchshell
07-11 01:55 AM
Viceroy Lord Wavell and his assistants laughed when M.K. Gandhi told them that one day they will be forced to leave India. What they did not understood that they were not politicians, they were bureaucrats. When the political power behind peaceful civil disobedience was unleashed, a nation took shape, and what Gandhi told Wavell became a reality.
Something similar repeated in United States recently when thousands of legal immigrants were given a cold shoulder, despite of their merit based claim for an American Green Card. They decided to apply Gandhian way of peaceful protest by sending thousands of flower bouquets to USCIS, an American agency responsible for immigration and citizenship. Instead of offering an apology, USCIS chief decided to again ignore the immigrants and simply issued a statement that the flowers will be forwarded to the injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Once again a bureaucrat miscalculated the power hidden behind a peaceful protest. Now the power behind flowers is becoming a media mainstream story. NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Yahoo News are a few to name. Bollywood, has recently issued a statement providing its full support to Immigration Voice, the non profit organization behind the flower campaign.
An American way of fighting injustice "A law suit" is on its way, the usual rallies and demonstrations are about to begin. However, in America, its first time after Martin Luther King Jr., that someone has tried to apply Gandhi's way to fight injustice. It is yet not clear that what would be the outcome of this campaign, but there are rumours that USCIS is already discussing internally to reverse the discriminatory decision which resulted in this flower campaign causing enough embarrassement to them.
Its amazing to witness that 60 years after Gandhi's demise, his ideology is still relevant. We are sure its gonna remain relevant till there are Lord Wavell's in this world. Wavell's can momentarily laugh thinking that unorganized immigrants are helpless, but when the peaceful protest will demonstrate its political power, they surely will realize what Gandhi and Gandhian ways are all about.
Something similar repeated in United States recently when thousands of legal immigrants were given a cold shoulder, despite of their merit based claim for an American Green Card. They decided to apply Gandhian way of peaceful protest by sending thousands of flower bouquets to USCIS, an American agency responsible for immigration and citizenship. Instead of offering an apology, USCIS chief decided to again ignore the immigrants and simply issued a statement that the flowers will be forwarded to the injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Once again a bureaucrat miscalculated the power hidden behind a peaceful protest. Now the power behind flowers is becoming a media mainstream story. NY Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Yahoo News are a few to name. Bollywood, has recently issued a statement providing its full support to Immigration Voice, the non profit organization behind the flower campaign.
An American way of fighting injustice "A law suit" is on its way, the usual rallies and demonstrations are about to begin. However, in America, its first time after Martin Luther King Jr., that someone has tried to apply Gandhi's way to fight injustice. It is yet not clear that what would be the outcome of this campaign, but there are rumours that USCIS is already discussing internally to reverse the discriminatory decision which resulted in this flower campaign causing enough embarrassement to them.
Its amazing to witness that 60 years after Gandhi's demise, his ideology is still relevant. We are sure its gonna remain relevant till there are Lord Wavell's in this world. Wavell's can momentarily laugh thinking that unorganized immigrants are helpless, but when the peaceful protest will demonstrate its political power, they surely will realize what Gandhi and Gandhian ways are all about.
makemygc
07-02 08:52 AM
Sent on Jun 29 using USPS through 2 days priority.
Does anyone know how to figure out if USPS has received the packet? Site only tells that shipping info was received on Jun 29.
Does anyone know how to figure out if USPS has received the packet? Site only tells that shipping info was received on Jun 29.
chintals
09-04 03:40 PM
Hello,
Here are my case details.
PD-09/04
I-140 -EB3 - TSC- Approved 08/06.
I-140-EB2 - Pending at TSC. RD 04/25/07 based on Perm to port 09/04 PD.
I-485/EAD/AP filed at NSC on 08/03/07. RD 08/06/07.
I guess longway to go for getting receipts.
Here are my case details.
PD-09/04
I-140 -EB3 - TSC- Approved 08/06.
I-140-EB2 - Pending at TSC. RD 04/25/07 based on Perm to port 09/04 PD.
I-485/EAD/AP filed at NSC on 08/03/07. RD 08/06/07.
I guess longway to go for getting receipts.
No comments:
Post a Comment