Immigration Voice - Forums
Register Get Involved Contact Lawmakers Advocacy Discussion Image Image Image Image

Go Back   Immigration Voice > Immigration Voice Issues and Congressional updates > IV Agenda and Legislative Updates
Click to log in with Facebook
IV Agenda and Legislative Updates Immigration Voice's Agenda and Legislative Updates

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2006, 03:01 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 61
tempworker_tn_1 is on a distinguished road
Default To establish a clear and straightforward cause

Admins and all friends,

"stucklabor" documented a list of possible issues (Specific retrogression and labor certification measures we are fighting for). Many friends have replied.

Obviously everybody has his or her-owns agenda. for example, I am a phd, I would like seeing current phds can get automatic green cards; Another gentleman came to the US as a H1 based on an oversea degree, he may think it's unfair to put people like me "ahead"; another lady may pursuing family based immigration and hates the long waiting period. etc.

In one word, everbody wants his problem be solved. However, IV is not USCIS yet, and we indeed have a long way to go.

A clear and straightforward procedure has to be established and well followed by IV. Of course we will heavily rely on Quinn Gillespie on this. But I am afraid IV can't rely on them for motivating the immigrant's side: h1s, phds, and phd hopefuls. Quinn Gillespie is good at the politics in DC, but may not be good at knowing us than us.

IV has to define the targeting member pool by the admins, and senior members. I am afraid Quinn Gillespie won't bother doing it.

If we decide that advocating the automatic GC for US phds is unfair. Then basically we are excluding current phd candidates, a potential 10s of thousand of members. Then basically we won't have a say on the F4 visa proposed in the PACE. And since the F4 and the automatic GC idea is so attractive to phd hopefuls, they may choose other channel(s) than IV to secure the proposed terms.

Even I am a US phd, I think it's absolutely ok for IV to limit it's cause for H1s directly from overseas only. What I want to say, is we need a clear strategy on the "member pool" side, and can't count on Quinn Gillespie 100%.

In 1989, almost all Chinese overseas got a GC because of the Tian'an'men "accident". It is "unfair" to the later Chinese, like me, and It is "unfair" to the students and works from other countries. However, we do benefit from it since they got GC and won't compete with us any more. Chinese felt it was a lot easier to get a GC in the a few years after 1992.

Please forgive my Chinglish, there are as many, if not more, Indian phd candidates as Chinese ones. I believe if we advocate similar benefit as the "F4 visa term" for phds and phd candidates, will clear a lot of Indians and Chinese out of the bottleneck, and can benefit eb greencard as a whole.
It's not fairness or unfairness we are discussing. Just like the Chinese in 1989 all got GC, cleared the way for the Chinese came later. For the unfairness, it has never been fair. Like the H1 quota, there are 20k quota for US degree holders, is it fair?

In addition to the big member pool, Advocating for US phds and phd candidates would show our cause seamlessly, 100% support the PACE act. since there is a special consideration in it for phd candidates, the F4 visa terms and the automatic GC for the F4 visa holder. Which will make our cause look noble to the law makers: We not only worry about our benefit, our families, we also work for keeping the US lead cutting edge research.

See, it's pure business here. What kind of movement we want to have? what Immigration Voice wants to do? Admins and senior members have to decide, and Quinn Gillespie shall be consulted, and he won't decide for us.
No matter how, ambiguity won't help.

Last edited by tempworker_tn_1; 02-13-2006 at 03:16 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2006, 03:17 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Jul-01
Category
:
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 138
eb_retrogession is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempworker_tn_1
Admins and all friends,

"stucklabor" documented a list of possible issues (Specific retrogression and labor certification measures we are fighting for). Many friends have replied.

Obviously everybody has his or her-owns agenda. for example, I am a phd, I would like seeing current phds can get automatic green cards; Another gentleman came to the US as a H1 based on an oversea degree, he may think it's unfair to put people like me "ahead"; another lady may pursuing family based immigration and hates the long waiting period. etc.

In one word, everbody wants his problem be solved. However, IV is not USCIS yet, and we indeed have a long way to go.

A clear and straightforward procedure has to be established and well followed by IV. Of course we will heavily rely on Quinn Gillespie on this. But I am afraid IV can't rely on them for motivating the immigrant's side: h1s, phds, and phd hopefuls. Quinn Gillespie is good at the politics in DC, and may not be good at knowing us than us.

IV has to define the targeting member pool by the admins, and senior members. I am afraid Quinn Gillespie won't bother doing it.

If we decide that advocating the automatic GC for US phds is unfair. Then basically we are excluding current phd candidates, a potential 10s of thousand of members. Then basically we won't have a say on the F4 visa proposed in the PACE. And since the F4 and the automatic GC idea is so attractive to phd hopefuls, they may choose other channel(s) than IV to secure the proposed terms.

Even I am a US phd, I think it's absolutely ok for IV to limit it's cause for H1s directly from overseas only. What I want to say, is we need a clear strategy on the "member pool" side, and can't count on Quinn Gillespie 100%.

In 1989, almost all Chinese overseas got a GC because of the Tian'an'men "accident". It is "unfair" to the later Chinese, like me, and It is "unfair" to the students and works from other countries. However, we do benefit from it since they got GC and won't compete with us any more. Chinese felt it was a lot easier to get a GC in the a few years after 1992.

Please forgive my Chinglish, there are as many, if not more, Indian phd candidates as Chinese ones. I believe if we advocate similar benefit as the "F4 visa term" for phds and phd candidates, will clear a lot of Indians and Chinese out of the bottleneck, and can benefit eb greencard as a whole.
It's not fairness or unfairness we are discussing. Just like the Chinese in 1989 all got GC, cleared the way for the Chinese came later. For the unfairness, it has never been fair. Like the H1 quota, there are 20k quota for US degree holders, is it fair?

In addition to the big member pool, Advocating for US phds and phd candidates would show our cause seamlessly, 100% support the PACE act. since there is a special consideration in it for phd candidates, the F4 visa terms and the automatic GC for the F4 visa holder. Which will make our cause look noble to the law makers: We not only worry about our benefit, our families, we also work for keeping the US lead cutting edge research.

See, it's pure business here. What kind of movement we want to have? what Immigration Voice wants to do? Admins and senior members have to decide, and Quinn Gillespie shall be consulted, and he won't decide for us.
No matter how, ambiguity won't help.
Good post and Thank You for bringing this up. Anytime we see a potential platform to fight on, we will obviously see many groups of people come to pursue their agenda. There's nothing wrong with that, and it is quite natural. As an organization, we'll have to realize our scope, potential and available resources to pick our objectives.

IV will do just that. Your last statement is apt. No Ambiguity.
The scope of the effort and the goals and objectives will be made very clear.

Thank You for your support.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2006, 03:21 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Sep-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
09/01/2005
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/24/2007
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,503
logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute
Default The scope and agenda

The scope and agenda of this organization is on page 2(8 numbered items) on the pdf document called "Immigration Voice Brochure"

See the link called "immigration voice brochure" on homepage under "What immigration voice wants to do" section.

Shorter version is on "What immigration voice wants to do" section of homepage. There is no ambiguity.

Last edited by logiclife; 02-13-2006 at 03:23 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2006, 03:27 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 61
tempworker_tn_1 is on a distinguished road
Default Thanks logiclife. Since you are a super moderator, it's decided then.

Thanks for your time.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2006, 03:59 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Jun-04
Category
:
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
Labor Certification
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 449
admin is on a distinguished road
Default

junoo,

Right from the beginning Immigration Voice has been focussing on retrogression and BEC issues.

Second even if we're able to increase the quota to 290,000, the bottle neck will move to the approval of I-485s. So instead of taking 3-4 years to file I-485 we will be waiting 3-4 years to get our I-485 approved. So that is why we're taking the wholesome view of working on the retrogression issue as well as the efficiency issue in USCIS and BECs.

Last edited by admin; 02-13-2006 at 04:05 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2006, 04:00 PM
Super Moderator
Priority Date
:
Nov-06
Category
:
Others
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
Labor Certification
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 610
ragz4u is on a distinguished road
Post What makes you believe that IV's main issue is not Retrogression?

Quote:
Originally Posted by junoo
I guess IV was established to address "Retrogression Issue". And I am feeling that is not anymore the main cause of IV. I will still suggest that we should focus on EB Retrogression Issue. Their are many more ppl affected by this retrogression, and I guess we this should be our main focus.
We are still very much focussed on that. There are other things too that we are vehemently trying to push for but Retrogression is very much up there. If you could let us know what made you believe otherwise, we'll be glad to clear your doubts
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2006, 10:12 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 77
helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute
Default

hi tempworker:

I completely agree with you, as I have been saying on the thread "PACE amendment suggestions". You can contact me at helpful_leo@yahoo.com

I have been following IV from the time it was not even IV, at immigrationportal.com from the S1932 days. At that time, I was interested only in the retrogression issue, even though I wasnt affected by it since I am a PhD on F1. Since the introduction of PACE, I have also asked for IV to give it its attention- it wouldnt take a lot, as it is virtually a "no-brainer" once those 2 specific deatails are pointed out to lawmakers (see my letter attached at the above mentioned thread.) I am hopeful that IV will pursue that and be true to its mission statement:"...we will work to remove these and other flaws by supporting changes to immigration laws for high skilled legal EB based immigrants..."
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #8 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2006, 11:25 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 61
tempworker_tn_1 is on a distinguished road
Default to leo

The Following has been observed on this board:

Since you are a F1 student, and you have not applied for GC yet. At least one super moderator thought it's "unfair" to save people like you from GC trouble entirely, in the mean time he had to suffer the long wait. So I believe that's pretty much about it. Still my best wishes to IV though.

I am suprised that the PhD candidates have not united to lobby the lawmakers to secure the benefits for the proposed "F4 visa holder" applicable to current phd candidates.

After 1989, the Chinese students successfully lobbied the lawmakers to have a free and easy GC for every Chinese. I am pretty sure if the Indian and Chinese phd students work together, with the wonderful "F4 visa proposal" in the draft, the current phd students can get what they want.

Last edited by tempworker_tn_1; 02-14-2006 at 11:28 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #9 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2006, 11:46 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 77
helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute
Default

hi temp

I agree that its a very easy amendment to get passed. I will be able to be more active after 16/ 17th Feb, as I have something important to complete on 17th. Pls be in touch by email so that we can share ideas and resources. I think Chinese and Indian PhDs have a lot of number strength and we can easily get this amendment through this session itself. I believe that we should take IV's help in it since it fits their organizational goals and we have been in this even before PACE came up. Its only fair that they support minority objectives, as long as its reasonable and not far fetched, and will not distract them from their other goals. The PACE amendments we are suggesting fit these criteria. Most importantly it will not take much work on their part, as this is a very mild amendment which will virtually sail through.

Pls connect with your other international doctoral friends/ colleagues and make them aware of this bill, so that very soon we can make a concerted and decisive push to get these amendments incorporated. Although anything can happen, my strong sense is that PACE will pass with probably zero objection in the house or senate. So we have to push, and push hard to get these incorporated into it NOW. Best Wishes and regards.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #10 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2006, 01:49 AM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Sep-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
09/01/2005
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/24/2007
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,503
logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute logiclife has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempworker_tn_1
The Following has been observed on this board:

Since you are a F1 student, and you have not applied for GC yet. At least one super moderator thought it's "unfair" to save people like you from GC trouble entirely, in the mean time he had to suffer the long wait. So I believe that's pretty much about it. Still my best wishes to IV though.

I am suprised that the PhD candidates have not united to lobby the lawmakers to secure the benefits for the proposed "F4 visa holder" applicable to current phd candidates.

After 1989, the Chinese students successfully lobbied the lawmakers to have a free and easy GC for every Chinese. I am pretty sure if the Indian and Chinese phd students work together, with the wonderful "F4 visa proposal" in the draft, the current phd students can get what they want.
IF you read the pdf document "immigration voice brochure" on page 2 like I said, there are 8 points that are the goals and objectives of this org. Did you read it? If not please do so. This is the second time I am pointing to that document.

Point number 5: It says allow people with advanced degrees to apply for 485 and get GC without being subject to numerical quota limitations. What the hell are you talking about??????

If you think that Ph.D folks are not represented by this org, think again...what does "Advanced degree" mean?

However, please dont wish us luck and please dont be sarcastic. If you cannot agree with anything on this org and cannot identify, then I am sorry to say but I guess you can form your own organization. And so "good luck" to you.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #11 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2006, 02:26 AM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 61
tempworker_tn_1 is on a distinguished road
Default to logiclife

I am so sorry for offending you. At least you seem have been angry.

I am in no position to be sarcarstic, either to you or to IV. I didn't intend to be. I thought I might help by posting.

Again, It's people like you doing the real and hard work. You do deserve nothing negative but appreciation.Please be assured No offense, and I do wish you the best, not just "good luck", as in your reply.

Last edited by tempworker_tn_1; 02-15-2006 at 02:43 AM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #12 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2006, 09:26 AM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 77
helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute
Default

temp and logiclife:

I think all of us have an obligation to be civil here. Thats the least we can be on an anonymous forum like this. I think logiclife, with the tag of supermoderator, has the obligation to be more so. I suspect it was something specific to the situation as I hv been seeing you guys for a long time, and it was very out-of-character. I hope you accept temp's apologies. There are other PhDs here who may not agree with temp's ?sarcasm (intended or not). We all may have slightly different perceptions of any given situation, but to disagree gracefully and be willing to change our positions if convinced of another- I think that's something we can learn from debates in this country, of which we are trying to become residents. I wish both of you the best and my regards.

Last edited by helpful_leo; 02-15-2006 at 09:44 AM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #13 (permalink)  
Old 02-18-2006, 07:14 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 77
helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute
Default

hi tempworker_tn_1

I would like to get in touch with you. Pls e-mail me at helpful_leo@yahoo.com
I have asked this previously also. If we PhD students do not start getting organized ourselves, then no one will help us with getting our amendments into PACE. Pls e-mail me and we can start doing something.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #14 (permalink)  
Old 02-18-2006, 08:03 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Sep-05
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
07/25/2005
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/25/2005
Compare
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 59
houston2005 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

leo and temp worker

What makes you think that F4 for PhD's will sail easily. Do you really think they will open the doors of a flood gate and staple the green card with every PhD. I guess then every student coming to US would enroll into the PhD program and automatically get the green card. They will set up shops in China and India for not advertizing the PhD program but the green card that comes with it. The gradute student population would swell in hundreds of thousands even more than the annual H1 B's. Right now whatever waivers of tutions that you are enjoying will be lost and become more competitive. The hidden agenda with this F4 visa, get more overseas students and ask them to pay the high out state fees and cover our budget loss thru the fees. Bottom line there will be some new visa created, F4 for PhD's but stripped with GC or more stringent conditions for GC.

Trust me I am a PhD with NIW and always wish that F4 visa is created and green card stapled with every PhD, but I am not very hopeful on that.

My hope resides in the other provisions that eliminates NIW and EB 1 from quota. This is more logical, as the candidates that qualify for EB1 or NIW have already proven their abilities and hence deserve the GC's. This does not implies that other's don't, but it only implies that others do have to go thru the regulatory procedures.

What IV is doing is really great, beacuse their agenda addresses everyone at one stage or another for GC. So instead, of forming sub groups, it is advisable to remain cohesive and add more members to this cohesive group. Add more PhD's to this group because then there will be comphrensive representation of EB categories and law makers will understand what every person has to endure.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-18-2006, 09:12 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 77
helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute helpful_leo has a reputation beyond repute
Default

hi houston2005

I appreciate your comments, esp since you have valuable perspective being post PhD yourself. However I differ from you on a couple of points. I do think the PACE F4 suggestions will sail through the senate and house, and almost everybody I know who becomes aware of the whole bill (and of the National Academies report behind it) seems to agree. I think there is a reason why they restricted the automatic AOS clause to doctoral candidates in the bill.
I also do not think PACE will result in a flood of PhD applicants, because when somebody is applying for education or a job in the US from India or China, the GC is not the most pressing thing on their minds. Inspite of PACE, I think a future applicant will still be discouraged by the 5-8 years that a PhD degree takes to complete, and the miserable stipend during that process- as compared to an immediate job or a 2 yr Masters with a job immediatedly after, and 60K-100K salaries- as they do currently. I think just bcos a PhD will come with a GC, will not convince many.

I however do passionately agree with the rest of IVs agenda. If you look back to my posts, I have been posting since before even PACE existed (or even knew such a thing will come to pass) and even during the S1932 discussions at immigrationportal.com. At that time I had no direct interest in the GC process as I am yet to complete my PhD, and it will be many years before an employer will ever sponsor me for a GC. It was purely out of an interest in seeing fairness being done to legal immigrants, and beacuse I felt it is something that can be lobbied for and obtained. I also vehemently disagree that IV pursuing the PACE amendment suggestions will decrease IVs cohesiveness in any way, as the suggestions are extremely reasonable, and very minor, and will take negligible energy on IVs part to convince lawmakers. I hope people who manage IV will not let these suggestions die out of benign neglect. There are several people here who have been emailing me abt these suggestions, who do not actively post here, but are very interested in this.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Campaign to Clear pending I140s vbkris77 Visa Bulletin, status tracker, processing times 1 07-24-2008 02:12 PM
485-All clear and In-Line to be assigned to an IO damialok Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins 21 05-09-2008 02:31 PM
Listen Clear or Pay sukant71 Backlog Processing Center 4 08-30-2006 02:37 PM
Fax is not effective and our goal is not clear. Ramba IV Agenda and Legislative Updates 2 03-01-2006 06:15 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org