pbojja
05-21 12:03 PM
Has anybody in this group(i.e. whose I-140 was transferred to TSC from NSC recently) seen any movements in their case? I am in the same boat, I-140 filed May'07 at NSC and moved to TSC in Apr'08. I saw one more related thread but haven't seen any approvals recently.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18566
Please do update if you have any recent updates. Thank you
Looks like all the transfer cases are placed seperately and will not be touched for a while , My case was transfered to TSC on April 7th 08 and RD : July 5 th 07 . No word from TSC .. Not sure what we can do , more than a year of waiting for 140 approval ...God only can help us
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18566
Please do update if you have any recent updates. Thank you
Looks like all the transfer cases are placed seperately and will not be touched for a while , My case was transfered to TSC on April 7th 08 and RD : July 5 th 07 . No word from TSC .. Not sure what we can do , more than a year of waiting for 140 approval ...God only can help us
baby chicks pictures. Baby Chickens
abracadabra
07-15 03:41 PM
I have the same question. If somebody knows please let us know
I wonder if MSNBC, CNN, FOX ever covered any of legal immigrants stand against the present immigration mess. I don't see any news about the flower campaign, about visa bulletin fiasco, or even the rallies that we have been doing? The fight has been very strong and unity is finally in place.
Am I missing something here? Most of us sent so many mails to these bigwigs and nobody showed our news and plight on their news?
I wonder if MSNBC, CNN, FOX ever covered any of legal immigrants stand against the present immigration mess. I don't see any news about the flower campaign, about visa bulletin fiasco, or even the rallies that we have been doing? The fight has been very strong and unity is finally in place.
Am I missing something here? Most of us sent so many mails to these bigwigs and nobody showed our news and plight on their news?
baby chicks pictures. Re: Baby Chick Pictures
GCJinx
03-21 03:47 PM
Thanks to all of you for your help
baby chicks pictures. Brown aby chick
h1techSlave
03-17 04:22 PM
Some lenders do not lend to H1/EAD. So if the cheapest lender happens to not accept H1/EAD, then you did not get the cheapest rate.
In your case Wells Fargo happened to have the cheapest rate and they were also accepting H1.
I am on the look out for a loan currently. The guy with the cheapest rate (around 4.8%) does not give loans to H1/EAD folks. So I am forced to go with a guy who is accepting H1/EAD, but the rate is 5%.
When you shop around ask for rate quote and that time they won't ask your immigration status. If bank changes the rate based on your immi status, do not go with them.
I bought the house while I was on H1 4 years back (I am still using my H1 and I have an EAD now) and nobody asked me my imm status. I submitted the document at the time of doing paperwork but it did not change my rate. I got the best rate based on my credit from wells fargo.
good luck
In your case Wells Fargo happened to have the cheapest rate and they were also accepting H1.
I am on the look out for a loan currently. The guy with the cheapest rate (around 4.8%) does not give loans to H1/EAD folks. So I am forced to go with a guy who is accepting H1/EAD, but the rate is 5%.
When you shop around ask for rate quote and that time they won't ask your immigration status. If bank changes the rate based on your immi status, do not go with them.
I bought the house while I was on H1 4 years back (I am still using my H1 and I have an EAD now) and nobody asked me my imm status. I submitted the document at the time of doing paperwork but it did not change my rate. I got the best rate based on my credit from wells fargo.
good luck
more...
baby chicks pictures. We just bought the aby chicks
chanduv23
11-13 09:48 PM
Expose these fradulent employers who have no basic ethics
baby chicks pictures. Baby Chicks (Straight Run)
rockstart
10-29 09:32 AM
Few facts that you need to get clear.
1) EB2 / EB3 is not based solely on your education/ experience. It depends on job requirements. If you have MS + 10 Yrs exp but the job is say Level 2 Data Analyst (SQL Developer) then it will not qualify for EB2.
2) You can file GC with same employer if he has a opening that requires MS qualification. You need to have qualification before labor is filed it does not matter if you get it while you were employed. This position should be different from your existing job.
If your employer has a job opening for which he cannot hire a citizen / GC holder then you guys can talk to immigration attorney to see if they can file a new labor for you.
1) EB2 / EB3 is not based solely on your education/ experience. It depends on job requirements. If you have MS + 10 Yrs exp but the job is say Level 2 Data Analyst (SQL Developer) then it will not qualify for EB2.
2) You can file GC with same employer if he has a opening that requires MS qualification. You need to have qualification before labor is filed it does not matter if you get it while you were employed. This position should be different from your existing job.
If your employer has a job opening for which he cannot hire a citizen / GC holder then you guys can talk to immigration attorney to see if they can file a new labor for you.
more...
baby chicks pictures. Four days old and hungry!
gchopeful2
08-17 03:16 PM
Why not FedEx?
baby chicks pictures. Baby Chick 2 Days Old Close-up
GC_SUCK
08-14 10:04 AM
I am also thinking to either file EB2-PERM or convert my current EB3-ROW Regular LC PD-04/2002 to PERM.
I received 45 day letter about six months ago. Do you think I should go with any of these options. Will appreciate ur comments
I received 45 day letter about six months ago. Do you think I should go with any of these options. Will appreciate ur comments
more...
baby chicks pictures. Baby Chick Love Card by
willwin
02-17 12:37 PM
The new PW system seems to be taking about 4-5 weeks, not months.
Have you or your org. got any PW responses in 4-5 weeks?
Have you or your org. got any PW responses in 4-5 weeks?
baby chicks pictures. Baby Chicks 2006
SGP
12-09 02:15 PM
Good to see at least some movement in EB3-I
more...
baby chicks pictures. the aby chicks are three
americandesi
10-18 06:03 PM
This due to increased fee coming to effect after July.
The increased fee went in on July 31, 2007 and as far as I know, no relief in fee was provided to naturalization applicants unlike I-485 applicants till Aug 17. Still many naturalization applications were filed in Aug 2007.
Looks like the I-485 wave swept the naturalization applicants too :)
The increased fee went in on July 31, 2007 and as far as I know, no relief in fee was provided to naturalization applicants unlike I-485 applicants till Aug 17. Still many naturalization applications were filed in Aug 2007.
Looks like the I-485 wave swept the naturalization applicants too :)
baby chicks pictures. a bunch of aby chicks in
logiclife
09-25 12:07 PM
Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
more...
baby chicks pictures. Hen and Baby Chicks on Farm
jamesingham
06-22 04:20 PM
Mine is the same company that applied for EB2 in the first place
baby chicks pictures. loveable Baby chicks
sbmallik
05-29 10:15 AM
Actually, if you work for a Canadian company the time spent outside Canada will count as if you were in Canada. So, you will still be able to meet the 2/5 requirement. But you need to check what are the conditions, I know that you can't just create your own company and stay there for example. Check the requirements.
On the US side, what visa will you be working on ? H1B ? If you like to stay in US, why not gained Canadian citizenship and work on TN, which is 3 years now (maybe more in the future) and very easy ?
Wrong, time spent outside Canada while working for a Canadian company does not automatically counts for PR maintenance (2/5 years). That's for some exception situation like serving in the military etc.
On the US side, what visa will you be working on ? H1B ? If you like to stay in US, why not gained Canadian citizenship and work on TN, which is 3 years now (maybe more in the future) and very easy ?
Wrong, time spent outside Canada while working for a Canadian company does not automatically counts for PR maintenance (2/5 years). That's for some exception situation like serving in the military etc.
more...
baby chicks pictures. Baby chicks
Steve Mitchell
March 20th, 2004, 02:40 PM
Had to crop this one a bit...here's the reaction after hitting the game winning shot shot with 1.7 seconds left to give the Kings the victory.
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/543/1victory.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/543/1victory.jpg
baby chicks pictures. Six Baby Chicks by Lois Bryan
mpadapa
01-21 12:57 PM
Caliber, sorry to miss U'r presence. Hope you R actively working on the letter campaign
Due to some unforeseen situation, I will not be able to attend. I participated in the poll that i will attend. But now I will not be able to attend. Sorry about it.
Due to some unforeseen situation, I will not be able to attend. I participated in the poll that i will attend. But now I will not be able to attend. Sorry about it.
more...
baby chicks pictures. Baby Chicks | Free Clip Art
zimmy100
03-24 12:30 PM
Friends,
I am in the same boat. I filed EB 2 labor in Nov 2006 under PERM process and alos my
I-140 got approved on Sep.
In 2007 before July, I ask my company it self they gave me EB3 labor with July 2004 priority date. So I substitute the labor under EB3 in March 2007 and it got approved in Sep 05, 2008.
When I was filing EB2 , I 140 in Dec 2007, requsested attorney to do porting. As I said it approved already (Sep 07,2008) but case did not get port.
Attorney saying she did fallow up with USCIS but she got response back that since they (USCIS) already approved my case she can only do proting when I file 484 under EB2 category. One more thing is I filed 485 EB3 in July 2007 and this is my greatest mistake which I ever done in my life.
Guys am not sure how much true my attorney is! isn't it true that if USCIS made a mistake or overlook a case(pending more than an year @ USCIS) attorney should fight back?
I do not know how can I trust this answer. Share your thoughts...
-Thanks for your thoughts..
I am in the same boat. I filed EB 2 labor in Nov 2006 under PERM process and alos my
I-140 got approved on Sep.
In 2007 before July, I ask my company it self they gave me EB3 labor with July 2004 priority date. So I substitute the labor under EB3 in March 2007 and it got approved in Sep 05, 2008.
When I was filing EB2 , I 140 in Dec 2007, requsested attorney to do porting. As I said it approved already (Sep 07,2008) but case did not get port.
Attorney saying she did fallow up with USCIS but she got response back that since they (USCIS) already approved my case she can only do proting when I file 484 under EB2 category. One more thing is I filed 485 EB3 in July 2007 and this is my greatest mistake which I ever done in my life.
Guys am not sure how much true my attorney is! isn't it true that if USCIS made a mistake or overlook a case(pending more than an year @ USCIS) attorney should fight back?
I do not know how can I trust this answer. Share your thoughts...
-Thanks for your thoughts..
baby chicks pictures. Newly hatched aby chicks
kondur_007
08-21 07:12 PM
Is it legal to work overtime when you are on H1B? I have been working more than 40 hours a week ever since I got my H1B (about 5 hours overtime per week on average). They pay me time and half for the hours over 40.
The reason I ask is that I need to send a couple of paystubs as my parents are travelling to the US soon and I do not want the guy at the port of entry make a bid deal of my overtime hours (if he looks at it and finds out, which I doubt).
The person that stamps your passport and I-94 at the port of entry, is he an immigration officer or who is he? I am writing a letter for my parents to carry with them to show that person if asked for it and not sure who to address the letter. Thanks.
Working more is not an issue at all as long as you worked for the sponsoring employer and all the income is reported on one W2 form from the same employer for the stated job on LCA.
On the other hand, I think you have to have "full time job" on H1 unless it is specified as "part time" on LCA specifically. So working less hours may be an issue.
With regard to your second question: the person at the airport is Customs and Border Patrol Officer (the one who stamps I-94). You can write letter with "Dear Officer" address.
Good Luck
The reason I ask is that I need to send a couple of paystubs as my parents are travelling to the US soon and I do not want the guy at the port of entry make a bid deal of my overtime hours (if he looks at it and finds out, which I doubt).
The person that stamps your passport and I-94 at the port of entry, is he an immigration officer or who is he? I am writing a letter for my parents to carry with them to show that person if asked for it and not sure who to address the letter. Thanks.
Working more is not an issue at all as long as you worked for the sponsoring employer and all the income is reported on one W2 form from the same employer for the stated job on LCA.
On the other hand, I think you have to have "full time job" on H1 unless it is specified as "part time" on LCA specifically. So working less hours may be an issue.
With regard to your second question: the person at the airport is Customs and Border Patrol Officer (the one who stamps I-94). You can write letter with "Dear Officer" address.
Good Luck
baby chicks pictures. Hen And Baby Chicks Poster by
caforum2
06-19 07:32 AM
EAD has nothing to do with status. He is in legal status as long as his I-485 is filed and waiting to be decided by USCIS, even if his non immigrant visa expired. EAD is work permit and he can't work based on EAD filing but only on approved ead.
ras
09-19 01:39 AM
Do you have any idea of my presence or absence at the rally? What is that you want to know and say. You seem to have joined recently and started shouting others. With out even knowing the facts don't go crazy..
How many people did you get to todays rally by the way.. Is it more than 100?
hello ras,
did u show up today at the rally man?
why don't you show this to congressman
why show us your inventions about GC fourth law ?
and other people like us who can't make decision and change the law?
after gc wud u like to invent citizenship formula
try to get some 50 eople in the next rally
Thanks
How many people did you get to todays rally by the way.. Is it more than 100?
hello ras,
did u show up today at the rally man?
why don't you show this to congressman
why show us your inventions about GC fourth law ?
and other people like us who can't make decision and change the law?
after gc wud u like to invent citizenship formula
try to get some 50 eople in the next rally
Thanks
WillIWin?
02-18 10:16 AM
Hello everyone,
I know this topic is taboo and probably raised eleswhere, but I couldn't help wonder one thing.
The BECs have shut down and no more LCs are pending. Also labour substitution is not allowed anymore. So does that not mean that from this point onwards we should NEVER see the priority dates retrogress any further? I mean isint that logical or am I missing something major? Until now, the pending LCs in the BECs were hanging like a sword over our heads, but now that problem is gone (i know a lot of people have suffered over the years for the same and I respect that).
I guess my question is: Is there ANY possible reason for the PDs for any country to further retrogress?
Your reasoning is nearly correct. But you are missing Two points:
1. There will be some cases from BECs which could not file AOSs in time since their labors did not clear for them in the july/aug timeframe. Only when these have cleared will the chances of further retrogression decrease.
2. ALSO - Just as an example, If there are 100000 Eb2s with PDs of 2005. We know that there are NOT 10000 visa #s available for EB2s, in that case too, the dates will retrogress - since thats the only way they can prevent visa #s being used.
Am I making much sense ?
I know this topic is taboo and probably raised eleswhere, but I couldn't help wonder one thing.
The BECs have shut down and no more LCs are pending. Also labour substitution is not allowed anymore. So does that not mean that from this point onwards we should NEVER see the priority dates retrogress any further? I mean isint that logical or am I missing something major? Until now, the pending LCs in the BECs were hanging like a sword over our heads, but now that problem is gone (i know a lot of people have suffered over the years for the same and I respect that).
I guess my question is: Is there ANY possible reason for the PDs for any country to further retrogress?
Your reasoning is nearly correct. But you are missing Two points:
1. There will be some cases from BECs which could not file AOSs in time since their labors did not clear for them in the july/aug timeframe. Only when these have cleared will the chances of further retrogression decrease.
2. ALSO - Just as an example, If there are 100000 Eb2s with PDs of 2005. We know that there are NOT 10000 visa #s available for EB2s, in that case too, the dates will retrogress - since thats the only way they can prevent visa #s being used.
Am I making much sense ?
No comments:
Post a Comment