Humhongekamyab
09-10 11:49 AM
I don't know if anybody has noticed it but the dates for EB-2 for VB October 2007 was April 1, 2004 and for VB October 2008 is April 1, 2003. That is a retrogression of 1 year - not good. :mad:
a1b2c3
12-11 09:47 PM
for the first time (in 5 years that I have been tracking them) the visa bulletin looks like it was "made in America". The america of old, the one that is so organized that every official form includes an estimated time on how long it takes to fill it up. The one where every street has a clear name marker, every intersection has multiple stop lights, multiple signs. Where the little cats-eyes on the road are color coded[1] Where lines form automagically when a bunch of people converge on anything. Where you can go to any .gov site and pick up whatever statistics you want on anything from agriculture, to factories, to healthcare.
This is a nation built on documentation and organization.
For the first time the visa bulletin does not look like some discarded bingo card or four monkeys getting excited on a typewriter. For the first time the numbers make sense, they explain why they are what they are. They even put our prediction threads out of business by coming out with their own set of predictions for the rest of the year.
USCIS has had data like this for eons (how many cases pending in which category and from which country). It took the usual american obsession with data and organizing data to come out with all this.
Kudos to them.
Things remain bleak, but just to see something so neatly organized and put out was heartening to me.
P.S: and no, this is not them just doing their job. Their job is to put out the dates every month (like they have been doing for atleast over a decade). To clearly spell out how many cases are pending (like their recent report), and now to predict how these dates will move, is IMO going beyond the minimum requirements of the job, and is much appreciated.
[1]: blue meaning a firehydrant, yellow as a separator of lanes in different directions, white in the same direction, red is dont enter. found the meaning of the blue one recently, and was impressed. atleast in CA this is what they are.
Nice observations.
This is a nation built on documentation and organization.
For the first time the visa bulletin does not look like some discarded bingo card or four monkeys getting excited on a typewriter. For the first time the numbers make sense, they explain why they are what they are. They even put our prediction threads out of business by coming out with their own set of predictions for the rest of the year.
USCIS has had data like this for eons (how many cases pending in which category and from which country). It took the usual american obsession with data and organizing data to come out with all this.
Kudos to them.
Things remain bleak, but just to see something so neatly organized and put out was heartening to me.
P.S: and no, this is not them just doing their job. Their job is to put out the dates every month (like they have been doing for atleast over a decade). To clearly spell out how many cases are pending (like their recent report), and now to predict how these dates will move, is IMO going beyond the minimum requirements of the job, and is much appreciated.
[1]: blue meaning a firehydrant, yellow as a separator of lanes in different directions, white in the same direction, red is dont enter. found the meaning of the blue one recently, and was impressed. atleast in CA this is what they are.
Nice observations.
santb1975
05-26 11:23 PM
:confused:
saimrathi
06-06 04:04 PM
Hello,
My Labor was certified this week from PBEC. My PD is Mar '05. Is Premium filing for I-141 advised?
My Labor was certified this week from PBEC. My PD is Mar '05. Is Premium filing for I-141 advised?
more...
JunRN
08-20 09:36 PM
While Illegal immigrants are simply using international drivers license, we, legal immigrants, are having difficulty getting to drive legally. This is simply ridiculous.
gav_sharma
04-24 05:44 PM
My First Post :
Initial EB3 - 07/2003 with fortune 200 company, got laid off in 10/2010 after working with them for 11 years.
Joined small company in 11/2010, Perm EB2 - 12/22/2010 - Approved on 01/06/2011
I140 Premium - 03/02/2011. Both 140 and 485 approved on 03/15/2011 - Current Law Firm received 140 approval notice on 03/18/2011, Previous company's law firm received 485 approval on the same day.
How can you join a company on 11/2010 and apply for Perm EB2 on 12/22/2010 ?
I thought they needed to place an ad and do interviews and pre-Perm process takes about 6 months.
I am in 6th year of H1 and I am changing jobs. The new employer will file for GC but since the new H1 will be extended for only 1.5 yrs I was wondering if I will have enough time to get thru to the I-140 stage in that time.
Any Opinion/Suggestion ?
Initial EB3 - 07/2003 with fortune 200 company, got laid off in 10/2010 after working with them for 11 years.
Joined small company in 11/2010, Perm EB2 - 12/22/2010 - Approved on 01/06/2011
I140 Premium - 03/02/2011. Both 140 and 485 approved on 03/15/2011 - Current Law Firm received 140 approval notice on 03/18/2011, Previous company's law firm received 485 approval on the same day.
How can you join a company on 11/2010 and apply for Perm EB2 on 12/22/2010 ?
I thought they needed to place an ad and do interviews and pre-Perm process takes about 6 months.
I am in 6th year of H1 and I am changing jobs. The new employer will file for GC but since the new H1 will be extended for only 1.5 yrs I was wondering if I will have enough time to get thru to the I-140 stage in that time.
Any Opinion/Suggestion ?
more...
rb_248
06-10 08:13 AM
Atleast EB2 is not moving back. I hope EB2 moves forward begining this October.
EB3 guys - Hope it dosen't nove back from where it was last month come October for you all.
EB3 guys - Hope it dosen't nove back from where it was last month come October for you all.
vinabath
07-20 12:44 PM
What happens if I get my EAD after 180 days of concurrent filing i-140 & i-485, and my employer no longer has a vacancy for me. Can I start at another job or do I have to refile the i-140. (I'm not presently working for the company yet - Schedule A applicant)
I think you can start another job with the same job description. EAD is not tied to the employer. It is tied to you. AC21 is a blessing for us in this regard.
After 180 days, you are free and you almost got virtual GC except that you need to work in the same job description and maintain character.
I think you can start another job with the same job description. EAD is not tied to the employer. It is tied to you. AC21 is a blessing for us in this regard.
After 180 days, you are free and you almost got virtual GC except that you need to work in the same job description and maintain character.
more...
GCStatus
09-14 04:16 AM
Please join our hands at "If i can be a little blunt" thread
gbof
03-05 07:08 PM
While EAD filed during June/July 08 for Primary & Dependant got approved with 2-year validity. But, dependant daughter's EAD filed in Jan09 was approved last week with 1-year validity. Does it mean with PD of 10/05 AOS approval is coming in months? Any Thoughts?
more...
ashutrip
06-25 10:21 AM
As far as I know your country of origin doesn't matter under PERM. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No
No
vparam
09-13 07:10 PM
With EAD ,can you register a LLC/Inc ? Has anyone tried this ?
yes, I did earlier this week :-)... You can anything GC can do in EAD....
yes, I did earlier this week :-)... You can anything GC can do in EAD....
more...
smisachu
09-13 05:32 PM
How about contacting Bloomberg Radio? I heard about IV first on it in 2006.
They ran a nice segment and talked to one of the core members. I think it was very effective. They are pro business and any issue affecting "MSFT, GOOG, INTC" is big news for them....
They ran a nice segment and talked to one of the core members. I think it was very effective. They are pro business and any issue affecting "MSFT, GOOG, INTC" is big news for them....
learning01
04-25 02:06 PM
offline means talk in private emails, private messages and send conclusions to IV core team for including in thier next goals, once most of present goals are achieved. Thanks. Let's concentrate on the main work here.
I did'nt start this thread. I just expressed my opinion supporting it, when I saw others' express their views..
I don't understand what you mean by saying "take this offline". Anyway, if you are the admin, you can delete this thread and put it where you want...
I did'nt start this thread. I just expressed my opinion supporting it, when I saw others' express their views..
I don't understand what you mean by saying "take this offline". Anyway, if you are the admin, you can delete this thread and put it where you want...
more...
eb3_nepa
04-25 11:47 AM
Guys what about the type of visa? I mean shud the start date be ur H1B start date or ur F1 entry date? Coz if some people start on an H1 a lot of us also started on an F1. In that case doesnt it make more sense to root for the clause that says the immigrant can apply for his own GC that is employer independant? If i am not mistaken, is that not already a part of the PACE act?
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
rbharol
07-18 01:57 PM
Not to forget the people stuck in backlog centers.
I was stuck in backlog center.
Recently my company converted from Non-RIR to RIR and I got it approved
in a few months. In parallel, I had my labor approved via PERM too as a safety net, just in case dates become current.
I would personally suggest to change your case to RIR if it is not so and there
is no harm in getting PERM approval as well.
I was stuck in backlog center.
Recently my company converted from Non-RIR to RIR and I got it approved
in a few months. In parallel, I had my labor approved via PERM too as a safety net, just in case dates become current.
I would personally suggest to change your case to RIR if it is not so and there
is no harm in getting PERM approval as well.
more...
astral1977
07-28 05:57 PM
My company applied for PERM ALC EB-2 category at Atlanta on 18th June 2007, got it approved on 20th June. Received hard copy on 26th June.
can people also give idea how long/when u got the certified hard copy of approval esp if from atlanta
can people also give idea how long/when u got the certified hard copy of approval esp if from atlanta
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
dvb123
09-15 07:54 AM
GCTEST check your private messages. The link is located on the top right hand corner.
GCwaitforever
04-02 11:49 AM
I have not seen one single person getting so many red dots for playing a devils advocate and trying to defend USCIS. :D
All of us are passionate and sometimes this passion overtakes logic. If you are fed up with USCIS, suing them or putting pressure on them through Congress/Legislature/Press are the only options.
You have seen what happened to the Ombudsman and his reports. Year over year, same findings pile up in his reports and he finally left. If someone who has internal access to USCIS workings and has a mandate to change USCIS functions to benefit us - the paying customers, could not relieve inertia of USCIS, I suspect you and I do not have much of a chance.
Courts and judges are definitely going to punish USCIS for any quantifiable losses suffered by us. If you can find any, sue them.
All of us are passionate and sometimes this passion overtakes logic. If you are fed up with USCIS, suing them or putting pressure on them through Congress/Legislature/Press are the only options.
You have seen what happened to the Ombudsman and his reports. Year over year, same findings pile up in his reports and he finally left. If someone who has internal access to USCIS workings and has a mandate to change USCIS functions to benefit us - the paying customers, could not relieve inertia of USCIS, I suspect you and I do not have much of a chance.
Courts and judges are definitely going to punish USCIS for any quantifiable losses suffered by us. If you can find any, sue them.
CADude
07-05 12:46 PM
I used AILA site to send the mail. May be some one else provide the email info. Thanks
It would be helpful if you few addresses for senators so that everyone can send letters right away.
It would be helpful if you few addresses for senators so that everyone can send letters right away.
No comments:
Post a Comment