ashishgour
09-12 05:19 PM
I am in tooo..DC rally wud not cost me $200...i was in the first one as well..:)
wallpaper cartoons04_0611.jpg
lonedesi
08-06 03:36 PM
^^^^^
beppenyc
03-08 02:07 PM
Sorry,
any mention to any guest working program? I think that if they agree in this point we can see any improuvement on the backlog and "never ending story" in the Green Card process.
any mention to any guest working program? I think that if they agree in this point we can see any improuvement on the backlog and "never ending story" in the Green Card process.
2011 May 13, 2008
Jaime
09-12 04:45 PM
Will do more tonight
more...
Lasantha
06-08 06:36 PM
My PD is Dec 2002. Still waiting for the 45 day letter.
Dallas Backlog Center
This is strange because my LC with PD of March 2005 was approved in September last year by Dallas. So they don't really do this FIFO basis.
I am sorry to hear that you had to wait so long.
Dallas Backlog Center
This is strange because my LC with PD of March 2005 was approved in September last year by Dallas. So they don't really do this FIFO basis.
I am sorry to hear that you had to wait so long.
nirav_patel
07-15 03:34 PM
just sent by billpay
more...
485Mbe4001
08-13 04:22 PM
We have a one month window to push for HR 5882, let us focus on that. if it doesnt work then we have no hope. at this rate EB3 will not even move 6 months per year. In retrospect every minor gain for the EB community has had major implications to EB 3 and the backlog as a whole (just venting a bit, dont want to drag it into a big discussion). I remember last year there were many who were saying 'now that we have EAD and AP we are good', this year many will realize the additional pain of renewals and waiting.
Oh's site mentions the following (per country limit is both family and EB based)
"The numerical limits for FY-2008 are as follows: (a) Worldwide Family-sponsored preference limit: 226,000, (b) Worldwide Employment-based preference limit: 162,704. Under the INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2008 the per-country limit is 27,209. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,774.
"
Oh's site mentions the following (per country limit is both family and EB based)
"The numerical limits for FY-2008 are as follows: (a) Worldwide Family-sponsored preference limit: 226,000, (b) Worldwide Employment-based preference limit: 162,704. Under the INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2008 the per-country limit is 27,209. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,774.
"
2010 Osama bin Laden
sands_14
01-05 09:40 PM
I e-filed for AP?
I have been asked to send ADIT photographs not computer photographs?
Anybody knows what ADIT means???
I am confused...
Please advise.
I have been asked to send ADIT photographs not computer photographs?
Anybody knows what ADIT means???
I am confused...
Please advise.
more...
makemygc
08-02 04:03 PM
I have talked to a representative and he very patiently explained me about the mess.
He clearly and very clearly told me that they have a deadline to send all receipts for June end and July 2nd filers by friday (tomorrow) or worst case monday.
He mentioned that they are working hard to meet this deadline.
Hope this clears the anxiety.
Any updates for TSC who sent their applications to NSC??
He clearly and very clearly told me that they have a deadline to send all receipts for June end and July 2nd filers by friday (tomorrow) or worst case monday.
He mentioned that they are working hard to meet this deadline.
Hope this clears the anxiety.
Any updates for TSC who sent their applications to NSC??
hair Osama bin Laden is seen in
ajay
04-30 08:59 AM
I did call and left a voice message as suggested by Pappu.
Hope for the best. Support IV as always.
Hope for the best. Support IV as always.
more...
amitjoey
07-13 04:45 PM
Having some samples loaded will help other members in contacting. I agree that personal story will be more effective but atleast we will know format of request.
Thanks.
-------------Template--------------------------------------
Dear Senator
I am a highly-skilled professional who entered this country legally. I�ve been waiting for my US permanent resident visa -also known as "Green Card" for the past several years along with 500,000 other educated, highly skilled employment based (EB) immigrants. Many of us have been waiting for our turn to get Green Cards for 5-10 years while consistently abiding by all the laws of this country. Such long delays are due to tortuous and confusing paper work, backlogs due to various quotas and processing delays at US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), other allied state and federal agencies.
Several categories of EB immigrant visa (Green Card) numbers were unavailable (�retrogressed�) since the fall of 2005. Because our immigrant petitions are tied to the sponsoring employer.
For the past several decades, the US Department of State (DOS) has been publishing advisories known as visa bulletins once a month to announce the availability of immigrant visa numbers. On June 13, 2007, after a gap of nearly two years, DOS announced that all EB visa numbers would be �current� for the month of July. This meant, irrespective of our �priority date� (date assigned to us for our turn in the line for Green Cards), all of us were made eligible to apply for some interim immigration benefits. This �priority date� refers to the date when our labor certification (documentation verifying no US citizen worker was available for a given job) had been filed.
Please note that 6/13 DOS announcement would not have led to immediate green card for most of us; but at least it would have ensured us interim benefits such as the right to travel and right to work for any employer- this was still a welcome change. Especially, for dependent spouses who are otherwise unable to work, this would have translated into right to travel and work without restriction and thus channel their energies positively. Several dependent spouses are also highly-skilled.
Tens of thousands of applicants spent thousands of dollars in legal fees, immigration medical exams & vaccinations & getting various supporting documents ready to file our immigrant petitions to USCIS, at times inconveniencing our old parents in our home countries as well. It has been an agonizing two weeks for us. Some of us to had to fly in our spouses from our home countries or have had to cut short business trips. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent by thousands of immigrants in preparation of their application. To our shock and dismay, on the morning of July 2nd 2007, USCIS announced that EB visa numbers were not available and all petitions filed in July would be rejected.
For the legal skilled immigrants this has been a rather traumatizing and disheartening experience. These are people that are in the country legally, paid taxes and followed all the rules.
We sincerely seek immediate congressional/ legislative remedial measures which would
(1)Reduce the enormous backlogs of green card petitions of legal skilled immigrants
(2)Ensure and request USCIS not to reject our immigrant visa petitions filed in July and provide us interim benefits of a pending immigrant visa petition. We make this sincere request with the hope that people who played by the rules will be rewarded.
Thanks.
-------------Template--------------------------------------
Dear Senator
I am a highly-skilled professional who entered this country legally. I�ve been waiting for my US permanent resident visa -also known as "Green Card" for the past several years along with 500,000 other educated, highly skilled employment based (EB) immigrants. Many of us have been waiting for our turn to get Green Cards for 5-10 years while consistently abiding by all the laws of this country. Such long delays are due to tortuous and confusing paper work, backlogs due to various quotas and processing delays at US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), other allied state and federal agencies.
Several categories of EB immigrant visa (Green Card) numbers were unavailable (�retrogressed�) since the fall of 2005. Because our immigrant petitions are tied to the sponsoring employer.
For the past several decades, the US Department of State (DOS) has been publishing advisories known as visa bulletins once a month to announce the availability of immigrant visa numbers. On June 13, 2007, after a gap of nearly two years, DOS announced that all EB visa numbers would be �current� for the month of July. This meant, irrespective of our �priority date� (date assigned to us for our turn in the line for Green Cards), all of us were made eligible to apply for some interim immigration benefits. This �priority date� refers to the date when our labor certification (documentation verifying no US citizen worker was available for a given job) had been filed.
Please note that 6/13 DOS announcement would not have led to immediate green card for most of us; but at least it would have ensured us interim benefits such as the right to travel and right to work for any employer- this was still a welcome change. Especially, for dependent spouses who are otherwise unable to work, this would have translated into right to travel and work without restriction and thus channel their energies positively. Several dependent spouses are also highly-skilled.
Tens of thousands of applicants spent thousands of dollars in legal fees, immigration medical exams & vaccinations & getting various supporting documents ready to file our immigrant petitions to USCIS, at times inconveniencing our old parents in our home countries as well. It has been an agonizing two weeks for us. Some of us to had to fly in our spouses from our home countries or have had to cut short business trips. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent by thousands of immigrants in preparation of their application. To our shock and dismay, on the morning of July 2nd 2007, USCIS announced that EB visa numbers were not available and all petitions filed in July would be rejected.
For the legal skilled immigrants this has been a rather traumatizing and disheartening experience. These are people that are in the country legally, paid taxes and followed all the rules.
We sincerely seek immediate congressional/ legislative remedial measures which would
(1)Reduce the enormous backlogs of green card petitions of legal skilled immigrants
(2)Ensure and request USCIS not to reject our immigrant visa petitions filed in July and provide us interim benefits of a pending immigrant visa petition. We make this sincere request with the hope that people who played by the rules will be rewarded.
hot cartoons_04.jpg
kuhelica2000
09-14 11:15 AM
A lot of people had applied in EB3 since EB3 was current for a fairly long time and their lawyers suggested them to do so to avoid additional documentation. Many of these people could have applied in EB2 as they had the required qualification including me (US masters). Just like you could have applied in EB1 since you have a Ph.D; but you decided to apply in EB2.
The catagory on which a person applies for greencard doesn't necessarily reflect his/her capability or intelligence. After all, if Michael Dell or Bill Gates had to apply for green card they had to apply in EB3. On the other hand, a lot of EB2 filers just fabricated their resumes with years of experience to qualify for EB2. But that shouldn't overcast shadows on real EB2 peoples ability.
I don't know from where you got your Ph.D but it definitely didn't inprove your ability to think rationally as evident in your post.
are bhagwan... kash maine substitue labor use kiya hota....
I would have been approved by then...
Been here since 1996 and have a doctorate .. but still in EB2.. and i don't regret it .... but i don't want anymore line jumping for sure.
The catagory on which a person applies for greencard doesn't necessarily reflect his/her capability or intelligence. After all, if Michael Dell or Bill Gates had to apply for green card they had to apply in EB3. On the other hand, a lot of EB2 filers just fabricated their resumes with years of experience to qualify for EB2. But that shouldn't overcast shadows on real EB2 peoples ability.
I don't know from where you got your Ph.D but it definitely didn't inprove your ability to think rationally as evident in your post.
are bhagwan... kash maine substitue labor use kiya hota....
I would have been approved by then...
Been here since 1996 and have a doctorate .. but still in EB2.. and i don't regret it .... but i don't want anymore line jumping for sure.
more...
house Cars Wallpapers, Latest Cars; latest cars wallpapers.
Macaca
01-06 07:38 PM
how come are you working in a university that's giving admissions to such a bunch of crappy folks...!!?? Given this fact, can we also safely assume that the university you are teaching-in is a Crappy one, which could only attract the bottom pile from your above list of crappy-universities??
Univs take business decisions. Enrollment generates revenue through tuition. Some states also pay State Schools for each registered credit.
Univs have to admit whatever is available. Some crappy students (foriegn + American) have to be admitted. Some state schools have very low requirements for in-state students. There is no choice.
Further, these students have to graduate. Once again, there is no choice.
For most departments, faculty quality is independent of student quality.
Univs take business decisions. Enrollment generates revenue through tuition. Some states also pay State Schools for each registered credit.
Univs have to admit whatever is available. Some crappy students (foriegn + American) have to be admitted. Some state schools have very low requirements for in-state students. There is no choice.
Further, these students have to graduate. Once again, there is no choice.
For most departments, faculty quality is independent of student quality.
tattoo cartoons04_0618.jpg
Leo07
05-06 11:01 AM
Any sample letters to Senators with the 'text' outlined for this current cause?
I'm thinking duly signed letters have more impact.
I'm thinking duly signed letters have more impact.
more...
pictures more europe map cities.
go_guy123
02-24 03:46 PM
As Ron Gotcher (imminfo.com) predicted Jobs bill passed at Senate.
Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill
Though modest in scope, the bill was hailed by Democrats as evidence that the parties could work together.
Read Further.
Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/politics/25jobs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
Bill loaded with pork is always easy to pass. Remember the bank bailout bill. Initially rejected but once there was "sufficient" pork it passed easily.
Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill
Though modest in scope, the bill was hailed by Democrats as evidence that the parties could work together.
Read Further.
Senate Votes 70-28 to Approve $15 Billion Jobs Bill - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/politics/25jobs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
Bill loaded with pork is always easy to pass. Remember the bank bailout bill. Initially rejected but once there was "sufficient" pork it passed easily.
dresses funny in laden cartoon.
gsc999
03-17 09:33 PM
All tax payers are eligible(atleast mostly)
folks like Bayarea07 are plain and stupid
--
Lets not be so harsh. Bayarea07, thought he had a valid concern, although it is not true.
Did anybody notice this in the IRS communication that was sent out to taxpayers:
For taxpyers, the amount of money will be "reduced" or " completely phased out" for individuals making adjusted gross income or more than $75K ( or more than $150 if married and filing jointly).
How about that?
folks like Bayarea07 are plain and stupid
--
Lets not be so harsh. Bayarea07, thought he had a valid concern, although it is not true.
Did anybody notice this in the IRS communication that was sent out to taxpayers:
For taxpyers, the amount of money will be "reduced" or " completely phased out" for individuals making adjusted gross income or more than $75K ( or more than $150 if married and filing jointly).
How about that?
more...
makeup INDIA-POLITICAL-PARTY-TMC-MAKE
kaisersose
06-10 11:42 AM
Visa numbers have been recaptured in the past (year 2000, I think).
Do we know more details on how this happened? Who worked for this and what did they do to make their efforts successful?
Same with the AC21 provision that allows changing jobs after 180 days. That is a huge accomplishment for whoever worked to make it happen.
Perhaps we can borrow some of their wisdom.
Do we know more details on how this happened? Who worked for this and what did they do to make their efforts successful?
Same with the AC21 provision that allows changing jobs after 180 days. That is a huge accomplishment for whoever worked to make it happen.
Perhaps we can borrow some of their wisdom.
girlfriend wallpapers of cars in hd. latest cars wallpapers. +latest+cars+wallpapers
$eeGrEeN
09-10 12:40 PM
request to all help increase my rep. points////
hairstyles funny in laden cartoon. osama
globaldesi
12-11 03:16 PM
Can we check with CIS if they plan to pursue this option (pre-485 step)?
Is there a plan to start a campaign for this? I would be willing to contribute (monetary and effort) if there's such a plan...
I can see there are a lot of folks who would welcome such a plan.
Is there a plan to start a campaign for this? I would be willing to contribute (monetary and effort) if there's such a plan...
I can see there are a lot of folks who would welcome such a plan.
anilsal
09-30 11:40 PM
My EB3 PD is Oct 2003. I-140 approved and I-485 ND is July24th.when can i expect to get the green card?. thanks in advance.
The sad part is that some applicants who missed the boat called BEC with PD of around June 2004 on EB3/India got approved in June end/July time frame. I did see this on some forums external to IV.
I think there may be candidates from 2001/2002/2003 who may have applied in June/July 07. But if the rumors of NSC processing RD wise (as seen on some forum posts outside IV), then it is unfair to these people, because there may be others who missed the BEC boat and are ahead of these folks coming out of BEC.
The sad part is that some applicants who missed the boat called BEC with PD of around June 2004 on EB3/India got approved in June end/July time frame. I did see this on some forums external to IV.
I think there may be candidates from 2001/2002/2003 who may have applied in June/July 07. But if the rumors of NSC processing RD wise (as seen on some forum posts outside IV), then it is unfair to these people, because there may be others who missed the BEC boat and are ahead of these folks coming out of BEC.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment