GC_Optimist
09-29 11:59 AM
By not utilizing all the visa numbers USCIS is creating artificial scarcity
leading to huge Backlog. I think this needs to be highligted to the
lawmakers. or Administration.
leading to huge Backlog. I think this needs to be highligted to the
lawmakers. or Administration.
piyu7444
04-30 07:31 PM
If you click on the userCP on the top left side on the forum page, you can see a bunch of reviews for your posts, if you have any (be it red or green dots with or without description). But, you won't know from who you received it though.
so how can you give these dot to other people ?
so how can you give these dot to other people ?
mango_man
06-11 10:02 PM
I mean Hara Aam jada dena bhaiya , pichlee baar kam tha;)
hara aam jaada khaoge to gas ho jayega. waise hi bahut gas hai paadu sucksena ko.
hara aam jaada khaoge to gas ho jayega. waise hi bahut gas hai paadu sucksena ko.
pappu
08-12 10:55 AM
Senate Passage of Border Security Legislation
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
August 12, 2010
Today, I come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to pass a smart, tough, and effective $600 million bill that will significantly enhance the security and integrity of our nation’s southern border—which currently lacks the resources needed to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun-runners, human-traffickers, money launderers and other organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border….
The best part of this border package, Mr. President, is that it is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit by a single penny. In actuality, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this bill will yield a direct savings to taxpayers of $50 million….
The emergency border funds we are passing today are fully paid for by assessing fees on certain types of companies who hire foreign workers using certain types of visas in a way that Congress did not intend. I want to take a moment to explain exactly what we are doing in this bill a little further because I want everyone to clearly understand how these offsets are designed.
In 1990, Congress realized that the world was changing rapidly and that technological innovations like the internet were creating a high demand in the United States for high-tech workers to create new technologies and products. Consequently, Congress created the H-1B visa program to allow U.S. employers to hire foreign tech workers in special circumstances when they could not find an American citizen who was qualified for the job.
Many of the companies that use this program today are using the program in the exact way Congress intended. That is, these companies (like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel) are hiring bright foreign students educated in our American universities to work in the U.S. for 6 or 7 years to invent new product lines and technologies so that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel can sell more products to the American public. Then—at the expiration of the H-1B visa period—these companies apply for these talented workers to earn green cards and stay with the company.
When the H-1B visa program is used in this manner, it is a good program for everyone involved. It is good for the company. It is good for the worker. And it is good for the American people who benefit from the products and jobs created by the innovation of the H-1B visa holder.
Every day, companies like Oracle, Cisco, Apple and others use the H-1B visa program in the exact way I have just described—and their use of the program has greatly benefitted this country.
But recently, some companies have decided to exploit an unintended loophole in the H-1B visa program to use the program in a manner that many in Congress, including myself, do not believe is consistent with the program’s intent.
Rather than being a company that makes something, and simply needs to bring in a talented foreign worker to help innovate and create new products and technologies—these other companies are essentially creating “multinational temp agencies” that were never contemplated when the H-1B program was created.
The business model of these newer companies is not to make any new products or technologies like Microsoft or Apple does. Instead, their business model is to bring foreign tech workers into the United States who are willing to accept less pay than their American counterparts, place these workers into other companies in exchange for a “consulting fee,” and transfer these workers from company to company in order to maximize profits from placement fees. In other words, these companies are petitioning for foreign workers simply to then turn around and provide these same workers to other companies who need cheap labor for various short term projects.
Don’t take my word for it. If you look at the marketing materials of some of the companies that fall within the scope covered by today’s legislation, their materials boast about their “outsourcing expertise” and say that their advantage is their ability to conduct what they call “labor arbitrage” which is—in their own words—“transferring work functions to a lower cost environment for increased savings.”
The business model used by these companies within the United States is creating three major negative side effects. First, it is ruining the reputation of the H-1B program, which is overwhelmingly used by good actors for beneficial purposes. Second, according to the Economic Policy institute, it is lowering the wages for American tech workers already in the marketplace. Third, it is also discouraging many of our smartest students from entering the technology industry in the first place. Students can see that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for advanced schooling is not worth the cost when the market is being flooded with foreign temporary workers willing to do tech-work for far less pay because their foreign education was much cheaper and they intend to move back home when their visa expires to a country where the cost of living is far less expensive.
This type of use of the H-1B visa program will be addressed as part of comprehensive immigration reform and will likely be dramatically restricted. We will be reforming the legal immigration system to encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but will discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.
Nevertheless, I do wish to clarify a previous mischaracterization of these firms, where I labeled them as “chop shops.” That statement was incorrect, and I wish to acknowledge that. In the tech industry, these firms are sometimes known as “body shops” and that’s what I should have said.
