Waitingnvain
08-08 06:08 AM
Anyone who is contributing to SS should receive a statement every year. Check this site out, it may have some info that you are looking for: www.socialsecurity.gov
walking_dude
01-30 12:24 PM
Here's a template you can use to E-mail. Put your name and address as newspapers don't normally respond to E-mails sent anonymously. Also customize as required. Please kep the reference to IV Press Release as it's important to get coverage for our issue.
Contact info for MI Newspapers - http://action.aclumich.org/michigannewspapers
Dear Editor,
I'm a regular reader of your newspaper, and would like you to cover the issues faced by legal highly-skilled immigrants due to decision by Michigan Secretary of State Ms. Terri Lynn Land to deny Driving Licences to residents on temporary visa status. This rule impacts thousands of legal immigrant workers in Michigan, like me, by impacting our ability to commute to work. It also affects a large number of International students studying in the state universities.
As a regular reader , I feel disappointed by the lack of media coverage for an issue affecting thousands in the state, including yours. Immigration Voice (http://www.immigrationvoice.org) , a non-profit grassroots organization working to fix the issues faced by legal employment-based immigrants has issued a press release on the issue.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb661904.htm
I urge you to cover this issue through a news story. Immigration Voice has been collecting stories from affected members of our community. If your newsreporters need any help in developing the story, Immigration Voice can certainly help you on this issue. Michigan chapter of Immigration Voice can be contacted by E-mailing - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
Sincerely,
xxxx
<<name>>
<<address>>
<<phone>>
Contact info for MI Newspapers - http://action.aclumich.org/michigannewspapers
Dear Editor,
I'm a regular reader of your newspaper, and would like you to cover the issues faced by legal highly-skilled immigrants due to decision by Michigan Secretary of State Ms. Terri Lynn Land to deny Driving Licences to residents on temporary visa status. This rule impacts thousands of legal immigrant workers in Michigan, like me, by impacting our ability to commute to work. It also affects a large number of International students studying in the state universities.
As a regular reader , I feel disappointed by the lack of media coverage for an issue affecting thousands in the state, including yours. Immigration Voice (http://www.immigrationvoice.org) , a non-profit grassroots organization working to fix the issues faced by legal employment-based immigrants has issued a press release on the issue.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb661904.htm
I urge you to cover this issue through a news story. Immigration Voice has been collecting stories from affected members of our community. If your newsreporters need any help in developing the story, Immigration Voice can certainly help you on this issue. Michigan chapter of Immigration Voice can be contacted by E-mailing - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
Sincerely,
xxxx
<<name>>
<<address>>
<<phone>>
vxb2004
12-25 01:42 PM
Very happy for you. Have a great new year!...finally free..;)
ndbhatt
01-12 12:54 PM
Get a notarized copy of your passport from Indian Consulate and send it with a letter explaining legalities associated with it.
more...
mallu
02-17 10:00 PM
I believe the spillover will come from ROW EB3
I was wondering what are the rules regarding the 'overflow' stuff. Any document ?
I was wondering what are the rules regarding the 'overflow' stuff. Any document ?
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
anindya1234
07-17 10:13 PM
Need some views on this
ramus
04-27 04:51 PM
Fond this..
http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=219529&Month=4&Year=2007
Is this CIR in sanate?
http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=219529&Month=4&Year=2007
Is this CIR in sanate?
more...
Gravitation
12-14 12:57 PM
Please post the URL of the school you are attending.
Thanks,
babson.edu
Thanks,
babson.edu
smisachu
06-08 03:28 PM
Hi
I wanted to know how long it took for I-140 approval. I also got Labor by PERM filed in Dec05 and will be filing I-140, EB2.
Thanks
I wanted to know how long it took for I-140 approval. I also got Labor by PERM filed in Dec05 and will be filing I-140, EB2.
Thanks
more...
DSLStart
12-15 12:51 PM
jayleno: there is nothing funny about this situation so no need to make jokes on him. He just told him about sending wife to India, because that guys uername says Atul which hail from India and not srilanka or pak or bangladesh.
Buddy,
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
Buddy,
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
LostInGCProcess
09-19 05:51 PM
meaning I can work for company B now and even though my h1b renewal approves with company A? then when I feel like I can go out and reenter before the h1b renewal period ends?
sabr, could you be more elaborate regarding the 2 companies, where do u work, and who is offering you the job, how do they want to hire you, etc... Please explain clearly what your question is? Iam trying to say something and you are interpreting it differently and it looks like we are off pace somewhere.
sabr, could you be more elaborate regarding the 2 companies, where do u work, and who is offering you the job, how do they want to hire you, etc... Please explain clearly what your question is? Iam trying to say something and you are interpreting it differently and it looks like we are off pace somewhere.
more...
ragz4u
04-13 09:58 AM
So total is 90 days after Prez signs (normal for every bill) + 90 days (sessions amendment) = 6 months
anandrajesh
05-04 01:56 PM
wellwishergc..
looks like u have some more knowledge in these matters. My ex employer got a 45day letter filed in Oct2003 EB2 case. they replied to go ahead with the case. When the labor approves and in a scenario, that employer has no project at the point of time to hire me back, can he file my 140 and then the 485...??
That employer is not a consulting company and thus needs a position for me and is a big-big company. If I request them they will file the 140, but will taht be okay if I am not working at that time...??
thx
Yes, you dont have to be employed by the company to file for I-140. They can do GC as a "Prospective Employee" & for "future employment". The only downside to that is they look at lot of company's details, like ability to pay, returns for the last few years and so on. But if your company is a big company that shldnt be an issue.
looks like u have some more knowledge in these matters. My ex employer got a 45day letter filed in Oct2003 EB2 case. they replied to go ahead with the case. When the labor approves and in a scenario, that employer has no project at the point of time to hire me back, can he file my 140 and then the 485...??
That employer is not a consulting company and thus needs a position for me and is a big-big company. If I request them they will file the 140, but will taht be okay if I am not working at that time...??
thx
Yes, you dont have to be employed by the company to file for I-140. They can do GC as a "Prospective Employee" & for "future employment". The only downside to that is they look at lot of company's details, like ability to pay, returns for the last few years and so on. But if your company is a big company that shldnt be an issue.
more...
rakesh_uvce
10-10 09:01 AM
hi mpadapa,
I couldnt find that question. Do you know aapprox what time after the conference call started or the name of the guy who posted that question?
thanks
I couldnt find that question. Do you know aapprox what time after the conference call started or the name of the guy who posted that question?
thanks
amitk81
12-10 02:35 PM
Is it possible to share your sources for the same.
thanks
Amit
thanks
Amit
more...
snathan
03-28 12:39 PM
Hi All,
I filed joint tax return for me and my wife (who is on H4 visa) and sent the W-7 form (for ITIN processing) alongwith the tax return files prepared by my Tax Consultant. However, IRS changed my tax return to single return and reduced the fed refund accordingly, saying that ITIN for my wife is missing. When I called them, they could not confirm but only said that the ITIN could be still undergoing processing. Can you please advise what I should do now on my behalf to get back the refund balance amount?
Wait for ITIN to be processed and once get the ITIN amend your tax filing.
I filed joint tax return for me and my wife (who is on H4 visa) and sent the W-7 form (for ITIN processing) alongwith the tax return files prepared by my Tax Consultant. However, IRS changed my tax return to single return and reduced the fed refund accordingly, saying that ITIN for my wife is missing. When I called them, they could not confirm but only said that the ITIN could be still undergoing processing. Can you please advise what I should do now on my behalf to get back the refund balance amount?
Wait for ITIN to be processed and once get the ITIN amend your tax filing.
pt326bc
09-27 10:36 AM
Same issue with me.
Different A# on I 140 and the I 485 receipt notice. The A# on the FP notice is the same as the I 485 receipt notice.
I have emailed the paralegal handling my case and she said she'll confirm with the lawyer and get back to me.
BTW my I 140 A# starts with 088 and the I 485 receipt notice starts with 094.
Don't know what that means.
Will keep you guys updated with whatever my lawyer sends me back.
Regards.
Different A# on I 140 and the I 485 receipt notice. The A# on the FP notice is the same as the I 485 receipt notice.
I have emailed the paralegal handling my case and she said she'll confirm with the lawyer and get back to me.
BTW my I 140 A# starts with 088 and the I 485 receipt notice starts with 094.
Don't know what that means.
Will keep you guys updated with whatever my lawyer sends me back.
Regards.
chanduv23
12-11 10:57 AM
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
S Korea 1,923 7,125 4,727
Philippines 310 2,057 5,625
UK 3,472 2,043 909
Canada 2,368 3,404 1,207
Mexico 1,457 1,348 4,021
Now the question is why is there no 7% quota for South Korea ?
Korea could have been benefited from spillover or they act on Korea only after they find that Korea has indeed used more than 7% - till now it has been only I/C/P/M and they did not pay attention to Korea - now Koorea may be added to this list
S Korea 1,923 7,125 4,727
Philippines 310 2,057 5,625
UK 3,472 2,043 909
Canada 2,368 3,404 1,207
Mexico 1,457 1,348 4,021
Now the question is why is there no 7% quota for South Korea ?
Korea could have been benefited from spillover or they act on Korea only after they find that Korea has indeed used more than 7% - till now it has been only I/C/P/M and they did not pay attention to Korea - now Koorea may be added to this list
iptel
04-18 12:48 PM
Guys:
Before we get all excited and start signing petitions, please check to confirm whether you are legally safe by doing so. For more information please see this link from Murthy website http://www.murthy.com/news/n_parele.html
I write this because the petition is sponsored by a campaign manager for Kennedy. Please be very careful in signing such petitions. I would recommend discussing any such petition on this forum and getting input from the IV folks or from your lawyers before signing any petition that supports an individual or any particular political party.
Thanks bkarnik
Before we get all excited and start signing petitions, please check to confirm whether you are legally safe by doing so. For more information please see this link from Murthy website http://www.murthy.com/news/n_parele.html
I write this because the petition is sponsored by a campaign manager for Kennedy. Please be very careful in signing such petitions. I would recommend discussing any such petition on this forum and getting input from the IV folks or from your lawyers before signing any petition that supports an individual or any particular political party.
Thanks bkarnik
th3thirdman
03-30 07:05 AM
Ok sorry if I post this in the wrong place. So I married my wife in 2004 and we began the immigration fillings right away. so you know I was turned away at the border in 2000 because I was going to stay with my wife and her family for 3 months.
When they asked why they would put me up for that long, I told them they were like my adopted family. they still turned me away saying that the money I had at the time $300 was not enough to support my self for that time. this was summer break from school. So that is from my record and the officer who interviewed me wrote in his report that I intended to be adopted for immigration purposes. I think he just mis understood me. ok so that is in the noid. when we went to the first interview the woman was hostile towards my wife and I asking about our age and how we met we are 22 years apart in age. we provided her with documents some bills, photos and joint bank account statement. this is all we had in the first 4 months of out marriage. she asked repeatedly why we had not made any major joint purchases Why we didn't have joint health care. both because I had just started working and had not saved money yet.
We had a second interview to which we took the same documents and more. This interview was short. The interviewer was professional and asked alot of yes and yes questions and would stop us from going on more then that. he said that he had to talk with his supervisor and we would hear from him with in six months. So nothing from them from them for 4 years I called the help line once a year and kept up my EAD and worked full time. Then 2 guys showed up and asked to be showed around the house. we let them in and they interviewed us they took some photos and said have a good day.
Then 6 months later we received our first NOID. Stating that I had been turned away the one time and that I had said I was to be adopted. That I was in a relationship with a person that does not exists. They pointed out that there were photos of my wife with her ex-husband on the walls.
So we go see some lawyers talk to like 6 of them and picked the one who seemed best. talked to people in out community friends who had immigrated. ects. so his plan was to withdraw and file anew to get a fresh first interview. So we refiled with a stack of documents 4 inches thick. insurance, all of our bill, tax returns, car payments. anything we could think of.
So we get anther interview dude takes us back to his office. asked me the basic security questions. and sent me away. Then told my wife and lawyer that the first filing was denied and letters sent. and that they never received our letter withdrawing the first filing. we never received their denial letter. He said he would review out case and the new documents. he sent a NOID for the second filing like 4 months later. So we responded to the noid with a letter from my wife and I refuting the noid line by line. And with letters from friends PHD professors at the local collages. about 10 - 15 all in all and we have not had a reply from them. So the layer said that we had to wait on the USCIS to make the next move. is this so is there anything we can do to move this along? should we switch lawyers? we really like the man we have but I dont know its been over a year now.
sorry for the poor grammar its really late here. thanks for your health.
When they asked why they would put me up for that long, I told them they were like my adopted family. they still turned me away saying that the money I had at the time $300 was not enough to support my self for that time. this was summer break from school. So that is from my record and the officer who interviewed me wrote in his report that I intended to be adopted for immigration purposes. I think he just mis understood me. ok so that is in the noid. when we went to the first interview the woman was hostile towards my wife and I asking about our age and how we met we are 22 years apart in age. we provided her with documents some bills, photos and joint bank account statement. this is all we had in the first 4 months of out marriage. she asked repeatedly why we had not made any major joint purchases Why we didn't have joint health care. both because I had just started working and had not saved money yet.
We had a second interview to which we took the same documents and more. This interview was short. The interviewer was professional and asked alot of yes and yes questions and would stop us from going on more then that. he said that he had to talk with his supervisor and we would hear from him with in six months. So nothing from them from them for 4 years I called the help line once a year and kept up my EAD and worked full time. Then 2 guys showed up and asked to be showed around the house. we let them in and they interviewed us they took some photos and said have a good day.
Then 6 months later we received our first NOID. Stating that I had been turned away the one time and that I had said I was to be adopted. That I was in a relationship with a person that does not exists. They pointed out that there were photos of my wife with her ex-husband on the walls.
So we go see some lawyers talk to like 6 of them and picked the one who seemed best. talked to people in out community friends who had immigrated. ects. so his plan was to withdraw and file anew to get a fresh first interview. So we refiled with a stack of documents 4 inches thick. insurance, all of our bill, tax returns, car payments. anything we could think of.
So we get anther interview dude takes us back to his office. asked me the basic security questions. and sent me away. Then told my wife and lawyer that the first filing was denied and letters sent. and that they never received our letter withdrawing the first filing. we never received their denial letter. He said he would review out case and the new documents. he sent a NOID for the second filing like 4 months later. So we responded to the noid with a letter from my wife and I refuting the noid line by line. And with letters from friends PHD professors at the local collages. about 10 - 15 all in all and we have not had a reply from them. So the layer said that we had to wait on the USCIS to make the next move. is this so is there anything we can do to move this along? should we switch lawyers? we really like the man we have but I dont know its been over a year now.
sorry for the poor grammar its really late here. thanks for your health.
No comments:
Post a Comment