simon03
07-14 12:24 PM
Can someone please confirm the renewal fee required for EAD application (I-765).
My I-485 receipt date is Aug 2, 2007., notice date Sep '07.
However, my AOS application was filed under the old fee structure ($395) pursuant to July 2007 bulletin.
My company's attorney has submitted the application without fee, and USCIS has issued a receipt notice...i.e., they have not rejected the application.
In 2008, I paid the renewal fee when I applied on my own.
My understanding is that fee is required as per I-765 form instructions (page 7). My EAD is expiring mid of August and have been waiting, but not sure what to do
1. Is there a chance that my EAD application will be approved without fee ?
2. Should I just send checks and write cover letter on why fee is required ?
3. Should I send another application, but this time with the fee ?
Should I
My I-485 receipt date is Aug 2, 2007., notice date Sep '07.
However, my AOS application was filed under the old fee structure ($395) pursuant to July 2007 bulletin.
My company's attorney has submitted the application without fee, and USCIS has issued a receipt notice...i.e., they have not rejected the application.
In 2008, I paid the renewal fee when I applied on my own.
My understanding is that fee is required as per I-765 form instructions (page 7). My EAD is expiring mid of August and have been waiting, but not sure what to do
1. Is there a chance that my EAD application will be approved without fee ?
2. Should I just send checks and write cover letter on why fee is required ?
3. Should I send another application, but this time with the fee ?
Should I
wallpaper Quotes For Haters On Facebook.
diptam
06-23 09:17 AM
If i apply 485 now and Ead/Ap later after August Bulletin can we avail
Free EAD/AP ?? That will save $350 together !
I mean is that possible - what's this Free EAd/ap deal ?
dont forget july 4th is a holiday..so when they come back on the 5th they will have applications touching the roof.
but from what i am hearing a lot of people are waiting for august bulletin and will apply on july 31st with the higher fees to avail the free ead/ap.
Free EAD/AP ?? That will save $350 together !
I mean is that possible - what's this Free EAd/ap deal ?
dont forget july 4th is a holiday..so when they come back on the 5th they will have applications touching the roof.
but from what i am hearing a lot of people are waiting for august bulletin and will apply on july 31st with the higher fees to avail the free ead/ap.
sumansk
07-12 02:08 PM
:D who knows those guests are guests of 'SPIES'..no offense to anyone ....If you are not , please register...:D
2011 funny quotes about haters. quotes about haters. lil
willwin
04-05 09:16 AM
How you filled this much fast? You posted adds before you got PWD? My attorney is saying that we need to wait untill we get PWD to post adds
Well, I am not sure how it works but my attorney assured me that it's all taken care. Looks like the recruitment can happen prior.
Perhaps, the attorney team here on this forum can help us understand how this works.
Well, I am not sure how it works but my attorney assured me that it's all taken care. Looks like the recruitment can happen prior.
Perhaps, the attorney team here on this forum can help us understand how this works.
more...
dce.deepak
09-30 04:05 PM
it doesn't make much sense even after google translation. If you understand then can you please translate. I want to know what other people are planing in that forum
saimrathi
07-17 05:57 PM
I agree.. The flower campaign shouldn't be taken for granted.. let it just be special.. Thank you cards adn notes will be the best..
Couldn't agree more. I will be sending her a personal Thank You card today. Flowers might not be quite appropriate, especially so shortly after the recent "flower campaign". :)
Couldn't agree more. I will be sending her a personal Thank You card today. Flowers might not be quite appropriate, especially so shortly after the recent "flower campaign". :)
more...
sgurram
04-30 12:49 AM
mine reached on the 27th. I had last update on 27th and 28th
2010 funny quotes about haters. Quotes For Haters On Facebook. quotes for haters
sxv7392
12-11 01:22 PM
I really appreciate what the CORE team is doing. I just found out about this a few weeks ago and I see lot of thing happening. I am willing to help in any way possible. I need some direction..............................
more...
GCHope2011
09-12 11:01 PM
Hi, I have a quite strange situation here:
I am from China. I have an approved EB2-NIW I-140 with priority date of 2/2008 and an EB1a 140 petition denied on 8/4/2010.
I filed an I-485 concurrently with my EB1a, along with EAD applications. I got my EAD on 11/2009 and used it to work already.
The strange part is, my I-485 case is still pending, even though my EB1a petition is denied. In fact, I received RFE for quality photos two weeks after my 140 was denied. I think this is a USCIS error because they think my 485 was linked to my EB2-NIW case.
Now, am I staying in the U.S. illegally even though technically my 485 petition is still pending?
Thanks for all you comments.
Yes, your inference is correct as your 485 (and therefore EAD, AP) is based on an I-140 petition that was denied.
Which means that all status and benefits that are based on the underlying I-140 petition become null and void.
You should definitely consult a lawyer to understand what options you have now.
I am from China. I have an approved EB2-NIW I-140 with priority date of 2/2008 and an EB1a 140 petition denied on 8/4/2010.
I filed an I-485 concurrently with my EB1a, along with EAD applications. I got my EAD on 11/2009 and used it to work already.
