Michael chertoff
07-15 10:05 AM
Even mine is EB2 with level II. I did not see a single case from my company with Level III or Level IV but still a lot of them are EB2.
My 140 approval says: Mem of Profession w/Adv Deg, or Exceptional ability Sec 203 (b) (2).
My understanding: this is EB2.
exactly same thing with me...
My 140 approval says: Mem of Profession w/Adv Deg, or Exceptional ability Sec 203 (b) (2).
My understanding: this is EB2.
exactly same thing with me...
simon
10-03 07:19 PM
where in MI
manishgc
05-24 10:54 PM
Unique Transaction ID #5S441435NA953034W)..donated $50.
May 24, 2010 Payment For Immigration Voice Completed
Thanks for everybody's time and effort.
-------------------------------------------------
PD - Jan, 2004 EB3 India
I140 approved - Jan, 2006.
I-485, EAD and AP applied on Aug 2007 at Nebraska.
May 24, 2010 Payment For Immigration Voice Completed
Thanks for everybody's time and effort.
-------------------------------------------------
PD - Jan, 2004 EB3 India
I140 approved - Jan, 2006.
I-485, EAD and AP applied on Aug 2007 at Nebraska.
dpp
07-21 08:24 AM
Frankly speaking, i am not a sufferer from BEC, but i want to know more about this mess.
Does the FIFO means, they process the applications in FIFO order, Does it mean that they approve also in the FIFO order? I think both processing and approving are different. Whoever got the case with less complications, will first get the approval and whose case got more complications, takes more time. Is it correct? I may be wrong. I think thats the reason why 2004 PDs may come out BEC fast sometimes as they put the case strongly and clearly.
Don't shout at me, i may be wrong.
Risker,
I am very glad that you brought this point. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than suing the DOL. We may not sue DOL on their inability to clear the backlogs, but we can definitely sue them in their utter and deliberate disregard to FIFO procedures (mind that some people with priority dates in 2004, 2005 have already got their labor certifications, but some with priority dates in 2001, 2002 are still stuck). When I read on the DOL web site that they have tried to maintain FIFO, it makes me feel like puking.
Some folks have pointed that the lawsuit is not worth, as it has little chance of winning. To me personally, more than winning or loosing, it is a matter of bringing injustice to the light, as Gandhi has said something in this line: First step against injustice is to make it visible. This law suit will bring public scrutiny to the misdeeds of the DOL.
Even if all the backlogs get cleared by September 2007, severe damage has been already dealt to our lives. Though I am close to getting my labor clearance (I filed RRI few weeks back), I am strongly in favor of continuing with the law suit even after getting the labor clearance.
Let’s get IV’s attention and support in this area. Let’s talk to AILA. Let’s write letters to senators and house representatives (congresswoman Lofgren may be good person to start with). Let’s write to media personnel. Let’s do whatever needs to be done to expose this insult and injury to the immigrants who waited in the line for years and followed rules of the game.
Does the FIFO means, they process the applications in FIFO order, Does it mean that they approve also in the FIFO order? I think both processing and approving are different. Whoever got the case with less complications, will first get the approval and whose case got more complications, takes more time. Is it correct? I may be wrong. I think thats the reason why 2004 PDs may come out BEC fast sometimes as they put the case strongly and clearly.
Don't shout at me, i may be wrong.
Risker,
I am very glad that you brought this point. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than suing the DOL. We may not sue DOL on their inability to clear the backlogs, but we can definitely sue them in their utter and deliberate disregard to FIFO procedures (mind that some people with priority dates in 2004, 2005 have already got their labor certifications, but some with priority dates in 2001, 2002 are still stuck). When I read on the DOL web site that they have tried to maintain FIFO, it makes me feel like puking.
Some folks have pointed that the lawsuit is not worth, as it has little chance of winning. To me personally, more than winning or loosing, it is a matter of bringing injustice to the light, as Gandhi has said something in this line: First step against injustice is to make it visible. This law suit will bring public scrutiny to the misdeeds of the DOL.
