nosightofgc
07-14 10:19 PM
Just Contributed $20.
gsc999
07-19 01:56 PM
Can someone please post the SoCal Yahoo group url link so I can sign-up.
I am in Northern California will you guys allow me to be a member too.
I am in Northern California will you guys allow me to be a member too.
insbaby
07-21 11:18 AM
Well, if you do the direct calculations (eventhough it looks correct for most of us), it always results scary.
But that does not happen always. A Government Agency decided to accept that many applications in a month window, defintely it would not have been decided in a lunch or dinner meeting.
They should have known their limitations and how to handle the situation. If there are 20K 485 applications sitting at the storage, it would not create much problems. But it creates so much administration issues if the number is 600K applications.
One major issue is, every year they are going to receive 600K EAD renewals. They will never get time to work on 485, but life long working on renewing this EAD's and no more further GC processing.
So, its not going to be the case. Now they have money, even if it takes first year some more months, they may go for hiring more contracters OR spliting the applications across different centers processing them.
Its a big administration issue to the agency to keep all the applications pending than us.
So, no worries. There must be a solution ahead for us.
But that does not happen always. A Government Agency decided to accept that many applications in a month window, defintely it would not have been decided in a lunch or dinner meeting.
They should have known their limitations and how to handle the situation. If there are 20K 485 applications sitting at the storage, it would not create much problems. But it creates so much administration issues if the number is 600K applications.
One major issue is, every year they are going to receive 600K EAD renewals. They will never get time to work on 485, but life long working on renewing this EAD's and no more further GC processing.
So, its not going to be the case. Now they have money, even if it takes first year some more months, they may go for hiring more contracters OR spliting the applications across different centers processing them.
Its a big administration issue to the agency to keep all the applications pending than us.
So, no worries. There must be a solution ahead for us.
eagerr2i
07-06 02:12 PM
The USCIS automated line for Priority dates is still playing the PD's for June 2007 showing that EB-3 India cut off June 1st 2003 etc..
We have so contrasting images of the efficiency of USCIS. Hope they keep the same tempo as of the last week of June on Oct 1st when the FY 2008 quota kicks in.
We have so contrasting images of the efficiency of USCIS. Hope they keep the same tempo as of the last week of June on Oct 1st when the FY 2008 quota kicks in.
more...
IN2US
07-06 02:33 PM
Everyone from Janitors to Execs have been working for the last week to approve those 66K cases.
--- Good one :D
--- Good one :D
ingegarcia
06-18 01:05 PM
Is your case being audited?
more...
srikondoji
08-13 03:59 AM
Hey nave_kum,
Why do you think this is misleading? If you look at the date of the post, then the monday should be the following monday from that date which passed long time back. Let me know exacly what misled you, i may try to re-interpret if need be.
It is upto you to conclude who is right and who is wrong and nobody here is warning him because he is junior.
I have politely warned him, because i thought it was the right thing to do because of this discussion going in the wrong direction. I complained the adminstrator and moderator becuase that was the only tool available to me. Whatz wrong in this approach?
Best regards and cheers.
Guys...
I just logged in thinking that by Monday, we July 2nd filers wud be getting receipts. But after flipping the pages back on this forum, I saw that the Monday was indeed the previous one. This is indeed misleading. After seeing the ongoing tussle between buddyinus and Srikondo, I realised Buddyinus is right. Whats wrong in whatever he's saying??? The purpose of this thread is to discuss about the so called Monday's receipts. But since that Monday is gone, looks like u r fighting over nothing. How dare u warn anybody on this thread. I am with Buddyinus on this. He may be a junior but u dont have any rights to warn him. Beware.
Why do you think this is misleading? If you look at the date of the post, then the monday should be the following monday from that date which passed long time back. Let me know exacly what misled you, i may try to re-interpret if need be.
It is upto you to conclude who is right and who is wrong and nobody here is warning him because he is junior.
I have politely warned him, because i thought it was the right thing to do because of this discussion going in the wrong direction. I complained the adminstrator and moderator becuase that was the only tool available to me. Whatz wrong in this approach?
Best regards and cheers.
Guys...
I just logged in thinking that by Monday, we July 2nd filers wud be getting receipts. But after flipping the pages back on this forum, I saw that the Monday was indeed the previous one. This is indeed misleading. After seeing the ongoing tussle between buddyinus and Srikondo, I realised Buddyinus is right. Whats wrong in whatever he's saying??? The purpose of this thread is to discuss about the so called Monday's receipts. But since that Monday is gone, looks like u r fighting over nothing. How dare u warn anybody on this thread. I am with Buddyinus on this. He may be a junior but u dont have any rights to warn him. Beware.
jungalee43
04-30 09:53 AM
I am sad to see people posting messages on �inevitable future of CIR�, �US political system is broken�. But they don�t consider it important to contact their senators and follow IV�s instructions on making phone calls. Please understand the need of the hour and don�t waste time in making judgments or making predictions. Just follow what IV core is asking you to do.
Just call, call and call. I am starting my second round of calls.
Just call, call and call. I am starting my second round of calls.
more...
spicy_guy
09-13 12:31 PM
Hi All,
My Eb2 Perm Labor Approved. It took 2 months to get approved. It was filed on 07/09/2010 and approved on (email received by HR dept) 09/10/2010. This is just to share with all of you.
Thank you.
Pardon my lack of knowledge. Is this from beginning to end?
I think advertising and stuff takes some time. Right? and thats not included in this 2 months. Right?
My Eb2 Perm Labor Approved. It took 2 months to get approved. It was filed on 07/09/2010 and approved on (email received by HR dept) 09/10/2010. This is just to share with all of you.
Thank you.
Pardon my lack of knowledge. Is this from beginning to end?
I think advertising and stuff takes some time. Right? and thats not included in this 2 months. Right?
MDix
08-23 09:17 AM
If they could they would have, but unfortunately judgment doesn't talk anything about Multinational manager.They tried to extend he finding of EB1 to EB2. I believe even thought this strictly applies to EB2 without M.S. But things will get tough for EB2 Master also ......
Why there is nothing for EB Multinational Managers? Even a small project manager gets a priority greencard and people with masters degree and 10 year experience are waiting. Nobody has told to USCIS yet?
Where is GCperm when you need one?
Why there is nothing for EB Multinational Managers? Even a small project manager gets a priority greencard and people with masters degree and 10 year experience are waiting. Nobody has told to USCIS yet?
Where is GCperm when you need one?
more...
SkilledWorker4GC
07-11 12:41 PM
:)Good News is Dates Moved and many of us with PD prior to Jun'06 might get our GC (Chances are less than 5%).
:(Bad News is all of us who applied for EAD renewal after June 30th wouldnt get a 2 years EAD instead would get 1 year EAD.
:(Bad News is all of us who applied for EAD renewal after June 30th wouldnt get a 2 years EAD instead would get 1 year EAD.
man-woman-and-gc
06-11 02:18 PM
I agree GC makes a difference. If anyone as EAD thats as good as GC subject to your primany job not changing. So why not do side -business on EAD while your primary job is ON. Take it easy at job, dont overwork because without GC rarely people get promoted, if they are not extra-ordinary!
Going to XYZ place because of no GC does not make sense. If you have potential you can use it here on EAD not necessarily in another country!
If u take it easy at ur job in today's date..u may get fired and lose ur side business as well. Remember, your primary job is the reason why u have the EAD and and are able to setup a side business. The Primary job according to me will always need to get its due importance.
There is no question that GC makes a difference in life. However, its upto each one of us how much importance we give to it. My personal opinion, I will keep fighting for it and contribute to the fight against the broken process whenever I can..but I will not stop my life because of GC, example, buy a house, travel around, give my wife an opportunity to excel in her job (since i cannot take promotions until GC).....all these are difficult without GC, but not impossible.
Everyone will and should have their own way of dealing with the situation we have...
Going to XYZ place because of no GC does not make sense. If you have potential you can use it here on EAD not necessarily in another country!
If u take it easy at ur job in today's date..u may get fired and lose ur side business as well. Remember, your primary job is the reason why u have the EAD and and are able to setup a side business. The Primary job according to me will always need to get its due importance.
There is no question that GC makes a difference in life. However, its upto each one of us how much importance we give to it. My personal opinion, I will keep fighting for it and contribute to the fight against the broken process whenever I can..but I will not stop my life because of GC, example, buy a house, travel around, give my wife an opportunity to excel in her job (since i cannot take promotions until GC).....all these are difficult without GC, but not impossible.
Everyone will and should have their own way of dealing with the situation we have...
more...
desi chala usa
07-14 03:41 PM
Done!!
anandrajesh
08-12 11:14 AM
So much for unions to support them for mid term elections.. Come next year, if dems still have same majority, H1B/L1B word will be removed from India's IT dictionary..
All they had to do was to introduce another $2000 fee for every Green Card Re-Captured. Most of us would have been out of this mess and they would have got the money they needed. This Grand posturing is extremely disturbing and i hate the politics behind it.
I wish the Democrats lose big time and lose their hold from Senate and house.
All they had to do was to introduce another $2000 fee for every Green Card Re-Captured. Most of us would have been out of this mess and they would have got the money they needed. This Grand posturing is extremely disturbing and i hate the politics behind it.
I wish the Democrats lose big time and lose their hold from Senate and house.
more...
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.
Libra
09-13 08:39 PM
Milind you rock......thanks for efforts.
more...
malaGCPahije
07-16 11:31 AM
Even though I am a recurring contributor and I contribute to IV on top of my recurring contributions I had to make a contribution towards this campaign. Keep up the Good Work. See Details below:
**********************************************
Payee Amount Deliver By Confirmation Number Action
Immigration Voice
IV
$ 10.00 07/22/2008 7YJ0L-4NJ42 Edit � Cancel
Memo: High Five Campaign
Recurring contribution of $5 or $10 a month is a fantastic idea for this campaign. I am going to set this up myself. I would urge you all who do not have recurring contribution setup to do so too. $5 a month would not make a lot of difference to anyone. But it would make a lot of difference to IV if it happens each month.
**********************************************
Payee Amount Deliver By Confirmation Number Action
Immigration Voice
IV
$ 10.00 07/22/2008 7YJ0L-4NJ42 Edit � Cancel
Memo: High Five Campaign
Recurring contribution of $5 or $10 a month is a fantastic idea for this campaign. I am going to set this up myself. I would urge you all who do not have recurring contribution setup to do so too. $5 a month would not make a lot of difference to anyone. But it would make a lot of difference to IV if it happens each month.
reddog
03-12 03:09 PM
reddog, please explain how you have supported IV in the past in non-monetary ways. For lobbying, there is not much you can do other than support monetarily,or make trips to DC yourself.
I am sure IV core will at least consider such non-monetary support on case-by-case basis.
no, i am not going to switch to defensive mode. this is not about me.
I am sure IV core will at least consider such non-monetary support on case-by-case basis.
no, i am not going to switch to defensive mode. this is not about me.
java4yogi
08-15 08:13 PM
Hi guys,
Some of the old timers could benefit with this thought, if things move forward slightly for EB3
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=278068#post278068
Some of the old timers could benefit with this thought, if things move forward slightly for EB3
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=278068#post278068
Green.Tech
06-02 12:43 PM
...to stay on top!
Green_Always
09-10 10:13 AM
All due to Sub Labour 485 Applications sent during July 2007.
What a wonderful system and process of USCIS where a legitimate applicant has to wait and keep on waiting..
What a wonderful system and process of USCIS where a legitimate applicant has to wait and keep on waiting..
No comments:
Post a Comment