dealsboy
07-19 10:27 PM
Trance,
Either you or your wife have to curb the career growth.
As of today EB2 is progressing well. There is a gossip out there that EB2 will be current in a year. If you stay with your current company you will get your Green Card.
If you stay in EB2 you may have to cut the career progression for 2 more years (Assumption - EB2 will be current in a year). If you move to Eb3 then it will be 10 yrs or more.
How sure are you that they will process her Green Card in EB2 or atleast they will file for a GC? If your wife only wants to join a company that processes GC in EB2 then there may be a chance that they will pay your wife less.
Decide on your own.
My personal suggestion.
Do not get into EB3 hell.
Answers
1. Do not take the offer. IMO.
2. Yes
3. No
Note : I am in EB3 and my wife is in health care. She will get her job next year.
Either you or your wife have to curb the career growth.
As of today EB2 is progressing well. There is a gossip out there that EB2 will be current in a year. If you stay with your current company you will get your Green Card.
If you stay in EB2 you may have to cut the career progression for 2 more years (Assumption - EB2 will be current in a year). If you move to Eb3 then it will be 10 yrs or more.
How sure are you that they will process her Green Card in EB2 or atleast they will file for a GC? If your wife only wants to join a company that processes GC in EB2 then there may be a chance that they will pay your wife less.
Decide on your own.
My personal suggestion.
Do not get into EB3 hell.
Answers
1. Do not take the offer. IMO.
2. Yes
3. No
Note : I am in EB3 and my wife is in health care. She will get her job next year.
wallpaper wallpaper green nature.
franklin
07-21 03:14 PM
Please don't dilute IV's group efforts
There are 2 outstanding action items - have you completed them?
There are 2 outstanding action items - have you completed them?
lp2007
01-19 07:40 PM
We are all proud of our accomplishments, EB2 or EB3 or EB1 , the degrees we have earned, the jobs we do and the achievements we have in our career. The relationships we have made and the list goes on.
I don't think being in a category of EB GC queue should define if you can be proud of an EB3 immigrant.
You almost make it sound like did a EB3 applicant become a "slumdog millionaire" ? :)
I don't think being in a category of EB GC queue should define if you can be proud of an EB3 immigrant.
You almost make it sound like did a EB3 applicant become a "slumdog millionaire" ? :)
2011 Nature
ajju
03-01 11:55 AM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
more...
number30
03-29 06:02 PM
You dont have anything to worry about. If you dont get the ITIN, just amend your tax return with new ITIN application later.
Yes That is the way. You have three years to ammend your tax return. It is simple and common
Yes That is the way. You have three years to ammend your tax return. It is simple and common
sunny1000
07-24 10:19 PM
Hi all,
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
HI,
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
HI,
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
more...
immi2006
08-08 01:35 PM
I think it is /qtr basis, not based on salary, for instance if gates makes 1 Million a year, does not mean his SS contri is all done :-)
Irrespective of how much you make, the yearly deduction is always 4 K per anum,
It's not per quarter. It's based on your earnings. It was around $4000 per year gross or so for 4 credits. So if u arrived in December and left in Feb with 8 years in between you would be eligible if you get paid $4000 per month.
For a lot of finance information go to http://groups.msn.com/R2IClub. For 401K information, IRA, ROTH etc search google for "RRK Limits". RRK has tonnes and tonnes of info. By planning your departure from USA you can minimize the taxes on 401K. Penalty cannot be avoided.
Irrespective of how much you make, the yearly deduction is always 4 K per anum,
It's not per quarter. It's based on your earnings. It was around $4000 per year gross or so for 4 credits. So if u arrived in December and left in Feb with 8 years in between you would be eligible if you get paid $4000 per month.
For a lot of finance information go to http://groups.msn.com/R2IClub. For 401K information, IRA, ROTH etc search google for "RRK Limits". RRK has tonnes and tonnes of info. By planning your departure from USA you can minimize the taxes on 401K. Penalty cannot be avoided.
2010 Full HD Wallpapers - Dew,
chanduv23
06-30 07:59 AM
Chanduv23,
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
Yes, RFEs could be a part of preadjudication. But at times people do receive random RFEs too. If you are lucky, you can get the answer from a officer on whether your case is preadjudicated or not.
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
Yes, RFEs could be a part of preadjudication. But at times people do receive random RFEs too. If you are lucky, you can get the answer from a officer on whether your case is preadjudicated or not.
more...
.jpg "nature wallpaper green")
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hair 112 Nature Wallpaper
asphaltcowboy
05-27 10:31 AM
it's gotta be Soul's... the worst thing is the flippin' page transitions! I'm growing old waiting for them! congrats to everyone with a **** website
;)
;)
more...
GotGC??
05-15 12:03 PM
Thanks for your reply.
My understanding is there can be only one AOS at any time.
- So if the AOS is applied based on the EB3 140, can another AOS be filed based on EB2?
- If a AOS has been applied based on EB3, can it be "upgraded" to EB2 ??
Thanks.
Not an expert but my guess is this window of opportunity will exist till next Fiscal year's bulletin is out i.e around 10th sep 2007. If you haven't already filed 485 you are unlikely to be approved during the window. I would go with aggressive approach i.e file based on pending EB2 and upgrade to PP. If you want to be conservtive because you never know if the porting will be accepted or not, or if it may add more delay just file eb3 485 right away, take the beneifts like ead etc.. and later port if retrogressed.
My understanding is there can be only one AOS at any time.
- So if the AOS is applied based on the EB3 140, can another AOS be filed based on EB2?
- If a AOS has been applied based on EB3, can it be "upgraded" to EB2 ??
Thanks.
Not an expert but my guess is this window of opportunity will exist till next Fiscal year's bulletin is out i.e around 10th sep 2007. If you haven't already filed 485 you are unlikely to be approved during the window. I would go with aggressive approach i.e file based on pending EB2 and upgrade to PP. If you want to be conservtive because you never know if the porting will be accepted or not, or if it may add more delay just file eb3 485 right away, take the beneifts like ead etc.. and later port if retrogressed.
hot Nature Wallpapers, Vista
villamonte6100
10-05 10:49 AM
hi, Do you know: How recent, which nationality, when was his/her aos filed
Sheela, you must be an aussie?
Sheela, you must be an aussie?
more...
house wallpapers, green plants,
JDM
08-07 08:50 PM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/
tattoo desktop wallpaper nature
senthil1
10-15 07:03 PM
I do not think USA is losing ground. If China and India thinks that they are Really improving economy Why can't they make their currencies free Trade? Why are they artifically Keeping exchange rates. The reason is if really a country is stronger then currency should go up and US dollar should become weaker. But India and Cannot sustain as the export business will go down for India and China if their currency becomes too strong. So India and China are looking for US and europe Market. So inter dependence is always there. There is lot of speculation that India will exceed US in 2020. But it is far from true. For stronger Indian economy India needs US Consumption. For that USA needs to be stronger. May be lot of human resources are there in india. But that will be also resolved in another 20 Years because still Inflow is more than return to india. 80% of H1s are Indians apart from lot of L1 people.
more...
pictures Lush Trees amp; Green Leaves in
joydiptac
02-03 02:17 PM
We can try to make a legitimate point that H1Bs contribution to the economy is huge. Guess what that is why the companies try to hire more H1Bs. But... who is listening?
In the depression years - post 1929. Immigration to the US fell to 10% of what it was in 1929 and remained like that for 10 years. 400,000 Mexican immigrants were forced back to Mexico.
Immigration officers proactively sending back H1Bs is not totally unexpected. I hope and pray that the economy and the job situation improves in the coming months. Otherwise I wonder if there is more to come?
In the depression years - post 1929. Immigration to the US fell to 10% of what it was in 1929 and remained like that for 10 years. 400,000 Mexican immigrants were forced back to Mexico.
Immigration officers proactively sending back H1Bs is not totally unexpected. I hope and pray that the economy and the job situation improves in the coming months. Otherwise I wonder if there is more to come?
dresses Full HD Wallpapers - Green,
immigrationvoice1
12-11 11:47 AM
Babson FastTrack MBA (http://cmweb.babson.edu/MBA/progrms/fasttrack.aspx) is a very good blended learning program if you are in the New England or Portland, OR area.
Thanks for sharing the information. Any one attending any online MS/MBA in the east coast ? Please post the name/URL of school.
Thanks for sharing the information. Any one attending any online MS/MBA in the east coast ? Please post the name/URL of school.
more...
makeup nature wallpaper green
perm2gc
09-14 12:35 AM
I have an emergency to go to India to take care of my sickly mom and I need to return back to work on July first. I am also trying to get emergency appointment. I couldnt. Could you please suggest the way I can get emergency appointment in any of the consulate. You can get appointment in any consulate in india for VISA revalidation.You can call them and collect more information.
https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
girlfriend is a resized wallpaper,
gcseeker2002
01-02 02:56 PM
Please anyone.........help me.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
You dont have to get it stamped if you are returning before your current stamping expires. However it is better to get stamping if you are planning travel after your current stamping expires.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
You dont have to get it stamped if you are returning before your current stamping expires. However it is better to get stamping if you are planning travel after your current stamping expires.
hairstyles green wallpaper nature,
summitpointe
06-13 04:04 PM
Good job.
santb1975
03-24 12:49 PM
I wish I did one of these in So.Cal
sanjose
07-24 07:04 PM
I am a july 2nd 2007 filer with notice date Aug 23rd 2007. In response to my SR, I received the following reply:
"...... There is not currently a visa available to you based upon your country of birth, your employment-based category and your priority date. Your I-485 application cannot be adjudicated until there is a visa available to you. Your case is therefore awaiting visa availability for your category and further review by an Adjudications Officer. ......."
Many people have said that the July 2nd filers cases have been pre-adjudicated.
However the SR response clearly says that my case will not be adjudicated untill visa # will be avalable.
Does anybody know what is meant by pre-adjudication ?
What is difference between adjudication and pre-adjudication?
Thanks in advance for your replies. Any reply will be appreciated specially from the attorneys.
"pre-"
"...... There is not currently a visa available to you based upon your country of birth, your employment-based category and your priority date. Your I-485 application cannot be adjudicated until there is a visa available to you. Your case is therefore awaiting visa availability for your category and further review by an Adjudications Officer. ......."
Many people have said that the July 2nd filers cases have been pre-adjudicated.
However the SR response clearly says that my case will not be adjudicated untill visa # will be avalable.
Does anybody know what is meant by pre-adjudication ?
What is difference between adjudication and pre-adjudication?
Thanks in advance for your replies. Any reply will be appreciated specially from the attorneys.
"pre-"
No comments:
Post a Comment