Googler
06-18 05:10 PM
Our beloved DHS secretary Chertoff says on June 14, 2007:
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/sp_1181915713176.shtm
"know Secretary Gutierrez is also dedicated, as am I, to working very hard with members of Congress. We've been up there probably more than in our own offices over the last couple months, trying to make sure that members understand that comprehensive reform, while not perfect, offers the best chance to get all the sectors of the economy what they need in terms of work, offers the opportunity to deal humanely with what is a continuing social problem, and from my standpoint, offers us the best opportunity to maximize our efforts on national security, because, as I have said time and again, when I have agents out hunting illegal lettuce pickers, waiters and housekeepers, they're not chasing drug dealers, criminals and terrorists. I, frankly, think the drug dealers, criminals and terrorists are the biggest threat to this country."
Then why the hell are law abiding scientists, tech workers, students et al being subjected to these kafka-esque name checks?? Seriously. I think we should start bombarding Congressional offices and Chertoff et all with phone calls. Now that the Ombudsman's data is out, USCIS and FBI can no longer say what they have been saying all these years, that the scale of the problem is miniscule.
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
Sen. Obama and Rep. Gutierrez introduced the Citizen Promotion Act in March 2007. The bill has a provision that asks for a namecheck to be completed in 90 days (also includes mumbo jumbo about GAO studying the problem, but the results are already in thanks to the Ombudsman).
See
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1379:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.795:
We should enlist the co-sponsors of these bills to kill Sec 531 (k) and when CIR finally dies, to pass an amended version of the Citizen Promotion Act.
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/sp_1181915713176.shtm
"know Secretary Gutierrez is also dedicated, as am I, to working very hard with members of Congress. We've been up there probably more than in our own offices over the last couple months, trying to make sure that members understand that comprehensive reform, while not perfect, offers the best chance to get all the sectors of the economy what they need in terms of work, offers the opportunity to deal humanely with what is a continuing social problem, and from my standpoint, offers us the best opportunity to maximize our efforts on national security, because, as I have said time and again, when I have agents out hunting illegal lettuce pickers, waiters and housekeepers, they're not chasing drug dealers, criminals and terrorists. I, frankly, think the drug dealers, criminals and terrorists are the biggest threat to this country."
Then why the hell are law abiding scientists, tech workers, students et al being subjected to these kafka-esque name checks?? Seriously. I think we should start bombarding Congressional offices and Chertoff et all with phone calls. Now that the Ombudsman's data is out, USCIS and FBI can no longer say what they have been saying all these years, that the scale of the problem is miniscule.
Instead in CIR Section 531 (COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND AND SECURITY CHECKS) takes away the right for courts to rule on writs of mandamus filings:
"(k) Prohibition of Judicial Enforcement- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court may require any act described in subsection (i) or (j) to be completed by a certain time or award any relief for the failure to complete such acts."
Sen. Obama and Rep. Gutierrez introduced the Citizen Promotion Act in March 2007. The bill has a provision that asks for a namecheck to be completed in 90 days (also includes mumbo jumbo about GAO studying the problem, but the results are already in thanks to the Ombudsman).
See
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1379:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.795:
We should enlist the co-sponsors of these bills to kill Sec 531 (k) and when CIR finally dies, to pass an amended version of the Citizen Promotion Act.
wallpaper david gandy
boreal
08-24 06:38 PM
Quick point:
I would request members to please post their threads under the proper forum header. The issue raised by this thread has nothing to do with IV Agenda or Legislative issues.
Thanks,
BKarnik
wow .. 483 posts! Way to go!
I would request members to please post their threads under the proper forum header. The issue raised by this thread has nothing to do with IV Agenda or Legislative issues.
Thanks,
BKarnik
wow .. 483 posts! Way to go!
houston2005
08-21 11:26 AM
It is my turn to receive the "Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident" today. My depenedents are yet to receive this mail. This forum, Immigration-law, Immigration portal by Rajiv Khanna and many other immigration lawyers' websites like Murthy's etc were very useful to understand the immigration laws.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 08-30-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
Congrats.
Which service center did you applied to. I have similar PD (8/22/05) and EB2 NIW at TSC.
I did everything myself (EB2-NIW - India) - I140, I485, AP and EAD and my PD (I140 RD) and I485 RD are 08-30-2005.
I did make a one time conribution of $100.00 to IV.
Thanks a lot. All the best to all.
Congrats.
Which service center did you applied to. I have similar PD (8/22/05) and EB2 NIW at TSC.
2011 Pubblicato in David Gandy
desi3933
06-25 12:34 PM
You could argue that you don't need to have a job now, just that you need to be in a "same or similar"position when the 485 is approved. if your priority date is very backlogged, you have lots of time to find a job.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
Question 14. Must the alien have a new offer of employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the I-140 portability provisions?
Answer: Yes. The alien cannot still be looking for “same or similar” employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated under the adjustment portability provisions. The alien must be able to show there is a new valid offer of employment at the time the I-485 is adjudicated.
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
more...
dealsboy
07-19 10:27 PM
Trance,
Either you or your wife have to curb the career growth.
As of today EB2 is progressing well. There is a gossip out there that EB2 will be current in a year. If you stay with your current company you will get your Green Card.
If you stay in EB2 you may have to cut the career progression for 2 more years (Assumption - EB2 will be current in a year). If you move to Eb3 then it will be 10 yrs or more.
How sure are you that they will process her Green Card in EB2 or atleast they will file for a GC? If your wife only wants to join a company that processes GC in EB2 then there may be a chance that they will pay your wife less.
Decide on your own.
My personal suggestion.
Do not get into EB3 hell.
Answers
1. Do not take the offer. IMO.
2. Yes
3. No
Note : I am in EB3 and my wife is in health care. She will get her job next year.
Either you or your wife have to curb the career growth.
As of today EB2 is progressing well. There is a gossip out there that EB2 will be current in a year. If you stay with your current company you will get your Green Card.
If you stay in EB2 you may have to cut the career progression for 2 more years (Assumption - EB2 will be current in a year). If you move to Eb3 then it will be 10 yrs or more.
How sure are you that they will process her Green Card in EB2 or atleast they will file for a GC? If your wife only wants to join a company that processes GC in EB2 then there may be a chance that they will pay your wife less.
Decide on your own.
My personal suggestion.
Do not get into EB3 hell.
Answers
1. Do not take the offer. IMO.
2. Yes
3. No
Note : I am in EB3 and my wife is in health care. She will get her job next year.
gcdreamer05
08-05 05:11 PM
Guys n Girls,
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
more...
JunRN
07-17 12:09 AM
Copy of W2 and recent two pay-stubs is sufficient to file AOS.:)
My previous work experience is outside the US.
Do they also ask for tax returns from one's earnings outside the US?
My previous work experience is outside the US.
Do they also ask for tax returns from one's earnings outside the US?
2010 david gandy calendar. of our
jliechty
June 6th, 2005, 08:05 AM
Thanks. I will go back and reshoot this and experiment a bit. The scene wasn't lit by harsh light - high cloud as I recall. I actually deepended the shadows intentionally in the PS CS2 RAW converter - the original wasn't as contrasty. What is interesting is that while the actual exposure of the blown area should be well within tolerances (If I were still shooting B&W film I would have guessed it at around zone 8) it is just the one colour that is blown - and yellow is not one of the 3 channels so it must have actualy been 2 colours. I will have to keep an eye on my histogram display because I don't have the $ for a 1DSMkII!
Digital SLRs are like slide film - the dynamic range is more limited than negative film. FWIW, when you end up with detail-less yellows, the red channel is probably the one that has blown. Good luck with your tests. :)
Digital SLRs are like slide film - the dynamic range is more limited than negative film. FWIW, when you end up with detail-less yellows, the red channel is probably the one that has blown. Good luck with your tests. :)
more...
gc_chahiye
11-13 12:11 PM
after 180 days it doesn't make a difference whether i-140 is approved or not, one can change job..
i am not a lawyer
provided they find that your I-140 was "approvable" at that 180 day mark. If at that point they feel it was not (or worse try to issue an RFE to your old employer) you could be in trouble. Safest to wait for approval.
i am not a lawyer
provided they find that your I-140 was "approvable" at that 180 day mark. If at that point they feel it was not (or worse try to issue an RFE to your old employer) you could be in trouble. Safest to wait for approval.
hair British Model David Gandy,
enggr
03-17 03:56 AM
Friends,
My I-140 got denied after the RFE response. In response to the RFE in September my lawyer responded to the RFE in November and the result came early this month (march 2008).