While I strongly oppose the manner in which these firms are using the H-1B visa to accomplish objectives that Congress never intended, it would be unfortunate if anyone concluded from my remarks that these firms are engaging in illegal behavior.
But I also want to make clear that the purpose of this fee is not to target businesses from any particular country. Many news articles have reported that the only companies that will be affected by this fee are companies based in India and that, ipso facto, the purpose of this legislation must be to target Indian IT companies.
Well, it is simply untrue that the purpose of this legislation is to target Indian companies. We are simply raising fees for businesses who use the H-1B visa to do things that are contrary to the program’s original intent.
Visa fees will only increase for companies with more than 50 workers who continue to employ more than 50 percent of their employees through the H-1B program. Congress does not want the H-1B visa program to be a vehicle for creating multinational temp agencies where workers do not know what projects they will be working on—or what cities they will be working in—when they enter the country.
The fee is based solely upon the business model of the company, not the location of the company.
If you are using the H-1B visa to innovate new products and technologies for your own company to sell, that is a good thing regardless of whether the company was originally founded in India, Ireland, or Indiana.
But if you are using the H-1B visa to run a glorified international temp agency for tech workers in contravention of the spirit of the program, I and my colleagues believe that you should have to pay a higher fee to ensure that American workers are not losing their jobs because of unintended uses of the visa program that were never contemplated when the program was created.
This belief is consistent regardless of whether the company using these staffing practices was founded in Bangalore, Beijing, or Boston.
Raising the fees for companies hiring more than 50 percent of their workforce through foreign visas will accomplish two important goals. First, it will provide the necessary funds to secure our border without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Second, it will level the playing field for American workers so that they do not lose out on good jobs here in America because it is cheaper to bring in a foreign worker rather than hire an American worker.
Let me tell you what objective folks around the world are saying about the impact of this fee increase. In an August 6, 2010, Wall Street Journal article, Avinash Vashistha—the CEO of a Bangalore based off-shoring advisory consulting firm—told the Journal that the new fee in this bill “would accelerate Indian firms’ plans to hire more American-born workers in the U.S.” What’s wrong with that? In an August 7, 2010 Economic Times Article, Jeya Kumar, a CEO of a top IT company, said that this bill would “erode cost arbitrage and cause a change in the operational model of Indian offshore providers.”
The leaders of this business model are agreeing that our bill will make it more expensive to bring in foreign tech workers to compete with American tech workers for jobs here in America. That means these companies are going to start having to hire U.S. tech workers again.
So Mr. President, this bill is not only a responsible border security bill, it has the dual advantage of creating more high-paying American jobs.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to be clear about one other thing. Even though passing this bill will secure our border, I again say that the only way to fully restore the rule of law to our entire immigration system is by passing comprehensive immigration reform….
The urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so overdue. The time for excuses is now over, it is now time to get to work.
more...
gc_wow
02-19 10:40 PM
The chances are very good that EB2-I, will move fast this year untill sept 2009,Row EB2 and EB1 will be slowed down because of economy,EB4 is already current and over flow from FB category may provide some more visas.
But the risks are USCIS indiscriminately and irrationally sits on applications with out approving them and for most of the July 2007 filiers finger prints has expired but USCIS is not sending finger printing notices.
But the risks are USCIS indiscriminately and irrationally sits on applications with out approving them and for most of the July 2007 filiers finger prints has expired but USCIS is not sending finger printing notices.
Humhongekamyab
03-05 12:49 PM
My case does not have a LUD.
Same here my friend.
Same here my friend.
more...
desi3933
08-04 11:28 AM
>> I want to bring to your attention that it�s been nearly a �Decade� since we saw any meaningful Visa Date movement from year 2001 for EB-3 Green Card applicants from India.
Not correct. Please refer to visa bulletin. It has changed many times in last 10 years. In fact, last year it was current for EB-3. Again, please state facts only.
>> A green card application requires enormous amount of efforts and money from the beneficiary and his/her employer. People who are waiting for 7-8 years now would have had already spent average $15,000-$20,000, in maintaining their statuses and keep the Green Card process going on.
Greencard processing is based on employer-driven process. Most of the cost should be borne by the employer.
One should be responsible only for I-485 related fees. How it can be $15,000+.
Do you have any basis to back this claim of average $15,000-$20,000.
>> Being stuck in a green card process keeps us bonded with 1 employer, job type etc.
Why are you bonded? You are free to join any employer of your choice.
After 180 days of I-485 filing date, one can avail AC-21 as well.
>> We have been waiting for a decade and continue to wait would it be reasonable to request you for some guidance with regards to the Visa allotment.
Are you really waiting for a decade?
>> We understand that you work with in the limits of the law ...
Same holds for person who has filed for I-485.
Again, I truly understand the frustration for EB-3 India applicants, but letter should be based on facts and words like bonded should be avoided. One should be able to back every single line of the letter.
Good Luck.
Not correct. Please refer to visa bulletin. It has changed many times in last 10 years. In fact, last year it was current for EB-3. Again, please state facts only.
>> A green card application requires enormous amount of efforts and money from the beneficiary and his/her employer. People who are waiting for 7-8 years now would have had already spent average $15,000-$20,000, in maintaining their statuses and keep the Green Card process going on.
Greencard processing is based on employer-driven process. Most of the cost should be borne by the employer.
One should be responsible only for I-485 related fees. How it can be $15,000+.
Do you have any basis to back this claim of average $15,000-$20,000.
>> Being stuck in a green card process keeps us bonded with 1 employer, job type etc.
Why are you bonded? You are free to join any employer of your choice.
After 180 days of I-485 filing date, one can avail AC-21 as well.
>> We have been waiting for a decade and continue to wait would it be reasonable to request you for some guidance with regards to the Visa allotment.
Are you really waiting for a decade?
>> We understand that you work with in the limits of the law ...
Same holds for person who has filed for I-485.
Again, I truly understand the frustration for EB-3 India applicants, but letter should be based on facts and words like bonded should be avoided. One should be able to back every single line of the letter.
Good Luck.
wandmaker
10-27 08:35 AM
Thanks wandmaker for appreciation. It helps!
I got quite a few positive responses. On other side I got few negative messages, few pessimitics and few red dots on posts after I started this exercise. Sometimes it still bothers me but I guess I need to get out of this critics and appreciations and want to concentrate 100% on agenda: Fight against injustice in AC21 implementation.
To all,
If you appreciate me, please help me by motivating others to join the movement.
If you don't like me - please be generous and atleast tell me what should be done rather than just criticizing.
FYI - Five of my friends has emailed and sent out the letters.
I got quite a few positive responses. On other side I got few negative messages, few pessimitics and few red dots on posts after I started this exercise. Sometimes it still bothers me but I guess I need to get out of this critics and appreciations and want to concentrate 100% on agenda: Fight against injustice in AC21 implementation.
To all,
If you appreciate me, please help me by motivating others to join the movement.
If you don't like me - please be generous and atleast tell me what should be done rather than just criticizing.
FYI - Five of my friends has emailed and sent out the letters.
more...
bayarea07
03-18 12:50 AM
I hope you would stop reading between the lines some day:-)
Why don't you listen to others on this forum? No one is out to screw H-1s and/or GC aspirants as far as the rebate is concerned. Read the previous post by gg10004. The law is not differentiating between a H1 and GC aspirant or a US citizen if none of them have a valid SSN. It is just unfortunate that H4s do not get SSNs. So stop getting paranoid.
Moreover, your response that your title "No Stimulus Package to H1's and GC Aspirants - Again We Loose 1200$" is justified because titles are not for stories or whatever makes you look like an utter idiot. Titles are for accurately reflecting the gist of the thread. If you have an issue with adding 5 more words to reflect the reality, then add only one word: "No Stimulus Package to SOME H1's and GC Aspirants - Again We Loose 1200$".
Why don't you listen to others on this forum? No one is out to screw H-1s and/or GC aspirants as far as the rebate is concerned. Read the previous post by gg10004. The law is not differentiating between a H1 and GC aspirant or a US citizen if none of them have a valid SSN. It is just unfortunate that H4s do not get SSNs. So stop getting paranoid.
Moreover, your response that your title "No Stimulus Package to H1's and GC Aspirants - Again We Loose 1200$" is justified because titles are not for stories or whatever makes you look like an utter idiot. Titles are for accurately reflecting the gist of the thread. If you have an issue with adding 5 more words to reflect the reality, then add only one word: "No Stimulus Package to SOME H1's and GC Aspirants - Again We Loose 1200$".
Libra
09-10 08:36 PM
thank you 1 for contribution.
more...
solraj
03-17 07:54 PM
Guys as it states both you and your spouse need to have an SSN not ITIN.
So if one has ssn other has ITIN you are not qualified.
So if one has ssn other has ITIN you are not qualified.
iak1973
09-07 10:54 AM
Hi;
Landed in 2006;
Changed my company in 2007 to company B
Filed my Labor in Sept 2007;
Filed my I-140 in sometime in July cleared
Waiting for dates.
Arun
Landed in 2006;
Changed my company in 2007 to company B
Filed my Labor in Sept 2007;
Filed my I-140 in sometime in July cleared
Waiting for dates.
Arun
more...
wandmaker
05-23 08:54 AM
wondering how yu came up with a list of contributors.......if i provide my transfer confirmations to IV and still cannot find my name in the list then how will I trust the veracity of yur list.....
....not for an argument but a query
It is not automatic - santb1975 has to manually go through the posts and update the list. Manual error happens - if your/anyone's name is missing, please do post in this thread, the list will be updated as soon as possible (not in the next minute or hour).
....not for an argument but a query
It is not automatic - santb1975 has to manually go through the posts and update the list. Manual error happens - if your/anyone's name is missing, please do post in this thread, the list will be updated as soon as possible (not in the next minute or hour).
peyton sawyer
08-02 08:30 AM
hey..
sorry wasn't able to notice we have the same inquiry about ds230..
anyway, you can check your case status thru automated phone system, check out the phone number in the accompanying letter you got from nvc lately.. just use touch-tone telephone
sorry wasn't able to notice we have the same inquiry about ds230..
anyway, you can check your case status thru automated phone system, check out the phone number in the accompanying letter you got from nvc lately.. just use touch-tone telephone
more...
gc_chahiye
07-24 10:00 AM
I applied for PERM in Sep 2006 - EB3 - India.
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
on what date in June? Were you one of the July 2 filers? Because you were
not current in June, had you applied, your I-485 would be rejected.
I-140 got approved July 20, 2007 and on July 23, 2007 I received all 4 receipts for I-140, I-485, EAD and AP.
Lawyers emailed saying they also received the EAD card yesterday July 23, 2007.
no July filer has received a receipt for any filing, forget about getting an EAD within 2 weeks.
I-140 premium processing was stopped in July, and in regular NSC has been taking 6-8 months.
Nothing in your story is adding up...
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
on what date in June? Were you one of the July 2 filers? Because you were
not current in June, had you applied, your I-485 would be rejected.
I-140 got approved July 20, 2007 and on July 23, 2007 I received all 4 receipts for I-140, I-485, EAD and AP.
Lawyers emailed saying they also received the EAD card yesterday July 23, 2007.
no July filer has received a receipt for any filing, forget about getting an EAD within 2 weeks.
I-140 premium processing was stopped in July, and in regular NSC has been taking 6-8 months.
Nothing in your story is adding up...
ind_game
05-15 09:02 PM
Maybe someone that has had to go through this can respond.
When you are working for a large(r) corporation, where all fees (including EAD/AP) are paid for by the company, who pays for the MTR?
I was under the impression that the employer pays for the filing, attorney, etc. fees, am I wrong?
I changed jobs from a desi company to a large corporation using AC 21.
I had to file two MTRs. I have spent everything from my pocket for the two MTRs.
When you are working for a large(r) corporation, where all fees (including EAD/AP) are paid for by the company, who pays for the MTR?
I was under the impression that the employer pays for the filing, attorney, etc. fees, am I wrong?
I changed jobs from a desi company to a large corporation using AC 21.
I had to file two MTRs. I have spent everything from my pocket for the two MTRs.
more...
hazishak
07-18 06:25 PM
Since on 2nd July they said they will reject the AOS application, what if they would have done some rejection during that time, and by the time July filers get their application back, it is after 17th of August. In that circumstance, can you send the AOS application back arguing USCIS's mistake and ask them to take it back after 08/17 and would they take it back politely or reject it again.
You just simply resend it.
You just simply resend it.
vayumahesh
07-20 08:42 AM
Contributed $100. Will do again. Thanks to IV for the job well done.
indio0617
03-09 11:11 AM
sub sections on employer penalties, compliance to I-9 etc...
ychousa
07-18 07:25 PM
Ofcourse PD is considered for VISA numbers, not the RD. RD is good for portability issues like AC21/180 days rule.
How do you check the current or eligible PD of VISA numbers after you've filed I-485?
How do you check the current or eligible PD of VISA numbers after you've filed I-485?
caliducas
07-19 12:53 AM
dont worry, the above scenario would happen only if pd remaines current.This is highly unlikely. In the next few months PD would retrogress to for instance 2004 , then you'll get your GC first :) Cheer up buddy:)
I'm looking forward to getting my GC!!! Once I get my ead and ap, I can wait for my GC patiently :)
I'm looking forward to getting my GC!!! Once I get my ead and ap, I can wait for my GC patiently :)
No comments:
Post a Comment