Libra
07-09 08:37 PM
Good one............:D
he and his some of his staffs are member of IV. {shhhhh that is a secret}
he and his some of his staffs are member of IV. {shhhhh that is a secret}
wallpaper emma stone blonde bangs.
MeraNaamJoker
08-12 01:06 PM
Is USCIS following any pattern while approving I485 cases when the dates are current?.
Nothing in particular. Some patterns which were discussed here were mere coincedence.
Nothing in particular. Some patterns which were discussed here were mere coincedence.
jungalee43
09-15 12:38 PM
I am going as per the last update from IV core. Thay have asked us to start calling from Monday. I am just following that message.
Personally I feel the hearing and the vote in committee may happen suddenly. So don't think you will be able to watch it live.
On the side note I am feeling a very positive energy about this bill. In fact I am feeling passage of this bill right through to the President's desk without any changes. I am sure all are feeling the same way.
Hi Junglee, when is HR5882 scheduled again?
Is it tomorrow or on 18th?
Thanks.
Personally I feel the hearing and the vote in committee may happen suddenly. So don't think you will be able to watch it live.
On the side note I am feeling a very positive energy about this bill. In fact I am feeling passage of this bill right through to the President's desk without any changes. I am sure all are feeling the same way.
Hi Junglee, when is HR5882 scheduled again?
Is it tomorrow or on 18th?
Thanks.
2011 2010 Emma Stone Zombieland
HumHongeKamiyab
06-21 04:22 PM
In my lawyers requirement list there is only approved I 140..
At one post , I read this ???
Can some one confirm if we need to attach the copy of labor certificate ?
At one post , I read this ???
Can some one confirm if we need to attach the copy of labor certificate ?
more...
niklshah
09-10 10:47 PM
should we keep on calling senators?
any suggestions from core group?
any suggestions from core group?
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
more...
SunJoshi
01-01 09:00 AM
Guys,
Any idea when the new proposals will be implemented if they become law :confused: Do we have to wait until Oct for these new proposals to take effect.
--MC
mchudi,
These are very tough and partisian bills (immigration bills). This also being an election year, some lawmakers will try to puch their own agenda. Don't expect a featherbed solution. This will be a dogfight.
Any idea when the new proposals will be implemented if they become law :confused: Do we have to wait until Oct for these new proposals to take effect.
--MC
mchudi,
These are very tough and partisian bills (immigration bills). This also being an election year, some lawmakers will try to puch their own agenda. Don't expect a featherbed solution. This will be a dogfight.
2010 2010 emma stone zombieland
gonecrazyonh4
05-25 05:22 PM
My immigration doctor told me that if i had chickenpox in childhood i do not need the varicella vaccine? Which i did at age 5. Please, let me know if anyone else was told the same , i will be going back to him on Wednesday for the physical exam. I don't want to get a RFE on that.
You need proof that you had chicken pox- a relevant letter or prescription issued at that time. Your Doctor can also order a test to find out the antibodies- the presence of which proves that you had chicken pox, but my Doctor told that it is expensive and easiest thing is to just take a shot. (This is what we did for my Sons school admission here, same provision is applicable for immigration I guess)
You need proof that you had chicken pox- a relevant letter or prescription issued at that time. Your Doctor can also order a test to find out the antibodies- the presence of which proves that you had chicken pox, but my Doctor told that it is expensive and easiest thing is to just take a shot. (This is what we did for my Sons school admission here, same provision is applicable for immigration I guess)
more...
GC_ASP
04-06 08:12 AM
EB-2 Movement in May
April 5
Will EB-2 India will advance "substantially" in May?
There are 18,000 persons with EB-2 priority dates in 2006 who are waiting for green cards, 13,000 of them from India.
Given the 7% country quota, we expect the India EB-2 to move forward in May between 2 weeks and 2 months.
* This is seems to be completely different from what they claimed "substantial" before.....:confused:
April 5
Will EB-2 India will advance "substantially" in May?
There are 18,000 persons with EB-2 priority dates in 2006 who are waiting for green cards, 13,000 of them from India.
Given the 7% country quota, we expect the India EB-2 to move forward in May between 2 weeks and 2 months.
* This is seems to be completely different from what they claimed "substantial" before.....:confused:
hair tattoo Actress Emma Stone emma
ab_tak_chappan
08-21 12:24 AM
If Green's made you smarter you would not be lurking here in these forums :p
Look at this guy's reputation. Everybody knows how smart this guy is.
Look at this guy's reputation. Everybody knows how smart this guy is.
more...
jayleno
10-28 08:03 PM
I just dropped the letters in the mailbox. Thanks to all the people behind this effort.
hot 2011 emma stone zombieland
feedfront
09-20 12:02 PM
I'm also from Sep-Oct'05. I got RFE. Waiting for RFE...
more...
house Emma Stone (Zombieland,
gc_chahiye
10-17 03:30 PM
My 140 and 485s (with my wife as derivative )are from Nebraska and have a set of A#s,
again My wife's 140 and 485s (with me as derivative ) are from Texas and have a different set of A#s..
how to combine them and make uscis inform abt it???
Anybody any thoughts !!!
my lawyer is basically saying: if we get lucky then one gets approved and the other one can be withdrawn at that point; otherwise at some point USCIS is going to issue an RFE asking us to pick one of those two petitions and force us to withdraw one before they make a decision on the other. For now we are sitting tight, waiting to see what USCIS does.
again My wife's 140 and 485s (with me as derivative ) are from Texas and have a different set of A#s..
how to combine them and make uscis inform abt it???
Anybody any thoughts !!!
my lawyer is basically saying: if we get lucky then one gets approved and the other one can be withdrawn at that point; otherwise at some point USCIS is going to issue an RFE asking us to pick one of those two petitions and force us to withdraw one before they make a decision on the other. For now we are sitting tight, waiting to see what USCIS does.
tattoo makeup 2 emma stone zombieland
ondreaming
01-11 01:54 PM
This article on today�s Washington Times about the Boehner vs Blunt race to succeed the former House majority leader, gives some hints on both the people and the organizations pushing the inimmigration issues in the Congress: Immigration vote stirs concern about Boehner
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060111-121934-8017r.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060111-121934-8017r.htm
more...
pictures hair Emma Stone (zombieland,
redsox2009
04-04 04:09 PM
We know EB2 - I dates have not moved since Oct ,2010 .
So India regular quota for the last six months : 5800/2 = 1900 .
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1900 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1900 = 3100 porting already took place. (though only 1900 really got GC)
I think you meant to say 2800 not 5800. I'm correcting your statement.
So India regular quota for the last six months : 2800/2 = 1400
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1400 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1400 = 2600 porting already took place. (though only 1400 really got GC)
So India regular quota for the last six months : 5800/2 = 1900 .
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1900 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1900 = 3100 porting already took place. (though only 1900 really got GC)
I think you meant to say 2800 not 5800. I'm correcting your statement.
So India regular quota for the last six months : 2800/2 = 1400
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1400 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1400 = 2600 porting already took place. (though only 1400 really got GC)
dresses tattoo hair 2011 makeup Emma
pani_6
08-22 06:11 PM
Ok it too late for the letters..we need to focus on the HR bills by Resp Sen Lofgren..we have a narrow window here.. and bi partisan support..we can send her flowers and request the Senator to take this up seriously..also we can send the flowers to the co-sponsors..at thier local offices instead of DC ..since DC office is closed now..
What does EB-3 thinks..we can send flowers to these guys and also to Charles Oppenhiemer...
Flowers anybody??;)
we can start the campign from monday!
What does EB-3 thinks..we can send flowers to these guys and also to Charles Oppenhiemer...
Flowers anybody??;)
we can start the campign from monday!
more...
makeup 2011 Emma Stone Zombieland
neelu
10-11 03:01 PM
Congratulations to all those who are finally getting their GCs after a month long wait (a much longer wait, I know). :)
I am beginning to find out that having your priority date current does not automatically mean GC. It is just another waiting area where it is another lottery game. When you are not current, you know there are a lot of people going thru the same thing, and you hope that one day dates would be current and that things would be fine. Unfortunately I dont feel that way now. And strangely, it feels kinda lonely here in CurrentLand!
Kewlchap, thank you for the detailed information. It is very useful.
My PD is 12Jan2005, EB2-I , NSC. I have already talked to two IOs using POJ method. The first one (was very nice) told me that my case was in transit to an IO officer (she said that it was an intra-office transit) and that I should give it 4 days. I called back one week later (on 10/8/2009) and this time did not get as nice a lady - she said that may case was waiting to be assigned to an officer and that I should wait 90 days. I dont know which one to believe or if I can believe both.:confused:
A few questions:
1) Should we contact senators or congressmen, or both? What is the recommended method to contact them - through phone or through snail mail?
2) I understand that there are still many people before my PD that are waiting for their GC and I wish them the best. Should I give myself more time (say till the last week of the month for others before me to get approved) before I try the various approaches that Kewlchap and others have suggested? Or do you recommend trying all the approaches one by one right away?
3) For form 7001, do you think it should be treated as the last resort, or will I be able to save some time by starting with this? Is there any advantage if the attorney submits this for me?
Thanks in advance and good luck to all.
Folks,
Got the email about being registered as a new permanent resident on Oct 8th. Thanks to SoP, caliguy, fatjoe and all others on the forum who helped / gave me support. I essentially learned that USCIS will not move quickly on their own, they need to be pursued just like any other govt. office in India. I give my time line below for an idea of what I did. If anyone is waiting still, I sincerely think that you should do all of POJ/SR/Infopass/Senator/Ombudsman.
Timeline:
Sept 1st - became current
Sept 5th - contacted NSC several times through POJ. Finally, a very nice lady told me that my case was not even assigned to an officer. Said that she will send in a request to the contractor to pull my case out and get it assigned to an officer.
Sept 11th - Case pulled out of storage area and moved to a smaller waiting room [got this info later, but this is what had happened]
Sept 13th: Opened SR.
Sept 18th - Infopass: Told me that my case was assigned to an officer on Sept 11th (which was wrong really) and that I should wait 30 days. Also told me that my FP were renewed on March 9th and all my checks were clear.
Sept 20th: Contacted Senator's office. Said they will send in inquiry.
Sept 25: Response to SR. Case under review. Wait 30 days.
Sept 27th: Letter from Senator saying my case was under review and I need to wait 30 days.
Oct 2nd: Contacted NSC again through POJ method. A nice lady, Terry, told me that my case was assigned to officer on Sept 30th. She said, "your case was pulled out of storage and put in a rather large holding area where it was till Sept 30th." Also confirmed that my FP was renewed and other checks were clear. Said, just wait, it will happen soon.
Oct 6th: Sent 7001 form to USCIS Ombudsman.
Oct 8th: Got decision email.
Learnings: Pursue your case as much as you can. Call NSC, but be polite. They are usually in good mood on Thu/Friday evenings and if you make some small talk, they will help you. I kept records of which NSC IO is rude and if they picked up the next time, I would just keep the phone down. In fact, the lady who helped me remembered me 'coz I managed to reach her 3 times. Dont just ask for status, say that you have called in the past and so far you know xxxx about your case. Some IOs are nice, some are rude. Nice ones actually tried to explain the entire storage area, holding area, supervisor supply chain to me. I think I kind of understand the process that happens at NSC just through these conversations now. Approach Ombudsman asap with form 7001. Call your Senator office and ask to speak to the immigration person. They are very understanding and will help you.
Long-ish email, but thought that I will put it out there, and it might help someone stuck in this morass. If you need more info, ask me / PM me. I will be around these forums for some more time.
I am beginning to find out that having your priority date current does not automatically mean GC. It is just another waiting area where it is another lottery game. When you are not current, you know there are a lot of people going thru the same thing, and you hope that one day dates would be current and that things would be fine. Unfortunately I dont feel that way now. And strangely, it feels kinda lonely here in CurrentLand!
Kewlchap, thank you for the detailed information. It is very useful.
My PD is 12Jan2005, EB2-I , NSC. I have already talked to two IOs using POJ method. The first one (was very nice) told me that my case was in transit to an IO officer (she said that it was an intra-office transit) and that I should give it 4 days. I called back one week later (on 10/8/2009) and this time did not get as nice a lady - she said that may case was waiting to be assigned to an officer and that I should wait 90 days. I dont know which one to believe or if I can believe both.:confused:
A few questions:
1) Should we contact senators or congressmen, or both? What is the recommended method to contact them - through phone or through snail mail?
2) I understand that there are still many people before my PD that are waiting for their GC and I wish them the best. Should I give myself more time (say till the last week of the month for others before me to get approved) before I try the various approaches that Kewlchap and others have suggested? Or do you recommend trying all the approaches one by one right away?
3) For form 7001, do you think it should be treated as the last resort, or will I be able to save some time by starting with this? Is there any advantage if the attorney submits this for me?
Thanks in advance and good luck to all.
Folks,
Got the email about being registered as a new permanent resident on Oct 8th. Thanks to SoP, caliguy, fatjoe and all others on the forum who helped / gave me support. I essentially learned that USCIS will not move quickly on their own, they need to be pursued just like any other govt. office in India. I give my time line below for an idea of what I did. If anyone is waiting still, I sincerely think that you should do all of POJ/SR/Infopass/Senator/Ombudsman.
Timeline:
Sept 1st - became current
Sept 5th - contacted NSC several times through POJ. Finally, a very nice lady told me that my case was not even assigned to an officer. Said that she will send in a request to the contractor to pull my case out and get it assigned to an officer.
Sept 11th - Case pulled out of storage area and moved to a smaller waiting room [got this info later, but this is what had happened]
Sept 13th: Opened SR.
Sept 18th - Infopass: Told me that my case was assigned to an officer on Sept 11th (which was wrong really) and that I should wait 30 days. Also told me that my FP were renewed on March 9th and all my checks were clear.
Sept 20th: Contacted Senator's office. Said they will send in inquiry.
Sept 25: Response to SR. Case under review. Wait 30 days.
Sept 27th: Letter from Senator saying my case was under review and I need to wait 30 days.
Oct 2nd: Contacted NSC again through POJ method. A nice lady, Terry, told me that my case was assigned to officer on Sept 30th. She said, "your case was pulled out of storage and put in a rather large holding area where it was till Sept 30th." Also confirmed that my FP was renewed and other checks were clear. Said, just wait, it will happen soon.
Oct 6th: Sent 7001 form to USCIS Ombudsman.
Oct 8th: Got decision email.
Learnings: Pursue your case as much as you can. Call NSC, but be polite. They are usually in good mood on Thu/Friday evenings and if you make some small talk, they will help you. I kept records of which NSC IO is rude and if they picked up the next time, I would just keep the phone down. In fact, the lady who helped me remembered me 'coz I managed to reach her 3 times. Dont just ask for status, say that you have called in the past and so far you know xxxx about your case. Some IOs are nice, some are rude. Nice ones actually tried to explain the entire storage area, holding area, supervisor supply chain to me. I think I kind of understand the process that happens at NSC just through these conversations now. Approach Ombudsman asap with form 7001. Call your Senator office and ask to speak to the immigration person. They are very understanding and will help you.
Long-ish email, but thought that I will put it out there, and it might help someone stuck in this morass. If you need more info, ask me / PM me. I will be around these forums for some more time.
girlfriend ZOMBIELAND opens on October
ivar
09-03 11:09 PM
All these (and many more) are Betamax companies. Here is a wiki article about Betamax. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax_(VoIP_company)).
I personally use ActionVOIP (another Betamax company). No real big complaints so far - except for the weird feeling something that they are occasionally stealing minutes from me. It's still cheaper than trio of Teliance/Trueroots/Airtel (as evidenced by my consistently lower spending per month). Even after getting vonage - I intend to keep my account in ActionVOIP with a small amount in it just for emergencies or when away from home.
However, in case you are planning to use any of these Betamax outfits - please keep in mind that Betamax is borderline shady. There are complaints galore about them misusing credit cards and using shady fly-by-night companies to evade responsibilities. So never ever give them your credit card number - always use paypal.
Vonage has already an approval from app store for iphone app which is in beta version and would be available very soon to public. I am not sure what features it will have, we need to wait for release.
Vonage Obtains Application Approval for iTunes App Store (http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-01-2009/0005086657&EDATE=)
I personally use ActionVOIP (another Betamax company). No real big complaints so far - except for the weird feeling something that they are occasionally stealing minutes from me. It's still cheaper than trio of Teliance/Trueroots/Airtel (as evidenced by my consistently lower spending per month). Even after getting vonage - I intend to keep my account in ActionVOIP with a small amount in it just for emergencies or when away from home.
However, in case you are planning to use any of these Betamax outfits - please keep in mind that Betamax is borderline shady. There are complaints galore about them misusing credit cards and using shady fly-by-night companies to evade responsibilities. So never ever give them your credit card number - always use paypal.
Vonage has already an approval from app store for iphone app which is in beta version and would be available very soon to public. I am not sure what features it will have, we need to wait for release.
Vonage Obtains Application Approval for iTunes App Store (http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-01-2009/0005086657&EDATE=)
hairstyles makeup Girlcrush Alert: Emma
logiclife
06-15 01:40 PM
I filed a G28 to allow me to represent my wife. I did not use an attorney. If you are filing for more than one person then I think that a G28 is worth it. It is a trivial form.
Will correct the first post accordingly.
Will correct the first post accordingly.
ski_dude12
09-28 11:27 AM
You will be considered a PR the day your I-485 was approved. In my case, I am not sure where they got the 2008 date. Most likely it is a data entry error.
Based on my conversation with USCIS customer service, when I return to US, at POE the officer will definitely notice the discrepancy that my I-485 was approved on 09/20 but the card says something else. This might lead to further questions... Better to avoid all this and get it corrected.
It could also lead to issues during citizenship as I am aware of the error. Best is to get a replacement card with correct details. It is surely a hassle considering the 3-4 months wait time, but the right thing to do.
Yes, it was based on the State you lived. One other thing, you may want to check with Customer Service, since when are you have been actually considered a PR. If they have considered you as a PR since 2008, it is good for you, you will be able to apply for Citizenship sooner
Based on my conversation with USCIS customer service, when I return to US, at POE the officer will definitely notice the discrepancy that my I-485 was approved on 09/20 but the card says something else. This might lead to further questions... Better to avoid all this and get it corrected.
It could also lead to issues during citizenship as I am aware of the error. Best is to get a replacement card with correct details. It is surely a hassle considering the 3-4 months wait time, but the right thing to do.
Yes, it was based on the State you lived. One other thing, you may want to check with Customer Service, since when are you have been actually considered a PR. If they have considered you as a PR since 2008, it is good for you, you will be able to apply for Citizenship sooner
alanoconnor
09-28 06:31 PM
Call (in the morning) 1-800-375-5283 and follow this sequence: 1,2,2,6,1,1,1,3,4.
If the Immigration Officer is kind enough you can ask if the Name Check is cleared. If he/she says No, you can ask him/her the date it was sent to the FBI.
thank you for your info on calling uscis and requesting namecheck info.... i called them today, asked about FP 1 and if it had been sent out... they told me to wait for FP notice but they were able to check for name check info..... name check has passed..... 485 RD July 16 2007... thanks again for uscis contact info
If the Immigration Officer is kind enough you can ask if the Name Check is cleared. If he/she says No, you can ask him/her the date it was sent to the FBI.
thank you for your info on calling uscis and requesting namecheck info.... i called them today, asked about FP 1 and if it had been sent out... they told me to wait for FP notice but they were able to check for name check info..... name check has passed..... 485 RD July 16 2007... thanks again for uscis contact info
No comments:
Post a Comment