sanju
03-12 11:30 AM
Pappu,
I have a suggestion! I don't think forcing monthly $25 contribution to keep donor status alive is a very good idea, especially in current economy. Take an example of myself. It is decided that I am going to loose job on 17th March, may not be able to contribute every month.
Rethink!
Pappu,
Donor forum concept is the only workable model. I request you to not stop this model.
ItIsNotFunny has done very good work to help us all. I would like to double my monthly contribution and contribute on behalf of ItIsNotFunny if that is ok with ItIsNotFunny and you, till the time ItIsNotFunny starts at a new job or till I have a job, whichever is sooner.
Cheers
I have a suggestion! I don't think forcing monthly $25 contribution to keep donor status alive is a very good idea, especially in current economy. Take an example of myself. It is decided that I am going to loose job on 17th March, may not be able to contribute every month.
Rethink!
Pappu,
Donor forum concept is the only workable model. I request you to not stop this model.
ItIsNotFunny has done very good work to help us all. I would like to double my monthly contribution and contribute on behalf of ItIsNotFunny if that is ok with ItIsNotFunny and you, till the time ItIsNotFunny starts at a new job or till I have a job, whichever is sooner.
Cheers
wallpaper This type of updo will show
browncow
03-12 02:20 PM
I do not support this donor ONLY idea.
Also, Day 1, the FOIA initiative had a goal of $5K.
And without reason, the goal was increased to $10K.
So, pappu should not complain of not reaching the goal when he keeps increasing the goal.
stay consistent.
Also, Day 1, the FOIA initiative had a goal of $5K.
And without reason, the goal was increased to $10K.
So, pappu should not complain of not reaching the goal when he keeps increasing the goal.
stay consistent.
mrdelhiite
07-20 10:07 AM
bump^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2011 Filed in: hairstyles, bun-
losthope
06-11 02:11 AM
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10024.pdf
more...
dan19
04-12 09:24 AM
avis....
contact them immediately. they had issued a notice sometime back about the 45 day letter. if you haven't received it, your case might be lost. so call them ASAP
My PD is Dec 2002. Still waiting for the 45 day letter.
Dallas Backlog Center
contact them immediately. they had issued a notice sometime back about the 45 day letter. if you haven't received it, your case might be lost. so call them ASAP
My PD is Dec 2002. Still waiting for the 45 day letter.
Dallas Backlog Center
Karthikthiru
09-09 12:32 PM
Just contributed another $ 100 for the Sept 18th rally. Already sponsored a ticket for a person for the rally. I cannot attend the rally because I have a son who will be joining pre-school from Sept 17. So I need to be in stay in Dallas for the first week or so from Sept 17th
Karthik
Karthik
more...
User00
01-10 10:11 AM
Some good ideas and thoughts here. Here's my 2c :)
One thing that no one has pointed out and I wonder if people even care about it, but to me its a BIG issue.
All our hard earned $$$$ going into the Social Security and Medicare pool. Has anyone even thought about this ? If you look at your figure closely, it is the amount of money that an average american family saves over 1 year.
I personally feel that it is too big a contribution to let it to waste and for me getting a green card would make me eligible to get all the benefits that I deserve and have rightly earned.
Peace
One thing that no one has pointed out and I wonder if people even care about it, but to me its a BIG issue.
All our hard earned $$$$ going into the Social Security and Medicare pool. Has anyone even thought about this ? If you look at your figure closely, it is the amount of money that an average american family saves over 1 year.
I personally feel that it is too big a contribution to let it to waste and for me getting a green card would make me eligible to get all the benefits that I deserve and have rightly earned.
Peace
2010 Wedding planning for a low
chanduv23
05-15 11:15 PM
Thanks for your wishes.
I agree with you regarding the timeline and evidence. I have mentioned it to my attorney numerous times. My attorney was insistent that adjudicating officers can see all my info on their computer screens. It is only a matter of looking at the info correctly.
It looks like the first MTR went to the same IO who denied my I-485. I could say it from ID in both the denial letters.
Your Attorney is funny. "Looking at the info correctly" - Hello, it is a job of the person and the person is being paid for looking at the computer screen correctly.
Whoever your Attorney is - GOOD JOKE. We must add his comments to the "lighten up" thread.
I agree with you regarding the timeline and evidence. I have mentioned it to my attorney numerous times. My attorney was insistent that adjudicating officers can see all my info on their computer screens. It is only a matter of looking at the info correctly.
It looks like the first MTR went to the same IO who denied my I-485. I could say it from ID in both the denial letters.
Your Attorney is funny. "Looking at the info correctly" - Hello, it is a job of the person and the person is being paid for looking at the computer screen correctly.
Whoever your Attorney is - GOOD JOKE. We must add his comments to the "lighten up" thread.
more...
bobzibub
06-11 04:04 PM
I keep reading we should fight for out rights and all. I am just curious
where does it say if on is on H1B or F1, he or she has a right to get a GC. GC or citizenship is a privilege, we cant demand it or force someone to give it to us. Its a simple demand and supply situation, there are more visa seekers then there is availability and therefore there is a waiting period. i am not sure why we don't accept the simple fact that there are way too many people from developing country like ours moving to US, and not everyone can be accommodated ASAP. i think US has every right to do what it thinks is best for her, even if we don't agree with that,
And those who say its discrimination, discrimination is when people from Bihar are beaten up on the streets of mumbai cause they are taking jobs away from marathi manus. Had there been so many techies from around the world taking up jobs in India, we would have seen street lynching.
People don't come here to work for someone else. They come to work for themselves (and eventually) hire Americans. If USCIS released their internal data as they've been asked and the numbers show that you've got to wait two decades for a green card, that is tantamount to them hanging a sign saying: "We don't serve Indians; We don't serve Chinese." They might as well just close and wind down operations.
People come for economic opportunity, and economic opportunity when you work for someone else is limited. Certainly less than in Canada, India and China when you work for yourself. People bring their creativity and ideas and hard work and the US benefits immensely from this skilled labour pool. They've also come because USCIS has put the foot ball in front of them, only to pull it back after we're years into the process.
A sign saying "We don't serve Indians or Chinese" *is* discrimination. But I would also use the word "fraud" for that is what it is: We paid for an advertised service. We spent years waiting for that service. We did not get that service. Pretty simple.
where does it say if on is on H1B or F1, he or she has a right to get a GC. GC or citizenship is a privilege, we cant demand it or force someone to give it to us. Its a simple demand and supply situation, there are more visa seekers then there is availability and therefore there is a waiting period. i am not sure why we don't accept the simple fact that there are way too many people from developing country like ours moving to US, and not everyone can be accommodated ASAP. i think US has every right to do what it thinks is best for her, even if we don't agree with that,
And those who say its discrimination, discrimination is when people from Bihar are beaten up on the streets of mumbai cause they are taking jobs away from marathi manus. Had there been so many techies from around the world taking up jobs in India, we would have seen street lynching.
People don't come here to work for someone else. They come to work for themselves (and eventually) hire Americans. If USCIS released their internal data as they've been asked and the numbers show that you've got to wait two decades for a green card, that is tantamount to them hanging a sign saying: "We don't serve Indians; We don't serve Chinese." They might as well just close and wind down operations.
People come for economic opportunity, and economic opportunity when you work for someone else is limited. Certainly less than in Canada, India and China when you work for yourself. People bring their creativity and ideas and hard work and the US benefits immensely from this skilled labour pool. They've also come because USCIS has put the foot ball in front of them, only to pull it back after we're years into the process.
A sign saying "We don't serve Indians or Chinese" *is* discrimination. But I would also use the word "fraud" for that is what it is: We paid for an advertised service. We spent years waiting for that service. We did not get that service. Pretty simple.
hair Hairstyles: The Updo
krupa
12-12 08:57 PM
Everywhere they mention spillover...they say quarterly. But they don't really enforce it. :mad:
At least , they improved the bulletin by adding more detailed information as well as an explanation about how it works.
USCIS issue GC not more than 9% of quota for eligible quota by each country during each first three quarters. Spill over happens only in last quarter of a fiscal year.
At least , they improved the bulletin by adding more detailed information as well as an explanation about how it works.
USCIS issue GC not more than 9% of quota for eligible quota by each country during each first three quarters. Spill over happens only in last quarter of a fiscal year.
more...
MDix
08-22 09:32 PM
Simple English : EB2 will be more tough. They do have same strict guideline for EB1 also. If implemented then it will be tough to get EB2.
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
hot But I#39;m afraid the combination
gcformeornot
03-17 07:35 PM
I received letter from IRS 2 days back it says I am elligible....
more...
house 5 easy braided hair styles
radosav
08-14 07:09 PM
I am EB3 ROW / PD Nov 2005
have no hope of getting GC in the next 2 yrs, so we decided to put in our applications for Canada. Took us some time to assemble all the documents, but God willing we will mail the package out next week.
have no hope of getting GC in the next 2 yrs, so we decided to put in our applications for Canada. Took us some time to assemble all the documents, but God willing we will mail the package out next week.
tattoo BM hair - wedding planning
RN_Usa
07-31 11:42 AM
http://www.coalitiononhealthcarestaffing.org/
more...
pictures Cool Braid Updos Hairstyles~~
Wendyzhu77
07-22 03:00 PM
Just don't understand why people are still arguing about the number. The cold hard fact is: uscis processes 1M~2M EAD every year in the past few years. Please refer to one previous post for this info. With this existing load and the existing work force to handle this load, even 750K new application wouldn't be a overwhelming load, say, original 2 months waiting to now 3 months waiting.
Also, even this 750k new EAD number is questionable, as lots of people already explained. E.g., before July 17, only 55k 485 were received in total. That certainly doesn't sound well to add up to 750k.
Guys,
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
Also, even this 750k new EAD number is questionable, as lots of people already explained. E.g., before July 17, only 55k 485 were received in total. That certainly doesn't sound well to add up to 750k.
Guys,
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
dresses hairstyles updos wedding
wandmaker
03-12 11:39 AM
No, it does not even do that. it does not let FOIA donors logon too.
First, the whole concept of donor based organisation is so stupid.
I mean really stupid.
If the donor based thing is ON, the future of IV is not good.
Yeah, IV does good work by talking to people all around, from different stratas of lawmaking and what not.
but get real, look around guys, information is everywhere, not only here. and you are working for the greater good of the community, only donors are not going to be benefitting from this.
Instead of making donor based posts, have a FOIA kinda drive every now and then.
unbelievable, and to top that, even donors cant access the so called 'DONOR posts'.
talk about low life bureaucracy, welcome to IV.
This is how You release code to PROD? no user testing at all?
and the entire paid thing is the beginning of the end. not good.
why didnt we even have a poll on this? crazy crazy idea.
If you are talking about great good of the legal immigration community then you should try to contribute a bare minimum but NO ONE HERE IS FORCING YOU TO CONTRIBUTE, it is just that you will not have access that particular forum. It is America, You don't get free meals everyday.
No offense but IMHO, the real crazy crazy thing would be owning a red dog.
Please fill in your IV profile for the greater good of the community
First, the whole concept of donor based organisation is so stupid.
I mean really stupid.
If the donor based thing is ON, the future of IV is not good.
Yeah, IV does good work by talking to people all around, from different stratas of lawmaking and what not.
but get real, look around guys, information is everywhere, not only here. and you are working for the greater good of the community, only donors are not going to be benefitting from this.
Instead of making donor based posts, have a FOIA kinda drive every now and then.
unbelievable, and to top that, even donors cant access the so called 'DONOR posts'.
talk about low life bureaucracy, welcome to IV.
This is how You release code to PROD? no user testing at all?
and the entire paid thing is the beginning of the end. not good.
why didnt we even have a poll on this? crazy crazy idea.
If you are talking about great good of the legal immigration community then you should try to contribute a bare minimum but NO ONE HERE IS FORCING YOU TO CONTRIBUTE, it is just that you will not have access that particular forum. It is America, You don't get free meals everyday.
No offense but IMHO, the real crazy crazy thing would be owning a red dog.
Please fill in your IV profile for the greater good of the community
more...
makeup This hairstyle is simple,
diptam
07-06 12:21 PM
I dont understand how organizations like DOS , USCIS can do such
Ping-pong childish things in their official website.
Save us God !
I have changed the thread title.
Ping-pong childish things in their official website.
Save us God !
I have changed the thread title.
girlfriend makeup wedding hairstyles half updos wedding hairstyles low updo. elegant
m306m
07-15 03:29 PM
I pledge $10 if we reach $2000 today
Keep going folks.
Keep going folks.
hairstyles wedding hairstyles low updo
garika
07-20 09:12 AM
Voting seems to be on political lines. Democrats probably didn't want to yield any ground because of their dear CIR failure. We need a targeted campaign (strategy) on the Democrats - Hillary spoke very favourably to the Indian student community recently about H-1B and immigrant visas but her vote is not in line with her statements
pappu
12-16 01:32 PM
its been stuck at 2001 for so many years , except for 2007 july bulletin fiasco.
with the way things are , it can take 10 more years for EB3 to even get to 2005. Lets try and push for something which works in this country.
Buy a house get a GC! rule for EB applicants.
Maybe you want to start a thread and collect all those who are stuck in 2001 and earlier dates in EB3 I and 2003 and earlier for EB2I on IV.
Lets see how many we get. They should also update the IV tracker with their dates. We can then use that data to ask help clear the backlog and petition to advance dates in a systematic order. This will work if you can get many people who are stuck despite their dates being current for several months/years. What do you think?
with the way things are , it can take 10 more years for EB3 to even get to 2005. Lets try and push for something which works in this country.
Buy a house get a GC! rule for EB applicants.
Maybe you want to start a thread and collect all those who are stuck in 2001 and earlier dates in EB3 I and 2003 and earlier for EB2I on IV.
Lets see how many we get. They should also update the IV tracker with their dates. We can then use that data to ask help clear the backlog and petition to advance dates in a systematic order. This will work if you can get many people who are stuck despite their dates being current for several months/years. What do you think?
plassey
07-21 12:13 PM
It says at least 55,000
According to LATimes article
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-visas21jul21,1,3932099.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true
only 55000 applications so far this month.
"There was intense public reaction," said Bill Wright, spokesman for the citizenship and immigration agency, in explaining the reason for the reversal. "We heard that and did listen."
Wright said at least 55,000 applications had been filed this month; the window will remain open until Aug. 17. "
According to LATimes article
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-visas21jul21,1,3932099.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true
only 55000 applications so far this month.
"There was intense public reaction," said Bill Wright, spokesman for the citizenship and immigration agency, in explaining the reason for the reversal. "We heard that and did listen."
Wright said at least 55,000 applications had been filed this month; the window will remain open until Aug. 17. "
No comments:
Post a Comment