vsrinir
09-12 08:52 AM
I called list
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
pitha
10-05 04:15 PM
Seems like there might be an internal memo or understanding between USCIS and DOS not to approve many Eb2 India 485 even though there dates are current, this is the only explanation I can come up for the lack for eb2 india approvals in October. Even with the limited number of visas every quarter I was hoping there would be lot of approvals because of Visa spillover occuring every quarter instead of once every year, but looking at the USCIS performance in the first week of october it seems like there wont be any quarterly spillover at all.
Madhuri
06-26 02:46 PM
The salary in employer letter should match the one in labor or in I 140?
Mine is more in labor than I 140.
Mine is more in labor than I 140.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
arunmohan
01-07 02:32 PM
Group:
I am ready for anything GC, conditional GC or Citizenship which ever comes first. If it is required funding we can start a new funding drive. But we need to start actively. Still I beleive that we should ask for conditional GC first because USCIS itself can make a rule to give a conditional GC for people who are waiting for GC more than 5 years and staying legally in this country last 10 years.
We need to collect friends who are in same situation.
We should take advise from attorney if they can give some kind of help.
I am ready for anything GC, conditional GC or Citizenship which ever comes first. If it is required funding we can start a new funding drive. But we need to start actively. Still I beleive that we should ask for conditional GC first because USCIS itself can make a rule to give a conditional GC for people who are waiting for GC more than 5 years and staying legally in this country last 10 years.
We need to collect friends who are in same situation.
We should take advise from attorney if they can give some kind of help.
more...
PlainSpeak
04-04 08:18 PM
He told me EB2 dates might move to the end of financial year 2009 so that would mean Sep 2009. There are you happy now .....
Now stop this stupid thread
Aapne lalach ka yeh behuda natak ab band karo
Think about all those EB3 I out there. Have some shame. How would they feel if you talk about your own GC and get giddy about it in the forum when they have no hope. At least take your rejoicing to a private donor forum.
Thats the least you can do
Now stop this stupid thread
Aapne lalach ka yeh behuda natak ab band karo
Think about all those EB3 I out there. Have some shame. How would they feel if you talk about your own GC and get giddy about it in the forum when they have no hope. At least take your rejoicing to a private donor forum.
Thats the least you can do
indianabacklog
06-28 07:32 AM
Can anybody tell me what do i need to put on I-765 , Q11, as i am not able to rely on my company's attorney.
11.Have you ever applied for employment authorization from USCIS?
As per the following link - http://www.uga.edu/oie/ISSIS/form/Department/PR/Instructions%20for%20I-765.pdf
it says that you need to put yes and have to attach all the previous 797's.
But my attorney says that you need to put No. Only those who applied for EAD earlier have to put yes (Which i feel not correct).
can anybody clarify please.
Thanks in Advance.
=====================
contribution so far 100$
If you have never applied for an EAD card before then the answer is NO. If you have had an EAD before then the answer is YES. Pretty straightforward really. Your work visa is not an employment authorization in this context.
11.Have you ever applied for employment authorization from USCIS?
As per the following link - http://www.uga.edu/oie/ISSIS/form/Department/PR/Instructions%20for%20I-765.pdf
it says that you need to put yes and have to attach all the previous 797's.
But my attorney says that you need to put No. Only those who applied for EAD earlier have to put yes (Which i feel not correct).
can anybody clarify please.
Thanks in Advance.
=====================
contribution so far 100$
If you have never applied for an EAD card before then the answer is NO. If you have had an EAD before then the answer is YES. Pretty straightforward really. Your work visa is not an employment authorization in this context.
more...
thakurrajiv
11-25 09:47 AM
I was absolutely pissed off with the "local" ppl that got greedy and dragged the whole economy with them. Seeing that there are ppl like you (one of us) who are pretty much the same, i am seething with rage. Because of idiots like you, people with a pristine credit history of more than ten years and some saved money cant buy a decent house in the bay area (and elsewhere) and have to see their hard-earned money go down the drain in 401k and stocks.....I wish ppl like you rot in foreclosure hell and no one ever lends credit you, ever again!!!
boreal, cool down. Just think what you will do if you are in that situation.
At personal level ( micro level) these people are making right decisions. As long as you are not committing crime, nothing wrong with making decisions which are good for you. I will probably do the same thing if I am in that situation.
The core problem with system was cheap money because of lax lending standard and low interest rates ( blame Greenspan) and affordable housing (like ACORN from Dems). These decisions are made by people in power and so called smart people. Individuals do have their contribution to the problem but the macro decisions provided them means to have things which they can not afford. The bubble had to burst sooner or later ....
So right now, remember wealth is always relative. So since you haven't bought house, you don't have negative equity or declining value home.You haven't foreclosed so you can still get loan at decent rate and buy house at much cheaper price. All the people with money in the market are affected by recent downturn. So relatively speaking you are doing much better than a lot of other people ....
