ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily


The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: css/lulac

  1. #1
    pls anyone who has recieved the green card or temporary staus card through css/lulac should pls tell me how the interview went cos i have an interview soon.

  2. #2
    pls anyone who has recieved the green card or temporary staus card through css/lulac should pls tell me how the interview went cos i have an interview soon.

  3. #3
    Indybala posted a summary of his CIS interview in this forum a while ago. here's the URL:

    I'm in the same boat. I had my interview back in August and I haven't heard anything.


  4. #4
    It also depends where u have filed ur case. As I know in Miami they r still dealing I687 applications per Life Act rules, asking for official docs. and all. Which is rediculous and all and against the settlement too.

  5. #5
    i filed in newyork and knowing newyork it might take forever

  6. #6
    This is a special response for Pearl,Mr pearl do you know anything about the this statement which you made "It is radioculas that people are upset about the late amnesty" I will mention my frustration because when amnesty law was passed back in Nov 1986 we were never aware of such lulac and css till 1990,but this lulac and css word got twisted and become famous as late amnesty and basically when so many people got scam of such programe than they reaslize that this was a mistake and life act also means get some affidavits and they will get through,most of the attorney are confused and new generation not having much knowledge about such late amnesty program because whole process and application were not real and people afraid to face the reality why not they apply 19 years ago and now they are asking how this interview will go through as i was scam and afraid how many others will be having a fears of consequences of the wrong information submitted,so please do'nt blame others for your mistake and iam too against such settlement.

  7. #7
    no one is twisting anyting, don't show ur frustration on other people. It took 17 yrs to decide this settlement for ur information. As a part of settlement third party affadavits r accepted as a valid doc. and also the new application has been changed accordingly. In most of the states they r following the settlement rules to qualify the applications and r approving the applications. Just like u everyone who is in this boat is frustrated.

  8. #8
    all you good people out wife and i are so sad...we applied for i-687 in july 2004...we had our interview in august 2005 and to this day we haven't heard anything...everyday we check the status on the CIS website but we haven't had any new news for so long...we are so sad...we pray and pray everyday hoping for good news...we have been illegal for so long and we want to be legal again...we love this country very much.

    sincerely yours,

Similar Threads

    By goodpeep in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-01-2009, 07:57 PM
    By privilege in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-04-2007, 06:08 PM
    By Roze Rahman in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-17-2005, 02:51 PM
  4. CSS/Lulac
    By Dinesh in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-12-2005, 02:49 AM
  5. css vs lulac
    By shaq in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-10-2004, 08:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: