chanduv23
01-13 09:21 PM
wGpSCdeEkB4
Posted on http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com/
Posted on http://iv-tristate.blogspot.com/
wallpaper Selena Gomez Justin Bieber
swamy
04-25 01:45 PM
Since no one is against eliminating fraud on H1/L1 - atleast on this forum - is there any chance we can request messrs Durbib/Grassley to tack on issues/amendments to prefile 485 or polish AC21 to its true intent of freeing up workers? maybe they wont accede but atleast it will end up calling them out ontheir bluff of supporting worker rights and expose their fierce hatred of immigrants..
jsb
09-22 04:49 PM
When calling USCIS did anybody question, if they have not yet entered even July 2 filings, why do their weekly updates indicate otherwise. It is very pertinent question and a very valid point to be taken to a congressman.
2011 May 27, 2011. Justin Bieber
desi3933
08-11 09:57 AM
....
I am not worried about the three companies I know of , I am worried about other 3000 companies that I don't know of.
I also believe, it is not the companies that are evil. It is the system that provides the incentive. And I am trying to take away that incentive.
Any update on lawsuit, SunnySurya?
Also, would you mind sharing your PD with us? This has been asked by couple other folks as well.
Thanks and Good Luck.
I am not worried about the three companies I know of , I am worried about other 3000 companies that I don't know of.
I also believe, it is not the companies that are evil. It is the system that provides the incentive. And I am trying to take away that incentive.
Any update on lawsuit, SunnySurya?
Also, would you mind sharing your PD with us? This has been asked by couple other folks as well.
Thanks and Good Luck.
more...
chanduv23
11-21 03:44 PM
But haven't got response from NSC or Ombudsman..
TSC people are thinking smart by sending "Contact Help Desk" letter
to everyone.. They don't even see what's in the letter and why 100's of people sending same letter. Sigh.. :mad:
Because - it is a legal issue and they have to deal with it carefully.
TSC people are thinking smart by sending "Contact Help Desk" letter
to everyone.. They don't even see what's in the letter and why 100's of people sending same letter. Sigh.. :mad:
Because - it is a legal issue and they have to deal with it carefully.
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.
more...
brshankar
08-07 02:11 PM
Sunny_surya,
What is you PD?
I asked this earlier, may be you missed it, so, let me ask you again...
What is your PD.
Regards,
GCCovet
Dude,
Sunnysurya is busy trying to get people for the lawsuit. He will not reply to you.
According to IV Tracker, his EB2 PD is Nov 2005. He has filed in Nebraska.
Thanks
What is you PD?
I asked this earlier, may be you missed it, so, let me ask you again...
What is your PD.
Regards,
GCCovet
Dude,
Sunnysurya is busy trying to get people for the lawsuit. He will not reply to you.
According to IV Tracker, his EB2 PD is Nov 2005. He has filed in Nebraska.
Thanks
2010 tattoo hair justin bieber and
roseball
09-24 08:39 PM
Any body know why there are 3341 cases in March 2005 in EB2 I category, is this about the time PERM came?With out quarterly spill over bulletin is going to get stuck in March 2005 till the end of the USCIS financial year.
Yes, PERM was introduced on 28th Mar'05. I guess the high number of EB-2s was due to employers rushing to file under the old system.
Yes, PERM was introduced on 28th Mar'05. I guess the high number of EB-2s was due to employers rushing to file under the old system.
more...
vdlrao
08-22 12:34 AM
Just because some one said, VDLRAO predicts right, he has become a Psycic Guru here. Please stop this. Every one keeps saying , he predicts everything right. Did he predict, EB2 with PD2006 will be processed before EB2 with PD 2003. Come on Guys, Give me a break and stop this rubbish. What did he predict and on what basis. I dont have anything personal here, I appreciate him, taking efforts to come up with some number based on the calculation. But Please stop spreading this on every forum that He predicts right.
You are right. My predictions are not rght all the time.
You are right. My predictions are not rght all the time.
hair dresses 2011 Justin Bieber and
arihant
01-25 12:27 AM
wow...u guys have made my decision easier...better to go via ny directly to mumbai
I have flown on Continental from Newark to Mumbai non-stop. The best international flight experience so far! I bought the ticket online at their website. Guess what! It was almost 60% the price of lowest price travel agents were quoting on other airlines!
