vkrishn
08-16 04:59 PM
Here is reponse from Ombudsman.
Dear Sir/Madam:
We have received your case problem. We will initiate a formal inquiry with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
We appreciate your continued patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Office of the CIS Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Did anybody get the reponse the same way?
I got the same reply last week. Yet to hear anything from them.
Dear Sir/Madam:
We have received your case problem. We will initiate a formal inquiry with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
We appreciate your continued patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Office of the CIS Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Did anybody get the reponse the same way?
I got the same reply last week. Yet to hear anything from them.
wallpaper selena gomez and justin bieber
sanjayb
09-27 03:39 PM
CADude and others... maybe your efforts are paying off. What I learned in this process is that have faith in your application filing. If everything is fine you'll definitely get the receipts. It may be either next week or in 2 weeks.
Couple of things...
1) Calling USCIS is useless...
2) Look for checks for cashed....
3) Keep in touch with our pending group. I gives you support and motivation.
santosh19-2nd july/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140-TSC/No CC/No RN
sanjayb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 08/05 -- CHECKS CASHED -- 09/25 --- CASE IN TSC
Ashres11 - 2nd July/ 10:28/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN
Sairam - 2nd July/10:28/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No RN - 07/28
InsKrish - 2nd July/10.25/J.Barret/NSC/I-140 approved from TSC/No CC/RN
sudhi - 2nd July/ 10:25/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN - CHECKS CASHED 09/13 -- Received receipts too.
Danu2007 - 2nd July/10:25AM/J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
Triviagal - 2nd July/ 10:25AM/ J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
rkartik78- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
GCFISH- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ 485 went to NE/NO RN NOCC
rexjamla- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
kmkanth- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
BU007- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
veerufs - 2nd july/10:28am/J. BARRET/I140-TSC/NO RN/NO CC
123456mg - 2nd july/10:25am at NSC/J BARRET/I140-Approved from TSC/NO RN/NO CC
aussie731- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
nkavjs - 2nd July/ 10:25am/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ I-140 TSC lud on I-140 8-5-07/ NO CC/ NO RN
jsb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/27
gc_us - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/28
srinitls - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/NO RN NO CC
realraghu - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
vg1778 - nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
Couple of things...
1) Calling USCIS is useless...
2) Look for checks for cashed....
3) Keep in touch with our pending group. I gives you support and motivation.
santosh19-2nd july/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140-TSC/No CC/No RN
sanjayb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 08/05 -- CHECKS CASHED -- 09/25 --- CASE IN TSC
Ashres11 - 2nd July/ 10:28/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN
Sairam - 2nd July/10:28/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No RN - 07/28
InsKrish - 2nd July/10.25/J.Barret/NSC/I-140 approved from TSC/No CC/RN
sudhi - 2nd July/ 10:25/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN - CHECKS CASHED 09/13 -- Received receipts too.
Danu2007 - 2nd July/10:25AM/J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
Triviagal - 2nd July/ 10:25AM/ J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
rkartik78- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
GCFISH- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ 485 went to NE/NO RN NOCC
rexjamla- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
kmkanth- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
BU007- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
veerufs - 2nd july/10:28am/J. BARRET/I140-TSC/NO RN/NO CC
123456mg - 2nd july/10:25am at NSC/J BARRET/I140-Approved from TSC/NO RN/NO CC
aussie731- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
nkavjs - 2nd July/ 10:25am/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ I-140 TSC lud on I-140 8-5-07/ NO CC/ NO RN
jsb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/27
gc_us - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/28
srinitls - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/NO RN NO CC
realraghu - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
vg1778 - nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
BharatPremi
03-25 04:00 PM
Right, we must avoid the word as much as possible. But then a lot of reqruiters and HRs now seem to educate themselves about the whole EAD thing and seem to be absolutely fine with the EAD.
Yes, I would insist that jerk to refuse in writing but again ultimately I do not see any option except let it go and look for other oppertunity .
I believe that as long as interviewing is concerned companies may have the right not to interview particular kind ("EAD holders" for an example) and interview particular kind ("GC Holder for an example..)
And most of these jerks communicate this thing ("We do not consider "EAD Holder") verbally on phone but they do not dare to say that in writing. I dared one to send me that in writing and still I am waiting for his email after 4 to 5 followups:)
Yes, I would insist that jerk to refuse in writing but again ultimately I do not see any option except let it go and look for other oppertunity .
I believe that as long as interviewing is concerned companies may have the right not to interview particular kind ("EAD holders" for an example) and interview particular kind ("GC Holder for an example..)
And most of these jerks communicate this thing ("We do not consider "EAD Holder") verbally on phone but they do not dare to say that in writing. I dared one to send me that in writing and still I am waiting for his email after 4 to 5 followups:)
2011 Justin Bieber Kissing Selena
test12344321
01-10 02:00 PM
I am on a h1b currently. I changed empoyers in the US but the old stamp is still valid till semptember 2008. I has taken a visa date for jan30 in mumbai consulate and was going to fly back on feb9. Now planning to cancel the visa stamping because of the PIMS delays. I hope i am still valid to fly as i have a valid visa stamp and a new petition from current employer too which i can show at port of entry. Do let me know your views on the same and if there are any probable issues....
more...
Hope_GC
07-09 09:51 PM
This is awesome even before getting the flowers we have achieved what was intended.
I request members to refrain from making personal comments.
Everyone has got their opinion but if that is against our idea and thoughts we should tackle it fairly.
Anyways KUDOS to Everyone participated in this cause.
I request members to refrain from making personal comments.
Everyone has got their opinion but if that is against our idea and thoughts we should tackle it fairly.
Anyways KUDOS to Everyone participated in this cause.
morchu
06-17 01:18 PM
So attack on L1 is on the way.
What about another plan to attack F1?
You are NOT supposed to have immigration intent when you apply F1. So what about targeting all those F1 now, since it is very obvious that they didnt come here just to study and go back. So lets smoke them out based on their "fraud intentions" at the time of F1 application.
After that lets attack the H1 landers. Many of them landed in H1 with body shoppers, and later changed to some big american company. Lets find some thing or other against these body shoppers, and all those H1 came with these body shoppers should go back (even though they are with some other company).
Ok. what is left.......... lets find out something bad about everybody else, except me.
Ohh... wait a sec..... we were supposed to be "united", by this forum, not "divided".
What about another plan to attack F1?
You are NOT supposed to have immigration intent when you apply F1. So what about targeting all those F1 now, since it is very obvious that they didnt come here just to study and go back. So lets smoke them out based on their "fraud intentions" at the time of F1 application.
After that lets attack the H1 landers. Many of them landed in H1 with body shoppers, and later changed to some big american company. Lets find some thing or other against these body shoppers, and all those H1 came with these body shoppers should go back (even though they are with some other company).
Ok. what is left.......... lets find out something bad about everybody else, except me.
Ohh... wait a sec..... we were supposed to be "united", by this forum, not "divided".
more...
Cheran
05-24 08:44 AM
Can somebody please answer my previous question?? Thanks
[QUOTE=Hassan11]I have a question regarding the I-693 Medical exam. it was mentioned that you will need to take a vaccine for MMR, Varicella, Tetanus and Hapatitis B. it was also mentioned that they will do a tb test and a blood test for HIV and syphilis. are these all the vaccinations and blood tests required or are there aother blood test required in addition to these??
please advise. Thanks
They will go through TB test, which the doctors office will do. But as far as the testing goes you have the complete list
MMR
Varicella (Chicken Pox)
Tetanus
Hap-B
Blood work for HIV and Syphilis.
I
[QUOTE=Hassan11]I have a question regarding the I-693 Medical exam. it was mentioned that you will need to take a vaccine for MMR, Varicella, Tetanus and Hapatitis B. it was also mentioned that they will do a tb test and a blood test for HIV and syphilis. are these all the vaccinations and blood tests required or are there aother blood test required in addition to these??
please advise. Thanks
They will go through TB test, which the doctors office will do. But as far as the testing goes you have the complete list
MMR
Varicella (Chicken Pox)
Tetanus
Hap-B
Blood work for HIV and Syphilis.
I
2010 Selena Gomez in Bikini,
kaisersose
03-26 02:07 PM
This is plain stupidity. These employers should first take a good look at an EAD and a GC. As for as work authorization is concerned, both these cards provide us with the same rights. The EAD says �The person identified is authorized to work in the US for the validity of this card� where as the GC says �The person identified by the card is authorized to work and remain in the US�.
So why does the legal department come into picture here? Is it because of the expiry date associated with EAD�s? If that�s the case even a GC has got an expiration date (a later date maybe). Does that mean that an additional budget is required to hire GC holders?
I was thinking exactly like you until she educated me on this yesterday.
The problem with the EAD is you are invoking AC21. There are several possible problems here including
1. Complying with AC21 requirements of job code, 180 days after 485 RD, etc.
2. Invoking AC21 without 140 approval. This is not against the law, but is risky in case of a 140 RFE.
There are more reasons, but these ought to provide enough clarity on the problem. It is in the employer's interest to ensure that the candidate does not have any such issues; issues which will lead to termination of employment. The Recruiter cannot check DOL job codes and USCIS documents. That is the job of Legal which means $$$.
