nixstor
08-14 04:25 PM
Called 6 different operators at the USCIS and got different answers (atleast they are consistently inconsistent!)
2 Said it is perfectly fine as long as the amount is correct
3 said they prefer seperate checks but if the amount is correct they will accept it
1 said they will reject the whole package.
On a lighter note i spoke to one really sweet lady when my call was escalated. All i wanted to ask was about the checks, but she (very enthusiastically) looked up my information and informed me that i was not in the system yet and actually apologised to me. Now i KNOW she looked it up coz she got my middle and company names right even without my telling her that. She even said she has received a few calls today and the guy b4 me was a lucky caller as he was in the system as of Aug 8.
Called 6 different operators today? Wow!
2 Said it is perfectly fine as long as the amount is correct
3 said they prefer seperate checks but if the amount is correct they will accept it
1 said they will reject the whole package.
On a lighter note i spoke to one really sweet lady when my call was escalated. All i wanted to ask was about the checks, but she (very enthusiastically) looked up my information and informed me that i was not in the system yet and actually apologised to me. Now i KNOW she looked it up coz she got my middle and company names right even without my telling her that. She even said she has received a few calls today and the guy b4 me was a lucky caller as he was in the system as of Aug 8.
Called 6 different operators today? Wow!
wallpaper Nike Lebron James Men#39;s
.jpg "New air jordan 2011 men#39;s")
theOne
09-09 03:13 PM
What is the difference between 1099 and W2 ?
Thanks,
theOne
Thanks,
theOne
akkakarla
08-05 06:04 PM
Step 1: You will be called for interview by random picking of applications,if the person is arrested and answered yes to if you ever got arrested(95% of the cases will be interviewed,if the people gets suspicision about the applicant and/or sponsoring company.
Step 2: The applicant will be notified about transfer of I485 petition to the local office in email. This stops all LUD's on the case and they pretty much dependent on the local office communication and no updates on their case online.
Step 3: The Local offices will schedule the interview based on the workload and the processing timelines.They will not stop interviewing because of the retrogression.
Step 4: They send out the interview letters either to attorney and/or applicant 2-3 weeks ahead and they specifically mention in block letters the documents they are looking for in addition the original documentation submitted.
Step 5: Attend the interview and make sure to take all the necessary documents listed below:
1 The AOS interview notice letters
2 Passport, I-94s
3 EADs (latest and expired)
4 The fingerprint interview notice letters
5 Letter from old-employer-name
6 new-employer-name Employee varification letter
7 new-employer-name pay-stubs for current and past year
8 new-employer-name Consultant varification letter
9 Marriage Certificate
10 Birth Certificates
11 Couple of Marriage Photographs
12 Degree certificates/transcripts
13 The receipts of last fingerprint
14 Copy of I-485 transfer notice to local office (least Important)
15 Copy of I-485 receipt notice
16 Copy of documents when we applied for I-485 ( if available)
17 Copy of Letter from old-employer-name to INS written on 2/12/2002 with I-485 app.
18 Copy of I-140 approval notice ( if available)
19 Copy of Labor Approval ( if available)
20 W2 and Tax Returns
21 Employee/W2 wages List
22 Latest bank statements and utility bills
To the best of my knowledge these are the documents I may miss one or two.
Step 6: Once the interview is completed and the officer is satisfied with the documents and answers he will take the passports and check for the visa number to the A#. If he feels some discrepancy they will say that they will send the decision in mail which means we need to embrace for anything.
Step 7: If the visa number is issued from DOS he will then stamp the passport with I551 stamping and the card will be sent in week or two. If the decision is being sent in mail it generally(30%-70% of the times is rejection or asking for additional proof).
PS: It is not adviseable to reschedule the interview date. Once the date is reschedule one has to be prepared for long periods of time.It is good to get it done and get the moneky of our backs.
If you really need to reschedule the interview that is already scheduled one MUST MAKE SURE that the USCIS Local Offices are updated and get a written confirmation if possible otherwise the case will be considered abandoned.
Step 2: The applicant will be notified about transfer of I485 petition to the local office in email. This stops all LUD's on the case and they pretty much dependent on the local office communication and no updates on their case online.
Step 3: The Local offices will schedule the interview based on the workload and the processing timelines.They will not stop interviewing because of the retrogression.
Step 4: They send out the interview letters either to attorney and/or applicant 2-3 weeks ahead and they specifically mention in block letters the documents they are looking for in addition the original documentation submitted.
Step 5: Attend the interview and make sure to take all the necessary documents listed below:
1 The AOS interview notice letters
2 Passport, I-94s
3 EADs (latest and expired)
4 The fingerprint interview notice letters
5 Letter from old-employer-name
6 new-employer-name Employee varification letter
7 new-employer-name pay-stubs for current and past year
8 new-employer-name Consultant varification letter
9 Marriage Certificate
10 Birth Certificates
11 Couple of Marriage Photographs
12 Degree certificates/transcripts
13 The receipts of last fingerprint
14 Copy of I-485 transfer notice to local office (least Important)
15 Copy of I-485 receipt notice
16 Copy of documents when we applied for I-485 ( if available)
17 Copy of Letter from old-employer-name to INS written on 2/12/2002 with I-485 app.
18 Copy of I-140 approval notice ( if available)
19 Copy of Labor Approval ( if available)
20 W2 and Tax Returns
21 Employee/W2 wages List
22 Latest bank statements and utility bills
To the best of my knowledge these are the documents I may miss one or two.
Step 6: Once the interview is completed and the officer is satisfied with the documents and answers he will take the passports and check for the visa number to the A#. If he feels some discrepancy they will say that they will send the decision in mail which means we need to embrace for anything.
Step 7: If the visa number is issued from DOS he will then stamp the passport with I551 stamping and the card will be sent in week or two. If the decision is being sent in mail it generally(30%-70% of the times is rejection or asking for additional proof).
PS: It is not adviseable to reschedule the interview date. Once the date is reschedule one has to be prepared for long periods of time.It is good to get it done and get the moneky of our backs.
If you really need to reschedule the interview that is already scheduled one MUST MAKE SURE that the USCIS Local Offices are updated and get a written confirmation if possible otherwise the case will be considered abandoned.
2011 New air jordan 2011 men#39;s
FinalGC
11-06 11:43 AM
Here is a crutch for you.
You have an employee agreement which says that you will be paid health benefits. All you need to tell your Company A (if he comes after you), that you will report them to USCIS that you have exploited him and gave the wrong information before joining the company. This will prevent any desi..staffing company to advance to you, since all their future H1's will be heavily scrutinized and possibly his company will be shut down. He will have his own battle with USCIS. This will prevent him to come after you.
If I were you, I would have all kinds of written emails and documents ready for me to show the old employer that you have proof that the old employer was exploiting you.....I am sure you can come up with tons of things, like not paying on bench. Don't ever talk such matter, always write emails and ask feedback.
Email trails are the best way to keep all these staffing and desi companies at bay and prevent them from exploiting employees......I am speaking from experience buddy.....I had one guy after me and being a PM, by profession I saved all such email trails and he knew that. When I left him he gave me back the $11K, that he had taken from me illegally.
Yes, it is a good idea to spend 100-200 bucks with a reputed attorney like Murthy or Khanna or Shusterman to check your status before you jump. This will give you additional confidence to jump ship.
I get sad and angry at these desi employers who exploit their employees....I am sure some day they will reap what they have harvested....tears and pain of these exploited employees.....
My suggestion to my fellow colleagues is...those of have gone through this struggle...please do not become like them when you too come out of this GC maze.....
You have an employee agreement which says that you will be paid health benefits. All you need to tell your Company A (if he comes after you), that you will report them to USCIS that you have exploited him and gave the wrong information before joining the company. This will prevent any desi..staffing company to advance to you, since all their future H1's will be heavily scrutinized and possibly his company will be shut down. He will have his own battle with USCIS. This will prevent him to come after you.
If I were you, I would have all kinds of written emails and documents ready for me to show the old employer that you have proof that the old employer was exploiting you.....I am sure you can come up with tons of things, like not paying on bench. Don't ever talk such matter, always write emails and ask feedback.
Email trails are the best way to keep all these staffing and desi companies at bay and prevent them from exploiting employees......I am speaking from experience buddy.....I had one guy after me and being a PM, by profession I saved all such email trails and he knew that. When I left him he gave me back the $11K, that he had taken from me illegally.
Yes, it is a good idea to spend 100-200 bucks with a reputed attorney like Murthy or Khanna or Shusterman to check your status before you jump. This will give you additional confidence to jump ship.
I get sad and angry at these desi employers who exploit their employees....I am sure some day they will reap what they have harvested....tears and pain of these exploited employees.....
My suggestion to my fellow colleagues is...those of have gone through this struggle...please do not become like them when you too come out of this GC maze.....
more...
pd_recapturing
07-09 10:03 PM
Applied PP on 29th, got RFE on 6th. They asked about 2006 W2. Sent the response and now waiting for approval.
InTheMoment
08-09 09:29 PM
And how may I ask you came to this conclusion?
Any reference, link would be helpful.
This bill is mostly for aviation safety. It doesn't necessarily applies to immigrants who are applying for permanent residency.
Any reference, link would be helpful.
This bill is mostly for aviation safety. It doesn't necessarily applies to immigrants who are applying for permanent residency.
more...
gc_wow
09-16 10:43 PM
This lou dog has done much damage to our community, firing him from CNN or removing his sponsers is not going to do much. He will go to another channel and life goes on. Get this guy on our side and make him tell our story. When the dog barks point it towards enemy.
2010 On Sale,Lebron James Shoes
TO BE OR NO TO BE
02-03 09:13 AM
I have a question.
I am EB3 with priority date Oct. 2006. My qualification from India is 3 years (B.Com) plus 1 year of M.com (I didn't complete the 2nd year) plus Intermediate ICWA and Chartered Accountancy. I got here in the USA in December 1999 on H1B and always maintained the status. I completed CPA in 2002 in the USA.
I did some research to port to EB2 (based on Bachelors degree plus 5 years experience) but it seems that USCIS wants 4 years continuous degree to be considered for EB2.
Is that true? Is there anyone in my situation who has done this porting successfully?
Any help will be greatly appreciate.
Thank you,
I am EB3 with priority date Oct. 2006. My qualification from India is 3 years (B.Com) plus 1 year of M.com (I didn't complete the 2nd year) plus Intermediate ICWA and Chartered Accountancy. I got here in the USA in December 1999 on H1B and always maintained the status. I completed CPA in 2002 in the USA.
I did some research to port to EB2 (based on Bachelors degree plus 5 years experience) but it seems that USCIS wants 4 years continuous degree to be considered for EB2.
Is that true? Is there anyone in my situation who has done this porting successfully?
Any help will be greatly appreciate.
Thank you,
more...
sri1309
12-16 06:27 AM
I know it may be tough and there is a good chance for things to worsen for most here.
I am not sure why we dont have IV Action Item on Writing to Obama and the campaign planned.
Please act before it gets worse. If you are in job, just imagine what it would be if for some reasons you loose it. Will you act then?.
IV Core, please do somehting fast..
I am not sure why we dont have IV Action Item on Writing to Obama and the campaign planned.
Please act before it gets worse. If you are in job, just imagine what it would be if for some reasons you loose it. Will you act then?.
IV Core, please do somehting fast..
hair running shoes
andycool
11-10 06:39 AM
Hello gurus,
I have one doubt abt requirements to port EB2.
my EB3 priority date is Aug 2005, now i am planning to apply EB2 with different employer. do i need 5 yrs experience as of my Eb3 priority date in order to port Eb3 priority date to Eb3 ? my lawyer is saying i need 5 yrs experience as of Aug 2005 is it true ?
thanks a lot for your help
Your Lawyer is wrong....EB2 is for your current employment it has nothing to do with your previous PD .
IMHO...it was like that for Labor Substitution case ...But for new EB2 Application its not needed...find a good Lawyer.
thanks
I have one doubt abt requirements to port EB2.
my EB3 priority date is Aug 2005, now i am planning to apply EB2 with different employer. do i need 5 yrs experience as of my Eb3 priority date in order to port Eb3 priority date to Eb3 ? my lawyer is saying i need 5 yrs experience as of Aug 2005 is it true ?
thanks a lot for your help
Your Lawyer is wrong....EB2 is for your current employment it has nothing to do with your previous PD .
IMHO...it was like that for Labor Substitution case ...But for new EB2 Application its not needed...find a good Lawyer.
thanks
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hot $89.99. Nike Air Max Lebron
skdskd
09-27 09:52 AM
I have approved I140 notice ... i dont see A# can you pls help me find that number in approval notice (797)
As per my Immigration attorney, USCIS some times assigns A# at the time of I-140 approval and some times NOT.
So I won't worry about it if it is not on I-140
As per my Immigration attorney, USCIS some times assigns A# at the time of I-140 approval and some times NOT.
So I won't worry about it if it is not on I-140
more...
house $78.00. Nike Lebron James
letstalklc
10-03 03:16 PM
Your's is crossed 15 month stage, so you can ask your lawyer to enquire about it...
Hope fully DOL will approve yours soon...
Good luck
Hope fully DOL will approve yours soon...
Good luck
tattoo Nike Lebron James VI Grey
cox
November 2nd, 2005, 12:31 AM
Hey, if you have a paying customer that is happy and a freeloading web-browsing "advisor" that isn't...
Yeah, but I respect the opinions of the web-browsing advisor more... :)
Yeah, but I respect the opinions of the web-browsing advisor more... :)