dingdong12
09-09 02:25 PM
American lawmakers have created a law that needs only top talent. By law it go from top to bottom. So they go from EB1, EB2, EB3 and so on. If we disagree, then get the law changed.
EB3 I is screwed big time and they are ignorant about this .EB3 are responsible for their own loss. I see them tracking LUDs and laugh at their ignorance of wasting their time.
They should be doing hunger strikes and do a rally in DC every month.
Else they can forget Green card coming any time soon.
Sadly true. Our hope is STEM exemption and Visa recapture and both of them will get little political help till elections. After the elections, the political arena will definitely be different with some Republicans replacing the Democrats in the House and any immigration related bill will result in a much tougher battle.
EB3 I is screwed big time and they are ignorant about this .EB3 are responsible for their own loss. I see them tracking LUDs and laugh at their ignorance of wasting their time.
They should be doing hunger strikes and do a rally in DC every month.
Else they can forget Green card coming any time soon.
Sadly true. Our hope is STEM exemption and Visa recapture and both of them will get little political help till elections. After the elections, the political arena will definitely be different with some Republicans replacing the Democrats in the House and any immigration related bill will result in a much tougher battle.
wallpaper Top gun tattoos designs
feedfront
10-14 12:18 PM
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
I've not seen any report with person's signature. It's valid/acceptable as long as it is on letterhead. Even my last two reports (X-ray) did not bear Radiologist's signature and is same as you mentioned. Hope it helps.
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
I've not seen any report with person's signature. It's valid/acceptable as long as it is on letterhead. Even my last two reports (X-ray) did not bear Radiologist's signature and is same as you mentioned. Hope it helps.
logiclife
01-30 03:56 PM
I believe it is also illegal to work before getting a social security number. When you are on H4 you dont have a social security number (you have an itin which is not good enough for working). You will not get a social security number unless you have work authorization (i797). H1 will start only after october 1, so you can apply for social security number only after October 1 (i.e if you have i 797), it will take you about 4 to 7 weeks to get ssn. You can work only after getting the ssn. Somebody correct me if i wrong here.
Well, yes, that too. Since they have no hesitation to ask employees to start working without waiting for 797, the absence of a pesky little SSN is not really going to stop them. If you run payroll, you need SSN. If you pay otherwise, (cash, expense checks, money order) you dont need SSN.
Well, yes, that too. Since they have no hesitation to ask employees to start working without waiting for 797, the absence of a pesky little SSN is not really going to stop them. If you run payroll, you need SSN. If you pay otherwise, (cash, expense checks, money order) you dont need SSN.
2011 Tattoo Underarm Designs
prakashv44
09-21 02:51 PM
I am with you
more...
ujjvalkoul
01-17 03:00 PM
The Monthly newsletter that IV sent out may not be enough.....some people do not even read that...Subject line may have to be more urgent.....so that people take notice of the dire situation we are in in terms of funds....
Can IV Core send email to every member to contribute one time or recurring...in a separate email
Can IV Core send email to every member to contribute one time or recurring...in a separate email
chmur
02-21 10:18 PM
I'd posted elsewhere about my Feb 13, 2008 conversation with the DOS official who sets cutoff dates:
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
But his statement at the AILA meeting has been bothering me so I talked to him again today. Here is what he said -- that he is considering not only the EB-1 India excess, but the entire EB-1 worldwide excess being given to oversubscribed EB-2! I asked him about his earlier statement and he said that he had had a chance to look at the numbers and determine that unlike recent years EB-1 worldwide is not using numbers up at a rate that would max out EB-1 usage. BUT. He is waiting for USCIS to give him an estimate of the number of EB-2 India applications that would become eligible if he moves the cutoff dates up to 12/1/03, he will set the date ONLY after he gets that data and determines that there won't be too many within that cutoff date.
I also asked him to confirm that he was relying on his interpretation of Section 202(a)(5) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558 dbe) of the INA in order to proceed with this spillover. This is his current interpretation of that section -- spillover from EB-1 to EB-2 IF there appears to be a worldwide excess in EB-1, when there is no worldwide excess in EB-1 then country specific spillover for example, from EB-1 India to EB-2 India only etc. In past years like FY06, EB-1 ROW was looking maxed out, so barely any spillover from EB-1 to oversubscribed EB-2.
is there not a better nuance way to divulge the details without revealing the source.
What if someone at DOS creates problem for this gentlemen for discussing the PD's with you ahead .
Please exercise caution
more...
tooclose
07-12 09:13 PM
Thanks for good wishes and congratulations to all who become current.
Regarding cutoff date I'm hearing multiple theories -
A. if it says 1st March - then prior to that consider as active - 1st of March is not included
B. some says 1st March is included because it is like UNTIL 1st March
C. Someone told me if cutoff date fall on weekend then consider that date in. 1st March in 2006 was Wednesday - just FYI.
D. someone also told me if it falls during weekdays then consider whole week - until Friday. USCIS taking cases for whole week for processing.
Wow so many options looks like I need to poll this and then wait until next bulletin :)
Once again thanks for good wishes and Congratulations who were waiting for longer period.
-Rwe
wow... too many options ... do u know the source for any of these ?
Regarding cutoff date I'm hearing multiple theories -
A. if it says 1st March - then prior to that consider as active - 1st of March is not included
B. some says 1st March is included because it is like UNTIL 1st March
C. Someone told me if cutoff date fall on weekend then consider that date in. 1st March in 2006 was Wednesday - just FYI.
D. someone also told me if it falls during weekdays then consider whole week - until Friday. USCIS taking cases for whole week for processing.
Wow so many options looks like I need to poll this and then wait until next bulletin :)
Once again thanks for good wishes and Congratulations who were waiting for longer period.
-Rwe
wow... too many options ... do u know the source for any of these ?
2010 Gun Tattoo Designs
McLuvin
03-09 12:27 PM
Anyone for May 09 predictions???
more...
walking_dude
11-17 08:37 PM
Here's mine - NRC2008065496
hair gun tattoo design flower
nozerd
10-29 10:03 AM
EB3 INDIA
PD: August 2001
LC cleared: October 2005
I 140 approved: Jan 2006
I485 filed: June 2007
Waiting! Same job since 1999 (with internal promotions)
PD: August 2001
LC cleared: October 2005
I 140 approved: Jan 2006
I485 filed: June 2007
Waiting! Same job since 1999 (with internal promotions)
more...
abhijitp
07-24 12:15 PM
I'm not expert in advising but murthy.com is saying avoid duplicate filing that may lead to rejection. Would suggest to consult v.good attorney before you do.
I have seen that on murthy too. I am not sure why they say that. Anyone else who ever submitted multiple AOS applications?
I am sure people have submitted two separate apps in cases such as:
1) both husband and wife working and eligible to file. One app submitted with husband primary, wife secondary AND the other app submitted with wife primary, husband secondary
2) AOS for old labor + AOS under PERM
In both cases I believe the USCIS will ask you to choose between the two when the time comes.
I have seen that on murthy too. I am not sure why they say that. Anyone else who ever submitted multiple AOS applications?
I am sure people have submitted two separate apps in cases such as:
1) both husband and wife working and eligible to file. One app submitted with husband primary, wife secondary AND the other app submitted with wife primary, husband secondary
2) AOS for old labor + AOS under PERM
In both cases I believe the USCIS will ask you to choose between the two when the time comes.
hot gun tattoo designs
rpatel
07-24 12:08 PM
I concur with the fact that manner in which the law is written/interpreted currently, its going to be an uphill task to convince the USCIS of letting us file I485 without a visa number available. Did the core group make any effort in this direction or is it their foregone conclusion that its non starter at all?
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
I believe we should try to make an effort in this direction however small the chance of success may be. My reasons are following:
1. Even if the USCIS director might not have an authority to change the procedure without congressional intervention first, the effort required to convince a congress man/ congressional committe on this issue will be smaller compared to pushing them to take up SKIL immediately.
2. I dont know if Dept of Homeland Security might have any say in this but again we can try getting an audience with Negroponte to appraise him of the situation.
3. Thirdly since CIR/SKIL are currently in dormant stage, coregroup/volunteers might be more open to pursuing low potential/high yield effort like this one is.
more...
house Tattoo Gun – Choosing Gun
immigrant2007
08-12 08:10 AM
Guys,
I have thought of one more idea..
We know very well that by current interpretation EB3 is permanently fixed to the back of the line. NO EB3 will get processed until the last EB2 who files in the year 2013 gets approved, (counting out the regular quota).
And why are we here? Many believe (or know) that it is because of the 245(i) amnesty signed by Clinton and Bush.
Isn't it ironic that the illegals that were put in the line are not being moved back as the line expands? Why only we legals? Maybe there is some scope to challenge the 245(i) visa number allocation and point out that legal immigrants are waiting in line then how can you admit illegals in front
Anyone having the facts and numbers of 245(i)?
I have asked this question over and over again but Iv doesn't seem to entertain it. IV number crunchers are busy developing and applying patent for a sofware on GC estimation.
245(i) consumed EB3 worldwide quota and is responsilbe to backlog along with deliberate delay by USCIs.
But thas history now, what do we do in future matter more...I think If economy doesn't improves EB3s are infor a big shock.
Post election if Republicans win then they will do their best to deny GCs to all backlog guys so that they can enjoy thier loot (Social secuirty,foreclosed homes)...
I have thought of one more idea..
We know very well that by current interpretation EB3 is permanently fixed to the back of the line. NO EB3 will get processed until the last EB2 who files in the year 2013 gets approved, (counting out the regular quota).
And why are we here? Many believe (or know) that it is because of the 245(i) amnesty signed by Clinton and Bush.
Isn't it ironic that the illegals that were put in the line are not being moved back as the line expands? Why only we legals? Maybe there is some scope to challenge the 245(i) visa number allocation and point out that legal immigrants are waiting in line then how can you admit illegals in front
Anyone having the facts and numbers of 245(i)?
I have asked this question over and over again but Iv doesn't seem to entertain it. IV number crunchers are busy developing and applying patent for a sofware on GC estimation.
245(i) consumed EB3 worldwide quota and is responsilbe to backlog along with deliberate delay by USCIs.
But thas history now, what do we do in future matter more...I think If economy doesn't improves EB3s are infor a big shock.
Post election if Republicans win then they will do their best to deny GCs to all backlog guys so that they can enjoy thier loot (Social secuirty,foreclosed homes)...
tattoo Rose and guns tattoo design
sri1309
09-10 06:01 PM
Its time to ask for our share.
Our strong points must be anyone legally in US for 8+ years must be granted Citizenship. We have suffered the pain, now they do something to help forget that. 5 years, should be eligible for a GC.
We must push for this. Unless you ask, why will they even bother. Doenst mean we didnt ask in the past, but we must ask what we deserve.
8 years+, worked like a dog, behaved responsibily everywhere, have good qualifications. etc etc.. what else do you need to do. We shouldnt be paying for their lapses. We must push them and also push our employers again and again and again till we get this. US is very good in many aspects, but lagging here. Unless you highlight it, unless you say ALOUD that we are not respected here, they will not hear.. We need a campaign that none is seeing or taking any initiative in the last 3 months. I see 10s of threads talking same things..
Core guys.. we need your help
Sri
$100 one time.
Our strong points must be anyone legally in US for 8+ years must be granted Citizenship. We have suffered the pain, now they do something to help forget that. 5 years, should be eligible for a GC.
We must push for this. Unless you ask, why will they even bother. Doenst mean we didnt ask in the past, but we must ask what we deserve.
8 years+, worked like a dog, behaved responsibily everywhere, have good qualifications. etc etc.. what else do you need to do. We shouldnt be paying for their lapses. We must push them and also push our employers again and again and again till we get this. US is very good in many aspects, but lagging here. Unless you highlight it, unless you say ALOUD that we are not respected here, they will not hear.. We need a campaign that none is seeing or taking any initiative in the last 3 months. I see 10s of threads talking same things..
Core guys.. we need your help
Sri
$100 one time.
more...
pictures Guns #39;Tattoo Design#39; by
arnab221
04-23 01:38 AM
Lot of you guys have mentioned that there were a set of people( Latino immigrant community) there who were not happy with some of the terms in the STRIVE ACT. Could one of you tell us what those terms were ? Since legal immigration reform are hostage to Comprehensive immigration bills at this stage, I am just pondering if those terms become a hindarance in STRIVE getting cleared and consequently section V not getting passed .
Also Ramaonline says that Congressman Guiterrezz told him that he is assured of a support of 180 House democrats and needs 218 Votes to pass the bill. So that leaves us with 38 votes that are needed. From what we see and hear in the news media, there are just a handful of House Republicans now who do not support this Bill . The consensus from the news media is that many of the Republicans who opposed CIR last year have not got re-elected . So if this is the case then 38 Republicans should not be a real problem to find . Any factual opinions ?
Also Ramaonline says that Congressman Guiterrezz told him that he is assured of a support of 180 House democrats and needs 218 Votes to pass the bill. So that leaves us with 38 votes that are needed. From what we see and hear in the news media, there are just a handful of House Republicans now who do not support this Bill . The consensus from the news media is that many of the Republicans who opposed CIR last year have not got re-elected . So if this is the case then 38 Republicans should not be a real problem to find . Any factual opinions ?
dresses a standard tattoo design,
krishmunn
05-23 09:11 PM
Why we dont like gultis ? - eCharcha.Com (http://www.echarcha.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18691)
This link might help you understand the different definitions.
No body ever said you are the only m**on :rolleyes:
Disclaimer : I am not from any South Indian state.
This link might help you understand the different definitions.
No body ever said you are the only m**on :rolleyes:
Disclaimer : I am not from any South Indian state.
more...
makeup ::Rose and Gun Tattoo:: by
mbawa2574
02-18 06:19 PM
Sorry guys, I misread somewhere.:D
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.
Whenever you talk with any politician , illegal immigration pops in. They just love it...
I am not sure any of these people understand immigration laws.
Hmm Is this different from India or any other country ? ...no
Politician preach what majority vote bank likes...I have no hopes from this anti-business, anti-innovation congress and an inexperienced President. When they started their gig with voting against Skilled Immigrants, I am not sure what else is coming.
On the other hand- Watch out Obama's economic recovery plans, they punish every person who is successful by virtue of his hardwork and will add debt on US books.. I am sure Obama would be driving out innovation from this country by joining hands with Anti-Captalist and Anti-business lobby.
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.
Whenever you talk with any politician , illegal immigration pops in. They just love it...
I am not sure any of these people understand immigration laws.
Hmm Is this different from India or any other country ? ...no
Politician preach what majority vote bank likes...I have no hopes from this anti-business, anti-innovation congress and an inexperienced President. When they started their gig with voting against Skilled Immigrants, I am not sure what else is coming.
On the other hand- Watch out Obama's economic recovery plans, they punish every person who is successful by virtue of his hardwork and will add debt on US books.. I am sure Obama would be driving out innovation from this country by joining hands with Anti-Captalist and Anti-business lobby.
girlfriend gun tattoo designs
mhathi
03-17 11:42 AM
There are several of us who have been left with no choice but to file under EB3 by our employers, despite qualifying for EB2 at least.
Maybe the lawmakers should understand this plight...
I am forced into EB3 despite having a US Masters due to the same situation, but I wonder what lawmakers can do about this. The best way will be for us to lobby for relief in all EB immigration categories; not just EB1 or EB2.
Which is what is IVs stated goal anyways.
Maybe the lawmakers should understand this plight...
I am forced into EB3 despite having a US Masters due to the same situation, but I wonder what lawmakers can do about this. The best way will be for us to lobby for relief in all EB immigration categories; not just EB1 or EB2.
Which is what is IVs stated goal anyways.
hairstyles gun tattoo designs. spiderman
ras
07-12 11:38 AM
am still unclear. Does it mean those who have PD prior to Jun 06 will get their GC? I cant believe it.
At the personal end, I have my GC filed with Dec 06 PD. However, I have a previous I140 approved with Sept 05. I was thinking about porting the priority date. If I port it now will I get my GC based on the previous priority date?
Ofcourse I dont intend to port it at this point of time because am planning to get married in another 3-4months. so can you guys let me know what would be the best approach. Is it porting the previous priority date now or wait till getting married and then port it? In such case will the spouse be eligible to file for 485 when it is current. am confused.
At the personal end, I have my GC filed with Dec 06 PD. However, I have a previous I140 approved with Sept 05. I was thinking about porting the priority date. If I port it now will I get my GC based on the previous priority date?
Ofcourse I dont intend to port it at this point of time because am planning to get married in another 3-4months. so can you guys let me know what would be the best approach. Is it porting the previous priority date now or wait till getting married and then port it? In such case will the spouse be eligible to file for 485 when it is current. am confused.
desigirl
02-16 09:05 AM
Which airport should members be looking to book the tickets to? Baltimore, Dulles or Reagan? Which is the closest to the Capitol Hill or which airport has the easy public transportation access to Capitol Hill. I would like to go ahead and buy the air tickets.
Thanks.
Thanks.
unitednations
12-22 02:34 PM
this is our history...
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
1.was working with employer B in June 07(when PD was current for EB2/Oct 2003-India)...went to attorney to file 485 with approved 140 thru ex employer A. filled in all the paperwork for 485,but the attorney was asking for a current employment letter from B with exact skills mentioned on labor and the employer B was not ready to give such a letter and hence we planned to find a new employer and file for 485 in July.
2. In June end found this new current employer C and planned to file 485 in July and all the fiasco scene happened...anyway...in August we filed the 485 with a current employer letter from C with all the skills matching the labor..till here fine.
NOW...we got a copy of the bunch of 48 documents sent to INS from the atnys office...I had given the latest 325a form
current employer C : July 07 - current
employer B : Jan 2006 - June 2007
employer A : June 2003 - Dec 2005 (who filed for labor/i140)
the shitty paralegal now submitted the 325a from submitted in June 07 where the current employer B was the latest.... + the current employment letter of C + 485 employment offer letter from A
She had whitened out the date on the 325a form signed on June 07 and changed it to Aug 07 to my utter shock....
when I call back..she says we will handle any RFE's...
quite worried as the 325a form already says something like 'all info disclosed is truthful'... etc and the fine print..
pls post your thoughts and comments..
hope I dint confuse
Pretty confusing situation. Don't know why you even put in an experience letter from a company which doesn't have anything to do with the petition.
I am aware of a couple of cases where uscis did deny on such issues (g-325a not matching up with h-1b approvals, etc.). However, affidavits and such to say it was an honest mistake took care of the issue.
You might be able to appreciate this story:
I worked on an ability to pay case for a company in ohio. Person got approved and was then waiting for 485 approval.
He contacts me many months later and tells me that he got this rfe. The jest of the rfe was:
You claim to have never filed a 485 adjustment of status application. However; our search of records show that you filed a 485 on xxx date in xx office as a marriage base applicant. It appears that you are not eligible for a waiver of the interview requirement for adjustment of status.
Now; i truly believe that his current wife (from india) never knew about this marriage (his family and friends didn't know either). he tried to blame it on his lawyer that they never asked him and they just defaulted that he never filed for a 485. Pretty weak excuse. However; they responded to the 485 that everything was in such a rush to file the 485 that he didn't have a chance to look it all over and it was an honest mistake. He didn't get called for an interview and they approved his case.
Now; if the record of his marriage base application had shown that he was caught in fraudulent marriage; he never got divorced and re-married or there was something that went wrong with his earlier case then it may have been a different story. However; since nothing was wrong with that application; the officer let him off the hook because it was an honest mistake.
0 comments:
Post a Comment