BTW I am in the same situation as you are and waiting for good opportunity to buy house at cheap price. Do you see the positive side ? I hope you do .....
boreal, cool down. Just think what you will do if you are in that situation.
At personal level ( micro level) these people are making right decisions. As long as you are not committing crime, nothing wrong with making decisions which are good for you. I will probably do the same thing if I am in that situation.
The core problem with system was cheap money because of lax lending standard and low interest rates ( blame Greenspan) and affordable housing (like ACORN from Dems). These decisions are made by people in power and so called smart people. Individuals do have their contribution to the problem but the macro decisions provided them means to have things which they can not afford. The bubble had to burst sooner or later ....
So right now, remember wealth is always relative. So since you haven't bought house, you don't have negative equity or declining value home.You haven't foreclosed so you can still get loan at decent rate and buy house at much cheaper price. All the people with money in the market are affected by recent downturn. So relatively speaking you are doing much better than a lot of other people ....
BTW I am in the same situation as you are and waiting for good opportunity to buy house at cheap price. Do you see the positive side ? I hope you do .....
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
test101
07-09 06:36 PM
Time to send pizza then
more...
mhathi
01-11 02:04 PM
Guys the race is on! Anti immigrants are onto our campaign. see this link!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-97988.html
Are you ready for the showdown? Lets send as many letters as we can!!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-97988.html
Are you ready for the showdown? Lets send as many letters as we can!!
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
TeddyKoochu
04-01 12:22 PM
I am not sure if u were born as an idiot or became an idiot after being turning a so called "donor".
To be frank I stopped contributing as and when IV started having donor forums.
There are thousands of websites and forums througout the internet to get info and what VKBris posted may not even come close to what Q and Teddy and so many others used to share as a group.
Now coming on to freebies,What benefit does IV provide to past contributors.I have contributed in the past, have been active at the initial stages,have spent my own money and booked airtickets to meet senators.Been a leader in a state chapter.But later realised that it was not worth for this forum which has partitions among so called donors.
Why the heck does any one want to see in a home page about posts on a donor forum.Just hide it and keep it among yourself and discuss .
Now red may follow,and a possible ban.
Thanks for your kind words, its people like you who motivate me to analyze the data and create interpretations for all of us. Believe me its all very simple but has been only possible with news, inputs, suggestions and critique from all its really teamwork. Only together we have been able to come to understand how best we can predict what the future holds for us. Nobody claims or guarantees for accuracy however we do try our best to give out the most up to date forecast. Many folks like and appreciate this and it brings traction and new members to IV. Nobody is discounting that advocacy is not important it really is important. However the characterization of freeloader by some is extremely unfortunate I would attribute it simply to their lack of understanding. VBKRIS it�s absolutely yours and IV prerogative to keep information in the Donor forum to respect hose who contribute financially, however in the internet age information travels very fast.
To be frank I stopped contributing as and when IV started having donor forums.
There are thousands of websites and forums througout the internet to get info and what VKBris posted may not even come close to what Q and Teddy and so many others used to share as a group.
Now coming on to freebies,What benefit does IV provide to past contributors.I have contributed in the past, have been active at the initial stages,have spent my own money and booked airtickets to meet senators.Been a leader in a state chapter.But later realised that it was not worth for this forum which has partitions among so called donors.
Why the heck does any one want to see in a home page about posts on a donor forum.Just hide it and keep it among yourself and discuss .
Now red may follow,and a possible ban.
Thanks for your kind words, its people like you who motivate me to analyze the data and create interpretations for all of us. Believe me its all very simple but has been only possible with news, inputs, suggestions and critique from all its really teamwork. Only together we have been able to come to understand how best we can predict what the future holds for us. Nobody claims or guarantees for accuracy however we do try our best to give out the most up to date forecast. Many folks like and appreciate this and it brings traction and new members to IV. Nobody is discounting that advocacy is not important it really is important. However the characterization of freeloader by some is extremely unfortunate I would attribute it simply to their lack of understanding. VBKRIS it�s absolutely yours and IV prerogative to keep information in the Donor forum to respect hose who contribute financially, however in the internet age information travels very fast.
more...
gg10004
07-09 06:29 PM
This message is posted on USCIS website.
Atleast the Director is now aware of the sufferings of GC filers.
The flower campaign (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6191) is getting heard.
-----------------------
Message from USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
I understand that individuals are planning to send flowers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) beginning on Tuesday, July 10. USCIS has made arrangements to forward those flowers to our injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
------------------------
Atleast the Director is now aware of the sufferings of GC filers.
The flower campaign (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6191) is getting heard.
-----------------------
Message from USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
I understand that individuals are planning to send flowers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) beginning on Tuesday, July 10. USCIS has made arrangements to forward those flowers to our injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
------------------------
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
wellwishergc
07-10 10:29 AM
If revenue from increased fee structure starting July 31 is the reason for making visas unavilable in July, I have a strong feeling that the visas may become current for all categories in the Aug Bulletin.
This is not a NEWS or RUMOR making rounds anywhere. This is a mere speculation on my part. Let's hope for the best but DO NOT get your hopes unrealistically high.
Cheers!
This is not a NEWS or RUMOR making rounds anywhere. This is a mere speculation on my part. Let's hope for the best but DO NOT get your hopes unrealistically high.
Cheers!
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
whitecollarslave
01-11 03:08 PM
I dont know too much about the conflict but the first post on the site says this:
Immigration Voice is starting a massive campaign to make it easier for immigrants and those on non-immigrant visas (H-1Bs, L-1s, F-4 students) to get green cards --- furthering the displacement of skilled American workers (programmers, engineers, scientists, etc.)
So, I'm passing along this suggestion from another group:
Please read the email below, and I ask you to cut/paste their letter text, and then
customize it (which is to say reverse engineer it) asking them to CLOSE
the door, not open it wide. We must act NOW to counteract their
campaign.
So thats just somebody's interpretation of letter campaign. Perhaps one of the enthusiasts over here should post something over there differentiating the goals of the letter campaign from illegal immigration along with all the arguments posted here and explain that their interpretation is incorrect.
Immigration Voice is starting a massive campaign to make it easier for immigrants and those on non-immigrant visas (H-1Bs, L-1s, F-4 students) to get green cards --- furthering the displacement of skilled American workers (programmers, engineers, scientists, etc.)
So, I'm passing along this suggestion from another group:
Please read the email below, and I ask you to cut/paste their letter text, and then
customize it (which is to say reverse engineer it) asking them to CLOSE
the door, not open it wide. We must act NOW to counteract their
campaign.
So thats just somebody's interpretation of letter campaign. Perhaps one of the enthusiasts over here should post something over there differentiating the goals of the letter campaign from illegal immigration along with all the arguments posted here and explain that their interpretation is incorrect.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
syedn
08-16 03:01 PM
I am trying to find out if filing a DHS-7001 has actually resulted in resolution of the approval for anybody. i see a lot of folks requesting an ombudsman to intervene but wasn't sure if anybody got a positive response back -- like the case is now resolved or something.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
gc28262
04-24 04:55 PM
Many folks on this forum are so excited that consulting companies are going to be affected by this bill. Many FTEs think they are safe and consulting companies going out of business will help them get their GCs faster. Wait and watch, such bills typically affects direct hiring companies more than consulting companies in the end.
Remember who is proposing these bills. Durbin and gang. Do you think they are trying to liberate the employees from the clutches of "bad" employers. I don't think so.
Many IV members has started seeing this anti-H1B bill as CIR 2009.
We are such a pathetic community !
Remember who is proposing these bills. Durbin and gang. Do you think they are trying to liberate the employees from the clutches of "bad" employers. I don't think so.
Many IV members has started seeing this anti-H1B bill as CIR 2009.
We are such a pathetic community !
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
everonh1
09-09 04:39 PM
Called up all California Congressmen and requested their support.
Got a patient ear on the other side from all whom I called-hope they really convey the message to the Congressman/congresswoman and hope they are flooded with calls to support the bill.
Will try and call others as well today.
Got a patient ear on the other side from all whom I called-hope they really convey the message to the Congressman/congresswoman and hope they are flooded with calls to support the bill.
Will try and call others as well today.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "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." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "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." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
nrk
08-17 02:55 PM
Yeah little excited as my PD is current from next month. want to wish the good luck for the people who just got freedom.
Nrk,
Looks like you were on a roll congratulating a lot of folks :D
Thanks bud
Cheer
Nrk,
Looks like you were on a roll congratulating a lot of folks :D
Thanks bud
Cheer
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
justin150377
07-09 06:47 PM
DONT DO THAT.
Let the flowers go to USCIS and let them do whatever they want with the flowers. Kindly dont jinx this campaign by cancelling your orders and asking for refunds.
It's too late flowers have shipped. They will have to be delivered somewhere, it'll just force the fedex/dhl not to accept a forward from USCIS.
Let the flowers go to USCIS and let them do whatever they want with the flowers. Kindly dont jinx this campaign by cancelling your orders and asking for refunds.
It's too late flowers have shipped. They will have to be delivered somewhere, it'll just force the fedex/dhl not to accept a forward from USCIS.
ItIsNotFunny
01-15 01:52 PM
I voted for all ideas supporting us.
Nice job. Green from me.
Nice job. Green from me.
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
08-14 11:20 AM
Today I received my card in the mail.
CPO Greened on 8/3/10 .
Card Received : 8/13/10.
Wait_for_ever's wait_is_over now.
CPO Greened on 8/3/10 .
Card Received : 8/13/10.
Wait_for_ever's wait_is_over now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment