sdrblr
09-01 03:19 PM
If you (or her ) do not get the card by 2nd week, make an infopass appointment and get the PP stamped.
I received email from USCIS this morning for my wife I-485 i.e Card Ordered for Production. I am the Primary applicant, but i am still waiting for my turn. My PD is Sep 2004 & EB2.
We booked our tickets to India before we received this email. I am travelling in 3rd week of Sep. We both have new AP's. So is i have to wait here in USA to receive the Card or can i proceed with my actual plan?. Can anybody share their expertise?.
I really for your help in Advance.
Thanks,
Lotus
I received email from USCIS this morning for my wife I-485 i.e Card Ordered for Production. I am the Primary applicant, but i am still waiting for my turn. My PD is Sep 2004 & EB2.
We booked our tickets to India before we received this email. I am travelling in 3rd week of Sep. We both have new AP's. So is i have to wait here in USA to receive the Card or can i proceed with my actual plan?. Can anybody share their expertise?.
I really for your help in Advance.
Thanks,
Lotus
CADude
07-26 05:39 PM
TSC did hard work in last 3 weeks of June to exhaust the visa#. Did 9 months of work(66K approval) in just 3 weeks(60K approval)? Now they are in USCIS paid vacation for whole summer for good work. :) They will back on Oct and issue the receipt notice for july filers. now they know their potential :D so have patience. :cool:
I read somewhere that many or most or some 485 cases will be or have been transferred to TSC from NSC. and according to the july 20 processing time updates, TSC will be complaint by 10/26. doesnt it sound too good that NSC will be compliant so soon ? Again, i am an eternal pessimist....
I read somewhere that many or most or some 485 cases will be or have been transferred to TSC from NSC. and according to the july 20 processing time updates, TSC will be complaint by 10/26. doesnt it sound too good that NSC will be compliant so soon ? Again, i am an eternal pessimist....
indianindian2006
07-23 12:22 PM
July 02 11am
Signed by Clark Uhrmarcher
Signed by Clark Uhrmarcher
buptlsp
09-18 05:01 PM
got receipt today . 07/02 10:25am the famous J.Barrett .
Guys, keep up, you will be fine and get it soon.
In the same boat guys. Signed by J.Barret 10:25am. No receipts yet. Called USCIS twice last week. Still not in system.
Guys, keep up, you will be fine and get it soon.
In the same boat guys. Signed by J.Barret 10:25am. No receipts yet. Called USCIS twice last week. Still not in system.
more...
sanher
10-29 12:16 PM
I am scared to see this. I am flying to backhome for stamping this weekend.
rsrikant
07-20 10:17 AM
sorry for that
i can open it...
i can open it...
more...
Humhongekamyab
08-13 10:59 AM
This thread should be deleted. Not related to our cause.
akilaakka
03-02 09:51 AM
Thanks SL & Lost in GC process,
Sorry for not being clear in C & D. I am in US. The question I meant to ask is about the the time that I am not physically present in US i.e. If I went for vacction in India for a month, can that one month be included in my H1B1 extension since I was not physically present in US. In other words I would file for 1.1 year extension as opposed to 1 year
One the same topic, a friend of mine got a three year extension post 6 years of H1B. When asked, his lawyer informed, if you have an approved I140 then you are elegible for 3 years extension as opposed to 1 year. Is this true. Can some refer to the right CFR's
Thanks
Senthil
Sorry for not being clear in C & D. I am in US. The question I meant to ask is about the the time that I am not physically present in US i.e. If I went for vacction in India for a month, can that one month be included in my H1B1 extension since I was not physically present in US. In other words I would file for 1.1 year extension as opposed to 1 year
One the same topic, a friend of mine got a three year extension post 6 years of H1B. When asked, his lawyer informed, if you have an approved I140 then you are elegible for 3 years extension as opposed to 1 year. Is this true. Can some refer to the right CFR's
Thanks
Senthil
more...
garybanz
10-28 09:43 AM
visit my blog, it has to-do's after GC.
enjoy
Can you give me the link to your blog?
enjoy
Can you give me the link to your blog?
meridiani.planum
10-12 08:25 PM
This can easily be defeated if challenged in a court of law.
All these are effect of lobbying from Merck.
lawsuit?? oh come on. This is for a CDC recommended vaccine which might help prevent cancer!!
To my mind this is the ONLY fees that we are paying which really means something useful to us... After paying thousands of dollars in fees to USCIS (H1/485/EAD/AP), hundreds to DoS (visa stampings), and sponsoring multiple trips to Hawaii for my lawyer (his fees would make you faint) this is finally a fee that actually does something useful to the applicant, and I would gladly pay this for my family members.
All these are effect of lobbying from Merck.
lawsuit?? oh come on. This is for a CDC recommended vaccine which might help prevent cancer!!
To my mind this is the ONLY fees that we are paying which really means something useful to us... After paying thousands of dollars in fees to USCIS (H1/485/EAD/AP), hundreds to DoS (visa stampings), and sponsoring multiple trips to Hawaii for my lawyer (his fees would make you faint) this is finally a fee that actually does something useful to the applicant, and I would gladly pay this for my family members.
more...
Blog Feeds
02-10 08:50 PM
Most lawyers that are versed in the H1B visa process, are getting busier and busier these days. As we are nearing the April 1, 2010 filing deadline for the H1B visa. Many speculations out there as to when will the Cap be reached this year. The economy is still in recovery mode, and employers are careful before hiring. Yet, many Immigration experts feel the Cap will be met early this year, but when is the big question.
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
Hong12
02-16 11:56 PM
I just got my H1 visa and thanks so much for your help. I really appreciate that. I now actually got some questions about the port of entry. As my understanding that they will stamp my passport at the port of entry, I wonder if they will keep my current I-797 at the port of entry (I already have the H1 stamp in my passport). Pls advise. Also, I don�t have the bottom portion of the I-94 on I-797 since I am currently in Malaysia . Would this be a problem? Please also advise if they will issue me the new I-94 at the port of entry. Anybody pls help. Thank you very much.
more...
Singer
11-22 08:33 AM
Hello VictimOfGc,
Thank you for your first reply.
I gad lost my password and read your previous post only yesterday.
As you know, the decision of denying my husband's and mine I-485 could not be not appealed. I have also never stated the uscis denial reason, as I did not have it when I posted my question. They have stated that we had traveled abroad without Advance Parole, so they were considering that we have abandoned our GC petition. We came back to the country with my O-1 visa and my husband O-3.
The first problem raised by a friend of mine lawyer (I did not have a lawyer retained anymore) was that uscis violated my constitutional rights. They SHOULD have sent me an official letter back in August stating that they were reopening or intended to reopen my 485 case! Nothing was sent. Beside my I-140 and my RFE on the I485 I did not receive anything else. So even if legally they were "right" to deny my 485, uscis has comited SO many mistakes on my case that I have been told they could let it slide on this one.
From that moment on I have decided that I will fight them till the end and that I would not pay them one cent! Because at the end of the day, it is all about money and more money in their "crooks" pocket. I contacted my Congresswoman, my Senator, and a Congressman from another state than mine. I had gathered all the proofs and all documentations for the last 3 years and posted them on a server, so everyone involved could review them. Those three elected officials called them and spoke to uscis congressional liaison. This went on for two weeks.
Friday the 13th we received our green cards!
Thank you for your first reply.
I gad lost my password and read your previous post only yesterday.
As you know, the decision of denying my husband's and mine I-485 could not be not appealed. I have also never stated the uscis denial reason, as I did not have it when I posted my question. They have stated that we had traveled abroad without Advance Parole, so they were considering that we have abandoned our GC petition. We came back to the country with my O-1 visa and my husband O-3.
The first problem raised by a friend of mine lawyer (I did not have a lawyer retained anymore) was that uscis violated my constitutional rights. They SHOULD have sent me an official letter back in August stating that they were reopening or intended to reopen my 485 case! Nothing was sent. Beside my I-140 and my RFE on the I485 I did not receive anything else. So even if legally they were "right" to deny my 485, uscis has comited SO many mistakes on my case that I have been told they could let it slide on this one.
From that moment on I have decided that I will fight them till the end and that I would not pay them one cent! Because at the end of the day, it is all about money and more money in their "crooks" pocket. I contacted my Congresswoman, my Senator, and a Congressman from another state than mine. I had gathered all the proofs and all documentations for the last 3 years and posted them on a server, so everyone involved could review them. Those three elected officials called them and spoke to uscis congressional liaison. This went on for two weeks.
Friday the 13th we received our green cards!
.jpg "justin bieber baby photos when")
dpp
10-18 01:13 PM
He Leo. You are great. Thanks a lot. It appears that they have my fp when I applied previosly for security clearnace. or Port of Entry.
Thanks
REQUIRE_GC
When they do FP, they tries to match with criminal database. Why do they want to match to the Port of entry or Security clearance database and give RED color warning. I think it is something you need to work with your attorney. Even in Name check, they tries to match with Criminal first, middle or last names and if match found, they do some investigation on your case. Same logic goes with FP. They won't match with good records, but they tries to search in bad records. It is simple common sense. Nothing to panic, but check with your attorney.
Thanks
REQUIRE_GC
When they do FP, they tries to match with criminal database. Why do they want to match to the Port of entry or Security clearance database and give RED color warning. I think it is something you need to work with your attorney. Even in Name check, they tries to match with Criminal first, middle or last names and if match found, they do some investigation on your case. Same logic goes with FP. They won't match with good records, but they tries to search in bad records. It is simple common sense. Nothing to panic, but check with your attorney.
more...
dvb123
09-13 04:06 PM
It costs around 50k - 100k for a class action lawsuit. Pls collect the money and then think about it. U can look in the directory for Federal immigration litigation lawyers. There are a lot of them. The chance of winning is very less because green card is a benefit and not a job opportunity where you are being discriminated. If you can prove that you lost a job opportunity in United States because you do not have a green card and that job opportunity was given to another less retrogressed country immigrant, maybe you can fight in the supreme court that your civil rights have been violated but it is a long shot and would involve lot of money and 3 years minimum time frame.
An except from DOL equal opportunity laws
The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits employers (when hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee) from discriminating because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens or discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of a aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylees.
Federal litigation also can be done without legal representation i.e. lawyer but a person must dedicate himself to 8 hrs legal work for 3-4 months which a working person cannot do.
An except from DOL equal opportunity laws
The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits employers (when hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee) from discriminating because of national origin against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and authorized aliens or discriminating because of citizenship status against U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of a aliens with work authorization: permanent residents, temporary residents (that is, individuals who have gone through the legalization program), refugees, and asylees.
Federal litigation also can be done without legal representation i.e. lawyer but a person must dedicate himself to 8 hrs legal work for 3-4 months which a working person cannot do.
ArkBird
12-08 03:40 PM
How? We are not citizens.
more...
hopefulgc
08-17 03:59 PM
isn't the date ... Apr 01 2004 according to sept bulletin
(not jan 1 2004)
If ur EB2 and PD older than Jan 01, 2004 probably you have chance to refile again. During this crunch time don't trust USPS/UPS. Always use fedex...
Hope for the best..
(not jan 1 2004)
If ur EB2 and PD older than Jan 01, 2004 probably you have chance to refile again. During this crunch time don't trust USPS/UPS. Always use fedex...
Hope for the best..
Houstonguy
07-15 03:50 PM
Hi Guys, I am in Houston.
damit
04-07 10:02 AM
Hi all,
One of my relatives who has been here in United States for last 10 years keep on telling me that there is a co-relation between Expedition of Green Card process and election year.
I am planning to switch my job as I am having a great offer, but he kept on telling me that in the past, he has noticed great expedition of green card process during the election years. He advises me against switching the job at this point. My PD is Jan 2005.
Please let me know, if any of you agree with him.
One of my relatives who has been here in United States for last 10 years keep on telling me that there is a co-relation between Expedition of Green Card process and election year.
I am planning to switch my job as I am having a great offer, but he kept on telling me that in the past, he has noticed great expedition of green card process during the election years. He advises me against switching the job at this point. My PD is Jan 2005.
Please let me know, if any of you agree with him.
jonty_11
12-26 11:44 AM
Just allowing filing of I-485 while You are retrogressed, is a boon, so u can get EAD and are allowed to change Jobs in the Same profession
kprgroup
12-02 10:42 AM
Same here.MTR approved NOV 2008 but online still showing Denied.It's strange feeling when you see denied status online..........Just live with it
Its been 2 years but my I-485 still shows denied although my MTR got approved and i have renewed 2 EADs and 2 APs etc.
Don't know for sure but i sent a letter to whitehouse and they sent a response couple of months later indicating my case is waiting for VISA number and everything else is alright.
And since my EADs and APs are approved in 2 years i am not that worried about online showing denied.
Its been 2 years but my I-485 still shows denied although my MTR got approved and i have renewed 2 EADs and 2 APs etc.
Don't know for sure but i sent a letter to whitehouse and they sent a response couple of months later indicating my case is waiting for VISA number and everything else is alright.
And since my EADs and APs are approved in 2 years i am not that worried about online showing denied.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق