slowwin
07-23 07:56 AM
now that the Small Business lending program has passed the 60 vote threshold, they would be putting Amndt. to it for vote. any idea, when sanders Amndt. will be vote on ?:mad:
wallpaper wareznet has all things you could want from 13+colonies+map+not+labeled
delax
07-22 05:15 PM
I485 Receipt I485 Pending I485-processed FB I-485 EB I-485
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
Wow! Great Job. I guess I can call you vdlrao2. That means there are around 40k visas available and most should go to EB2-I.......
Oct-07 237915 842231 50548 42500 8048
Nov-07 51773 845691 48313 42500 5813
Dec-07 35020 833141 47570 42500 5070
Jan-08 35771 813238 55674 42500 13174
Feb-08 38210 787516 63932 42500 21432
Mar-08 43548 762938 68126 42500 25626
Apr-08 50951 742597 71292 42500 28792
May-08 45357 739934 48020 42500 5520
* Data from USCIS months processing report
** Oct 07 Receipt number changed from 137915 to 237915 (just looked incorrect)
** FB is flat (730k-220k CP / 12 months)
We have 113475 EB I-485 processed until May 08 (in 8 months), if we take 80% acceptance rate the number of visa used will be 90780 and if we use 90% acceptance rate USCIS may have used 102127 visas.
Wow! Great Job. I guess I can call you vdlrao2. That means there are around 40k visas available and most should go to EB2-I.......
rbms
11-01 01:28 AM
Nrc2008063600
2011 2010 Map original 13 colonies
eb3_nepa
07-01 09:40 PM
At this time, IV is analyzing the impact of the speculation around the July visa bulletin closure, and is reaching out to attorneys, including AILA and planning next steps. tomorrow being a working day will also help us get more information and opportunity to reach appropriate levels of government . We will share more information with you as soon as there are developments. In the meanwhile, you should go about business as usual, and file your 485/140 applications as planned.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
What exactly CAN the IV core even do about this? I mean no disrespect here, I am just trying to imagine how IV can even help with this issue?
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
What exactly CAN the IV core even do about this? I mean no disrespect here, I am just trying to imagine how IV can even help with this issue?
more...
askreddy
06-25 05:31 AM
Hi NJ members,
Iam joined yesterday this forum.
My PD is 9/2003 and EB3.
Iam having issue with birth certificate.Can any one from india pls send me non availability and affidavits you have. you can erase your imp details. i just want the format.
thanks in advance....
Iam joined yesterday this forum.
My PD is 9/2003 and EB3.
Iam having issue with birth certificate.Can any one from india pls send me non availability and affidavits you have. you can erase your imp details. i just want the format.
thanks in advance....
virtual44
07-05 03:45 PM
Nothing comes for free, you have to work and contribute. It is a collective effort and we all should share financial, and other responsibilities to acheive our common goals.
We can achieve them sooner by contributing as little as 20 dollars and encouraging the core group, volunteers and allowing them to concentrate on goals of the organization and not worry about how they will pay for the lobbying and law firms at the end of the every month.
We can achieve them sooner by contributing as little as 20 dollars and encouraging the core group, volunteers and allowing them to concentrate on goals of the organization and not worry about how they will pay for the lobbying and law firms at the end of the every month.
more...
xlr8r
06-11 08:55 AM
Done.
2010 lt;bgt;13 colonies maplt;gt;
nixstor
07-02 10:56 PM
This is because Rajiv Khanna and Murthy do not like each other and compete with each other. Murthy is on the board of AILA and Rajiv is not. So murthy will promote the lawsuit and rajiv will not.
Competition is a good thing. How ever, your post sounded like they feud with each other no matter how much genuine the issue is. Why would any of them would like to be at the end of losing if they know for sure that the other is winning? Any sane mind will join the bandwagon, esp when their business interests are at stakes.
Keeping it aside, I did not mean to dampen any one's spirits on filing a law suit. I had similar thoughts in my mind and it just happened to be similar to Rajiv Khanna's. I could be wrong in this case. I will be very happy if we come out in flying colors in this law suit. How ever my preference is to get more and more media/blog attention and try to get recapture/ability to file 485 based on the momentum we build because of this screw up by DOS & USCIS.
Competition is a good thing. How ever, your post sounded like they feud with each other no matter how much genuine the issue is. Why would any of them would like to be at the end of losing if they know for sure that the other is winning? Any sane mind will join the bandwagon, esp when their business interests are at stakes.
Keeping it aside, I did not mean to dampen any one's spirits on filing a law suit. I had similar thoughts in my mind and it just happened to be similar to Rajiv Khanna's. I could be wrong in this case. I will be very happy if we come out in flying colors in this law suit. How ever my preference is to get more and more media/blog attention and try to get recapture/ability to file 485 based on the momentum we build because of this screw up by DOS & USCIS.
more...
yagw
07-13 10:06 AM
Thanks...Excerpt from the same document
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
It is not a contradiction to the previous statement.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
It is not a contradiction to the previous statement.
Cut-off-date = 1 ==> PDs before 1st can file (i.e mar-01 cut-off date mean pds till apr-30 can file)
Cut-off-date = 8 ==> PDs before 8 can file (i.e pds 1 to 7 since they are in one bucket)
Cut-off-date = 15 ==> PDs before 15 can file (specifically pds in bucket 8-14 can file)
etc...
Hope it helps. As others predicted, I really think the numbers will not move back. You will get your GC soon.
hair map of 13 original colonies
malaGCPahije
03-17 10:53 AM
Nov 2004. EB3 - I
more...
ramus
07-02 10:44 PM
100 more from tapukakababa
Accept my $100 contribution towards USCIS lawsuit done by AILA.
Accept my $100 contribution towards USCIS lawsuit done by AILA.
hot map of 13 colonies labeled
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
more...
house that the lt;bgt;13 colonieslt;
inskrish
04-10 09:36 AM
Buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
:)
:)
tattoo map of 13 colonies labeled
Macaca
01-30 07:11 PM
Unpaid bench means you are "Out of Status". Not illegal.
I have never heard USCIS penalizing unpaid bench. If it a problem and such a common case, why don't we ever hear about penalty against unpaid bench?
Is it possible to take unpaid leave every year?
In teaching you have an option of not teaching in summer. This means you do not get 2-3 pay checks; happens every year because most faculty don't teach in summer. Faculty is not even aware that absence of pay checks can be a problem.
I have never heard USCIS penalizing unpaid bench. If it a problem and such a common case, why don't we ever hear about penalty against unpaid bench?
Is it possible to take unpaid leave every year?
In teaching you have an option of not teaching in summer. This means you do not get 2-3 pay checks; happens every year because most faculty don't teach in summer. Faculty is not even aware that absence of pay checks can be a problem.
more...
pictures map of 13 colonies labeled
johnwright03
07-01 09:38 AM
06/30/2007: Potential EB Visa Number Exhaution in July and Probable Actions of State Department or USCIS
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
dresses map of 13 colonies labeled
alex99
04-08 02:24 PM
(EB1)
2007 2006 2005
26,697 36,960 64,731
(EB2)
44,162 21,911 42,597
(EB3)
85,030 89,922 129,070
How come EB3 is getting major share from the annual limit for last three years(2007,2006, and 2005)
Gurus : please through some light on this?
2007 2006 2005
26,697 36,960 64,731
(EB2)
44,162 21,911 42,597
(EB3)
85,030 89,922 129,070
How come EB3 is getting major share from the annual limit for last three years(2007,2006, and 2005)
Gurus : please through some light on this?
more...
makeup map of 13 colonies labeled
Libra
11-04 09:29 AM
Nrc2008064184
girlfriend back to the 13 colonies home! 13 colonies map labeled
varshadas
02-09 09:34 PM
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/profile_state.php3?District=NJ
For other states, use
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/
Mike Ferguson whom we met today was pro legal immigration, If anyone is or knows someone in Morris County, please contact Garrett, Scott. I think first we should target the greens (lower immigration intent) and then target the others.
As you can see the Southern states like Lousiana, Texas have many greens.
Thanks,
Varsha
For other states, use
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/
Mike Ferguson whom we met today was pro legal immigration, If anyone is or knows someone in Morris County, please contact Garrett, Scott. I think first we should target the greens (lower immigration intent) and then target the others.
As you can see the Southern states like Lousiana, Texas have many greens.
Thanks,
Varsha
hairstyles map of 13 colonies labeled
coopheal
05-07 04:41 PM
What is the next step? Do I need to follow up with another letter?
imneedy, as you very well know USCIS asked for money. Many members received similar letter from USCIS. IV did the campaign to collect $10000 for the USCIS Fees related legal fees. Many members just like you contributed for it. Updates to whats happening with the FOIA is available in donor forum.
Donor forum is available to folks who make financial contributed of $25 or more. If you really trust IV and are looking for next step, then start contributing to IV (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/misc.php?do=donate).
imneedy, as you very well know USCIS asked for money. Many members received similar letter from USCIS. IV did the campaign to collect $10000 for the USCIS Fees related legal fees. Many members just like you contributed for it. Updates to whats happening with the FOIA is available in donor forum.
Donor forum is available to folks who make financial contributed of $25 or more. If you really trust IV and are looking for next step, then start contributing to IV (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/misc.php?do=donate).
nc14
10-19 11:03 AM
Sent mine on Saturday.
Keep this going folks we need to help ourselves.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
11.
Question: We have a number of date availability questions. They are:
a.
What is the demographic makeup of those in the current backlog? Can we get data on their nationality?
Response: No, demographic data is not currently available and would require a special Information Technology Service Request (ITSR) be drafted and submitted to the Office of Information Technology www.uscis.gov
(OIT). The administrative burden on USCIS to pursue an ITSR solution and add an additional workload on the O&M contractor cannot be justified given the level of effort involved.
Keep this going folks we need to help ourselves.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/cbo_30sept08.pdf
11.
Question: We have a number of date availability questions. They are:
a.
What is the demographic makeup of those in the current backlog? Can we get data on their nationality?
Response: No, demographic data is not currently available and would require a special Information Technology Service Request (ITSR) be drafted and submitted to the Office of Information Technology www.uscis.gov
(OIT). The administrative burden on USCIS to pursue an ITSR solution and add an additional workload on the O&M contractor cannot be justified given the level of effort involved.
angelfire76
02-13 06:17 PM
This is ridiculous; no one asked you to come to this country.
Nor are you entitled to anything besides what they chose to bestow.
Remember that.
Can I then go ask your employer as to why he/she is paying you more than what they might think you deserve to get ? :rolleyes:
After all nobody is forcing you to work with the company right?
Nor are you entitled to anything besides what they chose to bestow.
Remember that.
Can I then go ask your employer as to why he/she is paying you more than what they might think you deserve to get ? :rolleyes:
After all nobody is forcing you to work with the company right?
No comments:
Post a Comment