The flight is a bit long lasting just under 15 hours. But, it leaves at around 8 PM. After an in-flight dinner, it is bedtime. People who have taken overnight bus journeys in India, this is not much different. If you can manage to sleep in that half sitting position (I cannot!) then it is that much better. You wake up, eat breakfast, spend 3-4 hours enjoying their inflight individual entertaintment unit, and soon it is time to land in Mumbai.
There is no hassle with food either. Indian veg is part of their standard offering. So, no hassle of ordering AVML and hoping that they will remember to serve it to you.
The down side:
1) The length - at 15 hours (16.5 hours during return), it can get too much.
2) The service is as bad as any US domestic flight.
3) If you do not live in Mumbai or Delhi, your journey would not end with this flight.
I see that more airlines are moving towards this long haul model with flights lasting over 12 hours. I think it is great, because we avoid all transit hassles, such as security, transit visa, etc., etc.
Soon, AI, Jet and Kingfisher are going to enter into this market. Hopefully more cities in India will connected to more cities in US this way.
I have flown on Continental from Newark to Mumbai non-stop. The best international flight experience so far! I bought the ticket online at their website. Guess what! It was almost 60% the price of lowest price travel agents were quoting on other airlines!
The flight is a bit long lasting just under 15 hours. But, it leaves at around 8 PM. After an in-flight dinner, it is bedtime. People who have taken overnight bus journeys in India, this is not much different. If you can manage to sleep in that half sitting position (I cannot!) then it is that much better. You wake up, eat breakfast, spend 3-4 hours enjoying their inflight individual entertaintment unit, and soon it is time to land in Mumbai.
There is no hassle with food either. Indian veg is part of their standard offering. So, no hassle of ordering AVML and hoping that they will remember to serve it to you.
The down side:
1) The length - at 15 hours (16.5 hours during return), it can get too much.
2) The service is as bad as any US domestic flight.
3) If you do not live in Mumbai or Delhi, your journey would not end with this flight.
I see that more airlines are moving towards this long haul model with flights lasting over 12 hours. I think it is great, because we avoid all transit hassles, such as security, transit visa, etc., etc.
Soon, AI, Jet and Kingfisher are going to enter into this market. Hopefully more cities in India will connected to more cities in US this way.
more...
MrWaitingGC
06-29 06:32 PM
USCIS may say "Oops! Sorry! This is just a typo. U got rotated by 90 degrees clockwise." :mad:
I liked your sense of humor.
I liked your sense of humor.
hot tattoo Justin Bieber And
lavenyahs
05-24 11:57 AM
Hello All,
In my Birth certiifcate which was registered immediately after 10 days of my birth ,as per Indian custom I was named after my Grandmother and the birth certificate has that name. But later while joining in school we changed it to a different name just retaining a half of my Grandmother's name. So the Birth certificate I now have has a different name from my current name , what I now have in my passport and everything. So while filing I-485 what do I do? Is a sworn affidavit by my parents stating the name change and my Matriculation certificate showing my current name enough. I have waited 41/2 yrs in H4 to get Labor cleared and PD to become current and now I am going nuts. Pls. reply
In my Birth certiifcate which was registered immediately after 10 days of my birth ,as per Indian custom I was named after my Grandmother and the birth certificate has that name. But later while joining in school we changed it to a different name just retaining a half of my Grandmother's name. So the Birth certificate I now have has a different name from my current name , what I now have in my passport and everything. So while filing I-485 what do I do? Is a sworn affidavit by my parents stating the name change and my Matriculation certificate showing my current name enough. I have waited 41/2 yrs in H4 to get Labor cleared and PD to become current and now I am going nuts. Pls. reply
more...
house justin bieber selena gomez
logiclife
07-09 07:19 PM
The message no longer appears on USCIS portal now.
I think they are reading our portals:)
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Its still there.
I think they are reading our portals:)
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Its still there.
tattoo 2010 justin bieber selena
garybanz
01-08 10:00 AM
Pls feel free to change the text of the letter and personalize it if you wish. If you wish to include your story and attach a photo copy of your degrees, patents, awards, please do so. Just make sure to include the provisions we are trying to push.
If you are handwriting the letter, your writing should be legible. If nobody can read your writing, then it will defeat the purpose. Write the letter in such a way that the key points are easy to read. If you would like to use rules, bold text, highlighters etc... go ahead and do it.
We all need to be as creative as possible to make this campaign a success.
Some of the feedback we got when we met our legislators here in Dallas was, when ever we send letters of these kinds they get much more attention when
1) The letter has a personal story in it
2) Letter is hand written
If the letter is hand written and has a personal story in it (along with the IV agenda) then it's likely that some one will read it. On the other hand if it's just a printed copy of a standard letter then it's just going to get tossed into a bin.
If you are handwriting the letter, your writing should be legible. If nobody can read your writing, then it will defeat the purpose. Write the letter in such a way that the key points are easy to read. If you would like to use rules, bold text, highlighters etc... go ahead and do it.
We all need to be as creative as possible to make this campaign a success.
Some of the feedback we got when we met our legislators here in Dallas was, when ever we send letters of these kinds they get much more attention when
1) The letter has a personal story in it
2) Letter is hand written
If the letter is hand written and has a personal story in it (along with the IV agenda) then it's likely that some one will read it. On the other hand if it's just a printed copy of a standard letter then it's just going to get tossed into a bin.
more...
pictures Selena Gomez ANd Justin Bieber
caliguy
10-05 05:47 PM
@ fatjoe
We should also check if we have a case to sue USCIS. Last year, they said they were going by receipt/notice date and not PDs. What are they going by this year? Hundreds of people with receipt/notice/PD later than mine have been approved. My PD is June 2004.
Yes, lets send a letter collectively to Napolitino.
Hi vikki76, bpositive, dipika, caliguy, leoindiano:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?
We should also check if we have a case to sue USCIS. Last year, they said they were going by receipt/notice date and not PDs. What are they going by this year? Hundreds of people with receipt/notice/PD later than mine have been approved. My PD is June 2004.
Yes, lets send a letter collectively to Napolitino.
Hi vikki76, bpositive, dipika, caliguy, leoindiano:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?
dresses May 28, 2011. Justin Bieber
nmdial
09-24 12:06 PM
The link is still there: (if you meant the pending list)
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.pdf
more...
makeup justin bieber selena gomez
JazzByTheBay
09-24 09:03 AM
In essence what the memo seems to state is that I can have another employer file an I-140 petition, and if approved, simply substitute the I-140 in my existing I-485.
Is that right?
jazz
It is possible to use your new approved 140(EB2). Your date are current and do request USCIS and go in front of GC line. Good luck.
You can request USCIS with reference to this citation/pdf.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/august2002_citation2c.pdf
Please make a token contribution to IV.
Is that right?
jazz
It is possible to use your new approved 140(EB2). Your date are current and do request USCIS and go in front of GC line. Good luck.
You can request USCIS with reference to this citation/pdf.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/august2002_citation2c.pdf
Please make a token contribution to IV.
girlfriend justin bieber selena gomez
caliguy
10-23 02:45 PM
@ fatjoe
I am not getting through. It just keeps ringing. Has anyone called Ombudsman number and got to speak to anyone?
Did you send 7001 to Ombudsman? So, Ombudsman is also hopeless?
Did you call them to find out the status? Here is Om's #, in case you don't know: 202-282-8000. Call them and update us as well.
[/QUOTE]
I am not getting through. It just keeps ringing. Has anyone called Ombudsman number and got to speak to anyone?
Did you send 7001 to Ombudsman? So, Ombudsman is also hopeless?
Did you call them to find out the status? Here is Om's #, in case you don't know: 202-282-8000. Call them and update us as well.
[/QUOTE]
hairstyles Justin Bieber Selena Gomez
godbless
01-22 02:12 PM
If you really want to be on h1(very safe decision), why don't you leave for a couple of days and re-enter on your H1?
You mean even when my application for h1 extension has already been sent to USCIS?
You mean even when my application for h1 extension has already been sent to USCIS?
sunny1000
05-17 11:51 AM
Is AP a multiple entry document like a visa? or is there a limit on the number of travels within its one year validity?
Thanks much.:)
Thanks much.:)
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment