meridiani.planum
04-07 01:05 AM
It is worse than that.. :)
Please watch the following youtube video to understand how USCIS works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30BZtpvaTY
that was amazing. Is the maker of that video an IV member?
Please watch the following youtube video to understand how USCIS works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30BZtpvaTY
that was amazing. Is the maker of that video an IV member?
wallpaper Justin Bieber XO Girls T Shirt
desi3933
05-21 06:40 AM
My past post on this issue
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=322561&postcount=11
Thread on that topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5450
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=322561&postcount=11
Thread on that topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5450
vpa_2009
03-20 06:50 AM
I sold the house on H1 and there was nothing addition for H1 holder. It is just that if you have that property for less than 2 years then you pay tax.
Just thinking if the new law for GC approved like buy a house and get
GC then what will happen for those like us who have house since 2004 and sold one and bought another in that time period.
I am on EAD now. PD -Nov 2003
Just thinking if the new law for GC approved like buy a house and get
GC then what will happen for those like us who have house since 2004 and sold one and bought another in that time period.
I am on EAD now. PD -Nov 2003
2011 Justin Bieber#39;s Pants On The
maddipati1
01-08 07:54 PM
i went for stamping in india in Feb'09. Mine wasn't in PIMS. They said that my visa is issued but will get the PP with stamp after PIMS clearance and it might take upto 2 weeks. but luckily i got it in 3 days.
those whose I-797 was approved around the same time when PIMS was introduced ( i think Oct'07 ), should be careful about this.
i read somewhere that, they messed up initial data transfer during PIMS launch. so the I-797s that got approved around the same time are more likely to be missed. mine was approved exactly in the same month PIMS was implemented and surely it wasn't in PIMS.
funny story now ( but painful then )..
i was aware and prepared for this when i went for stamping. i was at the window of initial screening officer. he took my dox and verified in their system and started writing 'not in PIMS' on top of my app. i was looking at it and i said 'aah! is it not in PIMS?'. he was surprised ( that i knew about PIMS etc) and gave me a look. now, i told to myself 'dude! shut up' :D
minumum precaution u should take is, take the visa appointment on the first couple of days of ur visit, to have buffer for PIMS.
but, i read, there is another type of delay that's the nemsis of pink 221(g) or something like that. this is for people who work in sensitive industries like defense, biotech, chemical etc. that surely take a long time, coz they need clearance from washington.
those whose I-797 was approved around the same time when PIMS was introduced ( i think Oct'07 ), should be careful about this.
i read somewhere that, they messed up initial data transfer during PIMS launch. so the I-797s that got approved around the same time are more likely to be missed. mine was approved exactly in the same month PIMS was implemented and surely it wasn't in PIMS.
funny story now ( but painful then )..
i was aware and prepared for this when i went for stamping. i was at the window of initial screening officer. he took my dox and verified in their system and started writing 'not in PIMS' on top of my app. i was looking at it and i said 'aah! is it not in PIMS?'. he was surprised ( that i knew about PIMS etc) and gave me a look. now, i told to myself 'dude! shut up' :D
minumum precaution u should take is, take the visa appointment on the first couple of days of ur visit, to have buffer for PIMS.
but, i read, there is another type of delay that's the nemsis of pink 221(g) or something like that. this is for people who work in sensitive industries like defense, biotech, chemical etc. that surely take a long time, coz they need clearance from washington.
more...
valuablehurdle
01-18 10:37 AM
Ria,
This not correct. if you are on H visa in USA, you can definitely apply for Canadian Landed Immigration. In order to maintain your immigration in Canada, you have to stay atleast 2 years in Canada in a 5 year period.
Moreover, in order to fulfill your citizenship requirement, you have to be physically present in Canada for atleast 3 years.
I hope this helps.
A Canadian Citizen.
---------------------------------------------
This not correct. if you are on H visa in USA, you can definitely apply for Canadian Landed Immigration. In order to maintain your immigration in Canada, you have to stay atleast 2 years in Canada in a 5 year period.
Moreover, in order to fulfill your citizenship requirement, you have to be physically present in Canada for atleast 3 years.
I hope this helps.
A Canadian Citizen.
---------------------------------------------
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
Ann Ruben
07-20 07:33 AM
without seeing your son's complete record and carefully researching the NY criminal code, it is impossible to give correct legal advice.
2010 justin bieber pants falling
sundarpn
04-14 04:45 PM
Hey all,
I have exactly 1.8 yrs left on my h1b. My 6th year starts March 2008.
I am in a permanent job now and my labor (EB3) priority date is Aug 2006.
I-140 with Nebraska has been pending for the last 6 months. (yes I am going to pay 1K and get it converted to premium )
I have another new job offer (permanent) from a company in bedford, boston.
The problem is the new company (like most big companies) will not start GC processing immediately. They may start after 3 months or after 6 months per policy. No commitments. :confused:
So Questions:
1. If the new employer submits labor after my 6th year starts, what are my options? (is it a risk?). In my experience with companies ( I am talking non desi, non consulting companies) it takes 6 months or more to get Perm labor filed.
2. I may not be able to port PD from my current employer as my I140 is still pending and if I give my notice, they will very well cancel it before it gets approved. (Even if I convert to premium now, it will take 3 weeks to get approval and I doubt if the new employer will wait). besides I am doubtful if I can get a copy of the 140 approval.
3. Another option I can think of is forget this offer.
Stick to my current employer, get I140 approved, get my 3 yr H1b extension and then try to switch when I have 3 more years. Is this even a practical / realistic option?
Appreciate any opinions.
I have exactly 1.8 yrs left on my h1b. My 6th year starts March 2008.
I am in a permanent job now and my labor (EB3) priority date is Aug 2006.
I-140 with Nebraska has been pending for the last 6 months. (yes I am going to pay 1K and get it converted to premium )
I have another new job offer (permanent) from a company in bedford, boston.
The problem is the new company (like most big companies) will not start GC processing immediately. They may start after 3 months or after 6 months per policy. No commitments. :confused:
So Questions:
1. If the new employer submits labor after my 6th year starts, what are my options? (is it a risk?). In my experience with companies ( I am talking non desi, non consulting companies) it takes 6 months or more to get Perm labor filed.
2. I may not be able to port PD from my current employer as my I140 is still pending and if I give my notice, they will very well cancel it before it gets approved. (Even if I convert to premium now, it will take 3 weeks to get approval and I doubt if the new employer will wait). besides I am doubtful if I can get a copy of the 140 approval.
3. Another option I can think of is forget this offer.
Stick to my current employer, get I140 approved, get my 3 yr H1b extension and then try to switch when I have 3 more years. Is this even a practical / realistic option?
Appreciate any opinions.
more...
perm2gc
08-23 04:45 PM
Thanks for your reply. I read somewhere that if I have a approved 140 and have already applied for 485 I can only get a 1 year ext on H1 and not 3 year. 3 year H1 ext beyond 6 years isonly for people who are not able to apply for 485 due to retrogression. Is that true? I want to maintain the H1 to be able to easily transfer n case I loose my job.
yes
yes
hair justin bieber pants for girls.
kumar1
07-29 10:37 AM
d
more...
yabadaba
12-21 08:22 AM
ok that makes sense.
hot justin bieber hairstyle back.
gcformeornot
08-16 02:35 PM
Thank you guys.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
Most of the companies have clear cut HR policy on who is covered who is not.
No matter what HR member said they will follow HR policy.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
Most of the companies have clear cut HR policy on who is covered who is not.
No matter what HR member said they will follow HR policy.
more...
house justin bieber icons. icon new
green_card_curious
03-08 12:15 PM
Thanks Drak. My attorney states otherwise though. He states that I-485 will be denied only after the ultimate denial of the I-140, which he says might take even about a year, and that in the mean time, I-485 will be valid and that she can continue to work on EAD.
P E R P L E X E D !!
P E R P L E X E D !!
tattoo Justin Bieber Looks Like a
santb1975
03-28 11:47 PM
We have a potential opportunity to get featured in LA times. We are looking for examples from our student community who has missed the H1B lotto last year and pursued an opportunity in another country or for students who are anxiously waiting this year's Lotto. We have been asking in Southern California for examples from yesterday but no one came forward yet
Many thanks for IV to get this fixed for students. I am student member of IV since 2007.
I have posted this message in other forums and urged the student community to join IV.
IV rocks!
Balan
Many thanks for IV to get this fixed for students. I am student member of IV since 2007.
I have posted this message in other forums and urged the student community to join IV.
IV rocks!
Balan
more...
pictures justin bieber shoes for girls
rahulpaper
08-26 01:27 PM
Did you do medical or not?
dresses JUSTIN BIEBER KISSING GIRLS ON
knowDOL
05-26 07:32 AM
I think we shou;d draft a Thank you webfax so all memberrs can send it.
more...
makeup justin bieber kissing a fan on
sjhugoose
February 20th, 2004, 07:15 AM
I don't know about the wide angle lenses, but I don't think that would help that much in the dof problem you have.
Use this DOF calculator for your camera:
http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html
The Sony at 38mm 12 inches away at f8 give you a near of of 11.8 and a far of 12.1. At 28mm 12 inches away you can get a near of 11.7 and far of 12.3.
If you play a bit with the calculator there, you can get an idea of the dof you can achieve with or without the wide angle lenses.
Olga
Olga,
I don't mean to step on your toes here but I think you've missed something. The sony is a 38mm equivalent. I believe its actually a 9.7mm-48.5mm lens and these numbers should be used for calculating the DOF, unless the calculator says otherwise. In this case you can obtain the DOF that Daniel desires and it may actually be easier with a digicam than with an SLR based camera. AHHH I thinkI just suggested a digicam is better than a SLR.
Scott
Use this DOF calculator for your camera:
http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html
The Sony at 38mm 12 inches away at f8 give you a near of of 11.8 and a far of 12.1. At 28mm 12 inches away you can get a near of 11.7 and far of 12.3.
If you play a bit with the calculator there, you can get an idea of the dof you can achieve with or without the wide angle lenses.
Olga
Olga,
I don't mean to step on your toes here but I think you've missed something. The sony is a 38mm equivalent. I believe its actually a 9.7mm-48.5mm lens and these numbers should be used for calculating the DOF, unless the calculator says otherwise. In this case you can obtain the DOF that Daniel desires and it may actually be easier with a digicam than with an SLR based camera. AHHH I thinkI just suggested a digicam is better than a SLR.
Scott
girlfriend justin ieber pants falling
jsb
08-29 01:10 PM
Published dates are only a general ballpark information to indicate where are for the remaining cases. Havn't they already granted visas to those filed in August/Sept '07?
This change is all due to their better understanding of what is a Receive Date. So far, they have been treating date when they physically enter data in the system (date which you see online as "we received your case on...") as the Receive Date, and making all predictions, postings and claims based on that. Now they know that it is what you see on your receipt as the Receive Date, and hence the back step in the dates. TSC is at June 18, NSC is at July 2.
They should better post where they are based on PDs, and work based on that too.
This change is all due to their better understanding of what is a Receive Date. So far, they have been treating date when they physically enter data in the system (date which you see online as "we received your case on...") as the Receive Date, and making all predictions, postings and claims based on that. Now they know that it is what you see on your receipt as the Receive Date, and hence the back step in the dates. TSC is at June 18, NSC is at July 2.
They should better post where they are based on PDs, and work based on that too.
hairstyles justin bieber dresses for
Apollon
06-30 08:55 PM
thank you very much
uma001
05-24 09:44 AM
Here is my case:
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM.
My employer is sponsering my green card
How many points will i get??
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM.
My employer is sponsering my green card
How many points will i get??
telekinesis
10-20 07:52 AM
Get the educational version! Much cheaper and is fully functional!