Even if all the backlogs get cleared by September 2007, severe damage has been already dealt to our lives. Though I am close to getting my labor clearance (I filed RRI few weeks back), I am strongly in favor of continuing with the law suit even after getting the labor clearance.
Let’s get IV’s attention and support in this area. Let’s talk to AILA. Let’s write letters to senators and house representatives (congresswoman Lofgren may be good person to start with). Let’s write to media personnel. Let’s do whatever needs to be done to expose this insult and injury to the immigrants who waited in the line for years and followed rules of the game.
more...
panky72
06-25 04:22 PM
They hushed up and approved my EAD in 20 days. Why ???? 'cos So they don't hit Jun'30 and give 2 years. They wanted to milk another 680 from me so they hushed up and sent me the 1 year EAD in 20 days.
I guess we all have problems with USCIS, either with their inefficiency (eg. receipt delays during July Fiasco), or sometime with their super efficiency (EAD's getting approved too fast):D
I guess we all have problems with USCIS, either with their inefficiency (eg. receipt delays during July Fiasco), or sometime with their super efficiency (EAD's getting approved too fast):D
raju123
02-13 11:59 AM
It looks very funny after reading anands23's post. IV leaders are volunteers. They are not highly paid CEO and directors of IV Inc. !!
Come on Mr. anand come and join IV leadership and change the immigration law. For God sack, don't post this kind of immature posts.
I think this guy is from numbers usa for sure. After writing all the BS, he asks it to take it in constructive way. There are lots of other way to express your concern if it had to taken in constructive way. This is definitely not the way.
Based on your comments I could see that you are a regular visitor (FREE RIDER ATTITUDE) to IV site for more than a year. We had several threads crying out for funds in very critical time senstive times. At those times you are a mere spectator and now just for posting this bashing post you reluctantly became a anonymous member. All these shows your LEADERSHIP skills and quality of leading the battle from FRONT. If I were in USCIS I would do a background check on these high qualities and ground breaking positive attitudes even before giving H1.
Come on Mr. anand come and join IV leadership and change the immigration law. For God sack, don't post this kind of immature posts.
I think this guy is from numbers usa for sure. After writing all the BS, he asks it to take it in constructive way. There are lots of other way to express your concern if it had to taken in constructive way. This is definitely not the way.
Based on your comments I could see that you are a regular visitor (FREE RIDER ATTITUDE) to IV site for more than a year. We had several threads crying out for funds in very critical time senstive times. At those times you are a mere spectator and now just for posting this bashing post you reluctantly became a anonymous member. All these shows your LEADERSHIP skills and quality of leading the battle from FRONT. If I were in USCIS I would do a background check on these high qualities and ground breaking positive attitudes even before giving H1.
more...
eb3retro
08-06 08:02 AM
whats ur country of chargeability? pls update that in your profile.
and the story unfolds....
I got biometrics notice for an appointment in the past :mad::mad::mad:
So, I made copies of the notice and put together cover leter and asked to be rescheduled for Sep.
Will call next week to follow up. In the meantime I noticed soft LUD on the date of my supposed biometrics....but the online message still says document production ordered....
Total chaos guys....:mad:
and the story unfolds....
I got biometrics notice for an appointment in the past :mad::mad::mad:
So, I made copies of the notice and put together cover leter and asked to be rescheduled for Sep.
Will call next week to follow up. In the meantime I noticed soft LUD on the date of my supposed biometrics....but the online message still says document production ordered....
Total chaos guys....:mad:
factoryman
02-09 10:21 PM
Your points are good. It is like a group of surgeons, coming out of OT (Operation Theatre), sweating it out, congradulating each other, and saying, 'the operation was successful. but in the end the patient died'.
We need a direct approach to stall this unethical cornering of 90000 visas exclusively for Sch A workers. To put it in an American way, PERIOD.
The reason we see progress year after year with Schedule A and nothing happens in EB reform because there is no corporate support for EB reform. This is one of the reaons why we should be open for measure like 485 whenever possible, even after febuary 15th.
Maybe we need to figure out how we can involve the corporations in EB relief. The only reasons we see Schedule A relief every year because there is a strong health industry lobby driving this. the worst part about this is that these 90,000 and 50,000 which were released last year and they are trying now are comming from the unused\recaptured visas from previous years. there is no country limit in the unused\recaptured visas for Schedule A.
when it comes to us we cannot get unused visas and added to that somebody always tries to add country limit to even unused\recaptured visas. Its a double whammy for EB retrogression. May god help us.
We need a direct approach to stall this unethical cornering of 90000 visas exclusively for Sch A workers. To put it in an American way, PERIOD.
The reason we see progress year after year with Schedule A and nothing happens in EB reform because there is no corporate support for EB reform. This is one of the reaons why we should be open for measure like 485 whenever possible, even after febuary 15th.
Maybe we need to figure out how we can involve the corporations in EB relief. The only reasons we see Schedule A relief every year because there is a strong health industry lobby driving this. the worst part about this is that these 90,000 and 50,000 which were released last year and they are trying now are comming from the unused\recaptured visas from previous years. there is no country limit in the unused\recaptured visas for Schedule A.
when it comes to us we cannot get unused visas and added to that somebody always tries to add country limit to even unused\recaptured visas. Its a double whammy for EB retrogression. May god help us.
more...
kc_p21
12-10 02:07 PM
Nothing against Logiclife but response doesn't sound right.
Logiclife,
IV is a voluntary organisation. You can request people to volunteer, but cannot force them or scold them for not volunteering. This is not professional. They might have their reasons and the right to work their way. I agree with your frustration when people who signed to turn up do not show up. But I feel this is not the way to express it.
Ram
Logiclife,
IV is a voluntary organisation. You can request people to volunteer, but cannot force them or scold them for not volunteering. This is not professional. They might have their reasons and the right to work their way. I agree with your frustration when people who signed to turn up do not show up. But I feel this is not the way to express it.
Ram
JunRN
09-17 06:16 PM
With what happened last July, it will be a long time before we see "C" on EB3. However, we can only hope that atleast the date listed is closer to date.
more...
CaliGC
06-14 01:24 PM
Friends,
Ofcourse everyone is very excited that the priority dates are current but let's take a careful look for why it became current all of a sudden even when the demand for visa numbers is so high and was backlogged by 5 years up until couple of months ago.
1. I sincerely feel this is just to keep the legal immigrants to stop protesting for benefits in the CIR. Well, the CIR is supposed to be dead right? Wrong, count 2 weeks from now and the Bill will be back with tons of benefits for Illegal aliens and none for legals.
2. Currently Service centers are processing cases received in Aug-Sept. '06 with the few thousands of applications being submitted for the next few weeks the processing dates will be moved back by couple of years. All this time we were waiting for the priority dates and now will wait for the processing dates to be advanced. What a circus!!!
3. Just when the case is ready for processing that would be atleast couple of years from now, the priority dates will be retrogressed may be by 10 years this time.
To my knoweledge we should still continue to lobby the senators and get the Visa numbers increased, get the country quota eliminated, Only one visa should be counted per family... and get it into the CIR. Should the CIR pass without these ammendments legal immigrants will be stuck in limbo for every because there will be no more CIRs in the near future.
TIA
CaliGC
Ofcourse everyone is very excited that the priority dates are current but let's take a careful look for why it became current all of a sudden even when the demand for visa numbers is so high and was backlogged by 5 years up until couple of months ago.
1. I sincerely feel this is just to keep the legal immigrants to stop protesting for benefits in the CIR. Well, the CIR is supposed to be dead right? Wrong, count 2 weeks from now and the Bill will be back with tons of benefits for Illegal aliens and none for legals.
2. Currently Service centers are processing cases received in Aug-Sept. '06 with the few thousands of applications being submitted for the next few weeks the processing dates will be moved back by couple of years. All this time we were waiting for the priority dates and now will wait for the processing dates to be advanced. What a circus!!!
3. Just when the case is ready for processing that would be atleast couple of years from now, the priority dates will be retrogressed may be by 10 years this time.
To my knoweledge we should still continue to lobby the senators and get the Visa numbers increased, get the country quota eliminated, Only one visa should be counted per family... and get it into the CIR. Should the CIR pass without these ammendments legal immigrants will be stuck in limbo for every because there will be no more CIRs in the near future.
TIA
CaliGC
vishwak
10-15 08:51 AM
Did any one recently applied for PIO Card in Washington DC, If can you please list documents you sent out to Embassy. I have to apply for my son.
more...
Desertfox
05-17 02:15 PM
Very easy....emails sent.
GC_1000Watt
05-17 02:11 PM
It was super easy! Go IV.
more...
GCapplicant
07-06 06:07 PM
[.
When I called them up-She said USCIS has not decided anything whether they will accept or reject anything-Whatever it is within 15 working days if we receive receipt then we are ok.Whatever the bulletin shows.
So lets wait and see.What ever theyd ecide will be known in 15 working days .So atleast they will start something in 15days.
When I called them up-She said USCIS has not decided anything whether they will accept or reject anything-Whatever it is within 15 working days if we receive receipt then we are ok.Whatever the bulletin shows.
So lets wait and see.What ever theyd ecide will be known in 15 working days .So atleast they will start something in 15days.
walking_dude
10-05 09:14 AM
Amit:
I understand your concerns that if there's a huge crowd, nothing will come out of it, in all the din created by the crowd and everyone throwing their suggestions.
Right now the question is hypothetical as we don't have a overwhelming confirmations of 100+! Even a crowd of 25 is okay, if we can reach that number. Since this is the first ever MI level meet, I will be surprised (and happy too) if we cross 25-30.
If it's 100+ a new level of pre-planning will be necessary. Our leaders ( cagedcatcus? chintu25?) will need to book a hall, set a clear and focused agenda (so that we don't lose focus), get IV core to address us by telephone/speaker phones, they can even persuade an Immigration attorney (trying to reach out to future clients) to address our questions etc.. It will be a different ball game! It can be handled effectively without limiting numbers.
I think for first meeting 10-12 are enough. Let us meet and decide upon the strategy to have more people. I would prefer not to have lot of people in the first meeting.
I understand your concerns that if there's a huge crowd, nothing will come out of it, in all the din created by the crowd and everyone throwing their suggestions.
Right now the question is hypothetical as we don't have a overwhelming confirmations of 100+! Even a crowd of 25 is okay, if we can reach that number. Since this is the first ever MI level meet, I will be surprised (and happy too) if we cross 25-30.
If it's 100+ a new level of pre-planning will be necessary. Our leaders ( cagedcatcus? chintu25?) will need to book a hall, set a clear and focused agenda (so that we don't lose focus), get IV core to address us by telephone/speaker phones, they can even persuade an Immigration attorney (trying to reach out to future clients) to address our questions etc.. It will be a different ball game! It can be handled effectively without limiting numbers.
I think for first meeting 10-12 are enough. Let us meet and decide upon the strategy to have more people. I would prefer not to have lot of people in the first meeting.
more...
krishmunn
09-30 11:26 AM
I have travelled AI around 6-7 times with no issues at all. On the other hand I have horrible experience with Continental and Air France.
As for your experience in Frankfurt (gift purchased in Duty Free in NY not allowed), this has nothing to do with AI. It is Security staff in Frankfurt. I suspect the gift included something liquid (alcohol or perfume etc) which are NOT allowed at security point.
That is why it is advised either to carry these stuff in your registered bag OR purchase it from a duty free at the last point where you board a flight.
As for your experience in Frankfurt (gift purchased in Duty Free in NY not allowed), this has nothing to do with AI. It is Security staff in Frankfurt. I suspect the gift included something liquid (alcohol or perfume etc) which are NOT allowed at security point.
That is why it is advised either to carry these stuff in your registered bag OR purchase it from a duty free at the last point where you board a flight.
boreal
02-12 12:27 AM
ok, i am beginning to lose confidence now... first no i-485 relief and now wait till CIR>.....last year, CIR turned out to be a big circus....i hope this time something productive happens....
why are we changing lobbying firm? what do you mean it is a strategic decision?
are we dissatisfied with our lobbying firm? pm me if you can post on public forum..
but we need answers....this leadership is going nowhere now......
Ok big guy! The phone number that connects you with the core group is here in the web site. Talk to them directly. Why do you wanna get this info in a PM..btw..when did u start owning IV and everyone around?
[sic sic sic]
why are we changing lobbying firm? what do you mean it is a strategic decision?
are we dissatisfied with our lobbying firm? pm me if you can post on public forum..
but we need answers....this leadership is going nowhere now......
Ok big guy! The phone number that connects you with the core group is here in the web site. Talk to them directly. Why do you wanna get this info in a PM..btw..when did u start owning IV and everyone around?
[sic sic sic]
needhelp!
03-06 05:16 PM
Section 6: Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests Section 6 of the Open Government Act has two provisions that address time limits for complying with FOIA requests, and the consequences of failing to do so. Significantly, this section does not take effect until one year after the date of enactment and will apply to FOIA requests �filed on or after that effective date.� Accordingly, agencies have until December 31, 2008 to take any necessary steps to prepare for the implementation of this Section.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
gsmishra
07-23 09:10 PM
I am hopeful we can get receipt notice by first week of August as per receipting notice.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes20Jul07.pdf
In case of any problems receiving receipt notice we have the option to file with the bright colored paper.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes20Jul07.pdf
In case of any problems receiving receipt notice we have the option to file with the bright colored paper.
LostInGCProcess
08-20 07:47 PM
Hi All,
I applied for my daughter's PIO card and sent all the documents as mentioned in the instructions sheet of the embassy website along with the self addressed stamped envelope. I heard from my other friends that even after you send everything in order, the embassy people would call and say that they did not receive the self addressed stamped envelop. It happened to three of my friends. I am the 4th one. They called today to tell that I did not send the envelope.
The funny part that happened with my friends is that, they all sent $20 and the package came in the very envelope they sent in the first place, that the embassy said they didn't receive.
Did anybody of you also had the same kind of experience or similar incident. If so, please do share.
Why are they doing like that? Do they really think we would do like that, trying to save on an self addressed envelope? It really bothered me for the fact that the lady from the consulate was utterly rude when talking. I am amazed how in the world, The Indian Government is still hiring such people? Of more then a billion population, is that the best person the government of India could find for that customer service post? Its a shame and I am ashamed that such dic*heads working and representing India?
Coming back to the issue...she said sternly, send $20.00 or send envelope stamped otherwise the application would not be processed.
Folks, please let me know where I can complain about this careless attitude of this monster woman. What steps can I take to make sure they don't do that again? I live in TN and I can't fly/drive to Washington DC. The questions is not about the money, but the way they are operating without any ethics is deplorable.
Hoping to hear all your valuable suggestions.
Thank you.
I applied for my daughter's PIO card and sent all the documents as mentioned in the instructions sheet of the embassy website along with the self addressed stamped envelope. I heard from my other friends that even after you send everything in order, the embassy people would call and say that they did not receive the self addressed stamped envelop. It happened to three of my friends. I am the 4th one. They called today to tell that I did not send the envelope.
The funny part that happened with my friends is that, they all sent $20 and the package came in the very envelope they sent in the first place, that the embassy said they didn't receive.
Did anybody of you also had the same kind of experience or similar incident. If so, please do share.
Why are they doing like that? Do they really think we would do like that, trying to save on an self addressed envelope? It really bothered me for the fact that the lady from the consulate was utterly rude when talking. I am amazed how in the world, The Indian Government is still hiring such people? Of more then a billion population, is that the best person the government of India could find for that customer service post? Its a shame and I am ashamed that such dic*heads working and representing India?
Coming back to the issue...she said sternly, send $20.00 or send envelope stamped otherwise the application would not be processed.
Folks, please let me know where I can complain about this careless attitude of this monster woman. What steps can I take to make sure they don't do that again? I live in TN and I can't fly/drive to Washington DC. The questions is not about the money, but the way they are operating without any ethics is deplorable.
Hoping to hear all your valuable suggestions.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment