gondalguru
07-02 08:42 AM
Sent july 28th
Delivered to NE July 2nd, 7:55AM
Signed by R Williams
Delivered to NE July 2nd, 7:55AM
Signed by R Williams
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
kg318
04-22 09:44 PM
After reading this post completely, here is my take. There are 2 things to view here:
1) employer and employee conduct.
2) non compete.
employee by leaving his job to work for PF has actually worked in unethical way if not illegal. You should have joined the PF to start with. Second thing is, you said your PERM is in process. How long ago did you file it? If you filed it more than 6 months ago, maybe you didnt know you were going to leave. Did you file it very recently despite knowing that you may join PF? In that case why you wasted your employers money? Also who picked the fight? You or employer? See... if the case goes to the court, the judge is going to notice this behaviour and will not like it. I am not saying you are a bad guy, we all make mistakes like this, but in court of law everyone is equal.
employer is not only unethical but also unprofessional in holding back employee wages. It does not matter when or with what intention the employee left, employers should not be breaking the law by withholding wages.
Since both sides have made some mistakes, I suggest get a good attorney. That attorney will negotiate with your employer and you will get your money, experience letter and also attorney expenses. There is no need to involve your PF at this stage. Your employer has a relationship with that company and that is the reason they do not want to go to court. However if you conduct yourself in unethical or unprofessional way, your previous employer can indicate that to your current company and that is a bad career move. Your case is very simple and it will be settled out of court. I would say, you do not get involved and commit mistakes under stress, let an attorney handle it.
Lastly, if you consult an attorney, any good attorney should tell you 2 things:
1) you have advantage over employer because employer has withheld your wages which is illegal as they have violated statutes for PERM.
2) It also depends on your non compete, you dont know what you signed. It may not be directly related to GC expense or direct revenue loss, but it may be something that your employer can hold you accountable.
I think your employer is just mad that you left them on unpleasant terms. Here is what I recommend:
1) Send an email, and offer to apologize if any of your actions left the employer less than satisfied. "DO NOT explicitly admit to mistakes. But offer a sincere apology if that can close the matter." Highlight, what you have done for the company, including placing 4 employees, working for 2 years etc. Regret that you had to leave despite filing perm with them and say you will be willing to help in future. Then call your boss. ask for his help. If he doesnt pick up, doesnt matter, leave a VM. However much you dont like doing it. It is necessary to do so. World is a small place and never burn bridges. Also mention in email you would like to get $4K back and experience letter. I will say copy HR, your boss and his boss. etc. The more higher levels you keep in loop, more people become answerable in court of law. If you copy VP etc of your group, if you decide to go court they can be called in as witnesses. They do not want this. No company wants to put their senior executives/managers in cross examinations in court. They know you can sue them, however do not use such language as the judge will not like it and in all probability he will ask you what you did in good faith to get your wage back? And any shouting , calling names etc will count against you for getting any damages.
2) give them 2 weeks to reply. Consult a lawyer, a good lawyer is one who also tells you what was your fault. No lawyer will tell you what you want to hear. All lawyers will tell you to conduct in ethical and professional manner. You know they are representing you. Their reputation is based on merit of your case.
3) if they dont respond in 2 weeks, file a claim in small claims court. serve a notice. In small claims court attorneys are not allowed to practise. If you win, ask the judge to award you maximum penalty allowed under the law. Also mention you want to get it in one payment. This becomes a public record against the company for anyone to see. I dont think any company wants so much hassle for 4K.
thanks a lot kshitijnt.... my gc has been filed about 5 months back. At that point I wasn't planning to shift to PF otherwise i wudn't have made them file it. ya, as u said i shud have started with PF directy. Just because my company filed for h1b, i didn't wanted to ditch theem. Now I realised that its foolish in this fied to be considerate for someone especially desi employers.
Anyways will try ur way and see how it goes.
1) employer and employee conduct.
2) non compete.
employee by leaving his job to work for PF has actually worked in unethical way if not illegal. You should have joined the PF to start with. Second thing is, you said your PERM is in process. How long ago did you file it? If you filed it more than 6 months ago, maybe you didnt know you were going to leave. Did you file it very recently despite knowing that you may join PF? In that case why you wasted your employers money? Also who picked the fight? You or employer? See... if the case goes to the court, the judge is going to notice this behaviour and will not like it. I am not saying you are a bad guy, we all make mistakes like this, but in court of law everyone is equal.
employer is not only unethical but also unprofessional in holding back employee wages. It does not matter when or with what intention the employee left, employers should not be breaking the law by withholding wages.
Since both sides have made some mistakes, I suggest get a good attorney. That attorney will negotiate with your employer and you will get your money, experience letter and also attorney expenses. There is no need to involve your PF at this stage. Your employer has a relationship with that company and that is the reason they do not want to go to court. However if you conduct yourself in unethical or unprofessional way, your previous employer can indicate that to your current company and that is a bad career move. Your case is very simple and it will be settled out of court. I would say, you do not get involved and commit mistakes under stress, let an attorney handle it.
Lastly, if you consult an attorney, any good attorney should tell you 2 things:
1) you have advantage over employer because employer has withheld your wages which is illegal as they have violated statutes for PERM.
2) It also depends on your non compete, you dont know what you signed. It may not be directly related to GC expense or direct revenue loss, but it may be something that your employer can hold you accountable.
I think your employer is just mad that you left them on unpleasant terms. Here is what I recommend:
1) Send an email, and offer to apologize if any of your actions left the employer less than satisfied. "DO NOT explicitly admit to mistakes. But offer a sincere apology if that can close the matter." Highlight, what you have done for the company, including placing 4 employees, working for 2 years etc. Regret that you had to leave despite filing perm with them and say you will be willing to help in future. Then call your boss. ask for his help. If he doesnt pick up, doesnt matter, leave a VM. However much you dont like doing it. It is necessary to do so. World is a small place and never burn bridges. Also mention in email you would like to get $4K back and experience letter. I will say copy HR, your boss and his boss. etc. The more higher levels you keep in loop, more people become answerable in court of law. If you copy VP etc of your group, if you decide to go court they can be called in as witnesses. They do not want this. No company wants to put their senior executives/managers in cross examinations in court. They know you can sue them, however do not use such language as the judge will not like it and in all probability he will ask you what you did in good faith to get your wage back? And any shouting , calling names etc will count against you for getting any damages.
2) give them 2 weeks to reply. Consult a lawyer, a good lawyer is one who also tells you what was your fault. No lawyer will tell you what you want to hear. All lawyers will tell you to conduct in ethical and professional manner. You know they are representing you. Their reputation is based on merit of your case.
3) if they dont respond in 2 weeks, file a claim in small claims court. serve a notice. In small claims court attorneys are not allowed to practise. If you win, ask the judge to award you maximum penalty allowed under the law. Also mention you want to get it in one payment. This becomes a public record against the company for anyone to see. I dont think any company wants so much hassle for 4K.
thanks a lot kshitijnt.... my gc has been filed about 5 months back. At that point I wasn't planning to shift to PF otherwise i wudn't have made them file it. ya, as u said i shud have started with PF directy. Just because my company filed for h1b, i didn't wanted to ditch theem. Now I realised that its foolish in this fied to be considerate for someone especially desi employers.
Anyways will try ur way and see how it goes.
desi3933
07-10 10:43 AM
that link you have provided is for ability to pay and wage below dol standards case... i read the entire document and wasted 30 precious minutes of my time and a friends time reading that case... thank for nothing.
Page 5
Further, the director noted in his decision that the petitioner has not demonstrated that it is the intending employer offering the beneficiary a full-time, permanent position. The petitioner did not address this issue on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has not demonstrated that it is the intending employer offering the beneficiary a full-time, permanent position.
.
Page 5
Further, the director noted in his decision that the petitioner has not demonstrated that it is the intending employer offering the beneficiary a full-time, permanent position. The petitioner did not address this issue on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has not demonstrated that it is the intending employer offering the beneficiary a full-time, permanent position.
.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
franklin
07-07 09:59 PM
Macaca,
Franklin is a her not him. She is our Northern California group coordinator. I will convey your message but I am pretty sure she might already have gotten it by reading it here on the forum
Franklin here - don't worry Macaca I just like reminding people occasionally when things get out of order :)
I couldn't make it unfortunately (short notice and had, ironically, my FP appointment at the same time in a different city). But I'm glad that some people did.
I guess I'm the unofficial coordinator of Nor Cal I just get conference calls together every now and then :rolleyes:
Franklin is a her not him. She is our Northern California group coordinator. I will convey your message but I am pretty sure she might already have gotten it by reading it here on the forum
Franklin here - don't worry Macaca I just like reminding people occasionally when things get out of order :)
I couldn't make it unfortunately (short notice and had, ironically, my FP appointment at the same time in a different city). But I'm glad that some people did.
I guess I'm the unofficial coordinator of Nor Cal I just get conference calls together every now and then :rolleyes:
more...
needhelp!
02-10 02:19 PM
Sent $25 check via bill pay.
To IV members watching from the sidelines: Contribute now so that IV can expand its efforts to fix this mess!
To IV members watching from the sidelines: Contribute now so that IV can expand its efforts to fix this mess!
desi3933
05-11 05:16 PM
we are talking about inclusion logic here. Not the exclusion logic.
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Read for yourself.
INA 203(d) Treatment of family members
A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b)(1) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
This means that if primary beneficiary is using visa number from EB(2) classification then dependent(s) will also be using same classification as primary beneficiary (i.e. EB(2) in this example).
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Read for yourself.
INA 203(d) Treatment of family members
A spouse or child as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b)(1) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent.
This means that if primary beneficiary is using visa number from EB(2) classification then dependent(s) will also be using same classification as primary beneficiary (i.e. EB(2) in this example).
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
more...
indianindian2006
08-25 04:50 PM
I got a response from Tier2 officer that there are no Visa numbers available. She was pretty pissed that there hell a lot of indians calling and was close to making it racial. She read from a report that DOS sent to USCIS (page 31 is what she quoted) where she said there are no Visa numbers available. I am assuming its for this month.
Did you call TSC or NSC.
Did you call TSC or NSC.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
delax
07-27 12:33 AM
That is your take ....or they could end up distributing the spill over Visas equally among all EB categories because the original quota is equally distributed too. This benefits both EB3 and EB2.
Please do not try to pass on your opinions as facts ...they are not.
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
Please do not try to pass on your opinions as facts ...they are not.
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
more...
BharatPremi
11-01 05:21 PM
I am july 2 filer
I believe 180 days are over around 31 dec 2007 for using AC21
I am planning to quit my job and go to india for max 3 mnths
I have a job offer and they are ready to hire me from 1 april 2008
what precautions should i take so i dont have problems while coming back
I am planning to use AP
I would take 3 months of vacation (With written vacation approval from this date to that date)at present employer ( Even with "No Pay"), come back from India, THEN QUIT and then join new employer.
I believe 180 days are over around 31 dec 2007 for using AC21
I am planning to quit my job and go to india for max 3 mnths
I have a job offer and they are ready to hire me from 1 april 2008
what precautions should i take so i dont have problems while coming back
I am planning to use AP
I would take 3 months of vacation (With written vacation approval from this date to that date)at present employer ( Even with "No Pay"), come back from India, THEN QUIT and then join new employer.
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
hopefulgc
10-09 10:57 AM
People,
no offense .. but what kind of crack are we all on?
what ever happened to queuing theory?
Visa number assignment is a classical queuing case that can be solved even by a newborn who fires a projectile pee without warning.
and yes as long as we are all stating what we want..
I want three parle-g biscuits with garma garam chai.
It would be more effective if not effecient. You need not wait until the year end to issue visas, visas can be issued using a mathematical model which would allow old PD filers to get a visa ahead of others as soon as his case comes in and other criterias are fullfilled. Basically no one needs to wait for filing I485. People with old PD will get visa numbers first as soon as they enter the application.
no offense .. but what kind of crack are we all on?
what ever happened to queuing theory?
Visa number assignment is a classical queuing case that can be solved even by a newborn who fires a projectile pee without warning.
and yes as long as we are all stating what we want..
I want three parle-g biscuits with garma garam chai.
It would be more effective if not effecient. You need not wait until the year end to issue visas, visas can be issued using a mathematical model which would allow old PD filers to get a visa ahead of others as soon as his case comes in and other criterias are fullfilled. Basically no one needs to wait for filing I485. People with old PD will get visa numbers first as soon as they enter the application.
more...
samrat_bhargava_vihari
06-08 03:16 PM
Hi
My 485 application received by NSC on May 24, 2007 but still no receipt and even did not cashed the check.
ss
shailesh,
Please let us know once you receive your receipt. We ( June 1st filers) can count from there.
My 485 application received by NSC on May 24, 2007 but still no receipt and even did not cashed the check.
ss
shailesh,
Please let us know once you receive your receipt. We ( June 1st filers) can count from there.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
hotammo
09-03 09:39 AM
My APs are pending approval, I was told they reimburse if we write to them. Did they reject your apps and paid you back the checks? We also got our cards this 15th, what do we need to do at the SSN office, please guide.
Thanks,
znan
No, I did not get a refund. I even got a mail for my EAD application being rejected.
If there is a process to get a refund, I would like to know it too.
But I am not too hopeful in this situation as I remember when efiling for EAD and AP, I read somewhere that the application fee is non-refundable.
At the SSN office. You fill out application for a replacement card. Option 3 on the ticket generating screen.
The SSN issuing staff know what to do after that. This goes without saying take your GC with you. Nothing else is required. They do not even look at the passport or any other form of ID. GC is the only thing needed.
FYI got the new SSN cards. They do NOT say permission required from DHS to work. In fact the card is exactly similar to the one my daughter got (she is US citizen, born here).
HTH
Thanks,
znan
No, I did not get a refund. I even got a mail for my EAD application being rejected.
If there is a process to get a refund, I would like to know it too.
But I am not too hopeful in this situation as I remember when efiling for EAD and AP, I read somewhere that the application fee is non-refundable.
At the SSN office. You fill out application for a replacement card. Option 3 on the ticket generating screen.
The SSN issuing staff know what to do after that. This goes without saying take your GC with you. Nothing else is required. They do not even look at the passport or any other form of ID. GC is the only thing needed.
FYI got the new SSN cards. They do NOT say permission required from DHS to work. In fact the card is exactly similar to the one my daughter got (she is US citizen, born here).
HTH
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
akhilmahajan
02-13 10:42 AM
Bump...........
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
gsc999
07-11 12:19 PM
I second this. It took me full 15 minutes to figure out that the rally was on 14th not 7th.
Please see the new thread below:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6365
Admin, can you please make the new thread ( new url above) as the new sticky for 07/14 San Jose rally?
Please see the new thread below:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6365
Admin, can you please make the new thread ( new url above) as the new sticky for 07/14 San Jose rally?
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
ArunAntonio
07-09 06:59 PM
Amit,
Can you post the template of the email you are sending to the reporters.
- AA
Can you post the template of the email you are sending to the reporters.
- AA
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
raj3078
10-24 04:34 PM
As we get closer to election day it seems that Democrats will have control of the Congress. All the polls that have been and are being conducted show that the Democrats are leading the Republicans by double digits.
If Democrats win the CIR will get through but the there will be a huge backlog as there arent enough people at USCIS to do the work, which in a way is retrogession. There will be relief for people with advanced degrees but on paper only.As it will still take years for their paperwork to get through USCIS, others will be in a worse situation as the waiting line would be huge.
If Republicans win there will be no CIR as pointed out by others in the thread. However, SKIL might get through and that will help shorten the waiting period for people without advanced degrees.
Based on my analysis (which might be completely wrong), I think we are better off with Republicans.
Dude,
At least with DEMS there is close to surety of passing one Immigration Bill even if it is CIR.... With REPs, we will never see any bill the light of day... Not sure which world you live in but check out numbersusa site and you will see how they are trying to decrease the immigration - legal or illegal alike.... So while Skill will go through Senate, it will be again blocked in house like it was in Dec2005........ So bottomline is that I would rather have some bill passed and have a hope in sight than no bill and never know if one will ever get GC
If Democrats win the CIR will get through but the there will be a huge backlog as there arent enough people at USCIS to do the work, which in a way is retrogession. There will be relief for people with advanced degrees but on paper only.As it will still take years for their paperwork to get through USCIS, others will be in a worse situation as the waiting line would be huge.
If Republicans win there will be no CIR as pointed out by others in the thread. However, SKIL might get through and that will help shorten the waiting period for people without advanced degrees.
Based on my analysis (which might be completely wrong), I think we are better off with Republicans.
Dude,
At least with DEMS there is close to surety of passing one Immigration Bill even if it is CIR.... With REPs, we will never see any bill the light of day... Not sure which world you live in but check out numbersusa site and you will see how they are trying to decrease the immigration - legal or illegal alike.... So while Skill will go through Senate, it will be again blocked in house like it was in Dec2005........ So bottomline is that I would rather have some bill passed and have a hope in sight than no bill and never know if one will ever get GC
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
ski_dude12
08-26 03:13 PM
Not sure if I got your question...
You can file I-485 only when your dates are current. If you filed I-485 by itself (not concurrently with I-140) then your PD will not be on the I-485.
is this pattern (missing PD on I-485) for people who've PD current and not got greened?
You can file I-485 only when your dates are current. If you filed I-485 by itself (not concurrently with I-140) then your PD will not be on the I-485.
is this pattern (missing PD on I-485) for people who've PD current and not got greened?
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Chris Rock
08-09 09:41 AM
I agree with you 100%.
If you or any one else is planning to move forward with some plans for helping EB3 folks, expect some serious opposition to your efforts. Many EB3 folks themselves do not see any need for EB3 only actions.
A bunch of us talked to a lawyer regarding the INA and the initial reaction was not very encouraging. The lawyer was suggesting us to convert to EB2.
Hilarious.... Hilarious.....
1) EB2 with PD like 2007 and 2008 will certainly oppose. It is understandable. But why many EB3 folks themselves oppose it? Because they are with "looser mentality". EB3 folks, listen! No body cares about you. Then why do you care about other categories. Don't be a looser. Take care of your problem first.
2) The lawyer was suggesting us to convert to EB2. You bet. Dont you know why?
Most of the EB2 got their GC. The only loosers are EB3. With IV's reach it can easily help EB3. I told this many times before. But IV core is saying it will be very hard to even do a simplest releif measure. I simply do not understand. I hope and pray IV core will listen this time.
If you or any one else is planning to move forward with some plans for helping EB3 folks, expect some serious opposition to your efforts. Many EB3 folks themselves do not see any need for EB3 only actions.
A bunch of us talked to a lawyer regarding the INA and the initial reaction was not very encouraging. The lawyer was suggesting us to convert to EB2.
Hilarious.... Hilarious.....
1) EB2 with PD like 2007 and 2008 will certainly oppose. It is understandable. But why many EB3 folks themselves oppose it? Because they are with "looser mentality". EB3 folks, listen! No body cares about you. Then why do you care about other categories. Don't be a looser. Take care of your problem first.
2) The lawyer was suggesting us to convert to EB2. You bet. Dont you know why?
Most of the EB2 got their GC. The only loosers are EB3. With IV's reach it can easily help EB3. I told this many times before. But IV core is saying it will be very hard to even do a simplest releif measure. I simply do not understand. I hope and pray IV core will listen this time.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
acecupid
09-25 03:58 PM
Saw an interesting video on youtube the other day. The first thing that came to mind was the EB2-EB3 fights. If only we can fight together rather than each other ! ;)
YouTube - Every Indian must see this Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc4UltkRJsw)
YouTube - Every Indian must see this Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc4UltkRJsw)
gsc999
07-19 07:06 PM
Zoooom thanks for doing this. Anzerraja good work. You two work good as a team.
Twicetwice & Anzerraja, your generous pledge has inspired me to pledge $100 for now, more later.
We should merge all other threads dealing with this issue over here for convenience
Twicetwice & Anzerraja, your generous pledge has inspired me to pledge $100 for now, more later.
We should merge all other threads dealing with this issue over here for convenience
SunnySurya
08-18 01:22 PM
Security background should not be an issue more... It is pathetic that folks with PD 2002 are still waiting... You guys are silently sufferiing , it is time that you remain silent no more.
I agree....mine is too 2002 PD/EB2
Simple reason USCIS will tell you/senator/judge/anyone who really seek the resolution of our loooooong delayed cases is.....case is in security/background/additional review checks.....so everyone will shut their mouth and forward this message to the concerned person.....
No use....USCIS is a big elephant and acting in sleep....
I agree....mine is too 2002 PD/EB2
Simple reason USCIS will tell you/senator/judge/anyone who really seek the resolution of our loooooong delayed cases is.....case is in security/background/additional review checks.....so everyone will shut their mouth and forward this message to the concerned person.....
No use....USCIS is a big elephant and acting in sleep....
No comments:
Post a Comment