So if the hiring manager does not have a budget for these extra costs or if he has an equally good candidate who is a GC holder or a citizen, it is easier to go with him or her.
So why does the legal department come into picture here? Is it because of the expiry date associated with EAD�s? If that�s the case even a GC has got an expiration date (a later date maybe). Does that mean that an additional budget is required to hire GC holders?
I was thinking exactly like you until she educated me on this yesterday.
The problem with the EAD is you are invoking AC21. There are several possible problems here including
1. Complying with AC21 requirements of job code, 180 days after 485 RD, etc.
2. Invoking AC21 without 140 approval. This is not against the law, but is risky in case of a 140 RFE.
There are more reasons, but these ought to provide enough clarity on the problem. It is in the employer's interest to ensure that the candidate does not have any such issues; issues which will lead to termination of employment. The Recruiter cannot check DOL job codes and USCIS documents. That is the job of Legal which means $$$.
So if the hiring manager does not have a budget for these extra costs or if he has an equally good candidate who is a GC holder or a citizen, it is easier to go with him or her.
more...
_2.jpg "selena gomez and justin bieber")
sc3
08-20 07:39 PM
Dear Mr. <insert ombudsman's name here>,
SUB: Visa allocation for employment based third preference workers
I am one of the thousands of employment based third category worker waiting for the priority dates to be current since many years. As you must be well aware that the backlog for EB3 category, and in particular for the Indian chargeability category has been lagging behind by almost 7 years, part of which is due to heavy subscription for the category.
All through the years, heavy demand in EB3 category was in part alleviated by the spill-over visas from other categories. This was mainly due to unused visas in employment based first category, and to a lesser extent from employment based second category. For FY2008, the long standing spill-over utilization rules seems to have been changed, resulting in a drastic reduction of visas available to EB3 category.
While I am not aware of an official guidance or a memo that details the impetus behind the change, it is widely accepted in the immigrant community that AC21 legislation played a major role in the change of rules.
The immigrant community is confused by this new reading as the confluence of AC21 along with pre-existing legislations does not make the spill-over of EB1 into EB3 disappear. AC21 legislations clarifies that the visa numbers in one category must have no consumers within the same category before it be released for use by other category. That is any number within EB2 will not be granted to EB3 unless there is no demand with EB2 for that number [Do we need this additional clarification?].
Spill-over from EB1 is dictated by the original text of section <$insert section here>, which seems to state that both Eb2 and EB3 should simultaneously benefit from the additional numbers. This reading is supported by the hypothesis that the EB5 spill-over which is mentioned in EB1 has not further mention in EB2 or EB3, but still the numbers from EB5 spills further down into EB2 and EB3 when Eb1 does not fully utilize the numbers.
Furthermore, in the Visa bulletin for July 2008, it is mentioned that the spill-over numbers are required to be assigned to the longest pending case first. I assume, though not explicitly stated, that this assumes per-country caps to be reached first.
Given the current trend in the priority dates for EB3, it is very clear that the spill-over from EB1 is being denied for EB3 preference, and this is causing tremendous hardships to people who have been waiting for long periods of time. I am sure that you agree that waiting for 7 years for a green card is extremely unfortunate.
I hope you to hear back about your views on the spill-over allocation, and hopefully see some action that will alter the spill-over rules to allocate unused EB1 numbers to alleviate the wait times being seen by employment based third preference workers.
Thanking you,
Sincerely
SUB: Visa allocation for employment based third preference workers
I am one of the thousands of employment based third category worker waiting for the priority dates to be current since many years. As you must be well aware that the backlog for EB3 category, and in particular for the Indian chargeability category has been lagging behind by almost 7 years, part of which is due to heavy subscription for the category.
All through the years, heavy demand in EB3 category was in part alleviated by the spill-over visas from other categories. This was mainly due to unused visas in employment based first category, and to a lesser extent from employment based second category. For FY2008, the long standing spill-over utilization rules seems to have been changed, resulting in a drastic reduction of visas available to EB3 category.
While I am not aware of an official guidance or a memo that details the impetus behind the change, it is widely accepted in the immigrant community that AC21 legislation played a major role in the change of rules.
The immigrant community is confused by this new reading as the confluence of AC21 along with pre-existing legislations does not make the spill-over of EB1 into EB3 disappear. AC21 legislations clarifies that the visa numbers in one category must have no consumers within the same category before it be released for use by other category. That is any number within EB2 will not be granted to EB3 unless there is no demand with EB2 for that number [Do we need this additional clarification?].
Spill-over from EB1 is dictated by the original text of section <$insert section here>, which seems to state that both Eb2 and EB3 should simultaneously benefit from the additional numbers. This reading is supported by the hypothesis that the EB5 spill-over which is mentioned in EB1 has not further mention in EB2 or EB3, but still the numbers from EB5 spills further down into EB2 and EB3 when Eb1 does not fully utilize the numbers.
Furthermore, in the Visa bulletin for July 2008, it is mentioned that the spill-over numbers are required to be assigned to the longest pending case first. I assume, though not explicitly stated, that this assumes per-country caps to be reached first.
Given the current trend in the priority dates for EB3, it is very clear that the spill-over from EB1 is being denied for EB3 preference, and this is causing tremendous hardships to people who have been waiting for long periods of time. I am sure that you agree that waiting for 7 years for a green card is extremely unfortunate.
I hope you to hear back about your views on the spill-over allocation, and hopefully see some action that will alter the spill-over rules to allocate unused EB1 numbers to alleviate the wait times being seen by employment based third preference workers.
Thanking you,
Sincerely
hair Singer Justin Bieber and
cygent
06-29 08:23 PM
if July bulletin is revised on say July2nd or 3rd, What about the cases filed on July 2nd, will it be rejected?
YES
YES
more...
sundarpn
01-16 08:33 PM
Are we talking some automated system at KCC that may be used as an indication of whether one passes PIMS check? ?
hot Selena Gomez amp; Justin
snddlth
10-12 04:58 PM
It is not Holiday but they simply don't want us to call.
more...
house Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
sve0390
07-09 06:35 PM
Is this for real???
Can you post a link here?
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Can you post a link here?
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
tattoo Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
MahaBharatGC
01-30 04:53 PM
it was very clear they were willing to hire me if I had a GC in hand
If that is the case you have legitimate reason to take this matter with your local congress man if their legal cannot clear them.
Follow the suggestions of experts in this thread. I suggest you to contact your local congressmen. They would definitely help as in my case they did to expedite EAD renewal.
If that is the case you have legitimate reason to take this matter with your local congress man if their legal cannot clear them.
Follow the suggestions of experts in this thread. I suggest you to contact your local congressmen. They would definitely help as in my case they did to expedite EAD renewal.
more...
pictures Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
hazishak
09-16 10:00 AM
bump^^
dresses selena gomez justin bieber
skrish
09-09 12:09 PM
what should we be saying. it might be better if all of us conveys the same forceful message detailing all the points
more...
makeup selena gomez and justin bieber
rameshk75
09-16 04:48 PM
finally my journey ended today !!!
Below are my details.
1.) priority date --> 03/30/2006
2.) 485 approved on --> 09/16/2010
4.) service center --> nsc
5.) pre-adjucated yes/no --> yes
6.) info pass yes/no --> yes (today - no help)
7.) uscis contact yes/no --> yes(case assigned to io)
8) service request yes/no --> yes (opened sr on 09/02/10 citing "outside processing
time" and no updates on the case after initial filing)
9.) contact senator yes/no --> no
10.) recent rfe yes/no --> evl in 2009
11.) ac-21 (employer change) no
12.)ported case(eb3->eb2) yes/no --> no
thanks to all the great folks at iv that helped me navigate through this journey. This has been a great forum to know the updates and issues faced by the highly skilled immigrants like us...
It has also helped me in understanding the situation from the inception of my journey and helped me make my moves accordingly with one goal of getting gc without going through any hassles.
And finally , i sincerely pray for all the folks in eb-3 to get some kind of relief soon, so you can get greened soon. And i would still support this great organization in what ever way i could.
Thanks and best wishes to you all waiting :-)
ps: For those of you who think visas are over, its not the case based on my approval received today afternoon. So hang in there, your day comes soon enough :-)
-- congarts Reddy :):)
Below are my details.
1.) priority date --> 03/30/2006
2.) 485 approved on --> 09/16/2010
4.) service center --> nsc
5.) pre-adjucated yes/no --> yes
6.) info pass yes/no --> yes (today - no help)
7.) uscis contact yes/no --> yes(case assigned to io)
8) service request yes/no --> yes (opened sr on 09/02/10 citing "outside processing
time" and no updates on the case after initial filing)
9.) contact senator yes/no --> no
10.) recent rfe yes/no --> evl in 2009
11.) ac-21 (employer change) no
12.)ported case(eb3->eb2) yes/no --> no
thanks to all the great folks at iv that helped me navigate through this journey. This has been a great forum to know the updates and issues faced by the highly skilled immigrants like us...
It has also helped me in understanding the situation from the inception of my journey and helped me make my moves accordingly with one goal of getting gc without going through any hassles.
And finally , i sincerely pray for all the folks in eb-3 to get some kind of relief soon, so you can get greened soon. And i would still support this great organization in what ever way i could.
Thanks and best wishes to you all waiting :-)
ps: For those of you who think visas are over, its not the case based on my approval received today afternoon. So hang in there, your day comes soon enough :-)
-- congarts Reddy :):)
girlfriend selena gomez and justin bieber
nrk
10-01 10:56 AM
Two of my colleagues on Nov 04 and Dec 04 didn't cleared out till.
I don't think so they are on IV, but they will use 6 cards (1+1 in one case and 1+3 in another case)
Since 2004 EB2 is cleared, I am seeing less number of posts being made on IV.Yay I became a senior member, will that mean I will get a green card?
I don't think so they are on IV, but they will use 6 cards (1+1 in one case and 1+3 in another case)
Since 2004 EB2 is cleared, I am seeing less number of posts being made on IV.Yay I became a senior member, will that mean I will get a green card?
hairstyles Justin Beiber amp; Selena Gomez
jbr
03-10 05:36 PM
We could also do a signature/petition campaign that would focus on 'American Citizens' supporting our effort. We should aim at getting a lot of signatures. Afterall there have to be hundreds of thousands of formerly H1B holders who are citizens now; at least they would support our effort.
HV000
09-13 03:17 PM
Please dont use google it is a waste of time - FBI uses its own databases and looks for 'hits' in terms of derogatory information.
Instead lobby for the following:-
1) USCIS should have the authority to ask FBI as to why the namecheck is taking so long and provision to expediate name check if it is has been pending for more than 'x' number of years (probably 2 or 3 i guess).
2) FBI should provide a reason for the delay. Most of the time (80%) the delay is simply because they dont have the time to open your file.
3) Procedure to Pay $500-$1000 to expediate NC (1 week) with a yes or No result. this will all allow FBI to obtain resources to process NCs faster
NC is the next bottle neck that we have to lobby for.
Asking USCIS to expedite the NAME CHECK only after 2 years is UNACCEPTABLE!! NameChecks should have resolution within 3 months. Its a security issue.
It is the USCIS which initiates the NAMECHECK process and it also has expanded the scope of NAMECHECK increasing the backlog. So, we need to go after USCIS and should NOT PAY more in this INEFFICIENT process!
Instead lobby for the following:-
1) USCIS should have the authority to ask FBI as to why the namecheck is taking so long and provision to expediate name check if it is has been pending for more than 'x' number of years (probably 2 or 3 i guess).
2) FBI should provide a reason for the delay. Most of the time (80%) the delay is simply because they dont have the time to open your file.
3) Procedure to Pay $500-$1000 to expediate NC (1 week) with a yes or No result. this will all allow FBI to obtain resources to process NCs faster
NC is the next bottle neck that we have to lobby for.
Asking USCIS to expedite the NAME CHECK only after 2 years is UNACCEPTABLE!! NameChecks should have resolution within 3 months. Its a security issue.
It is the USCIS which initiates the NAMECHECK process and it also has expanded the scope of NAMECHECK increasing the backlog. So, we need to go after USCIS and should NOT PAY more in this INEFFICIENT process!
singhsa3
08-20 11:15 PM
Good Luck!
By the way read INA about this and let us all know if there are specific provisions regarding this " EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)"
but then the devil is in the details ain't it? The "Except this piece" is what is overwhelmingly providing EB2 the numbers, and that is what will jump start EB3 movement forward.
I think people don't realize that Eb3-ROW is less compared to EB2-I/C and will therefore provide EB3-I numbers sooner than if we wait for EB2-I to get current.
And sorry, I don't support nepotism, everyone should be eligible on their own.
By the way read INA about this and let us all know if there are specific provisions regarding this " EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)"
but then the devil is in the details ain't it? The "Except this piece" is what is overwhelmingly providing EB2 the numbers, and that is what will jump start EB3 movement forward.
I think people don't realize that Eb3-ROW is less compared to EB2-I/C and will therefore provide EB3-I numbers sooner than if we wait for EB2-I to get current.
And sorry, I don't support nepotism, everyone should be eligible on their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment