roseball
01-07 02:20 PM
I want to apply for my OPT extension. I am currently on 12-month OPT.
I am too close to my deadline. So guys please reply ASAP.
I found 2 contradicting information on USCIS website.. Please help..
USCIS - Instructions for Electronically Filing Form I-765 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c646065d85cee010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=9059d9808bcbd010VgnVCM100000d1f1d6a1 RCRD)
Who Is Eligible to e-File This Form
Except for those categories listed above, applicants falling in the categories described in Part 2 of Form I-765 Instructions are eligible for electronic filing.
Category 274a.12(a)
.. Blah Blah Blah
(18) L Spouses
Category 274a.12(c)
(2) Dependent of TECRO E-1 Nonimmigrant
(3)(a) Pre-Completion Opt 12 Months
(3)(b) Post Completion Opt 12 Months
(3)(c) 17-Month STEM Extension
Allright so this says WE CAN
Now look at this link
USCIS - Application for Employment Authorization (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=7d316c0b4c3bf110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
Electronic Filing:
Please note that the option to file Form I-765 electronically for the eligibility category (c)(3)(i) has been disabled. The option to file Form I-765 electronically for the new eligibility categories (c)(3)(A), (c)(3)(B), and (c)(3)(C) is currently not available but will be available shortly. When this option becomes available, an update will be posted to this page. The option to file the Form I-765 for the eligibility codes (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) remains in effect.
From above it says, WE CAN'T
Any ideas any one ??
Also my another question is with Form I-765
Question 11. Date you applied for previous EAD ??
OPTIONS:
Notice Date
Receipt Date
StartDate of Previous OPT
ExpiryDate of Previos OPT
Granted Date(How do i know that??)
Received Date
Thank you..
From the above, it seems the option to file F-1 based OPT was available online at some point but for some reasons currently is disabled. So you cannot file online.
I am too close to my deadline. So guys please reply ASAP.
I found 2 contradicting information on USCIS website.. Please help..
USCIS - Instructions for Electronically Filing Form I-765 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c646065d85cee010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=9059d9808bcbd010VgnVCM100000d1f1d6a1 RCRD)
Who Is Eligible to e-File This Form
Except for those categories listed above, applicants falling in the categories described in Part 2 of Form I-765 Instructions are eligible for electronic filing.
Category 274a.12(a)
.. Blah Blah Blah
(18) L Spouses
Category 274a.12(c)
(2) Dependent of TECRO E-1 Nonimmigrant
(3)(a) Pre-Completion Opt 12 Months
(3)(b) Post Completion Opt 12 Months
(3)(c) 17-Month STEM Extension
Allright so this says WE CAN
Now look at this link
USCIS - Application for Employment Authorization (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=7d316c0b4c3bf110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
Electronic Filing:
Please note that the option to file Form I-765 electronically for the eligibility category (c)(3)(i) has been disabled. The option to file Form I-765 electronically for the new eligibility categories (c)(3)(A), (c)(3)(B), and (c)(3)(C) is currently not available but will be available shortly. When this option becomes available, an update will be posted to this page. The option to file the Form I-765 for the eligibility codes (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) remains in effect.
From above it says, WE CAN'T
Any ideas any one ??
Also my another question is with Form I-765
Question 11. Date you applied for previous EAD ??
OPTIONS:
Notice Date
Receipt Date
StartDate of Previous OPT
ExpiryDate of Previos OPT
Granted Date(How do i know that??)
Received Date
Thank you..
From the above, it seems the option to file F-1 based OPT was available online at some point but for some reasons currently is disabled. So you cannot file online.
waitin_toolong
09-22 12:46 PM
Yes, You Green Card would evaporate after 3 months. Do not take 50% cut!
what do you base this on
what do you base this on
ab_tak_chappan
08-12 10:18 PM
Celebration should not need a reason :)
Thought this might help when the mood is gloomy, folks are tense n stressed out, checking visa bulletin every minute :D
hurrah!....
..
...
...
wait a min..success of what??
Thought this might help when the mood is gloomy, folks are tense n stressed out, checking visa bulletin every minute :D
hurrah!....
..
...
...
wait a min..success of what??
summitpointe
01-28 11:01 AM
Congrats
more...
getgc2008
07-31 12:32 PM
Yes my lawyer confirmed that I140 and I485 has to be filed at the same location.
dontcareanymore
04-02 01:37 PM
Just so all can understand :
Did you go for visa stamping while your current visa was valid and you came back to US with old (but valid) stamp while they are processing your request because they wanted more info?
Did you go for visa stamping while your current visa was valid and you came back to US with old (but valid) stamp while they are processing your request because they wanted more info?
more...
saint_2010
07-11 05:09 PM
Thanks Aah_GC
rahul2699
05-20 08:01 AM
We are beneficiaries of my husband on a EB3 petition. due to retrogression issue,
and your question is?
and your question is?
more...
onemorecame
04-13 01:59 PM
Congratulations..
sagittariusarm
09-04 10:13 AM
I've A# (9 digit.. 099xx for primary and 088xx for dependent)... PD is blank.. Guess most of people getting receipts in June/July had it blank... Don't know why...
I140 will have the priority date and no receipts will have it.
I140 will have the priority date and no receipts will have it.
more...
amsgc
08-21 12:07 AM
Also wanted to mention that your I-20 will have information on when the OPT was applied (at least that's how it was in my case). I got a new I-20 when I applied for OPT (indicating that it was pending), and then another one when it was approved.
Another point - they generally approve the OPT and issue the EAD within three months. So now you have the month narrowed down to 3 (from the month of your approval).
Another point - they generally approve the OPT and issue the EAD within three months. So now you have the month narrowed down to 3 (from the month of your approval).
smartboy75
07-17 07:42 PM
Almond I agree with you completely...I am not against questions being asked or answering questions...This community has been helpful to me in the past and I would be more than welcome to lend support....but a little effort would'nt harm....
There is a saying "SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND...." No matter how old the information its always possible to dig it out...not only using this forumn search but also google search....I just hope people try and seek before ..that's all
There is a saying "SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND...." No matter how old the information its always possible to dig it out...not only using this forumn search but also google search....I just hope people try and seek before ..that's all
more...
gotgc?
08-13 10:39 AM
Hi All,
I have a very starge situation. I have an approved I-140 based on PERM LC - EB3 -India with PD of Jan 2006.
Before July 07, my company substituted me for LC Sub with PD of Jan 2003 and did the I-485 filing based on this pending LC Sub.
(Guys...please dont jump on me for using LC SUB...I work for a one of the biggest tech companies with 60000 employees for 6 years and its their policy to do LC Sub for their employees..i didn't buy the LCs through consulting or some one...). I got EAD renewals, AP etc...Since my LC Sub I-140 is beyond its processing dates, my attorney filed a AILA request and got a reponse saying
"The AILA Liaison committee member working on your case reviewed the petition with an I-140 senior officer at USCIS. It appears that the employee that had the original labor certification application adjusted his status based on the labor certification. Unfortunately, this means that the labor cert and priority date cannot be used for your green card application."
But, they also mentioned that "Your AOS that is pending will continue to be active based on your own approved I-140. This was verified by CIS in their response to our inquiry"
Question 1: My attorney said its an unofficial USCIS/AILA determination. Howmuch to rely on this AILA/USCIS unofficial determination? Because, Still, USCIS case status shows my I-140 is pending. Should i wait until the decision comes on my case?
Question 2: My understanding is that, if the LC is already used, then my LC Sub I-140 will be denied... if the I-140 is denied then the I-485 will also be denied..is it correct?
Question 3: If my above understanding is correct, then how will my AOS will continue to be active based on my original I-140 if my AOS was files uding pending LC Sub-I140? Is it true or they lawyer is giving me a fake answer? I thought you can only change underlying I-140, only if the new I-140s dates are current..in my case Jan 2006 date is not current.....
Please give me your thoughts...I would really appreciate your help...
I have a very starge situation. I have an approved I-140 based on PERM LC - EB3 -India with PD of Jan 2006.
Before July 07, my company substituted me for LC Sub with PD of Jan 2003 and did the I-485 filing based on this pending LC Sub.
(Guys...please dont jump on me for using LC SUB...I work for a one of the biggest tech companies with 60000 employees for 6 years and its their policy to do LC Sub for their employees..i didn't buy the LCs through consulting or some one...). I got EAD renewals, AP etc...Since my LC Sub I-140 is beyond its processing dates, my attorney filed a AILA request and got a reponse saying
"The AILA Liaison committee member working on your case reviewed the petition with an I-140 senior officer at USCIS. It appears that the employee that had the original labor certification application adjusted his status based on the labor certification. Unfortunately, this means that the labor cert and priority date cannot be used for your green card application."
But, they also mentioned that "Your AOS that is pending will continue to be active based on your own approved I-140. This was verified by CIS in their response to our inquiry"
Question 1: My attorney said its an unofficial USCIS/AILA determination. Howmuch to rely on this AILA/USCIS unofficial determination? Because, Still, USCIS case status shows my I-140 is pending. Should i wait until the decision comes on my case?
Question 2: My understanding is that, if the LC is already used, then my LC Sub I-140 will be denied... if the I-140 is denied then the I-485 will also be denied..is it correct?
Question 3: If my above understanding is correct, then how will my AOS will continue to be active based on my original I-140 if my AOS was files uding pending LC Sub-I140? Is it true or they lawyer is giving me a fake answer? I thought you can only change underlying I-140, only if the new I-140s dates are current..in my case Jan 2006 date is not current.....
Please give me your thoughts...I would really appreciate your help...
deepakd
07-10 01:33 AM
USCIS do call the company, a friend of mine who already got his GC, USCIS called the company in India to confirm the employment.
Thanks
I would take my words back instead of never I would say the chances are slim that USCIS would call the employer. Never heard of this before this
Thanks
I would take my words back instead of never I would say the chances are slim that USCIS would call the employer. Never heard of this before this
more...
deardar
09-28 02:54 PM
How long did it take for you after filing the FOIA to get the concerned documents ?
god_bless_you
06-14 09:14 PM
From Today's Lou Dobb's....
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
more...
mchundi
04-10 12:04 PM
For a change I was listening to Rush today. Interestingly he was very neutral about Bush's proposal. He thinks the new proposal is to the conservative's liking, but not sure how this will be implemented. Bush's push is our last hope this year. Nancy Pelosi does not want to take up any immigration bill that is not likely to pass(afraid of failure).
--MC
--MC
Vinny
02-09 01:17 PM
Hi,
My spouse is working on H1-B in Los Angeles. His company acquired another company in Bay Area, so now he wants to work out of Bay Area, from this acquired company's office.
1. Does he need to file a transfer memorandum ?
2. WIll there be a change in wages ?
3. Are there any other steps before he starts to work in BayArea ?
Please help.
Thanks.
My spouse is working on H1-B in Los Angeles. His company acquired another company in Bay Area, so now he wants to work out of Bay Area, from this acquired company's office.
1. Does he need to file a transfer memorandum ?
2. WIll there be a change in wages ?
3. Are there any other steps before he starts to work in BayArea ?
Please help.
Thanks.
summitpointe
01-28 11:01 AM
Congrats
MatsP
March 15th, 2006, 04:04 AM
Nik gives some good advice.
If you still want to continue shooting during the darker part of the show (and don't want to "fix" they eyes of every animal shot), you'll have to find a better way to light things - this means not using a direct strobe from the camera to the animal (or cowboy), as this is what causes the red/white eyes - light reflecting straight back from the eye to the camera.
The simple way to solve this is to get an off-camera hotshoe for the flash, and place it at 30-45 degree angle away from where you're shooting in relaton to the subject. To get the best results, you'll probably want to have TWO flashes, both at an angle from the subject.
You still won't get "all" great shots, but they will be noticably better than the current setup.
The next step further would be to use proper studio strobes (two or three). Of course, you can no longer just walk into the arena with your camera at this point, but you probably need permission to put up some 6-8 foot tall stands with the strobe on it, and find some power sockets to connect the strobe power unit to, etc, etc... This is similar to how I understand that Kevin Sadler does his job - and horse-shows and that sort of thing is his business... He may well be around to give more advice at some point.
--
Mats
If you still want to continue shooting during the darker part of the show (and don't want to "fix" they eyes of every animal shot), you'll have to find a better way to light things - this means not using a direct strobe from the camera to the animal (or cowboy), as this is what causes the red/white eyes - light reflecting straight back from the eye to the camera.
The simple way to solve this is to get an off-camera hotshoe for the flash, and place it at 30-45 degree angle away from where you're shooting in relaton to the subject. To get the best results, you'll probably want to have TWO flashes, both at an angle from the subject.
You still won't get "all" great shots, but they will be noticably better than the current setup.
The next step further would be to use proper studio strobes (two or three). Of course, you can no longer just walk into the arena with your camera at this point, but you probably need permission to put up some 6-8 foot tall stands with the strobe on it, and find some power sockets to connect the strobe power unit to, etc, etc... This is similar to how I understand that Kevin Sadler does his job - and horse-shows and that sort of thing is his business... He may well be around to give more advice at some point.
--
Mats
shana04
03-08 12:23 PM
My PD of JAN 27 05 became current with the March bulletin. While folks from TSC got GCs from March 2nd itself, NSC seemed to have little action.
By some random combination of POJ options, which changed recently, I managed to get a service request in on March 2nd (Type of service requested: -- Outside Normal Processing Times). The same day, I had Infopass and I was told its been "Preadjudicated, under review" and there was some recent movement on my case (transfered internally). This got my spirits up, but in just 2 days, I got a pretty horrible response to my SR, which made me feel this is going to be an uphill battle:
I was about to contact the state senator today, but early today morning we got our CPO emails.
My case is pretty straight forward:
Processing center: NSC
PD: JAN 27 2005 non perm which got approved just in time for July 07 fiasco.
I-485: July 07 filer
RFE in Nov 2008 (immunizations for wife, she had taken certain waivers due to pregnancy --- and Employment verification for myself)
Approval: Today (March 8th 2010)
Congrats
By some random combination of POJ options, which changed recently, I managed to get a service request in on March 2nd (Type of service requested: -- Outside Normal Processing Times). The same day, I had Infopass and I was told its been "Preadjudicated, under review" and there was some recent movement on my case (transfered internally). This got my spirits up, but in just 2 days, I got a pretty horrible response to my SR, which made me feel this is going to be an uphill battle:
I was about to contact the state senator today, but early today morning we got our CPO emails.
My case is pretty straight forward:
Processing center: NSC
PD: JAN 27 2005 non perm which got approved just in time for July 07 fiasco.
I-485: July 07 filer
RFE in Nov 2008 (immunizations for wife, she had taken certain waivers due to pregnancy --- and Employment verification for myself)
Approval: Today (March 8th 2010)
Congrats