The strange part is, my I-485 case is still pending, even though my EB1a petition is denied. In fact, I received RFE for quality photos two weeks after my 140 was denied. I think this is a USCIS error because they think my 485 was linked to my EB2-NIW case.
Now, am I staying in the U.S. illegally even though technically my 485 petition is still pending?
Thanks for all you comments.
Yes, your inference is correct as your 485 (and therefore EAD, AP) is based on an I-140 petition that was denied.
Which means that all status and benefits that are based on the underlying I-140 petition become null and void.
You should definitely consult a lawyer to understand what options you have now.
hair quotes for haters. quotes
neerajkandhari
10-24 09:20 PM
No Ap As Yet
more...
cox
October 25th, 2005, 11:51 PM
I think the timing is a matter more of when those of you who have to travel can make it here. For the locals, I think we're a lot more flexible. I would suggest a pre-xmas timing (mid to late dec). Right now, the fog on the bay is pretty bad, but toward xmas it usually lightens up. The weather will be chilly (esp. Marin & the seashore), but it never really gets cold here like those of you who have midwest or northeast winters. ;) Hotel rates should also be good. I'm looking forward to meeting any of you who can make it out here!
I've been trying to get the perfect bridge picture for a while, and we can continue that in Marin, and breakfast in Sausalito. We could hit the 'tourist' spots - Coit tower, Market street, pier 39, & the Presidio. If we want to go further afield, there are a host of parks and beaches immediately available. Point Reyes National Seashore is a two & a half hour drive north from SF. Tule Elk, shorebirds and sea lions. Point Ano Nuevo is an hour and a half south. Elephant Seals, birds and deer. I'm game for anything. I'm sure QJ will come up with an even better list and then we can discuss.
I've been trying to get the perfect bridge picture for a while, and we can continue that in Marin, and breakfast in Sausalito. We could hit the 'tourist' spots - Coit tower, Market street, pier 39, & the Presidio. If we want to go further afield, there are a host of parks and beaches immediately available. Point Reyes National Seashore is a two & a half hour drive north from SF. Tule Elk, shorebirds and sea lions. Point Ano Nuevo is an hour and a half south. Elephant Seals, birds and deer. I'm game for anything. I'm sure QJ will come up with an even better list and then we can discuss.
hot Quotes For Haters. RHYMING
n4nature
02-05 12:41 PM
You need to check with your HR and Attorney for the legal requirements. Make sure you are not breaking any law.
snathan,
I checked with my attorney and according to him, I have to go with MS+4. A friend of mine got the labor approved with MS+0 and he was MS+5 already. Hence I thought someone here might know better.
Thanks!
snathan,
I checked with my attorney and according to him, I have to go with MS+4. A friend of mine got the labor approved with MS+0 and he was MS+5 already. Hence I thought someone here might know better.
Thanks!
more...
house myspace quotes about haters. eminem quotes about haters
suny_saini
08-05 11:46 PM
My case cannot be processed under CSPA, because the form I-824 was not filed within one year of the visa becoming available.
but i have a valid point mentioned after the follwing subject. please check if the point is valid.
ACC TO SUBJECT: CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT: ALDAC #2
REF: (A) 02 STATE 163054 (B) 02 STATE 123775
-------
If the principal applicant adjusted status in the U.S. and a derivative is applying for a visa abroad to
follow-to-join, then the date on which the derivative will be considered to have sought LPR status for
purposes of satisfying CSPA Section 3 will generally be the date on which the principal (acting as the
derivative beneficiary's agent) filed the Form I-824 that is used to process the derivative's following to
join application. Therefore, in cases involving a derivative seeking to follow to join a principal who adjusted
in the U.S., the derivative can benefit from the CSPA if the principal filed a Form I-824 for the beneficiary
within one year of a visa becoming available (i.e., within one year of the case becoming current or petition
approval, whichever is later). The instructions to Form I-485 (the adjustment application) advise aliens
adjusting status in the U.S. who have derivatives abroad to file a Form I-824 for such derivatives, and the
I-485 Form indicates that that Form I-824 can be filed simultaneously with the Form I-485
(READ MORE FROM http://guangzhou.usconsulate.gov/cspa.html )
I NEED HELP AND I THINK THERE IS ALWAYS AN ALTERNATIVE OF THINGS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY ANY ANY ANY WAY???
CAN THEY APPROVE IF I REQUEST THEM ?
WHAT IS the way out?
I checked the visa bulletin from august 2003 to the dates when it was current for our category E3.
I have found this point please have a look and determine if there is a chance?
VISA WAS AVAILABLE FROM AUGUST 2003 TO JUNE 2005.
ACC TO LAW FORM i-824 SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN 1 YEAR OF VISA AVAILIABILITY.
SINCE THE I-824 WAS FILED ON AUGUST 2005 WHICH COMES WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE
JUNE 2005. SO IS IT A VALID POINT TO BE ELEGIBLE TO PROCESSED UNDER CSPA?
ALSO there is a last hope
A 221(g) refusal will not be considered a "final determination," regardless of whether it occurred within
a year of August 6, 2002 or earlier. (The only exception to this would be if the alien's case was ultimately
terminated under INA 203(g) for failure to make reasonable efforts to overcome to 221(g) refusal. A
203(g) termination will be considered a "final determination.")
AND VISA AVAILIBLITY IS THE DATE WHEN THE PRIORITY DATES BECAME CURRENT OR THE DATE WHEN I-140 WAS APPROVED.
WITH this OR option in above line we can also consider the visa availibity date as the date when priority dates were current
Please correct me.
but i have a valid point mentioned after the follwing subject. please check if the point is valid.
ACC TO SUBJECT: CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT: ALDAC #2
REF: (A) 02 STATE 163054 (B) 02 STATE 123775
-------
If the principal applicant adjusted status in the U.S. and a derivative is applying for a visa abroad to
follow-to-join, then the date on which the derivative will be considered to have sought LPR status for
purposes of satisfying CSPA Section 3 will generally be the date on which the principal (acting as the
derivative beneficiary's agent) filed the Form I-824 that is used to process the derivative's following to
join application. Therefore, in cases involving a derivative seeking to follow to join a principal who adjusted
in the U.S., the derivative can benefit from the CSPA if the principal filed a Form I-824 for the beneficiary
within one year of a visa becoming available (i.e., within one year of the case becoming current or petition
approval, whichever is later). The instructions to Form I-485 (the adjustment application) advise aliens
adjusting status in the U.S. who have derivatives abroad to file a Form I-824 for such derivatives, and the
I-485 Form indicates that that Form I-824 can be filed simultaneously with the Form I-485
(READ MORE FROM http://guangzhou.usconsulate.gov/cspa.html )
I NEED HELP AND I THINK THERE IS ALWAYS AN ALTERNATIVE OF THINGS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY ANY ANY ANY WAY???
CAN THEY APPROVE IF I REQUEST THEM ?
WHAT IS the way out?
I checked the visa bulletin from august 2003 to the dates when it was current for our category E3.
I have found this point please have a look and determine if there is a chance?
VISA WAS AVAILABLE FROM AUGUST 2003 TO JUNE 2005.
ACC TO LAW FORM i-824 SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN 1 YEAR OF VISA AVAILIABILITY.
SINCE THE I-824 WAS FILED ON AUGUST 2005 WHICH COMES WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE
JUNE 2005. SO IS IT A VALID POINT TO BE ELEGIBLE TO PROCESSED UNDER CSPA?
ALSO there is a last hope
A 221(g) refusal will not be considered a "final determination," regardless of whether it occurred within
a year of August 6, 2002 or earlier. (The only exception to this would be if the alien's case was ultimately
terminated under INA 203(g) for failure to make reasonable efforts to overcome to 221(g) refusal. A
203(g) termination will be considered a "final determination.")
AND VISA AVAILIBLITY IS THE DATE WHEN THE PRIORITY DATES BECAME CURRENT OR THE DATE WHEN I-140 WAS APPROVED.
WITH this OR option in above line we can also consider the visa availibity date as the date when priority dates were current
Please correct me.
tattoo sassy quotes about haters. sassy quotes about haters. sassy quotes about
rajivkumarverma
10-16 07:16 PM
Whats the reason for the denial ?
My Labour was For EB-3 and my I-140 was filled in EB2
One of my Colleague also had same case but he got query on his
I-140 and mine got denied
I have a question
Now I will have to file new labour and I-140 can
Will I loose my old priority dates
My Labour was For EB-3 and my I-140 was filled in EB2
One of my Colleague also had same case but he got query on his
I-140 and mine got denied
I have a question
Now I will have to file new labour and I-140 can
Will I loose my old priority dates
more...
pictures wiz khalifa quotes about haters. sassy quotes about haters. funny quotes
reddymjm
12-10 06:04 PM
BUMP.....
EB2-I wait for April Bulletin.
Good to see EB3 movement.
EB2I and EB3 I should wait till Jul Bulletin.
EB2-I wait for April Bulletin.
Good to see EB3 movement.
EB2I and EB3 I should wait till Jul Bulletin.
dresses wiz khalifa quotes about haters. quotes about haters. drake
gcfriend65
01-19 07:44 AM
Mine was filed on May 01, 2006 EB-2 and I am still waiting. I has been close to 9 months now. I also logged in an enquiry 35 days ago, but still no reply. Worried as what to do. Do, I convert to Premium?
more...
makeup sassy quotes about haters. sassy quotes about haters. sassy quotes about
logiclife
09-25 12:07 PM
Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED. Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
girlfriend lil wayne quotes about haters
rsdang
06-13 01:29 PM
I heard I-140 premium processing has been restarted. Is it true?
Details at -
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=62ae15d3ffd7a110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Details at -
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=62ae15d3ffd7a110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
hairstyles quotes about haters and drama.
msgoud
03-08 03:29 PM
thanks all for suggestions
His company is filing for LCA today and will see where it takes
His company is filing for LCA today and will see where it takes
aaaa4321
08-24 11:47 PM
Does anyone have an idea about this week receipt update as it is not out yet.
Please advice.
Please advice.
ItIsNotFunny
09-22 03:06 PM
Please post how many people you called!
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
0 comments:
Post a Comment