Leo07
09-23 04:33 PM
Living in the Pessimistic world. Dumb me.
47K + 5500*2.1 ~ 58000 visas...for EB2 I to make it current. coldcloud-> you cut short the waiting time by half ( from 10 years to 5 years? :))
I believe you dont need to multiply all of the 485 by 2.1 as already applied I485 will include the family?
47K + 5500*2.1 ~ 58000 visas...for EB2 I to make it current. coldcloud-> you cut short the waiting time by half ( from 10 years to 5 years? :))
I believe you dont need to multiply all of the 485 by 2.1 as already applied I485 will include the family?
wallpaper Robert Pattinson and Kristen
sparky_jones
09-24 03:44 PM
Without legislative or administrative reform, EB3-India would be reduced merely to a mechanism which folks would use to extend their H1Bs indefinitely on the basis of the underlying I-140, or a means to lock a priority date while they plan their strategy for an EB-2 petition for a PD port in the future. As some analysts have predicted, EB3-India wait times might get extended to decades without some sort of reform. Not to make light of the situation, but for an EB3-I applicant with a recent PD, the odds of getting a green card through a US-born child (once they turn 21) could become greater than through their own EB application.
SunnySurya
08-07 02:56 PM
PD porting is another labor sub in making. I hope I have presented my case logically to show who all are the people who are in position to be benefitted by this rule. Of course there will be some genuine cases too but on other hand think about the people in Eb2 line that will be severely affected.
See, that's the reason I think the lawsuit idea has issues. I suspect the lawsuit may end up making life difficult for a lot of genuine cases without actually achieving what you set out to achieve.
But I have no data one way or the other.
See, that's the reason I think the lawsuit idea has issues. I suspect the lawsuit may end up making life difficult for a lot of genuine cases without actually achieving what you set out to achieve.
But I have no data one way or the other.
2011 the 2011 MTV Movie Awards
rsharma
06-13 09:40 PM
I never said raising this issue is illegal. BTW I was not replying to "l1fraud". My comment was directed at "dilipcr" who is of the opinion that Grassley's bill is good and IV core and the forum should support it so that he can have a secure job.
BTW is l1fraud or others raising this issue out of love for law ? no way. That was my point.
The L1 visas done by the outsourcing companies are the main reason for the employment problem. These companies like TCS, Wipro etc.. bring people in L1A, L1B blamket visas to do the common development/Business Analysis/Project Management job in the client site.
There is no quota for L1 Visas. They can bring any # of people they want. Per law the L1A s should be of senior managerial position with at least 4 subordinates working under them in US and L1B should be of specific skill very important for the project and not available in US. But the most of the L1As from these companies are just programmers/BAsor small PMs. They are directly controlled by their client manager.
The main intent of these our sourcing companies is to send the employees on L1 and the employees are constantly told to somehow transfer the project to offshore.
The L1 frauds should defenitely be reported. I totally support this initiative to report the L1 frauds committed by these outrsourcing companies.
BTW is l1fraud or others raising this issue out of love for law ? no way. That was my point.
The L1 visas done by the outsourcing companies are the main reason for the employment problem. These companies like TCS, Wipro etc.. bring people in L1A, L1B blamket visas to do the common development/Business Analysis/Project Management job in the client site.
There is no quota for L1 Visas. They can bring any # of people they want. Per law the L1A s should be of senior managerial position with at least 4 subordinates working under them in US and L1B should be of specific skill very important for the project and not available in US. But the most of the L1As from these companies are just programmers/BAsor small PMs. They are directly controlled by their client manager.
The main intent of these our sourcing companies is to send the employees on L1 and the employees are constantly told to somehow transfer the project to offshore.
The L1 frauds should defenitely be reported. I totally support this initiative to report the L1 frauds committed by these outrsourcing companies.
more...
ab_tak_chappan
08-22 11:50 AM
By sending so many flowers over and over again you are only going to piss off people and expedite retrogression :D:D. Live the real life instead of reel.
lets ignore all the negative comments in this thread and stay focused.
Lets start with letter campaign and see what happens when new year starts. Does somebody has a letter drafted and ready to send out?
Thanks.
lets ignore all the negative comments in this thread and stay focused.
Lets start with letter campaign and see what happens when new year starts. Does somebody has a letter drafted and ready to send out?
Thanks.
Marphad
11-19 11:52 AM
Will send this weekend.
two more people to reach 100.
Please, send the letters.
Thank you.
GCCovetl
two more people to reach 100.
Please, send the letters.
Thank you.
GCCovetl
more...
check_rd
05-23 08:42 PM
Hi,
I do not have medical records to prove that I have taken some of the vaccination that is mandatory for the medical test. However, I do have taken those and my Doctor back in India has those records. Is there a way people know that these records in "any format" / a "specific format" can be faxed or fedexed here and can be used?
Any help will be highly apprciated.
- N
Can be of any format . Sample
To WHOM SO EVER IT IS CONCERNED
This is to certify that Mr XXX is upto date with his TD and MMR vacinations.
From,
Dr ....
Address and Seal
This needs to be taken on the Doctor's Letter Pad.
I have been tested with TB (PPD) positive and have been asked to take an XRAY. I called up my PCP doctor and he has authorized to take the XRAY covered under my insurance if not i would have to pay $60. Its one way of saving money if XRAY is needed go talk to your PCP and get approval so its free.
I do not have medical records to prove that I have taken some of the vaccination that is mandatory for the medical test. However, I do have taken those and my Doctor back in India has those records. Is there a way people know that these records in "any format" / a "specific format" can be faxed or fedexed here and can be used?
Any help will be highly apprciated.
- N
Can be of any format . Sample
To WHOM SO EVER IT IS CONCERNED
This is to certify that Mr XXX is upto date with his TD and MMR vacinations.
From,
Dr ....
Address and Seal
This needs to be taken on the Doctor's Letter Pad.
I have been tested with TB (PPD) positive and have been asked to take an XRAY. I called up my PCP doctor and he has authorized to take the XRAY covered under my insurance if not i would have to pay $60. Its one way of saving money if XRAY is needed go talk to your PCP and get approval so its free.
2010 Kristen+Stewart in Glamour
Meghna
05-15 01:36 PM
I was on F1 when the lawyer filed I485 for me along with my husband in 2004.
I know another couple who did the same.
F1 is a non immigrant visa and filing for I485 is not appropriate but at the same time it's not the primary applicant. So i don't know if it is going to be a problem or not ( my PD is not current).
I know another couple who did the same.
F1 is a non immigrant visa and filing for I485 is not appropriate but at the same time it's not the primary applicant. So i don't know if it is going to be a problem or not ( my PD is not current).
more...
saimrathi
07-11 02:43 PM
I knew you would find something.. sorry to quote you again.. but i think the quotes are necessary in replies to understand the context of replies.. Yes lets make him aware of the rally in San Jose.. can we have a PDF with info on the rally and a back ground of the case... Thanks..
I think we are on to something here. Please see the quote below from Arnold. Let's start communicating with his office and highlight the visa bulletin fiasco, flower campaign and media coverage. Should we start a new thread on this topic.
As Schwarzenegger has said multiple times:
"I think the most important thing to note is I am a champion of immigrants. I promote immigration. I am an immigrant myself. I think it's extremely important that we do it in a legal way."
�Polls Push Governor to the Border�, LA Times, April 30, 2005
I think we are on to something here. Please see the quote below from Arnold. Let's start communicating with his office and highlight the visa bulletin fiasco, flower campaign and media coverage. Should we start a new thread on this topic.
As Schwarzenegger has said multiple times:
"I think the most important thing to note is I am a champion of immigrants. I promote immigration. I am an immigrant myself. I think it's extremely important that we do it in a legal way."
�Polls Push Governor to the Border�, LA Times, April 30, 2005
hair pictures 2011 MTV Movie Awards
gc_on_demand
09-15 04:47 PM
Anyone knows when is the bill actually scheduled for voting..
This week is very important.. please call..
This week is very important.. please call..
more...
sanju
05-15 10:24 AM
Guys:
Based on the June Bulletin, I will be filing my I485 in June.
Now, I have H1-B(with my current company till Feb'2010 that I just got approved a month back.(not stamped in passport yet)
-- Should I file EAD for myself ( I probably would want to change jobs after 180 days) ? Or is it better to be on H1-B.
-- Should I file AP for both myself and my wife(she is on H4) ?
Also, when I decide to change jobs using AC21 rule, is it better to tranfer
H1-B to a new company or if I have EAD, how does that work ?
Any inputs will be greatly appreciated..!!
Thanks
If I were you, I would apply for EAD and AP for spouse and self immediately. You never know when you may need it. Say, your company announces a merger and your entire department is wiped out and you have to leave before coming Friday. It would be almost impossible to find another employer who will send the new H-1B application before Friday. In such instances EAD will help to keep you in status. EAD card for spouse will allow her to apply for SSN and thus Drivers license. AP for wife will help to travel out of country after you have used EAD. So in short, I would apply for all the docs for all members of the family. This could result in spending couple of hundred dollars but will help secure peace of mind.
Based on the June Bulletin, I will be filing my I485 in June.
Now, I have H1-B(with my current company till Feb'2010 that I just got approved a month back.(not stamped in passport yet)
-- Should I file EAD for myself ( I probably would want to change jobs after 180 days) ? Or is it better to be on H1-B.
-- Should I file AP for both myself and my wife(she is on H4) ?
Also, when I decide to change jobs using AC21 rule, is it better to tranfer
H1-B to a new company or if I have EAD, how does that work ?
Any inputs will be greatly appreciated..!!
Thanks
If I were you, I would apply for EAD and AP for spouse and self immediately. You never know when you may need it. Say, your company announces a merger and your entire department is wiped out and you have to leave before coming Friday. It would be almost impossible to find another employer who will send the new H-1B application before Friday. In such instances EAD will help to keep you in status. EAD card for spouse will allow her to apply for SSN and thus Drivers license. AP for wife will help to travel out of country after you have used EAD. So in short, I would apply for all the docs for all members of the family. This could result in spending couple of hundred dollars but will help secure peace of mind.
hot 2011 MTV Movie Awards: Kristen
ram_ram
01-03 12:24 PM
That is good news.
Thanks for all your efforts..SunJoshi.
Guys,
I got a letter from Cong Tom Price (Rep- GA) saying that the immigration clauses in the Budget Reconciliation Bill did not make it. But he will try to push for those clauses in the immigration bills in 2006.
I got the same message from his DC staff, when I called to follow-up.
SJ
Edited by admin. No personal names please. Only screen names.
Thanks for all your efforts..SunJoshi.
Guys,
I got a letter from Cong Tom Price (Rep- GA) saying that the immigration clauses in the Budget Reconciliation Bill did not make it. But he will try to push for those clauses in the immigration bills in 2006.
I got the same message from his DC staff, when I called to follow-up.
SJ
Edited by admin. No personal names please. Only screen names.
more...
house Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
tattoo Previous Next. Robert
Bpositive
03-25 03:30 PM
Either employers think EAD is the student EAD which needs to be converted to H1 or they are ignorant.
My suggestion would be to not bring it up....and if it does come up tell the employer that you have work authorization and that the employer doesn't need to do anything. If that doesn't work, then someone is actively discriminating...
My suggestion would be to not bring it up....and if it does come up tell the employer that you have work authorization and that the employer doesn't need to do anything. If that doesn't work, then someone is actively discriminating...
more...
pictures Kristen Stewart Pictures at
nandini
12-30 12:26 PM
Dec 14th,yes, Dec 14th itself,mumbai,H1B, renewal only
dresses Stewart#39;s MTV Movie Awards
fall2004us
01-05 06:05 PM
Great idea..
as pappu mentioned, in the coming months we need to work harder to achieve some of IV's goals
as pappu mentioned, in the coming months we need to work harder to achieve some of IV's goals
more...
makeup makeup Kristen Stewart at 2011
bayarea07
09-15 05:25 PM
Not sure, but there doesnot seems to be any enthusiasm, have we lost steam or lost all the hopes ????
girlfriend Robert Pattinson amp; Kristen
gc_wow
09-24 11:27 PM
It looks like atleast 75% of EB2 I with priority dates 2004 seems to be approved, this should bring down the count of 2004 less than 1000 may be little more than 1000.
hairstyles The 2011 MTV Movie Awards just
sc3
08-20 11:10 PM
My understanding is that this is incorrect:
In the old system any unused visa from EB3 Row would got EB1 India/China first and then EB2 -I/C and then Eb3 -I/C.
What you described ("last few rows") is what they are following now, Einstein!!!
[Except this piece EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)]
but then the devil is in the details ain't it? The "Except this piece" is what is overwhelmingly providing EB2 the numbers, and that is what will jump start EB3 movement forward.
I think people don't realize that Eb3-ROW is less compared to EB2-I/C and will therefore provide EB3-I numbers sooner than if we wait for EB2-I to get current.
And sorry, I don't support nepotism, everyone should be eligible on their own.
In the old system any unused visa from EB3 Row would got EB1 India/China first and then EB2 -I/C and then Eb3 -I/C.
What you described ("last few rows") is what they are following now, Einstein!!!
[Except this piece EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)]
but then the devil is in the details ain't it? The "Except this piece" is what is overwhelmingly providing EB2 the numbers, and that is what will jump start EB3 movement forward.
I think people don't realize that Eb3-ROW is less compared to EB2-I/C and will therefore provide EB3-I numbers sooner than if we wait for EB2-I to get current.
And sorry, I don't support nepotism, everyone should be eligible on their own.
DesiGuy
09-11 07:11 AM
3 more co-sponsors added, the total is now 31.:)
Also noticed only 8 Republicans v/s/ 23 Dems.
Although number of republicans so-sponsoring is lower, it's still 25% of the total so there is hope that more will support it when it comes to voting. ;)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5882
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2008-09-10]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D-MA]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D-TX]
Rep. Artur Davis [D-AL]
Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D-TX]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA]
Rep. Linda S�nchez [D-CA]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D-CA]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX]
Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]
Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. David Wu [D-OR]
Also noticed only 8 Republicans v/s/ 23 Dems.
Although number of republicans so-sponsoring is lower, it's still 25% of the total so there is hope that more will support it when it comes to voting. ;)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5882
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2008-09-10]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D-MA]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D-TX]
Rep. Artur Davis [D-AL]
Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D-TX]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA]
Rep. Linda S�nchez [D-CA]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D-CA]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX]
Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]
Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. David Wu [D-OR]
nilcritz
05-23 03:33 PM
Hi,
I do not have medical records to prove that I have taken some of the vaccination that is mandatory for the medical test. However, I do have taken those and my Doctor back in India has those records. Is there a way people know that these records in "any format" / a "specific format" can be faxed or fedexed here and can be used?
Any help will be highly apprciated.
- N
I do not have medical records to prove that I have taken some of the vaccination that is mandatory for the medical test. However, I do have taken those and my Doctor back in India has those records. Is there a way people know that these records in "any format" / a "specific format" can be faxed or fedexed here and can be used?
Any help will be highly apprciated.
- N
No comments:
Post a Comment