parimmigv
08-10 03:23 PM
I searched for $20 but the link is no where found.
wallpaper New York WorldTrade Center
thomachan72
05-10 12:43 PM
I too vote SBI.....do not use ICICI...
I have always used ICICI in the past...and recently started using SBI....they pay slightly more exchange rate than ICICI...and moreover it is a national bank....makes me feel good to use SBI compared to ICICI....
(sorry to go off topic)
BTW...talking of Banks....I just rencely knew that the FED Bank in the US is privately owned....(might be old info for many...but not for me)...
so here money is printed and lended out to the US by someone private...(Rothschild family, if you have not heard of them google the name)
=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
Do you guys send >20K? via wire transfer?
I have always used ICICI in the past...and recently started using SBI....they pay slightly more exchange rate than ICICI...and moreover it is a national bank....makes me feel good to use SBI compared to ICICI....
(sorry to go off topic)
BTW...talking of Banks....I just rencely knew that the FED Bank in the US is privately owned....(might be old info for many...but not for me)...
so here money is printed and lended out to the US by someone private...(Rothschild family, if you have not heard of them google the name)
=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
Do you guys send >20K? via wire transfer?
Lasantha
06-22 11:39 AM
My colleague told me that he took only chest X-ray and not done skin test he got his GC.
That could be true in the past. But they have been insisting on the TB skin test since last couple of months. Before I am sure it was not a problem. But since recently they have been sending our RFEs. This is what I read on Murthy.com.
That could be true in the past. But they have been insisting on the TB skin test since last couple of months. Before I am sure it was not a problem. But since recently they have been sending our RFEs. This is what I read on Murthy.com.
2011 NYC at night Painting
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
pappu
08-08 03:59 PM
IV is organizing nationwide calls for its members that are taking part in the August 2009 action item. These calls will be providing our strategy and tips to everyone for the upcoming congressional visits. It is very important for everyone taking part in the action item to attend these calls.
==================================
Call 1:
Tuesday August 11, 8 PM EST
Call 2
Wednesday August 12, 9 PM EST
==========================
Note:The call-in codes will be posted on the state chapter yahoo/google groups. Please contact your state chapter leader. If you do not have a chapter, you can contact your nearest state chapter.http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52. The chapter leader will verify you and provide this info.
Thanks
Team IV
==================================
Call 1:
Tuesday August 11, 8 PM EST
Call 2
Wednesday August 12, 9 PM EST
==========================
Note:The call-in codes will be posted on the state chapter yahoo/google groups. Please contact your state chapter leader. If you do not have a chapter, you can contact your nearest state chapter.http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=52. The chapter leader will verify you and provide this info.
Thanks
Team IV
Dhundhun
10-13 11:59 AM
:confused:
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
Almost everyone knows USCIS rule that EAD can be applied 120 days in advance before previous EAD expires and normal processing time for EAD is 90 days.
With few exceptions, people are applying in time. They have other issue such as one person got in 6 days. In 20-30 days it is not uncommon.
You are one of the few people who did not apply EAD in time and trying to draw attention.
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
Almost everyone knows USCIS rule that EAD can be applied 120 days in advance before previous EAD expires and normal processing time for EAD is 90 days.
With few exceptions, people are applying in time. They have other issue such as one person got in 6 days. In 20-30 days it is not uncommon.
You are one of the few people who did not apply EAD in time and trying to draw attention.
more...
fromnaija
08-18 04:41 PM
If she is here on H4 and while she was here her H1B got approved then there is no problem. As H1B is not VISA and its intent to hire. Infact if she wanted to to Join work on H1B, she will need to apply status change application for H4 to H1B.
No, not correct. Since she got a new I-94 her status changed to H1 w.e.f October 1, 2008.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
No, not correct. Since she got a new I-94 her status changed to H1 w.e.f October 1, 2008.
However, because she did not work she is currently out of status. She will have to change her status back to H4 either by going out of country and re-entering with H4 visa or filing I-539.
2010 I Hate NYC #38 NYC#39;s Night Sky
mhtanim
06-10 02:40 AM
Wow.. one should wonder why USCIS wants its' own documents. Don't they have any way to track someone's immigration records in their system?
Anyway, as somebody else has mentioned - you should consult with an experienced attorney.
Anyway, as somebody else has mentioned - you should consult with an experienced attorney.
more...
akhilmahajan
11-16 10:15 AM
Bumping
hair NYC At Night by Jason Hawkes
neoklaus
11-14 03:33 PM
Does it have anything to do with how recently you travelled out of the country? or How recently you came into this country? My wife came to US only 6 months back and I am not sure if this has got to do anything with the whole biometrics thing?
It is probably just this IO who has a different intepretation of the rules.
I came to US in June,07, my husband & daughter -Aug.14,07...probably just interpretation matters
It is probably just this IO who has a different intepretation of the rules.
I came to US in June,07, my husband & daughter -Aug.14,07...probably just interpretation matters
more...
needhelp!
08-24 10:34 AM
Listen Live: http://www.wpr.org/webcasting/live.cfm
Call in: 1-800-486-8655
or 227-2050 in Milwaukee
had a hard time figuring out that I had to click on the Ideas Network in the second column. I guess its over now.
Call in: 1-800-486-8655
or 227-2050 in Milwaukee
had a hard time figuring out that I had to click on the Ideas Network in the second column. I guess its over now.
hot NYC At Night by Jason Hawkes
h1techSlave
09-27 09:59 AM
The article says: "After all, if the legal process was more efficient and less daunting, perhaps the illegal immigration problems wouldn't be quite so bad."
I say, it is not perhaps, it is a given. When there is a legal remedy for any issue (not just immigration), then 9 out of 10 people would not go the illegal way.
I say, it is not perhaps, it is a given. When there is a legal remedy for any issue (not just immigration), then 9 out of 10 people would not go the illegal way.
more...
house Times Square at Night, NYC,
Kevin Sadler
October 23rd, 2005, 02:55 AM
Hi Michael, nice shots. It's easy to see that you brought the discipline and hard work of your nature work to the studio. What was your lighting setup? Flash? strobes? How many and what positions? and how did you go about metering? They're very beautiful but just a little flat. Shadows add depth and will make the flowers pop out more. How's that for a vague concept? :) But if you have the ability to reposition the light(s) you should get some very different and interesting results. adjust to taste. shadows are good in many situations. Again, nice work. later, kevin
tattoo Bridge at Night Chinatown
intheyan
03-31 11:27 PM
yes u can
more...
pictures nyc 002.jpg
rheoretro
09-25 04:51 PM
No one has ever been denied mortgage because their green card is pending, all other things (credit record, finances etc) being equal...that would constitute housing discrimintaion...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
dresses of NYC Traffic at Night
katewill
08-24 02:28 PM
i got it. thanks Xu1
according to your info, can i assume:
out of 360K,
270k belongs to EB3
135k still in DBEC (lets say 100K for 2001-02 cases)
135k still in PBEC (lets say 35K pending 2001-02)
so still 135k pending for EB3 for 2001-02.
so what is ratio of big 4 vs. the rest in EB3? any guess?
no one knows monthly BEC approval rate either right?
i am trying to guess how further will it retrogress...(well no one knows but...)
according to your info, can i assume:
out of 360K,
270k belongs to EB3
135k still in DBEC (lets say 100K for 2001-02 cases)
135k still in PBEC (lets say 35K pending 2001-02)
so still 135k pending for EB3 for 2001-02.
so what is ratio of big 4 vs. the rest in EB3? any guess?
no one knows monthly BEC approval rate either right?
i am trying to guess how further will it retrogress...(well no one knows but...)
more...
makeup NYC At Night design
dixie
02-15 10:11 AM
Definitely an idea worth considering. Of late we hvae had too many "new members" who turn out to be 2-3 post wonders - get their questions answered and vanish without a trace. But given the subsidy mentality prelavent among our "educated and skilled" community, I doubt the idea will fly.
girlfriend NYskyline at night
bikram_das_in
01-26 01:13 PM
@waitingnwaiting
How many of these 7 toppers are from Telengana and how many are from your district?
This news is not related to immigration but one about Tri Valley University is. About 1000 students, mostly from Andghra pradesh face deportation for immigration fraud.
How many of these 7 toppers are from Telengana and how many are from your district?
This news is not related to immigration but one about Tri Valley University is. About 1000 students, mostly from Andghra pradesh face deportation for immigration fraud.
hairstyles Union Square bustle, Night
wildcat1313
03-30 04:53 PM
How in the world did you get so many greens??
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
Thanks guys for your support. Its not that I didn't want to contribute and I will definetely do it once I get my H1 visa stamped.
Status Update -
Manager is working actively on getting all the documents ready including detailed job description, requriements that were posted when I joined, vendor letter stating they cannot provide the master agreement with detailed duties. My client lawyers have asked the vendor not to share the master agreeement otherwise it will be a breach of contract, so there is nothing much my manager can do.
My company has already prepared a letter to show work schedule if I get out of work with current client.
So now I have almost all the letters that I have been asked for but I'm still not sure if I will get the visa without the master agreement. Do I have a choice?
What do you guys think?
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
Thanks guys for your support. Its not that I didn't want to contribute and I will definetely do it once I get my H1 visa stamped.
Status Update -
Manager is working actively on getting all the documents ready including detailed job description, requriements that were posted when I joined, vendor letter stating they cannot provide the master agreement with detailed duties. My client lawyers have asked the vendor not to share the master agreeement otherwise it will be a breach of contract, so there is nothing much my manager can do.
My company has already prepared a letter to show work schedule if I get out of work with current client.
So now I have almost all the letters that I have been asked for but I'm still not sure if I will get the visa without the master agreement. Do I have a choice?
What do you guys think?
keerthi
05-10 03:01 PM
We asked the AAO for an update since the case status has not been changed for the past 3 months and this is what we got from them...
"Appeals of an I-129 petition take about 6 to 8 months to process. It starts from the date your file was received into the Administrative Appeals Office. Please wait patiently for your case to be reviewed, thank you."
My case was transferred to the AAO by February 9, 2009 (as per the USCIS website). So, should I wait until October 8, 2009 for a decision or should I withdraw the case and re-file again?
What are my chances of getting it approved before October 2009?
Also, I only hold a 3 years Bachelor's degree and possess 6 years of work experience of which 5 years goes to the petitioning company. Is there a chance that I would be rejected based on the grounds of my degree?
"Appeals of an I-129 petition take about 6 to 8 months to process. It starts from the date your file was received into the Administrative Appeals Office. Please wait patiently for your case to be reviewed, thank you."
My case was transferred to the AAO by February 9, 2009 (as per the USCIS website). So, should I wait until October 8, 2009 for a decision or should I withdraw the case and re-file again?
What are my chances of getting it approved before October 2009?
Also, I only hold a 3 years Bachelor's degree and possess 6 years of work experience of which 5 years goes to the petitioning company. Is there a chance that I would be rejected based on the grounds of my degree?
myvinbox@gmail.com
08-17 01:44 PM
I just decided to wait and see . hopefully it will get cleared in next 2-3 months
No comments:
Post a Comment