spicy_guy
10-14 11:41 AM
this whole thing sucks. USCIS cannot adjudicate even I-131 on time. We have booked our travel tickets after 100 days of Received date of AP renewal application and looks like we have to cancel our tickets and waste $1800. This really blows and its attrocity to the core that USCIS cannot process AP renewals inside 90 days time period and its a shame that they are not answerable to anyone.
wow! I am worried about my case now. I booked tickets for Nov. Its 45 days and I haven't heard anything. I will have to expedite in about 15 days from now. I can't imagine canceling my tickets after 4 years.
I agree. It sucks! Its like begging for something that they are supposed to provide anyway.:mad:
wow! I am worried about my case now. I booked tickets for Nov. Its 45 days and I haven't heard anything. I will have to expedite in about 15 days from now. I can't imagine canceling my tickets after 4 years.
I agree. It sucks! Its like begging for something that they are supposed to provide anyway.:mad:
wallpaper royal wedding prince william.
belmontboy
03-15 11:40 PM
By the way is it you who gave red...:mad:
No. I don't have any reason to give you red for this post.
No. I don't have any reason to give you red for this post.
belmontboy
03-15 10:01 PM
Thank you La_guy and others....
Do they ask me regarding this at the POE? In what forms do I have to fill the info? I am not sure, as one of you suggested, if they ask we will tell them. But does this record appear in their computer screen and if we did not mention to them, will it be treated as another crime?
God please help me , It's THE WORST thing ever I did and been trhu a painful experience
Thank you guys........
Any visa form or I-94 form at POE will contain a section for declaring these.
Yes, you have to indicate. If you don't and they findout it would constitute perjury leading to revocation and possibly complicate your life further.
Do they ask me regarding this at the POE? In what forms do I have to fill the info? I am not sure, as one of you suggested, if they ask we will tell them. But does this record appear in their computer screen and if we did not mention to them, will it be treated as another crime?
God please help me , It's THE WORST thing ever I did and been trhu a painful experience
Thank you guys........
Any visa form or I-94 form at POE will contain a section for declaring these.
Yes, you have to indicate. If you don't and they findout it would constitute perjury leading to revocation and possibly complicate your life further.
2011 Royal Wedding snub Fergie hurt
sdrblr
09-11 07:19 PM
I got my GC last week but had a house here since Feb 2005. It helps when you file the tax :)
more...
indianabacklog
10-24 08:10 AM
YOU ARE INDEED LUCKY! I THOUGHT THE CURRENT PRIORITY DATE for EB3 WORLD is August 2002. MAYBE THERE ARE NO MORE 2002-2005 WAITING FOR EB3 WORLD. THEY NEED TO REVISE THE VISA BULLETIN. HOPE I WILL BE PICKED NEXT....MY LC WAS FILED JAN. 2006...A MONTH AHEAD OF YOU.
Just to let you know there are EB3 ROW still waiting. My priority date is November 2002 and applied for AOS in May. No rhyme or reason to this process it would seem.
Cannot imagine I am the only old PD still waiting while people who applied four years later get their green cards.
Just to let you know there are EB3 ROW still waiting. My priority date is November 2002 and applied for AOS in May. No rhyme or reason to this process it would seem.
Cannot imagine I am the only old PD still waiting while people who applied four years later get their green cards.
ragz4u
03-27 10:34 AM
can we get live or recorded audio or video? C-spna should be doing it? Can anyone comment ? Thanks. We will provide a link (and of course ask to join IV and ask them to make contributions).
Will update with more info when available
Will update with more info when available
more...
akhilmahajan
08-13 07:35 PM
Efiled @ TSC on may 29th.
FP on june 28th, still no approval.
My current EAD expires September 24th and i am working on EAD currently.
Called USCIS and opened a SR on August 4th. Got a letter on August 11th, saying, although my situation is serious, i have not provided enough proof. Called USCIS August 13th, asking where i can mail the proof. Was told there is no mailing address and no fax number.
Scheduled an Infoapss Appt. for August 18th, by then it will be around 82 days.
Around the 90th day planning to meet my Congressman/Senator and hoping they could help me.
If some one can help me in finding fax number to TSC to send in my Expedite request it will be great.
GO IV GO.
FP on june 28th, still no approval.
My current EAD expires September 24th and i am working on EAD currently.
Called USCIS and opened a SR on August 4th. Got a letter on August 11th, saying, although my situation is serious, i have not provided enough proof. Called USCIS August 13th, asking where i can mail the proof. Was told there is no mailing address and no fax number.
Scheduled an Infoapss Appt. for August 18th, by then it will be around 82 days.
Around the 90th day planning to meet my Congressman/Senator and hoping they could help me.
If some one can help me in finding fax number to TSC to send in my Expedite request it will be great.
GO IV GO.
2010 the royal wedding william
bitzbytz
06-25 12:14 AM
My wife does not ahve paystubs from Oct 06 to Dec 06 and no W2 for year 2006. SO I would need a absence letter. Any for mat of letter would be appreciated.
We have paystubs from jan 07 to Jun 07 and plan to leave in July after filing 485 and plan to re enter in August using unexpired H4 visa.
I know of someone who used unexpired H4 visa inspite of being on H1 before leaving US
Any issues with above scenario?
We have paystubs from jan 07 to Jun 07 and plan to leave in July after filing 485 and plan to re enter in August using unexpired H4 visa.
I know of someone who used unexpired H4 visa inspite of being on H1 before leaving US
Any issues with above scenario?
more...
mariusp
11-01 08:40 PM
I just renewed mine today (FL). It was the regular drill: passport, i-94, social security card (optional) and that's it. My new DL will be in the mail in 30 days. In the meanwhile, they gave me a paper one.
hair william royal wedding kate
ramaonline
05-22 12:28 AM
The contributions page shows one-time contributions starting from $100 onwards. If you wish to make smaller one time payments, go to paypal.com -Click Send Money - In the To field enter - donations@immigrationvoice.org OR Select Immigration Voice in the merchant list.
more...
imneedy
06-25 11:11 AM
Guys,
Could anybody please share the explanation letter required for AP? I am still on H1-B but do not intend to go for stamping. I would need only for emergency.
Thanks
krishna_brc posted it here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=257924&postcount=20)
thank krishna_brc!
Could anybody please share the explanation letter required for AP? I am still on H1-B but do not intend to go for stamping. I would need only for emergency.
Thanks
krishna_brc posted it here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=257924&postcount=20)
thank krishna_brc!
hot Royal-Wedding-William-Kate-
BharatPremi
10-23 03:48 PM
To avoid the struggle for standing in a "Ration Card" Queue we opted USA and now we find ourselves in GC queue. Queue is our fate..:)
more...
house kate and william royal wedding
Zee
05-11 03:18 PM
When are we going to know what's in the compromise bill. CNN also has this news in its headlines today....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/immigration.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/immigration.ap/index.html
tattoo royal wedding kate and william
pns27
05-13 05:49 PM
Why cant you guys understand, we have no right to demand.
Lot of people , who otherwise would have qualified for Eb2 went ahead with EB3. First of all why did you you agree to it. Because, that time, that was something easy to get instead of changing it to EB2. That was the fight under your control. Not the one you are asking for.
Someone rightly said, you need one scientist,2 qualified/experience guys and 6 eb3 guys to do actual work. A right pyramid for an organisation.
But how can you miss govt. requirement. They need more PhDs. So they are asking us to do more study, earn more higher advanced degrees because thats what they need. Not our so called BE/Btech degree. In another 4-5 years, I wont be surprised, if only guys with masters will be only allowed to apply, if they find equal number of master graduates. Who cares for ordinary graduates. EB3 min qual will be raised to Masters with 5 years experience. What will be your say then ?
So look ahead and act accordingly. Make sure you can anticpate their moves. Its not a rocket science. 6-7 years back, there wasnt much application for EB category. But looking at the last year number, I wont be suprised, if they decide to raise the criteria bar. Simple, and all backlogs will be over. The reason they are not doing this because they still need eb3/eb2. But not in quantity, you would like them to but rather what they would like to have.
As far as country uota is concerned, everyone knows China and India, over populous contry. You increase the number to a million, and that would also fall short. But then they do not want so many people from a single country, as it will have a lot of political ramification in the future.
You are making up things here; Eb1->Eb2->Eb3 is correct only from education and experience for the Job point of view but not true from Quota point of view.
�The argument that Eb1 is preferred above Eb2 and BE2 is preferred over EB3 is absurd.
The regular yearly BE quota is distributed equally among all three categories, so then why they should not follow the same distribution for the overflow numbers?
Said that all BE3 applicants who are eligible should port there PD to EB2. Simple, when you know how the system works try to adapt to it.�
We don�t know the system when we filed our CGs, we just trusted out attorneys. If we have to do this CG stuff again most of us will do it differently.
Remember one more thing, one may be EB2 can still be less qualified and less experienced then an EB3 as EB criteria is for the Job not for the person.
PNS27
PD: EB3 June 2002
Lot of people , who otherwise would have qualified for Eb2 went ahead with EB3. First of all why did you you agree to it. Because, that time, that was something easy to get instead of changing it to EB2. That was the fight under your control. Not the one you are asking for.
Someone rightly said, you need one scientist,2 qualified/experience guys and 6 eb3 guys to do actual work. A right pyramid for an organisation.
But how can you miss govt. requirement. They need more PhDs. So they are asking us to do more study, earn more higher advanced degrees because thats what they need. Not our so called BE/Btech degree. In another 4-5 years, I wont be surprised, if only guys with masters will be only allowed to apply, if they find equal number of master graduates. Who cares for ordinary graduates. EB3 min qual will be raised to Masters with 5 years experience. What will be your say then ?
So look ahead and act accordingly. Make sure you can anticpate their moves. Its not a rocket science. 6-7 years back, there wasnt much application for EB category. But looking at the last year number, I wont be suprised, if they decide to raise the criteria bar. Simple, and all backlogs will be over. The reason they are not doing this because they still need eb3/eb2. But not in quantity, you would like them to but rather what they would like to have.
As far as country uota is concerned, everyone knows China and India, over populous contry. You increase the number to a million, and that would also fall short. But then they do not want so many people from a single country, as it will have a lot of political ramification in the future.
You are making up things here; Eb1->Eb2->Eb3 is correct only from education and experience for the Job point of view but not true from Quota point of view.
�The argument that Eb1 is preferred above Eb2 and BE2 is preferred over EB3 is absurd.
The regular yearly BE quota is distributed equally among all three categories, so then why they should not follow the same distribution for the overflow numbers?
Said that all BE3 applicants who are eligible should port there PD to EB2. Simple, when you know how the system works try to adapt to it.�
We don�t know the system when we filed our CGs, we just trusted out attorneys. If we have to do this CG stuff again most of us will do it differently.
Remember one more thing, one may be EB2 can still be less qualified and less experienced then an EB3 as EB criteria is for the Job not for the person.
PNS27
PD: EB3 June 2002
more...
pictures Just Wed Kate William After
dummgelauft
09-07 03:07 PM
Bump
dresses William Kate Royal Wedding Pic
reddymjm
06-12 05:43 PM
There is no case if your wife says you did not hit her. Didn't find a desi attorney in CA.
You said you are standing trial. At the trial if your wifes says you did not hit her or hurt her. What is the jury going to discus on. I think there is some thing missing here. They just do not want to waste time of the jurors on a simple thing. Your wife can meet the DA in person and request for dismissal.
PM me if you need any more info...
You said you are standing trial. At the trial if your wifes says you did not hit her or hurt her. What is the jury going to discus on. I think there is some thing missing here. They just do not want to waste time of the jurors on a simple thing. Your wife can meet the DA in person and request for dismissal.
PM me if you need any more info...
more...
makeup Kate Middleton royal wedding
gcseeker2002
12-07 10:57 AM
Agree with Gary. And update us on the results.
Folks I wish your suggestions would be helpful, but I have taken 3 infopass appointments, and to my badluck, everytime I visit I meet the same old-fat-lady who now happens to remember me, and says, "Didnt I tell you last time that blah blah blah ", believe me, she was not willing to even accept request to send interim ead , she gave some reason that NSC outsourced callcenter work to contractors who dont know what they are saying and send us to local office to request interim EAD. She says my FP for ead was done only in Nov(my 2nd infopass resulted in 2nd FP) so it will take 4-6 weeks after that to get EAD. Anyways I will take your advice for a 4th infopass next week.
Folks I wish your suggestions would be helpful, but I have taken 3 infopass appointments, and to my badluck, everytime I visit I meet the same old-fat-lady who now happens to remember me, and says, "Didnt I tell you last time that blah blah blah ", believe me, she was not willing to even accept request to send interim ead , she gave some reason that NSC outsourced callcenter work to contractors who dont know what they are saying and send us to local office to request interim EAD. She says my FP for ead was done only in Nov(my 2nd infopass resulted in 2nd FP) so it will take 4-6 weeks after that to get EAD. Anyways I will take your advice for a 4th infopass next week.
girlfriend Photo: Royal wedding buzz,
ashkam
05-13 12:51 PM
When there is a overflow, I strongly feel that it should flow to all the categories and that is called equality. Some inefficient people in Decision making authority at USCIS framed a rule on visa overflow and they are following it. If the rule is not much logical/ethical to most of the people, then anyone can voice their rights against it.
Just for example, a team consists of one project manager(EB1), two tech leads(EB2) and 6 Developers(EB3). The demand is based on no. of vacancies exists on the market, that means a lot of EB3, less EB2 and few EB1.
As per this rule, USCIS is not actually feeding the hungry.
Regarding the country quota, US is not favoring/helping the foreign countries by giving GC to those people from them. So, it makes no sense at all when it comes to immigrants but I can understand the bureaucracy behind it.
If they are implementing the country limit then it should be like 0.00001% of that country's population, I feel.
What are you talking about? There are a limited number of green cards each year. The US wants the best of the best to get these green cards. Therefore, more preference is given to those with a higher degree or more experience. What's unjust or unfair about that? The trick is to look at things from the American perspective and not from the immigrant perspective.
And for the record, I am an EB3.
Just for example, a team consists of one project manager(EB1), two tech leads(EB2) and 6 Developers(EB3). The demand is based on no. of vacancies exists on the market, that means a lot of EB3, less EB2 and few EB1.
As per this rule, USCIS is not actually feeding the hungry.
Regarding the country quota, US is not favoring/helping the foreign countries by giving GC to those people from them. So, it makes no sense at all when it comes to immigrants but I can understand the bureaucracy behind it.
If they are implementing the country limit then it should be like 0.00001% of that country's population, I feel.
What are you talking about? There are a limited number of green cards each year. The US wants the best of the best to get these green cards. Therefore, more preference is given to those with a higher degree or more experience. What's unjust or unfair about that? The trick is to look at things from the American perspective and not from the immigrant perspective.
And for the record, I am an EB3.
hairstyles ALR_4652.jpg. Prince
GKBest
10-24 04:42 PM
It was current for July. so i mailed my application on june 29, 2007, expected to reach USCIS on july 2nd, 2007.
Does your I-485 receipt # starts with SRC-07 or LIN-07?
Does your I-485 receipt # starts with SRC-07 or LIN-07?
vik_tx
05-16 11:56 AM
now ..confirmed with two immigration attorneys.. this ruling goes into effect tomorrow.. they are all scrambling to file i140s on the last day!(today)
------------
Ok. This comes from a very reliable source.. but need some clarification from the experts out here...
1) No LC Substitutions
2) If one hasn't filed the I-140 within 45 days of receiving the approved labor certification, then he/she is SOL. This rule goes into effect tomorrow 5/18 and this may be applied retro-actively...i.e. If you have received an approved labor certification in the past 45 days and not filed yet.. you may have to re-file labor, as your approval is invalid!..
any ideas?
text from the ammendment-
In order to protect the integrity of the permanent labor certification
program, deter fraud, and comply with the Department's statutory obligation
to protect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers, the Department
has determined a number of amendments are appropriate. The first amendment
would prohibit the substitution of alien beneficiaries on pending
applications for permanent labor certification and on approved permanent
labor certifications not yet filed with DHS. This amendment could, at least
to some degree, affect DHS's current practice of allowing U.S. employers to
substitute an alien through the filing of a new Form I-140 petition,
supported by a labor certification in the name of the original beneficiary.
The second amendment would require a permanent labor certification be filed
with DHS within 45 calendar days of the date it is certified by DOL. The
third amendment would prohibit the sale, barter, and purchase of
applications and approved labor certifications, as well as other related
payments. Finally, the Department is proposing enforcement mechanisms,
including debarment with appeal rights, to protect the integrity of the
permanent labor certification program and deter individuals or entities from
engaging in prohibited transactions or abusing the labor certification
process. The Department invites public comment regarding all aspects of each
of these proposed changes.
------------
Ok. This comes from a very reliable source.. but need some clarification from the experts out here...
1) No LC Substitutions
2) If one hasn't filed the I-140 within 45 days of receiving the approved labor certification, then he/she is SOL. This rule goes into effect tomorrow 5/18 and this may be applied retro-actively...i.e. If you have received an approved labor certification in the past 45 days and not filed yet.. you may have to re-file labor, as your approval is invalid!..
any ideas?
text from the ammendment-
In order to protect the integrity of the permanent labor certification
program, deter fraud, and comply with the Department's statutory obligation
to protect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers, the Department
has determined a number of amendments are appropriate. The first amendment
would prohibit the substitution of alien beneficiaries on pending
applications for permanent labor certification and on approved permanent
labor certifications not yet filed with DHS. This amendment could, at least
to some degree, affect DHS's current practice of allowing U.S. employers to
substitute an alien through the filing of a new Form I-140 petition,
supported by a labor certification in the name of the original beneficiary.
The second amendment would require a permanent labor certification be filed
with DHS within 45 calendar days of the date it is certified by DOL. The
third amendment would prohibit the sale, barter, and purchase of
applications and approved labor certifications, as well as other related
payments. Finally, the Department is proposing enforcement mechanisms,
including debarment with appeal rights, to protect the integrity of the
permanent labor certification program and deter individuals or entities from
engaging in prohibited transactions or abusing the labor certification
process. The Department invites public comment regarding all aspects of each
of these proposed changes.
makemygc
07-06 11:30 AM
Guys,
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what we must stress on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a week case. Nos USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS decalred "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out ot everbody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the leagl instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able save it face and limit on visa numbers wil automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
How do you define "All effected"?
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what we must stress on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a week case. Nos USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS decalred "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out ot everbody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the leagl instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able save it face and limit on visa numbers wil automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
How do you define "All effected"?