In the RFE response in last November my lawyer told USCIS that the category was marked wrong as EB2 where the case should be actually under EB3.
USCIS denied the application saying that application cannot be approved under EB2 and request for EB3 cannot be entertained at this point.
The following are the words from USCIS denial notice.
"The petitioner indicated that it had made an error in marking the petition form and that the petition should be considered one requesting the beneficiary's classification under a different section of law. However, since the petition was filed for second-preference classification and was initially adjudicated on that basis, USCIS will not at this stage consider it for some other classification.
In accordance with a USCIS announcement dated on May 23, 2007, the petitioner may elect to file a new petition on the beneficiary's behalf requesting a different visa classification but supported by the instant labor certification.(A motion making this request would be denied.) If the petitioner elects to persue this option, it should include a cover letter which explains the request, include a copy of this denial notice, and clearly report that the original labor certification is with LIN XXXXXXXXXX housed in AXXXXXXXXX. "
Also mine and my wife's I-485 got denied on the same day. In the denial notice of I-485 USCIS has mentioned that "The regulation does not provide for an appeal to this decision."
We are planning to file a new labor certification by end of this month as the current one is 99% a gone case
As you all know I was trying to save this application to save my wife's EAD.
Please help me with one of the options below.
Regarding my rejected I-140 I have two choices as per USCIS and my lawyer. Either of them should be filed 33 days from first week of march. Doing both of the below options at the same time will result in automatic rejection of both
1) Appealing the decision
Pros: My wife gets a chance to win her EAD back which is a big win for us
Cons: USCIS has indicated in the rejection notice that they are rejecting the I-140 because it does not qualify for EB2. they added that our request for converting it into EB3 cannot be entertained at this moment of time. So chances of winning the appeal is small compared to filing new I-140 as per my lawyer
2) Applying new EB3 I-140
Pros: Chances of getting an approval under this new EB3 I-140 is more compared to appealing the old EB2 application (the old application also includes and the request to convert EB2 into EB3)
Cons: Definite loss of my wife's EAD. Also since the labor is on Aug 2006 they have a common expiration date of Jan 2008. All labors from June 2007 (somewhere around that time) expire 6 months of the approval date and I-140 within that 6 months only will be considered for processing. Since we have passed the Jan 2008 period my lawyer is saying the new I-140 can also get rejected. the only argument we can place is, the processing time taken/length of old I-140 processing and the suggestion given on old I-140 denial notice dated march 1st week.
I am wondering whether we can do an MTR (Motion to re-open on the old application). This option is not mentioned by USCIS or lawyer. I am wondering whether this option will eliminate the appeal/new I-140 application within 33 days previlege
. My answer to my attorney regarding the next course of action depends on your advice(s) very much.
Thanks in advance and I really appreciate who posted replies to my questions earlier.
Enggr:
Labor approved 2006 Aug EB2
I-140 applied 2006 Nov EB2
I-140 RFE 2007 Sep
RFE response 2007 Nov
I-140 denied 2008 Mar
My I-140 got denied after the RFE response. In response to the RFE in September my lawyer responded to the RFE in November and the result came early this month (march 2008).
In the RFE response in last November my lawyer told USCIS that the category was marked wrong as EB2 where the case should be actually under EB3.
USCIS denied the application saying that application cannot be approved under EB2 and request for EB3 cannot be entertained at this point.
The following are the words from USCIS denial notice.
"The petitioner indicated that it had made an error in marking the petition form and that the petition should be considered one requesting the beneficiary's classification under a different section of law. However, since the petition was filed for second-preference classification and was initially adjudicated on that basis, USCIS will not at this stage consider it for some other classification.
In accordance with a USCIS announcement dated on May 23, 2007, the petitioner may elect to file a new petition on the beneficiary's behalf requesting a different visa classification but supported by the instant labor certification.(A motion making this request would be denied.) If the petitioner elects to persue this option, it should include a cover letter which explains the request, include a copy of this denial notice, and clearly report that the original labor certification is with LIN XXXXXXXXXX housed in AXXXXXXXXX. "
Also mine and my wife's I-485 got denied on the same day. In the denial notice of I-485 USCIS has mentioned that "The regulation does not provide for an appeal to this decision."
We are planning to file a new labor certification by end of this month as the current one is 99% a gone case
As you all know I was trying to save this application to save my wife's EAD.
Please help me with one of the options below.
Regarding my rejected I-140 I have two choices as per USCIS and my lawyer. Either of them should be filed 33 days from first week of march. Doing both of the below options at the same time will result in automatic rejection of both
1) Appealing the decision
Pros: My wife gets a chance to win her EAD back which is a big win for us
Cons: USCIS has indicated in the rejection notice that they are rejecting the I-140 because it does not qualify for EB2. they added that our request for converting it into EB3 cannot be entertained at this moment of time. So chances of winning the appeal is small compared to filing new I-140 as per my lawyer
2) Applying new EB3 I-140
Pros: Chances of getting an approval under this new EB3 I-140 is more compared to appealing the old EB2 application (the old application also includes and the request to convert EB2 into EB3)
Cons: Definite loss of my wife's EAD. Also since the labor is on Aug 2006 they have a common expiration date of Jan 2008. All labors from June 2007 (somewhere around that time) expire 6 months of the approval date and I-140 within that 6 months only will be considered for processing. Since we have passed the Jan 2008 period my lawyer is saying the new I-140 can also get rejected. the only argument we can place is, the processing time taken/length of old I-140 processing and the suggestion given on old I-140 denial notice dated march 1st week.
I am wondering whether we can do an MTR (Motion to re-open on the old application). This option is not mentioned by USCIS or lawyer. I am wondering whether this option will eliminate the appeal/new I-140 application within 33 days previlege
. My answer to my attorney regarding the next course of action depends on your advice(s) very much.
Thanks in advance and I really appreciate who posted replies to my questions earlier.
Enggr:
Labor approved 2006 Aug EB2
I-140 applied 2006 Nov EB2
I-140 RFE 2007 Sep
RFE response 2007 Nov
I-140 denied 2008 Mar
more...
Soul
05-27 09:31 AM
Grrrr :P
hot Eyewear - David Gandy by
viper673
06-07 12:37 PM
Yes pending 485 at TSC.
The IRS can't produce transcripts older than 3 years.
There's a form you can fill out and pay $39/return and takes up to 60 days, but even on this one it says: "records older than 7 years may not be available as it's admissable by law that they be distroyed".
The IRS can't produce transcripts older than 3 years.
There's a form you can fill out and pay $39/return and takes up to 60 days, but even on this one it says: "records older than 7 years may not be available as it's admissable by law that they be distroyed".
more...
house david gandy calendar.
DudefromBombay
09-23 01:20 PM
I am eagerly waiting for the Nov Election results. Can't wait to see Democtas losing House and Senate and can't wait to see the Back of "BARRACK"
tattoo Attached Image
mmk123
01-19 08:17 PM
Democrats seem to be loosing senate seat in MA. Message is clear - in this great recession, people don't want more taxes especially when they are happy with their current healthcare policies and their healthcare coverage don't change a dime for those extra taxes. Especially, when MA people are already paying for state universal healthcare. Why should WE pay for THEM?
Probably, this means healthcare reform is dead or congress embraces more conservative bill passed by senate. End of road for more tax burdensome things like cap-n-trade, climate change bill or controversial bills like immigration reform unless some less-conservative republicans are on board. If it is ever considered, be ready for more durbin-grassley measures in the final bill. Fate of the bill depends on what matters for elections in 2010, probably more populist measures like tax cuts, another stimulus, job growth measures will be focussed for rest of the year..
Probably, this means healthcare reform is dead or congress embraces more conservative bill passed by senate. End of road for more tax burdensome things like cap-n-trade, climate change bill or controversial bills like immigration reform unless some less-conservative republicans are on board. If it is ever considered, be ready for more durbin-grassley measures in the final bill. Fate of the bill depends on what matters for elections in 2010, probably more populist measures like tax cuts, another stimulus, job growth measures will be focussed for rest of the year..
more...
pictures David Gandy - Page 4 - the
gc28262
04-12 12:45 AM
Since his denial was on March 31st, would the overstay clock starts from March 31st or from original I-94 expiry date? My understanding was that one can work legally using H1B receipt notice. Hence, OP was legal atleast till March 31st, 2009, correct?
-GCisaDawg
Yes OP was in legal status till Mar 31st. ( One is in status while H1B is pending)
-GCisaDawg
Yes OP was in legal status till Mar 31st. ( One is in status while H1B is pending)
dresses Are you the next David Gandy?
AVAKIL10
08-03 08:34 AM
Looks like SR request denial and not EAD denial to me..Don't worry.
more...
makeup Namely, David Gandy who would
pappu
08-16 12:16 PM
While it is good idea to move to UK there are similar protests going in UK due to job loss and lot of Work Permits going in favor of Indians. Recently I read an article which says that 18,000 Visas out of 30,000 Visa(High Tech) are granted to Indians.
UK based companies pulled out their operations from India stating the quality of work from Indian operations is very poor.
Adding fuel to fire Mr Mittal relentless aggression to acquire companies is all creating chaos in UK.
My 2 cents
yes correct.
they have their own immigrationvoice http://www.vbsi.org.uk/
UK based companies pulled out their operations from India stating the quality of work from Indian operations is very poor.
Adding fuel to fire Mr Mittal relentless aggression to acquire companies is all creating chaos in UK.
My 2 cents
yes correct.
they have their own immigrationvoice http://www.vbsi.org.uk/
girlfriend david gandy model. cum to the
coopheal
11-08 04:27 PM
get real man... 655K is lot of applications
just by plain math these will be done in Five years. If you add name check and other stuff this may be even more.
Also this time is on the top of what we have already waited for till now.
When USCIS isnt even providing simple meaningful reports (seperate EB 485 numbers) working with these random statistics is total waste.
If this 655K number of AOS is true, then the number of pending EB AOS is NOT big.
The total number of pending AOS in June, right before the July VB fiasco, is 597K.
Because DOS controls FB cut off date pretty well, we don�t expect receiving spike and approving spike for FB cases in July VB fiasco. In another word, the number of FB received cases and the number of FB approved cases
should be about same.
EB pending cases in September only grows (655K-597K= 58K) compared with the number in June.
This 58K cases probably are evenly distributed from 2001 to 2007, roughly10K
every year.
So, we should see big jump in EB Visa bulletin, since there are no BEC, 245i excuses any more and all the cases are in the hand of USCIS.
just by plain math these will be done in Five years. If you add name check and other stuff this may be even more.
Also this time is on the top of what we have already waited for till now.
When USCIS isnt even providing simple meaningful reports (seperate EB 485 numbers) working with these random statistics is total waste.
If this 655K number of AOS is true, then the number of pending EB AOS is NOT big.
The total number of pending AOS in June, right before the July VB fiasco, is 597K.
Because DOS controls FB cut off date pretty well, we don�t expect receiving spike and approving spike for FB cases in July VB fiasco. In another word, the number of FB received cases and the number of FB approved cases
should be about same.
EB pending cases in September only grows (655K-597K= 58K) compared with the number in June.
This 58K cases probably are evenly distributed from 2001 to 2007, roughly10K
every year.
So, we should see big jump in EB Visa bulletin, since there are no BEC, 245i excuses any more and all the cases are in the hand of USCIS.
hairstyles david gandy calendar
EndlessWait
05-01 12:09 PM
If old I-140 has not been revoked, you are entitled to the old PD.
8 CFR 204.5
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) , (2) , or (3) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
it it was not fraudulent.. that's what my lawyer told me
8 CFR 204.5
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) , (2) , or (3) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) or 205 of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
it it was not fraudulent.. that's what my lawyer told me
minimalist
10-13 02:48 PM
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
They may not care even if you go in casuals but may not be a good idea to push it that far.
Thanks!
They may not care even if you go in casuals but may not be a good idea to push it that far.
mariusp
02-22 09:28 PM
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
TSC
485: went from May 24 to April 10, 2007 :(
140: June 23, 2007
NSC
485: July 30, 3007
140: Jan 22, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment