rajuseattle
08-15 03:52 PM
It could be the mass system update at TSC as indicated in other forums.
Lot of folks at TSC are experiencing this LUD on 08/12
Lot of folks at TSC are experiencing this LUD on 08/12
wallpaper Cheap Quad Bikes, ATVs,
debabratn
07-05 09:31 AM
Received at Lincoln, NE. Sign for by J.BARRRET at 10.25 AM.
GCKaIntezar
06-11 01:30 PM
at some month before OCT 2007 the dates would become unavailable.
what would happen at that time?
say your case was received by USCIS and they have not issued FP notices.
what if they issued FP notices but not issued EAD and/or AP.
would they still issue an EAD and AP even if your dates are not current(obviously the case was received by them and they issued you a case number)
any ideas?
How do you know that the visa numbers will indeed become "U", come October? Any numbers/sources to back up the claim?
I know some senior members previously indicated in these forums that there is a difference between a "U"-Unavailable and a retrogressed date of 2003 for example.
what would happen at that time?
say your case was received by USCIS and they have not issued FP notices.
what if they issued FP notices but not issued EAD and/or AP.
would they still issue an EAD and AP even if your dates are not current(obviously the case was received by them and they issued you a case number)
any ideas?
How do you know that the visa numbers will indeed become "U", come October? Any numbers/sources to back up the claim?
I know some senior members previously indicated in these forums that there is a difference between a "U"-Unavailable and a retrogressed date of 2003 for example.
2011 Quads amp; ATV#39;s:
jayleno
09-21 03:01 PM
Hi
I dont have a RN in mail, but employer said my checked were encashed yesterday. My app was recieved at NSC on the 24th July.
I dont have a RN in mail, but employer said my checked were encashed yesterday. My app was recieved at NSC on the 24th July.
more...
pappu
10-06 08:08 AM
On the topic of �getting some of our measures during lame-duck session�, I am seeing some speculation (on other sites) that there is a chance these measures getting discussed during that session. I know these are just educated guesses, but it�s encouraging. see following:
================
From another thread on this site got this link, about Yale/Ivy League grads not getting H1B�s. There is quote from someone who thinks some immigration measures may be approved in Lame-duck session.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article...rticleID=33577
The House bill, the Senate bill, or some compromise may be approved during Congress' lame-duck session after the general elections in November, Yale-Loehr said.
=======================
This is from a leading corporate immigration law firm�s web page. They provide headlines and commentary on new regulations. There is some speculation about immigration measures getting discussed during lame-duck session:
The Road From Here:
On a broader scope, key House and Senate members maintain their position that Congress will examine comprehensive immigration reform in the period after the November election and before the start of the next Congress in January 2007, known as the "lame-duck" session. However, many of those involved in the debate over immigration reform question the ability of negotiators to reach an agreement, given the wide ideological gap between the House and Senate with respect to treatment of America's undocumented population.
====================
your comments / speculation / educated guess.......??...
yes true. there will be efforts during the lame duck session from both sides. However it will not be easy as it seems. We need everyone's support to prepare ourself for this session now. This is the reason IV has started its drive to increase its membership and funding. we need to look tall when we will speak to lawmakers about our cause. It should show that we are representing 1 million high skilled immigrants stuck in backlogs and retrogression.
================
From another thread on this site got this link, about Yale/Ivy League grads not getting H1B�s. There is quote from someone who thinks some immigration measures may be approved in Lame-duck session.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article...rticleID=33577
The House bill, the Senate bill, or some compromise may be approved during Congress' lame-duck session after the general elections in November, Yale-Loehr said.
=======================
This is from a leading corporate immigration law firm�s web page. They provide headlines and commentary on new regulations. There is some speculation about immigration measures getting discussed during lame-duck session:
The Road From Here:
On a broader scope, key House and Senate members maintain their position that Congress will examine comprehensive immigration reform in the period after the November election and before the start of the next Congress in January 2007, known as the "lame-duck" session. However, many of those involved in the debate over immigration reform question the ability of negotiators to reach an agreement, given the wide ideological gap between the House and Senate with respect to treatment of America's undocumented population.
====================
your comments / speculation / educated guess.......??...
yes true. there will be efforts during the lame duck session from both sides. However it will not be easy as it seems. We need everyone's support to prepare ourself for this session now. This is the reason IV has started its drive to increase its membership and funding. we need to look tall when we will speak to lawmakers about our cause. It should show that we are representing 1 million high skilled immigrants stuck in backlogs and retrogression.
anzerraja
07-20 10:14 AM
Zooom
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...U3Fn9GTQ&hl=en
Can you PM me your email id so we can work out the things with this thread.
Yeah sure we can extend this till monday..Is somebody keeping track of people and their pledge amount?
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...U3Fn9GTQ&hl=en
Can you PM me your email id so we can work out the things with this thread.
Yeah sure we can extend this till monday..Is somebody keeping track of people and their pledge amount?
more...
skgc
04-01 01:33 AM
Hi All,
I have a question about invoking AC21 using EAD vs AC21 using H1B.
My status is as follows:
- approved 140 from a BIG company with BIG lawyers, but company going down.
- more than 180 days since filing 485
- H1B valid till March 2010.
- I have been on H1B since 2001
- WILL BE LAID OFF THIS WEEK.
I do not know if my sponsoring employer will revoke my 140, but I believe it should not matter.
My question however is regards to the EAD/H1B usage after revoking AC21.
I may get an offer from a company that is small with limited funding. They are not willing to do my H1B and want me to use EAD. I wanted to keep my H1B valid, but the company will make me pay for it. And given that I will have to apply for extension soon, I will have to pay for it again. So monetarily, its not good for me.
So I thought of using EAD for the new job. But if I want to get back to H1B later, i have the following questions:
1. Can I go back to H1B again after using EAD
2. Will I be subjected to the cap?
3. What should I do to get back to H1B?
4. Can I do it without leaving the country?
5. Will the financial of the new company matter. Its a valid startup and my job will be similar. I will take a pay cut, but I believe it should not matter for AC21.
6. Any other advice, anyone?
I would really appreciate if someone could help me out.
regards,
ssk
ps: i have donated and been active in the forum earlier under a different name. i lost that id, hence created a new one. so please dont reply asking me to donate first.
I have a question about invoking AC21 using EAD vs AC21 using H1B.
My status is as follows:
- approved 140 from a BIG company with BIG lawyers, but company going down.
- more than 180 days since filing 485
- H1B valid till March 2010.
- I have been on H1B since 2001
- WILL BE LAID OFF THIS WEEK.
I do not know if my sponsoring employer will revoke my 140, but I believe it should not matter.
My question however is regards to the EAD/H1B usage after revoking AC21.
I may get an offer from a company that is small with limited funding. They are not willing to do my H1B and want me to use EAD. I wanted to keep my H1B valid, but the company will make me pay for it. And given that I will have to apply for extension soon, I will have to pay for it again. So monetarily, its not good for me.
So I thought of using EAD for the new job. But if I want to get back to H1B later, i have the following questions:
1. Can I go back to H1B again after using EAD
2. Will I be subjected to the cap?
3. What should I do to get back to H1B?
4. Can I do it without leaving the country?
5. Will the financial of the new company matter. Its a valid startup and my job will be similar. I will take a pay cut, but I believe it should not matter for AC21.
6. Any other advice, anyone?
I would really appreciate if someone could help me out.
regards,
ssk
ps: i have donated and been active in the forum earlier under a different name. i lost that id, hence created a new one. so please dont reply asking me to donate first.
2010 mini moto quads
abhijitp
07-08 04:04 PM
No postings on the windows of those Bharat Bajars and Cash N Carrys and Kumuds. Can't the i-phone designers and router gurus make Ashas and Abhijeets invisible with some eye catching posters?
Something like this would certainly spread the word in at least the indian/asian community.
Also, PERSONALLY send out emails to linkedln contacts/ various yahoogroups/alumni groups you are part of. I just did that.
Something like this would certainly spread the word in at least the indian/asian community.
Also, PERSONALLY send out emails to linkedln contacts/ various yahoogroups/alumni groups you are part of. I just did that.
more...
gjoe
12-17 10:16 AM
I opened a SR for non receipt of my FP notice, on 30Oct2007. I got a reply from USCIS exactly after 45 days ( very prompt) notifying me that " my FP has not yet expired or my FP is not yet cleared". Certainly this looks like a canned reply from USCIS which was sent even without looking at my file. I guess they should be more transparent in their process than just sending plain lies.
hair The Dixon Quadruplets amp; Big
nogc12
08-02 10:27 AM
I called customer service yeasterday and the response is that they were processing June22 cases and they would get to July 2 in 2-3 weeks.
more...
mariusp
03-18 11:58 AM
Called two weeks ago as per my post above. No FP yet. At this point I don't even care anymore... :(
hot Quads
test101
07-09 11:29 AM
I just PM . There is a report from washington post who is trying to do a story about the flower campaingn.
Story for the Washington Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I'm a reporter with the Washington Post. If your efforts result in Emilio Gonzalez receiving hundreds of flowers tomorrow, I would very much like to do a story on it. If you're interested in speaking with me and telling me your story and why you've decided to participate in this demonstration, please give me an email or call me. My contact information is below.
Thanks!
Xiyun
email:yangx@washpost.com
office phone: 202 334 6701
Story for the Washington Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I'm a reporter with the Washington Post. If your efforts result in Emilio Gonzalez receiving hundreds of flowers tomorrow, I would very much like to do a story on it. If you're interested in speaking with me and telling me your story and why you've decided to participate in this demonstration, please give me an email or call me. My contact information is below.
Thanks!
Xiyun
email:yangx@washpost.com
office phone: 202 334 6701
more...
house Quad 450 VR Information
Ramba
07-10 03:36 PM
Exactly! And thanks for clarifying that, which is what I've been trying to convey for the past 2 days! In your cook example, though, the cook can be self-employed with no income in a given period (week/month)--and he does not need to line up contracts. His business is "legitimate" and is in the same occupation as on his I140 petition. For an RFE-EVL, which he can write on his business "letterhead," all he needs to mention is his "projected" yearly income as salary.
USCIS may not buy if no income shown thro the bussiness. One may have a simple bussiness model. However, they should be in a position to show documentary evidence that they are making similar money as per 140, and importantly they are doing same kind of work when self employed, and they have a long term commitment/contract for their bussiness. Then only they may belief that you are doing legitimate bussiness thro self employment. Just writing EVL in a letter head will not serve the purpose.
USCIS may not buy if no income shown thro the bussiness. One may have a simple bussiness model. However, they should be in a position to show documentary evidence that they are making similar money as per 140, and importantly they are doing same kind of work when self employed, and they have a long term commitment/contract for their bussiness. Then only they may belief that you are doing legitimate bussiness thro self employment. Just writing EVL in a letter head will not serve the purpose.
tattoo Quad
alterego
10-08 09:14 PM
None of this damn crap is fair. There are 3 lines in the green card queue. 1) Labor/PERM line, further subdivided on the basis of BEC, PERM, Employer willingness, exempt(NIW) etc. 2) the I-140 Line and 3) the I-485 line. These lines each have inconsistent patterns depending upon the winds of the day, a few years ago, LC/BEC lines were long, employers were less willing to sponsor green cards, and there was no I-140 PP processing, now all of a sudden PERM is there, PP of 140 came into being, and 485 became an eternal wait and country quotas came into being. For those that got screwed with BECs then PP 140 got removed when they were ready to file and now PD retrogressed into the stone age, it sure would seem like non sense for the guy who got PERM in 2 weeks, then PP 140 in 10 days and filed 485 in he July fiasco. Nevertheless you are only speaking in terms of degrees of getting screwed, since all are being done so by an unpredictable and unreliable system.
None of this damn crap is fair, we all know it. The only fair thing is for this country to decide who it wants and needs and sort them out ASAP. A wait of 2yrs, 5yrs or 10 yrs is immaterial, all of the above are ridiculous in EB immigration, degrees of unfairness is splitting hairs if you ask me. Up to 2 yrs is understandable, but beyond that implies a broken system which we need to lobby to fix. If we can all agree on that then, we have a platform to move forward with, otherwise we will get nowhere. When you average out the way most immigrants came to this land....................all of us are way more contributing and deserving, lets try to remind people of that as well as our future potential.
None of this damn crap is fair, we all know it. The only fair thing is for this country to decide who it wants and needs and sort them out ASAP. A wait of 2yrs, 5yrs or 10 yrs is immaterial, all of the above are ridiculous in EB immigration, degrees of unfairness is splitting hairs if you ask me. Up to 2 yrs is understandable, but beyond that implies a broken system which we need to lobby to fix. If we can all agree on that then, we have a platform to move forward with, otherwise we will get nowhere. When you average out the way most immigrants came to this land....................all of us are way more contributing and deserving, lets try to remind people of that as well as our future potential.
more...
pictures Silk Eyeshadows Quads and
sayonara
08-27 01:23 PM
it's not mine case. Clockwork reported some LUD for I140 some where. May be Aug 5? Not sure. But I think LUD of I140 doesn't matter. This is my personal opinion.
Oh ok...thanks anyways...
P.S I have also read that LUD is not an indication of anything related..but at this point, its been almost 2 months since the application was sent to attorney and absolutely no updates..so I am grasping at straws...:o
Oh ok...thanks anyways...
P.S I have also read that LUD is not an indication of anything related..but at this point, its been almost 2 months since the application was sent to attorney and absolutely no updates..so I am grasping at straws...:o
dresses How To Make A Quad Road Legal
buddyinsd
08-25 05:04 PM
I'm guessing ppl who got LUDs recently (mostly on 21st) have been assigned visa numbers which are going to be released only nxt month and they will be approved only in the beginning of Sept.
Visa numbers for this month have been used up. And going by the # of ppl who got LUDs even if they were not current, my assumption is that their applications were in the same box as the ones who were current and it was a mass update. I think come Sept, they're going to take all applications out of the "LUD Boxes" and sort out only those who are current and start approving them.
Again, its all assumptions...Nobody knows for sure whats going on...
Visa numbers for this month have been used up. And going by the # of ppl who got LUDs even if they were not current, my assumption is that their applications were in the same box as the ones who were current and it was a mass update. I think come Sept, they're going to take all applications out of the "LUD Boxes" and sort out only those who are current and start approving them.
Again, its all assumptions...Nobody knows for sure whats going on...
more...
makeup ATV, ATVS, Quads,Mini ATV
desi3933
07-10 12:24 AM
@desi3933:
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
girlfriend on the quad bike prowl! J
hebbar77
09-13 09:34 PM
I agree to the point that: we pay for unemployment , SS tax etc when we ourselves are not eligible for any of that if we continue on H1, in fact we are supposed to exit this country when we loose job!!!
what a joke...
also did u see this in history:
when europeans came here abt 500 years back, natives did not welcome them nor liked them. Now legal immigrants are coming , and you know how they are treated!!
so I guess system is behaving like normal. Its upto us to fight the system...
by demanding GC , we(for us and our generations) are asking for right to apply for citizenship, ultimately a right on the resource of this country(all resources including natural resource). So there has got to be fight/effort to get it. It will not come just doing what we do for living.
what a joke...
also did u see this in history:
when europeans came here abt 500 years back, natives did not welcome them nor liked them. Now legal immigrants are coming , and you know how they are treated!!
so I guess system is behaving like normal. Its upto us to fight the system...
by demanding GC , we(for us and our generations) are asking for right to apply for citizenship, ultimately a right on the resource of this country(all resources including natural resource). So there has got to be fight/effort to get it. It will not come just doing what we do for living.
hairstyles vends des quads tout les
titu1972
08-07 01:52 PM
My I-140 has approved by NSC in Apr 2006. Now I'm moved to Houston.
Now I have applied my I-485 from Houston. My lawyer send my application to NSC. Since my current residence is in TSC region my application will be transfer to TSC. So I don't know how long it will take to get the receipt#.
My application received on 07/02/2007 at NSC.
Now I have applied my I-485 from Houston. My lawyer send my application to NSC. Since my current residence is in TSC region my application will be transfer to TSC. So I don't know how long it will take to get the receipt#.
My application received on 07/02/2007 at NSC.
bsnf
11-19 05:02 PM
Send 1 for me and 1 for my wife.
simple1
05-08 02:31 PM
we are talking about inclusion logic here. Not the exclusion logic.
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Do you see anywhere in INA mentioning that "EB-dependents should NOT be filed in EB-category". How is it a "mis-interpretation" then?
Again like I mentioned before you can archive the same goal (which you care about) via a different approach.
I do see in sec 203 how some one becomes eligible for "eb quota". I dont see ebdependents there. I see only eb primary.
I am sorry, I am not interested to carry this debate forward for the fun of debating. I strongly urge you to read sec 203. Thanks for understanding.
Do you see anywhere in INA mentioning that "EB-dependents should NOT be filed in EB-category". How is it a "mis-interpretation" then?
Again like I mentioned before you can archive the same goal (which you care about) via a different approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment