Sometime back.. I also read some comment talking about involving Indian govt. in this.... Bullshit.. What does a different country's govt has to do with it!!!
Point is.. don't get too excited for having done nothing... Do something substantial and keep doing.
wallpaper Tom Cruise amp; Katie Holmes
If you have asked this question to your own lawyers about multiple I485 filing, please post them here.
Members can then look at all the information and make their own decisions.
I work for MSFT - I am a dependent on my husband's process (he works for another company), and I also have my own process filed, where he is my dependent.
When I asked if we could have 2 processes, the lawyer answered:
"There is no problem with you pursuing I-485 applications through the two companies since you and you husband have reverse roles in each process as principal beneficiary and dependent".
Hope this helps other people on the same situation.
Back home we spend so much for our govt for our own education -here no respect for us-I feel really hurted this time-Staying at home in H4 is a torture-
2011 Tom+Cruise in Tom Cruise and
If you are travelling on AP and dont want the hassle of transit visas, the following airports are AP "friendly" ....
1) Frankfurt (Air-India or Lufthansa).
2) Amsterdam (KLM, Northwest, United)
3) Dubai/Sharjah/Kuwait (Emirates, Kuwait Air)
4) All Pacific stopovers - Tokyo, Seoul, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore (China Air, JAL, Korean Air, Malaysian Airlines, Singapore Airlines)
Thumbrule : Via the Atlantic route (Europe stopover) you must avoid London, Paris, Geneva (other Swiss airports are fine). Via the Pacific route, you are fine with any airport/airline.
In my case, I used Air-India from Chicago to Mumbai via Frankfurt (twice in 2005). No transit visa issues and great food - hot samosas soon after takeoff from Chicago !
Hope this helps .....
2010 Katie Holmes Tom Cruise,
J BARRET July 2nd 10:28AM. Reciepts from Texas.
hair Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Wedding
The current visa bulletin says EB3 PDs may go back to the level that was in June 08 visa bulletin or worser. So it is very likely that EB3 will be anywhere between Apr 2001 to Nov 2001. Personally I would be happy if it remained at least beyond May 2001.
I dont see EB3 moving to 2002 unless USCIS wants to agressively move it forward, so that they can continue their unfair trend of procesing some out of order low hanging fruit cases in EB3 category, just because they are sitting on the top of their applications pile, even if they had much later PDs. Just like they are doing with EB2
What will unite people is to fight against the common pain point... *Unfair advantage given to out of order applicants* , whether it be EB2 or EB3, who are much later in the queue, but some how are on the top of application piles, and easily accessible to IOs- who are making DOS move the PDs, just so that they can clear of their tables by approving these cases, rather than trying to access applications in FIFO and follow a fair process.
The whole EB2-EB3 divide arose out of this unfair practice of USCIS. Which just on their whim move PDs forward , be it EB3 or EB2. It just happened, that EB2 date has been moved more aggressively, probably because there is less backlog there. But looking at all the EB2 people still waiting with 2003, 2004 PDs while 2006 are getting approvals, indicates that the real problem is USCIS not doing due diligence to identify the right cases to be processed next and get the exact count of such cases.
Just asking them to recapture visa numbers or cyring foul against wasted numbers etc will still not solve the problem unless we also FORCE them to follow FIFO and process cases FAIRLY. And do their due diligence to spend some time and put their application piles in proper order. Otherwise USCIS will continue to use these recaptured visas and use them to approve FU***&G Out of Order cases and manipulate & play the system to achieve that by jumping around the PD up/down/'U' and what not, just so because it is *convenient* for them to do so.
First they will move India to July 22 2006, if there are more visa numbers both I/C will move togather.
hot images Tom cruise and katie
I am 03/2005. I am game for this. LOL.
house Actor/Scientologist Tom Cruise
tattoo #11 Tom Cruise and Katie
<Puddonhead puts his lecturing hat on to boast about his "knowledge">
Some of you guys have admirable abilities of using rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle)). However, in this particular discussion - I guess it will help us all if we could keep the hectoring and general negative rhetoric out of it. Calling someone anti-immigrant in a derogatory fashion because he is opposed to our views - is negative rhetoric. So is the comparison of L1 abuse with house burglary.
The lawyers are taught the "Socratic Method" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) - to chafe out logic from the thicket of rhetoric. This is specially important when we are discussing something from different positions.
Hope we can get over it and find some common ground.
</Puddonhead takes off his lecturing hat>
pictures of Tom and Katie#39;s wedding
Good luck to you! So yours was a 1 month delay... Hope my husband doesnt have to wait so long as you have.
Lets all hang on!
dresses Katies Holmes and daughter
HAHAHAHAHAH......WHAT A JOKER!
makeup katie homes tom cruise 22108
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
girlfriend No one has this unique footage of Tom and Katie#39;s Wedding.
Pursuant to our conversation today, I am forwarding the reply from the Nebraska Service Center of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding our inquiry into your application for Adjustment of Status (I-485).
Our office initiated an inquiry into your case as a result of your correspondence dated September 12, 2007 sent to Congresswoman Maxine Waters. If you receive or do not receive a notice of action from CIS within the next 30 days please notify our Immigration Caseworker, Blanca Jimenez at ext. 18.
Thank you for contacting the office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters to assist you in this matter.
Constituent Services Supervisor
Office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-35)
323.757.8900 ext. 18
Good Morning Ms. Jimenez,
I do not show that we have data-entered Mr. XXX�s I-485 yet. The I-485 must be in line to be data-entered because we receipted an I-765 (LIN-07-245-XXXX).
The I485 application is still pending at this office. Although the Department of State Visa Bulletin indicated visas were available for most employment categories USCIS still has to adjudicate every application. NSC has approximately 26,000 I485 applications that may have a visa available and we are reviewing them as expeditiously as possible. This application is in line to be worked but it will take time. Please allow an additional 45 days for NSC to adjudicate the application. If you have not received a notice from NSC after 45 days you may submit another inquiry.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
Nebraska Service Center
Respected Ms Waters,
Sub: USCIS inefficiency for Legal Immigration
I send my I-485 AOS application to USCIS and received on July 2nd 2007 at Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE.
It's almost approx 75 days since the application received at USCIS and have not received the Receipt Notice or any notification from USCIS.
I tried to contact Customer Service at USCIS. They don't provided any information. USCIS website updates show they are processing 08/01 or later for AOS application. They are not following the First In First Out(FIFO) order.
I need help of your good to know the status of my I-485 application.
hairstyles Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes
or for people who missed or non believers.
HOPE FULLY, ALL OF YOU GET IT ASAP...
NO LUD after Feb 2009 when i did my second finger printing.
Created SR thru NCSC, did not help.
Went to Infopass, no help from ppl i spoke with there.
Did congress man enquiry, not sure if this helped. (as of yday, they had not received a response from uscis and were still waiting for a reply)
Sent letter to Ombudsman, they told me they were checking with USCIS...
No Idea which one worked... Good Luck to all of you...
PD JAN 15, 2005
case was transferred to NSC from TSC
NO LUD after Feb 2009
Had applied AC 21 on Aug 2008
We have learned that in all probability House Judiciary committee will finishing marking up HR5882 in the next committee meeting. The bill is likely to be brought to the House floor the following week. We have been told that if our bill(s) pass the House, Senate will include the language of the bill(s) in another Senate bill that has majority support. We must admit that the time is shot but its still possible.
We request everyone that starting monday, please call all the members of Judiciary committee. Thanks to the members who have already made phone calls to the lawmaker's office. We request you to please call again to show your support starting Monday.
Thanks a lot for the update - this sure is encouraging!
Two quick questions...
1. When is the "next committee meeting" - next week or later?
2. Any changes to the list of members of the Judiciary committee? Better still, it will be great if you could re-post the latest list so we can get going with the fresh wave of phone calls...
Thanks again and let's pull up our socks for the home stretch.