khris49
10-21 11:56 AM
I have 2 approved I-140s from same company with which I am currently working. One PD is end 2004 and another is end 2005.
My I-485 was filed last July with PD end 2004 (I-140 was approved way back in 2006).
Recently, an ombudsman inquiry revealed my PD to be end 2005 and not end 2004. The 140 with PD end 2005 was never used to file 485.
Anybody with similar experience?
How do I get this corrected?
My category is EB2 India.
Sweet_jungle, I am in a similar situation. My attorney sent a request to TSC 3 months back to fix the PD but no response yet. What did you do to open the obmudsman inquiry? Did you send him an email or did you send him a letter in the email
My I-485 was filed last July with PD end 2004 (I-140 was approved way back in 2006).
Recently, an ombudsman inquiry revealed my PD to be end 2005 and not end 2004. The 140 with PD end 2005 was never used to file 485.
Anybody with similar experience?
How do I get this corrected?
My category is EB2 India.
Sweet_jungle, I am in a similar situation. My attorney sent a request to TSC 3 months back to fix the PD but no response yet. What did you do to open the obmudsman inquiry? Did you send him an email or did you send him a letter in the email
nogc_noproblem
07-11 01:36 PM
Nope, just being 'current' doesn't mean everybody will get their GC.
PD movement temporary, Retro permanent.
1 year from now, only EB3-Indians with PDs of 2001-2006 will hang on the IV website. Everybody else(or atleast 99%) will be gone...
PD movement temporary, Retro permanent.
1 year from now, only EB3-Indians with PDs of 2001-2006 will hang on the IV website. Everybody else(or atleast 99%) will be gone...
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
krogot
02-15 06:35 PM
Hello,
I currently have my PERM for EB3 approved and the company lawyers are about to file I-140. But the priority date for filing I-485 is still 2002, which is not very exciting :( So I'm thinking about switching to EB2.
I have BS degree and 51 month of work experience prior joining the current company, so I'm short on 9 month for qualifying for "BS+5". I've been with company for 2 years now and recently was promoted from "Software Engineer" to "Software Architect". I've read that I can use my current employer experience if the new position is more than 50% different from the previous one.
Does it make sense for me to ask my employer to restart my GC process and show that my current position is more than 50% different? Does it make sense for me to start looking for another job, because the experience I gained with the current company qualifies me for "BS+5"?
I really like working in the company, so if it's possible I'd prefer to stay there, but waiting for 8 years to apply for I-485 really worries me...
I currently have my PERM for EB3 approved and the company lawyers are about to file I-140. But the priority date for filing I-485 is still 2002, which is not very exciting :( So I'm thinking about switching to EB2.
I have BS degree and 51 month of work experience prior joining the current company, so I'm short on 9 month for qualifying for "BS+5". I've been with company for 2 years now and recently was promoted from "Software Engineer" to "Software Architect". I've read that I can use my current employer experience if the new position is more than 50% different from the previous one.
Does it make sense for me to ask my employer to restart my GC process and show that my current position is more than 50% different? Does it make sense for me to start looking for another job, because the experience I gained with the current company qualifies me for "BS+5"?
I really like working in the company, so if it's possible I'd prefer to stay there, but waiting for 8 years to apply for I-485 really worries me...
more...
MCQ
10-26 04:03 PM
Here's how I see it.
If you are employed by a US company and are on the US payroll of that company, and they are paying your salary into your US bank account, then I would say, that even though you may be working remotely in an Indian office of that US company - then yes, you need the EAD.
Why - you might ask. Very simply, if you are on the US payroll you need to have an I-9 on file with the company. You can only file an I-9 if you have the legal right to work in the US for that company (EAD / GC / Citizen / H1B etc).
so what it all boils down to is, no matter where you are working in the world for the company, if you are on the US payroll, you need an I-9, to file the I-9 you need a legal right to work, and that for you means the EAD.
one other thing. I believe that you also need to be in the US to file for and receive the AP & EAD.
Hope that helps
McQ
If you are employed by a US company and are on the US payroll of that company, and they are paying your salary into your US bank account, then I would say, that even though you may be working remotely in an Indian office of that US company - then yes, you need the EAD.
Why - you might ask. Very simply, if you are on the US payroll you need to have an I-9 on file with the company. You can only file an I-9 if you have the legal right to work in the US for that company (EAD / GC / Citizen / H1B etc).
so what it all boils down to is, no matter where you are working in the world for the company, if you are on the US payroll, you need an I-9, to file the I-9 you need a legal right to work, and that for you means the EAD.
one other thing. I believe that you also need to be in the US to file for and receive the AP & EAD.
Hope that helps
McQ
nk2006
11-12 11:36 AM
This is simply called pure selfishness.
The way nk2006 misused IV resources for such a simple personal issue is unpardonable .
Knowing that there are such people among 'highly educated' is disheartening.
First of all its not 56K threads - created around 15. Idea is to create more awareness - someone suggested to propagate in state chapters. In most of state chapters - threads are not active - so posted in about 15 state chapters to get attention of any members who only follow state chapters.
Second of all I am not affected. I am volunteering. I also volunteered and donated earlier for other efforts. I honestly thought that AC21 together with EAD is only good thing that happened to us in the last couple years and thought this campaign would maintain that status.
The way nk2006 misused IV resources for such a simple personal issue is unpardonable .
Knowing that there are such people among 'highly educated' is disheartening.
First of all its not 56K threads - created around 15. Idea is to create more awareness - someone suggested to propagate in state chapters. In most of state chapters - threads are not active - so posted in about 15 state chapters to get attention of any members who only follow state chapters.
Second of all I am not affected. I am volunteering. I also volunteered and donated earlier for other efforts. I honestly thought that AC21 together with EAD is only good thing that happened to us in the last couple years and thought this campaign would maintain that status.
more...
Cataphract
05-25 08:53 AM
I just read this article in the paper today and wanted to share it with all of you.
It seems the general media has an impression that this CIR bill is a boon for the legal, skillled immigrant population, now we all know how true that is.
No one it seems has bothered to did deep enough to find out about the true perils of this bill, from the legal immigrants standpoint. That is where we need to also focus our resources.
I truly think that the conservative commentators who write on the op-ed pages of Washington Post, New York Times a and WSJ are our best bets in these tough times. Believe it or not, in the last few days I have read more than a few articles where they have addressed the new bill and have come out in support of legal, skilled immigrants rather than the liberals who are all gung-ho for the the low skilled population and care too much about still preserving family ties and encouraging chain migration. If we were to email something to say, George Will, Charles Krauthammer (I truly despise this right wing nut, but still) or even Robert Novak, there is a good chance they will address this issue.
I think we should develop a stinging rebuke (i know we already have, but this will be a very, very simpler version without all the clause quotations and targeted directly to the laymen), in the form of an Op-Ed piece that addresses in a point-by-point basis some of the most unfavorable provisions that this bill is littered with and also address the misinformation that is being spread suggesting that all of us legal skilled immigrants are going to come out way ahead once this bill passes.
I think we have a very good chance getting it published in one of these papers and it will have a huge impact.
This truly is make or break point for us and thanks everyone for doing their part. I just hope our lobbyists are aware of this predicament and that how damaging it will be to our interests if this bill passes.
Btw, just saw this poll/article on NYT about how most Americans are in favor of the guest worker program and legalizing illegals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402605.html?hpid=topnews
For some reason my uploads of PDF's failed, so I am adding links.
It seems the general media has an impression that this CIR bill is a boon for the legal, skillled immigrant population, now we all know how true that is.
No one it seems has bothered to did deep enough to find out about the true perils of this bill, from the legal immigrants standpoint. That is where we need to also focus our resources.
I truly think that the conservative commentators who write on the op-ed pages of Washington Post, New York Times a and WSJ are our best bets in these tough times. Believe it or not, in the last few days I have read more than a few articles where they have addressed the new bill and have come out in support of legal, skilled immigrants rather than the liberals who are all gung-ho for the the low skilled population and care too much about still preserving family ties and encouraging chain migration. If we were to email something to say, George Will, Charles Krauthammer (I truly despise this right wing nut, but still) or even Robert Novak, there is a good chance they will address this issue.
I think we should develop a stinging rebuke (i know we already have, but this will be a very, very simpler version without all the clause quotations and targeted directly to the laymen), in the form of an Op-Ed piece that addresses in a point-by-point basis some of the most unfavorable provisions that this bill is littered with and also address the misinformation that is being spread suggesting that all of us legal skilled immigrants are going to come out way ahead once this bill passes.
I think we have a very good chance getting it published in one of these papers and it will have a huge impact.
This truly is make or break point for us and thanks everyone for doing their part. I just hope our lobbyists are aware of this predicament and that how damaging it will be to our interests if this bill passes.
Btw, just saw this poll/article on NYT about how most Americans are in favor of the guest worker program and legalizing illegals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402605.html?hpid=topnews
For some reason my uploads of PDF's failed, so I am adding links.
pkv
06-07 01:59 PM
is there nobody with info/experience on this????
more...
member123
09-14 03:15 PM
Hi All,
I think a lof people have the LUD is 08/05/07 for 140 filed in TSC..and everyone takes their guesses. Please post if u r LUD for 140 is 08/05/2007 ;
I think a lof people have the LUD is 08/05/07 for 140 filed in TSC..and everyone takes their guesses. Please post if u r LUD for 140 is 08/05/2007 ;
srikondoji
04-26 07:50 PM
Berkeleybee
Done editing my blog.
Thanks for correcting my blog.
I will also post a textual link on my online party invitation website where several indians visit and send their party invitations.
Currently there are 2 indian families celebrating housewarming party using my website with close to 75 guests and i have several email id's who in the past have used my website.
I hope i atleast get the attention of few indians to this website and our cause.
Thanks again for the hardwork.
sri
Done editing my blog.
Thanks for correcting my blog.
I will also post a textual link on my online party invitation website where several indians visit and send their party invitations.
Currently there are 2 indian families celebrating housewarming party using my website with close to 75 guests and i have several email id's who in the past have used my website.
I hope i atleast get the attention of few indians to this website and our cause.
Thanks again for the hardwork.
sri
more...
belmontboy
07-01 02:30 PM
thank you
why are you thanking yourself? :D
why are you thanking yourself? :D
andy garcia
10-16 02:15 PM
If I am not wrong.....I had checked on the EB5 retrogression some time back..
Which EB5 are you checking?
EB5 is always current. Last year they only issued 346 visas to this category.
It takes at least 500.000$ :cool: to get one.
Which EB5 are you checking?
EB5 is always current. Last year they only issued 346 visas to this category.
It takes at least 500.000$ :cool: to get one.
more...
laborfd
05-22 09:21 AM
Katrina, How did you know that DBEC is processing 2005 case?
I kind a feel that would be a miracle eventhough this amdmt get approved for Philadelphia PBEC to finish all the labor within 6 month :) I'm not sure about dallas since Dallas PBEC already start processing 2005 application.
I kind a feel that would be a miracle eventhough this amdmt get approved for Philadelphia PBEC to finish all the labor within 6 month :) I'm not sure about dallas since Dallas PBEC already start processing 2005 application.
mnkaushik
11-07 05:07 PM
I did use my experience in my current company for my I 140 and my I 140 has been approved. I had 2 years of exp prior to joining my company and my LC was for 4 years exp, so I used 2 years of exp from my current company. From your priority date it looks like you have applied using RIR or traditional. I think it is true for PERM that you cannot use the experience of your current company but for RIR or Traditional you can.
So your lawyer is right in saying that you can use your exp with your current company.
So your lawyer is right in saying that you can use your exp with your current company.
more...
sideeque
12-27 03:05 PM
I have visited India with old Employer Vis a Stamp. We just need to show the new I797 approval notice. They will update I-94 with the new date.
But if your visa expired, then you need to stamp. otherwise should be fine...
But if your visa expired, then you need to stamp. otherwise should be fine...
indyanguy
06-29 03:08 PM
I have been trying hard to get an answer for this question without any luck. My corporate attorney doesn't seem to have the slightest inclination on this subject. I would really appreciate responses.
My case details:
Visa on the passport up until Feb 2009
6 year term ending on Feb 2010
Date on I94 in passport is Feb 2010
I140/I485 concurrently applied on July 07
Currently have EB3 I-140 filed based on Substitute Labor at NSC.
Questions -
1. If my I-140 case gets picked up AFTER Feb 2009 (less than 365 days of H1 6 year term ending) and is denied (God forbid!), will I be eligible to file for a post 6 year H1 extension? Since this is Labor Sub, the labor doesn't have my name on it.
2. If yes for (1), will I be eligible for 1 year or 3 years H1 extension?
3. Can I file for a new PERM at that time and get an extension based on that?
4. Do I need to refile I-485?
Please help!
My case details:
Visa on the passport up until Feb 2009
6 year term ending on Feb 2010
Date on I94 in passport is Feb 2010
I140/I485 concurrently applied on July 07
Currently have EB3 I-140 filed based on Substitute Labor at NSC.
Questions -
1. If my I-140 case gets picked up AFTER Feb 2009 (less than 365 days of H1 6 year term ending) and is denied (God forbid!), will I be eligible to file for a post 6 year H1 extension? Since this is Labor Sub, the labor doesn't have my name on it.
2. If yes for (1), will I be eligible for 1 year or 3 years H1 extension?
3. Can I file for a new PERM at that time and get an extension based on that?
4. Do I need to refile I-485?
Please help!
more...
chanduv23
10-19 01:12 PM
I am from Long Island. I am a name check victim. What can we do? Where and when can we gather?
I have been looking for some help in mobilization in your area - lets discuss this offline.
Send me your contact details and time to contact as a private message and we can discuss further steps.
I have been looking for some help in mobilization in your area - lets discuss this offline.
Send me your contact details and time to contact as a private message and we can discuss further steps.
TexasGC2011
04-07 04:46 PM
Hello!
I was trying to use the Free Conference Call service to ask a question to the lawyer but was informed that the access code 388991 is incorrect. Has it been changed? If so, can someone provide the new code.
Thank you very much for providing this invaluable service to the entire community.
-Raji
I was trying to use the Free Conference Call service to ask a question to the lawyer but was informed that the access code 388991 is incorrect. Has it been changed? If so, can someone provide the new code.
Thank you very much for providing this invaluable service to the entire community.
-Raji
uslegals
08-20 09:42 PM
GCOrNoGC - what do u mean by PM's..? I have not recd. anything from u.!
itsmesabby
10-13 10:04 AM
I filled the renewal with the same employer as well. The documentation requested at the counsalate depends upon the officer. He/She may or may not ask for any documents.
eb3retro
09-08 07:42 PM
Welcome to IV Immiram..
Hi all,
I know the Forums are still pretty active but is the IV Organisation itself still active?
I came across the IV website yesterday and was really stuck by the mission statement of the Organisation. I did not think twice - went ahead and got registered and made one time donation. I even voted for one of the polls for Sep 18 rally and making plans to visit DC but only to realise today that it was really old one :) Also when I was reviewing the forums today I realised that most of the activities seem to be around years 2006-2007 - like Fundraising Campaign or Media News ,etc.
Appreciate anyones response to let me know if IC is still active. Please do not direct any personal attacks. I did not need to explore GC info so far since my GC was started only during March of 2010 & got my Lc approved only yesterday.
If the organisation is still active, I am looking forward to joing the CT chapter. Thanks!
Hi all,
I know the Forums are still pretty active but is the IV Organisation itself still active?
I came across the IV website yesterday and was really stuck by the mission statement of the Organisation. I did not think twice - went ahead and got registered and made one time donation. I even voted for one of the polls for Sep 18 rally and making plans to visit DC but only to realise today that it was really old one :) Also when I was reviewing the forums today I realised that most of the activities seem to be around years 2006-2007 - like Fundraising Campaign or Media News ,etc.
Appreciate anyones response to let me know if IC is still active. Please do not direct any personal attacks. I did not need to explore GC info so far since my GC was started only during March of 2010 & got my Lc approved only yesterday.
If the organisation is still active, I am looking forward to joing the CT chapter. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment