vallabhu
10-29 12:23 PM
I like the idea I dont know if this is already discussed but one thought I would like to share
Because it is for sure that Congress will not Agree to give away GC with out wait time so we should show them some thing more attractive than just initial short term plan of investing on a home and getitng a GC what if some buys a home gets a GC and then sell it off for a 10-15 grand less prise I am ok to loose 15 Grand if I can get to apply 485 overnight.
We make it attractive and more meaning full for economy and to congreess by saying we will buy a home make payments for 3 to 5 years without delinquency to apply for 485.
Just a thought.
Because it is for sure that Congress will not Agree to give away GC with out wait time so we should show them some thing more attractive than just initial short term plan of investing on a home and getitng a GC what if some buys a home gets a GC and then sell it off for a 10-15 grand less prise I am ok to loose 15 Grand if I can get to apply 485 overnight.
We make it attractive and more meaning full for economy and to congreess by saying we will buy a home make payments for 3 to 5 years without delinquency to apply for 485.
Just a thought.
wallpaper kate moss skinny quote. Looking good Kate, looking
vxg
06-04 01:09 PM
Instead of Interim GC we should demand that once Labor and I-140 is approved remove the restriction wherein a person has to stay in same job type until GC approved in other words allow the person to take any job while I-485 is pending. This will be a big benefit and logically makes sense. If this happens than GC wait will not pigeon hole people's career in one job and allow them to grow and contribute to economy.
Giving an interim GC while visa number is unavailable will have the effect of bypassing the entire GC quota system. How do you want the interim card to be different from the final thing? No way that anyone in Congress will allow for their laws to be overridden through USCIS rulemaking.
Giving an interim GC while visa number is unavailable will have the effect of bypassing the entire GC quota system. How do you want the interim card to be different from the final thing? No way that anyone in Congress will allow for their laws to be overridden through USCIS rulemaking.
reddymjm
09-23 01:04 PM
Thanks for sending.
send me a PM with addresses that bounced. I will update the list.
I sent you a PM with the list of email ids.
send me a PM with addresses that bounced. I will update the list.
I sent you a PM with the list of email ids.
2011 tattoo She#39;s definitely skinny, and kate moss skinny quote. kate moss
gagbag
07-11 12:55 PM
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0710-lee.shtm
more...
_TrueFacts
09-03 11:50 PM
Just a shame on you to talk like this about dead man.
Dead or alive..facts are facts! Do you have a point to make?
Dead or alive..facts are facts! Do you have a point to make?
breddy2000
09-04 12:40 PM
Dont tell me your crap stroy. First do it and then we can talk.
You know the reason why I had to cancel my CC. Its been compromised....
Get a life...Idiot....
You know the reason why I had to cancel my CC. Its been compromised....
Get a life...Idiot....
more...
paskal
02-14 08:23 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Why_Sania_wont_be_hounded_in_the_US_for_insulting_ flag/articleshow/2783772.cms
The Supreme court has the right to strike down laws effecting people
my friend you really need to dig deeper into stuff...most things are more than meets the eye. courts are very reluctant to strike down laws. the supreme court will strike down a federal law ONLY if it's against the constitution itself...ie there has to be a fundamental problem. this is true both in the US and in India.
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
The Supreme court has the right to strike down laws effecting people
my friend you really need to dig deeper into stuff...most things are more than meets the eye. courts are very reluctant to strike down laws. the supreme court will strike down a federal law ONLY if it's against the constitution itself...ie there has to be a fundamental problem. this is true both in the US and in India.
the fact that a law inconveniences people is just not enough ground.
2010 Kate Moss Opens Up About Her
boreal
07-21 05:31 PM
For 2007 we had an availability of 226,000 Family Based Visas. But the issued visas in 2007 in Family Based are 194,900 visas. That means there are 226,000 MINUS 194,900 = 31100. These 31,100
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
Sorry, silly question. Does this mean that these 32k visas are available to the EB2 I/C folks in Aug/Sep?
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
Sorry, silly question. Does this mean that these 32k visas are available to the EB2 I/C folks in Aug/Sep?
more...
_TrueFacts
09-04 10:57 AM
Mr. or Mrs, so called "TrueFacts", you must be ashamed of your own thoughts. On seeing this thread, you created a fake account and became a keyboard warrior. Why? What is your other avatar? Are you suffering from multiple personality syndrome?
....
RajSenthil,
Picking on me will not change the fact that YSR was a corrupt, factionist gunda, land grabber who has killed numerous people. If you have a point against that, say so.
I am providing links to that reason.
Why any one (pseudo or not) should have sympathy for the dead? Do you have sympathy for Saddam, Hitler? Facts are facts. YSR�s death has contributed to this discussion. It does not matter what my ID is, where I am and if I am Mr or Mrs.
....
RajSenthil,
Picking on me will not change the fact that YSR was a corrupt, factionist gunda, land grabber who has killed numerous people. If you have a point against that, say so.
I am providing links to that reason.
Why any one (pseudo or not) should have sympathy for the dead? Do you have sympathy for Saddam, Hitler? Facts are facts. YSR�s death has contributed to this discussion. It does not matter what my ID is, where I am and if I am Mr or Mrs.
hair Kate Moss came under fire
hopefulgc
02-16 01:00 PM
Any word on the following two issues i posted:
----1----I think there is definitely someone else here better than me at leading this issue & getting people together. So if the moderators can allow members willing to step forward and help out with this, to have edit permissions on this thread, that would be help
----2---Can the moderators please modify the poll to be the following or add another poll to this thread. I don't seem to have the requisite permissions.
Q) Do you commit to participate in a class action lawsuit against USCIS
Options:
1) I am willing to commit $10-$20 needed for the initial consultation ($600-$1000)
2) Yes. I am willing to commit $500
3) Yes. I'm willing to be a plaintiff ( full name and full contact info required)
4) Yes. I'm willing to commit $500 and become a plaintiff as well
5) No. I don't think it will work
----1----I think there is definitely someone else here better than me at leading this issue & getting people together. So if the moderators can allow members willing to step forward and help out with this, to have edit permissions on this thread, that would be help
----2---Can the moderators please modify the poll to be the following or add another poll to this thread. I don't seem to have the requisite permissions.
Q) Do you commit to participate in a class action lawsuit against USCIS
Options:
1) I am willing to commit $10-$20 needed for the initial consultation ($600-$1000)
2) Yes. I am willing to commit $500
3) Yes. I'm willing to be a plaintiff ( full name and full contact info required)
4) Yes. I'm willing to commit $500 and become a plaintiff as well
5) No. I don't think it will work
more...
walking_dude
02-12 06:26 PM
Wake up, buddy. This is IV. Not !
Removal of Country caps was, is and will be one of the top agendas of IV , whether beneficiaries of a discriminatory system like you support it or not. It's morally and ethically repugnant to see discrimination based on country of birth in the 21st century. Just because it benefits some like you, it doesn't become right.
Employability has nothing to do with Country of Birth. When we are selected based on merit, skill and education by our employer, why should we suffer just because we are born in the wrong country?
It's time to throw away this last vestige of discrimination inherited from the previous centuries and move to a future where every individual is valued for what he/she is individually and not based on whether he was born in India or Sri Lanka.
Only India and China & one or two more countries will support the removal of country limit. The rest of the world will actually oppopse this move as it will have a negative impact on their processing times greatly.
There was a discussion on this on sometime ago.
Removal of Country caps was, is and will be one of the top agendas of IV , whether beneficiaries of a discriminatory system like you support it or not. It's morally and ethically repugnant to see discrimination based on country of birth in the 21st century. Just because it benefits some like you, it doesn't become right.
Employability has nothing to do with Country of Birth. When we are selected based on merit, skill and education by our employer, why should we suffer just because we are born in the wrong country?
It's time to throw away this last vestige of discrimination inherited from the previous centuries and move to a future where every individual is valued for what he/she is individually and not based on whether he was born in India or Sri Lanka.
Only India and China & one or two more countries will support the removal of country limit. The rest of the world will actually oppopse this move as it will have a negative impact on their processing times greatly.
There was a discussion on this on sometime ago.
hot might not know Kate Moss#39;s
diptam
07-04 12:07 AM
Agreed !!
These days i'm driving back from work instead of taking the Train/subway because my client location changed and i built this habit of listening to
Talk radio by guys like Howie Carr , Michael Savage etc.. ( WRKO 680 at Boston) and they really influence Public decision....
They were beating the s*** out of Bush, Ted kennedy because of CIR ( atleast verbally ) and calls after calls were coming from local american Public...
But our story may not be very interesting for Locals - so talk radio probably won't take it up as a Topic ???
Yeah seriously. Do you know that a lot of talk shows and their hosts have played a significant role in pulling CIR down? If they can do it, we can do it too. Go ahead and digg the stories
These days i'm driving back from work instead of taking the Train/subway because my client location changed and i built this habit of listening to
Talk radio by guys like Howie Carr , Michael Savage etc.. ( WRKO 680 at Boston) and they really influence Public decision....
They were beating the s*** out of Bush, Ted kennedy because of CIR ( atleast verbally ) and calls after calls were coming from local american Public...
But our story may not be very interesting for Locals - so talk radio probably won't take it up as a Topic ???
Yeah seriously. Do you know that a lot of talk shows and their hosts have played a significant role in pulling CIR down? If they can do it, we can do it too. Go ahead and digg the stories
more...
house kate moss skinny quote. kate
Pineapple
12-14 05:10 PM
I can understand your concerns.. and no, I do no resent your comment. I rather welcome a different viewpoint! IV, I emphatically maintain is made up ordinary people, like you and me, regardless of nationality and culture. I'm not a core member, but that, in itself, is the point - there is no top-down hierarchy, no "party line". IV is us. It is the very embodiment of the philosophy, "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" .
If it were any different, I would not be here.
That said, let me address your concerns. You (and anyone else) is free to disagree.
Let us say all country quotas are removed. In that case, yes, you will see a majority of GCs going to people of Indian and Chinese extraction. But to say that the removal of country quota is going to disadvantage people of other countries is a mathematical fallacy.
Let me explain it this way, using an analogy. Suppose you take part in a lotto game. The prizes (GC) are limited. Say there is only one prize and you have 100 participants. Also, further, let us say 80 are from California and 20 are from Pennsylvania.
If you play the game several times, you will see that 80 % of the prizes go to people from California.
But, that does not mean that you will improve your chances of winning if you move from Pennsylvania to California!!
Your odds are exactly the same - 1 in 100.
Removing country quotas would have the same consequence: If would actually give everyone a level playing field, and everyone would have the same shot at making the coveted quota of 140,000 EB GCs.
But when you have quotas, the probabilities are severely distorted. Especially when you have arbitrary quotas. (Why 7 %? Why not 9 %? Why not 5.247 %?).
In this case, if you are from India or China, you are seriously disadvantaged, while someone from a smaller country gets an unfair advantage. This is not complex political philosophy. It is school boy arithmetic.
You see what I mean?
When an Indian or Chinese asks for no country quotas, he/she is not asking for more.. He/she can no more control the wind as control where he/she is born. He/she is just asking to have a fair chance just as anyone else in the world. Why should he/she be penalized for being born in a big country?
I hope you see what I mean.
Anyway, the thread is about whether we can make a constitutionality argument in the court. The issue of "fairness" is quite settled as I explained above.
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
If it were any different, I would not be here.
That said, let me address your concerns. You (and anyone else) is free to disagree.
Let us say all country quotas are removed. In that case, yes, you will see a majority of GCs going to people of Indian and Chinese extraction. But to say that the removal of country quota is going to disadvantage people of other countries is a mathematical fallacy.
Let me explain it this way, using an analogy. Suppose you take part in a lotto game. The prizes (GC) are limited. Say there is only one prize and you have 100 participants. Also, further, let us say 80 are from California and 20 are from Pennsylvania.
If you play the game several times, you will see that 80 % of the prizes go to people from California.
But, that does not mean that you will improve your chances of winning if you move from Pennsylvania to California!!
Your odds are exactly the same - 1 in 100.
Removing country quotas would have the same consequence: If would actually give everyone a level playing field, and everyone would have the same shot at making the coveted quota of 140,000 EB GCs.
But when you have quotas, the probabilities are severely distorted. Especially when you have arbitrary quotas. (Why 7 %? Why not 9 %? Why not 5.247 %?).
In this case, if you are from India or China, you are seriously disadvantaged, while someone from a smaller country gets an unfair advantage. This is not complex political philosophy. It is school boy arithmetic.
You see what I mean?
When an Indian or Chinese asks for no country quotas, he/she is not asking for more.. He/she can no more control the wind as control where he/she is born. He/she is just asking to have a fair chance just as anyone else in the world. Why should he/she be penalized for being born in a big country?
I hope you see what I mean.
Anyway, the thread is about whether we can make a constitutionality argument in the court. The issue of "fairness" is quite settled as I explained above.
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
tattoo kate moss skinny. kate moss skinny quote; kate moss skinny quote
django.stone
07-24 09:16 PM
If this is indeed true, isn't it unfair to issue visas to Feb 2006 dates at a Consulate while people with 2005 dates are waiting for AOS. Can this be challenged in court?
more...
pictures Kate Moss Slammed for Skinny
snthampi
08-02 04:38 PM
Same here. Let us give green to each other and make us very green. How about that?:)
I agree and will do.
I agree and will do.
dresses hairstyles kate moss skinny.
gc28262
01-24 01:34 PM
Kindly visit this forum
USCIS new memo on Employer-Employee relationship - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4234032861&m=1181028202&p=2)
and see yourself how people differ on this memo. It seems so many people are happy about this memo for the following reason:
1. They are not affected by this memo ( for sure ).
2. They are fed up with Body Shoppers.
You can not ask them to change as they have their own take on this memo.
Personally after reading so many scenarios I don't support this memo.
If you see JoeF in that thread, he is more of an anti-immigrant. There are many in our community who are happy at the plight of their fellow countrymen. That is no reason that people should support this non-sense memo.
In IV, members are more knowledgeable than those on that particular thread from Murthy forum. People are so ignorant that they are agreeing to whatever that JoeF( anti ) is saying. IV members are much smarter than that.
USCIS new memo on Employer-Employee relationship - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4234032861&m=1181028202&p=2)
and see yourself how people differ on this memo. It seems so many people are happy about this memo for the following reason:
1. They are not affected by this memo ( for sure ).
2. They are fed up with Body Shoppers.
You can not ask them to change as they have their own take on this memo.
Personally after reading so many scenarios I don't support this memo.
If you see JoeF in that thread, he is more of an anti-immigrant. There are many in our community who are happy at the plight of their fellow countrymen. That is no reason that people should support this non-sense memo.
In IV, members are more knowledgeable than those on that particular thread from Murthy forum. People are so ignorant that they are agreeing to whatever that JoeF( anti ) is saying. IV members are much smarter than that.
more...
makeup It#39;s Time To Leave Kate Moss
okuzmin
05-09 04:37 PM
pmat, a word of caution and experience on FBI fingerprints/background checks.
If you're submitting fingerprints for yourself and your spouse, make sure you have certified funds of $18 (I believe that's the correct amount, but I might be wrong) PER PERSON, i.e., $36 for two people. In the instructions they just say "$18 for the background check" and give you a form to list yourself and any other adults in your family. I had to call and confirm that it's $18 a person.
They have a backlog of these background checks now; in the instructions it says the process takes up to 8 weeks, while nowadays it's up to 3 months and sometimes even longer.
It might take about a year for the Canadian Consulate to process your first batch of documents. In my case, it took 11 months. Then they notified us that our interviews were waived. In the same letter they requested the following docs:
updated letters of experience from my current employer;
updated financial docs (tax returns, pay stubs, W2's, and bank funds confirmation);
updated FBI certificates.
It doesn't say anywhere in the instructions that your fingerprint cards are only good for 1 year. When I sent my "old" fingerprints (I had two sets of those made the first time we applied), FBI returned them unprocessed after 3 months and asked for the updated fingerprint cards. Then it took them another 2 months to process those.
If you're submitting fingerprints for yourself and your spouse, make sure you have certified funds of $18 (I believe that's the correct amount, but I might be wrong) PER PERSON, i.e., $36 for two people. In the instructions they just say "$18 for the background check" and give you a form to list yourself and any other adults in your family. I had to call and confirm that it's $18 a person.
They have a backlog of these background checks now; in the instructions it says the process takes up to 8 weeks, while nowadays it's up to 3 months and sometimes even longer.
It might take about a year for the Canadian Consulate to process your first batch of documents. In my case, it took 11 months. Then they notified us that our interviews were waived. In the same letter they requested the following docs:
updated letters of experience from my current employer;
updated financial docs (tax returns, pay stubs, W2's, and bank funds confirmation);
updated FBI certificates.
It doesn't say anywhere in the instructions that your fingerprint cards are only good for 1 year. When I sent my "old" fingerprints (I had two sets of those made the first time we applied), FBI returned them unprocessed after 3 months and asked for the updated fingerprint cards. Then it took them another 2 months to process those.
girlfriend Kate Moss Ditches Skinny Jeans
_TrueFacts
09-08 10:34 PM
Never ending tales of a factionist CM in a democracy: Anti-media Government Order.
The Hindu : Front Page : Anti-media Government Order cleared by Chief Minister (http://www.thehindu.com/2007/05/29/stories/2007052910080100.htm)
The Hindu : Front Page : Anti-media Government Order cleared by Chief Minister (http://www.thehindu.com/2007/05/29/stories/2007052910080100.htm)
hairstyles Kate Moss for David Yurman
ita
03-30 11:02 PM
Kancha Ilaya(Sonia appointed ) is being allowed by the Indian Government to lobby with the UN and US Congress so that caste discrimination in India is taken-up by these bodies. (Indians on their own have come a long way in reducing these caste discrimination but alas these people won't want that dying)It shouldn't be any surprise if we see bunch of International articles on India's disgusting caste issues soon.
Rahul Gandhi/Govt of India invites British politician to Amethi on poverty tourism.Putting it in their own words they were trying to show this foreign minister real India (meaning 'sinking India not shining India' or may be they were trying to tell this British guy look we have managed to keep the country at the same state you left it , if anything we took it to another low level).Amethi has been a constituency represented by that family for generations in Priyanka's words. Forget about country they didn't do much good to their own constituency .
This British guy before he left the country said that Mumbai attacks could have happened because India didn't hand over Kashmir to Pak.He also gave a free although unasked advice ,if such future attacks are not to happen India should reconsider it's stance on Kashmir.
British media was surprised to see that Rahul Gandhi touted as future PM by the party and Indian media with equal excitement didn't want to comment on foreign affairs.Mumbai issue or anything else.
Now every country has it's share of problems..be it poverty or something else.Can you imagine U.S politician inviting French/German politician to view America's worst and media giving it huge coverage?Just imagine what would happen then.
Personally I like both Sonia and Rahul, can't doubt their intension of making India better
Rahul Gandhi/Govt of India invites British politician to Amethi on poverty tourism.Putting it in their own words they were trying to show this foreign minister real India (meaning 'sinking India not shining India' or may be they were trying to tell this British guy look we have managed to keep the country at the same state you left it , if anything we took it to another low level).Amethi has been a constituency represented by that family for generations in Priyanka's words. Forget about country they didn't do much good to their own constituency .
This British guy before he left the country said that Mumbai attacks could have happened because India didn't hand over Kashmir to Pak.He also gave a free although unasked advice ,if such future attacks are not to happen India should reconsider it's stance on Kashmir.
British media was surprised to see that Rahul Gandhi touted as future PM by the party and Indian media with equal excitement didn't want to comment on foreign affairs.Mumbai issue or anything else.
Now every country has it's share of problems..be it poverty or something else.Can you imagine U.S politician inviting French/German politician to view America's worst and media giving it huge coverage?Just imagine what would happen then.
Personally I like both Sonia and Rahul, can't doubt their intension of making India better
andycool
09-17 07:46 AM
Here are the authentic numbers from FLCDataCenter.com (http://flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx)
My analysis from those mdb files: (they are tricky because the data is for FY2005 while the priority date calculations we are doing are for the calendar year)
calendar year 2005 ( received date between 3/19/2005 - 12/31/2005) = 8645
year 2006 (rcv date between 1/1/2006 - 9/27/2006) = 15008
after this it gets bad since the data has no receipt date, only certified date. my estimate is around 12000 for those 3 months of 2006.(total number of certified PERMs between 10/2/2006 - 03/31/2007 = 13873)
total PERM approvals with PD between march 2005 and Dec 2006 ~ 37000
If EB2 is 50%, we are talking ~19000, with an avg of 2.5 GCs per PERM, we need 47,500 GCs between Mar 05 and Jan 07.
Good luck every one :(:D:mad:
These numbers are not correct .....
the total numbers of perm certified for india from March 2005 - March 2006 is ~ 11000 this includes all EB cases . I dont know how you got the number 37000 .
this is from FLCDataCenter.com (http://flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx)
Thanks
My analysis from those mdb files: (they are tricky because the data is for FY2005 while the priority date calculations we are doing are for the calendar year)
calendar year 2005 ( received date between 3/19/2005 - 12/31/2005) = 8645
year 2006 (rcv date between 1/1/2006 - 9/27/2006) = 15008
after this it gets bad since the data has no receipt date, only certified date. my estimate is around 12000 for those 3 months of 2006.(total number of certified PERMs between 10/2/2006 - 03/31/2007 = 13873)
total PERM approvals with PD between march 2005 and Dec 2006 ~ 37000
If EB2 is 50%, we are talking ~19000, with an avg of 2.5 GCs per PERM, we need 47,500 GCs between Mar 05 and Jan 07.
Good luck every one :(:D:mad:
These numbers are not correct .....
the total numbers of perm certified for india from March 2005 - March 2006 is ~ 11000 this includes all EB cases . I dont know how you got the number 37000 .
this is from FLCDataCenter.com (http://flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx)
Thanks
GCard_Dream
06-28 07:31 PM
I think the folks who decided to file on their own are clearly the winners here because they have complete control over when the AOS gets filed. Folks like me who decided to go with the company law firm are clearly the biggest losers here because with all the added work load, the law firms are in complete disarray and can not guarantee anything about when the cases will be filed. The company law firm I am dealing with is in so much disarray that they have stopped taking phone calls and they wouldn’t even talk to me on the phone.
I have submitted all documents and filled out all their forms a while ago and I still haven't heard a word from them about whether they have received all the documents and when do they expect to file my case. Yet this is the law firm that probably charges 400 bucks an hour.
Like logiclife said, I wish I would have done it myself. Well .. too late now :(
I have submitted all documents and filled out all their forms a while ago and I still haven't heard a word from them about whether they have received all the documents and when do they expect to file my case. Yet this is the law firm that probably charges 400 bucks an hour.
Like logiclife said, I wish I would have done it myself. Well .. too late now :(