diptam
08-08 11:00 AM
Lets all try to send this letter. I'm working with my HR to get this 7001 out - As Pappu said there should not be any reason why HR wont sign that form.
What's going on at NSC or TSC is Shame.... Peoples who applied in AUG-SEP 07 has got 140 approved at NSC where as folks back in APR-JUNE 07 is stuck and more over NSC claims that they are processing MAR 22 07 for last 5 months.
This deserves attention - I'm trying to ratchet up some pressure via Congressman and Senator's office but they are very busy these days with Presidential election , so i'm not getting the kind of help that they generally do.
FYI:
Here is a quote from an email i received from the Ombudsman's office:
"Our office is in fact at this time actively probing the I-140 situation you describe generally."
This was in response to an e-mail i sent them, describing the situation (my wife's I-140 from April 2008 got approved before mine, which was submitted, you guessed it, on July 2007)
So maybe there's some hope here, who knows.
What's going on at NSC or TSC is Shame.... Peoples who applied in AUG-SEP 07 has got 140 approved at NSC where as folks back in APR-JUNE 07 is stuck and more over NSC claims that they are processing MAR 22 07 for last 5 months.
This deserves attention - I'm trying to ratchet up some pressure via Congressman and Senator's office but they are very busy these days with Presidential election , so i'm not getting the kind of help that they generally do.
FYI:
Here is a quote from an email i received from the Ombudsman's office:
"Our office is in fact at this time actively probing the I-140 situation you describe generally."
This was in response to an e-mail i sent them, describing the situation (my wife's I-140 from April 2008 got approved before mine, which was submitted, you guessed it, on July 2007)
So maybe there's some hope here, who knows.
wallpaper Horse Cartoon Tattoos Vector
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:03 PM
Los Angeles - District 36 100.0% of 399 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jane Harman (I)
Dem 92,222 63.5%
Brian Gibson
GOP 46,312 31.9%
James Smith PFP 3,979 2.7%
Mike Binkley Lib 2,757 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 37 100.0% of 333 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Juanita Millender-McDonald (I)
Dem 69,901 82.4%
Herb Peters Lib 14,925 17.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 38 100.0% of 294 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Grace Napolitano (I)
Dem 66,442 75.5%
Sidney Street
GOP 21,606 24.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 39 100.0% of 305 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Linda Sanchez (I)
Dem 64,274 66.0%
James Andion
GOP 33,138 34.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 46 100.0% of 147 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 30,319 54.1%
Jim Brandt
Dem 23,743 42.3%
Dennis Chang Lib 2,007 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 190 62.3%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 115 37.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 19 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 16,049 64.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 8,739 35.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Marin - District 6 100.0% of 210 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 52,217 71.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 18,872 25.7%
Richard Friesen Lib 2,423 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mariposa - District 19 100.0% of 21 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 4,185 59.1%
TJ Cox
Dem 2,901 40.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mendocino - District 1 100.0% of 208 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 12,185 68.1%
John Jones
GOP 4,653 26.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 688 3.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 364 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Merced - District 18 100.0% of 114 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 23,752 64.5%
John Kanno
GOP 13,078 35.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Modoc - District 4 100.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 2,174 59.3%
Charlie Brown
Dem 1,230 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 262 7.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mono - District 25 100.0% of 13 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 1,935 52.6%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,600 43.5%
David Erickson Lib 147 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Monterey - District 17 100.0% of 184 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 40,157 72.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 15,612 28.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Napa - District 1 100.0% of 115 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 20,225 68.4%
John Jones
GOP 8,280 28.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 661 2.2%
Timothy Stock PFP 403 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Nevada - District 4 100.0% of 101 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Charlie Brown
Dem 17,026 54.0%
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 12,840 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 1,649 5.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 40 100.0% of 443 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ed Royce (I)
GOP 76,250 66.3%
Florice Hoffman
Dem 35,744 31.1%
Philip Inman Lib 2,993 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 44 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 17,129 67.8%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 7,510 29.7%
Kevin Akin PFP 632 2.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 46 100.0% of 390 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 60,490 61.7%
Jim Brandt
Dem 33,907 34.6%
Dennis Chang Lib 3,693 3.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 47 100.0% of 256 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Loretta Sanchez (I)
Dem 31,656 61.9%
Tan Nguyen
GOP 19,525 38.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 48 100.0% of 575 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Campbell (I)
GOP 86,479 59.0%
Steve Young
Dem 55,839 38.1%
Bruce Cohen Lib 4,264 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Placer - District 4 100.0% of 365 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 44,469 48.9%
Charlie Brown
Dem 42,387 46.6%
Dan Warren Lib 4,153 4.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Plumas - District 4 100.0% of 29 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,161 50.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,645 44.5%
Dan Warren Lib 393 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 41 100.0% of 188 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 11,802 61.3%
Louie Contreras
Dem 7,445 38.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 44 100.0% of 329 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 46,465 56.0%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 33,849 40.8%
Kevin Akin PFP 2,664 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 45 100.0% of 559 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mary Bono (I)
GOP 62,007 59.4%
David Roth
Dem 42,384 40.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 49 100.0% of 206 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 24,100 61.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 13,624 34.8%
Lars Grossmith Lib 1,389 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 3 100.0% of 522 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 75,352 58.8%
Bill Durston
Dem 49,473 38.6%
Douglas Tuma Lib 2,013 1.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 1,330 1.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 4 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,255 54.6%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,174 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 371 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 5 100.0% of 410 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Doris Matsui (I)
Dem 76,013 70.9%
Claire Yan
GOP 25,028 23.3%
Jeff Kravitz Grn 4,728 4.4%
John Reiger PFP 1,483 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 10 100.0% of 11 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 275 58.1%
Darcy Linn
GOP 198 41.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Benito - District 17 100.0% of 57 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 6,506 69.9%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 2,808 30.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 25 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 12,506 53.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 9,692 41.4%
David Erickson Lib 1,189 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 26 100.0% of 148 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 27,333 56.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 18,452 37.8%
Ted Brown Lib 1,803 3.7%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,185 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 41 100.0% of 372 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 70,209 67.8%
Louie Contreras
Dem 33,332 32.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 43 100.0% of 287 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Joe Baca (I)
Dem 43,571 65.0%
Scott Folkens
GOP 23,432 35.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jane Harman (I)
Dem 92,222 63.5%
Brian Gibson
GOP 46,312 31.9%
James Smith PFP 3,979 2.7%
Mike Binkley Lib 2,757 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 37 100.0% of 333 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Juanita Millender-McDonald (I)
Dem 69,901 82.4%
Herb Peters Lib 14,925 17.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 38 100.0% of 294 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Grace Napolitano (I)
Dem 66,442 75.5%
Sidney Street
GOP 21,606 24.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 39 100.0% of 305 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Linda Sanchez (I)
Dem 64,274 66.0%
James Andion
GOP 33,138 34.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 46 100.0% of 147 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 30,319 54.1%
Jim Brandt
Dem 23,743 42.3%
Dennis Chang Lib 2,007 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 190 62.3%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 115 37.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 19 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 16,049 64.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 8,739 35.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Marin - District 6 100.0% of 210 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 52,217 71.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 18,872 25.7%
Richard Friesen Lib 2,423 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mariposa - District 19 100.0% of 21 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 4,185 59.1%
TJ Cox
Dem 2,901 40.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mendocino - District 1 100.0% of 208 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 12,185 68.1%
John Jones
GOP 4,653 26.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 688 3.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 364 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Merced - District 18 100.0% of 114 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 23,752 64.5%
John Kanno
GOP 13,078 35.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Modoc - District 4 100.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 2,174 59.3%
Charlie Brown
Dem 1,230 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 262 7.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mono - District 25 100.0% of 13 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 1,935 52.6%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,600 43.5%
David Erickson Lib 147 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Monterey - District 17 100.0% of 184 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 40,157 72.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 15,612 28.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Napa - District 1 100.0% of 115 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 20,225 68.4%
John Jones
GOP 8,280 28.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 661 2.2%
Timothy Stock PFP 403 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Nevada - District 4 100.0% of 101 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Charlie Brown
Dem 17,026 54.0%
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 12,840 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 1,649 5.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 40 100.0% of 443 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ed Royce (I)
GOP 76,250 66.3%
Florice Hoffman
Dem 35,744 31.1%
Philip Inman Lib 2,993 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 44 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 17,129 67.8%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 7,510 29.7%
Kevin Akin PFP 632 2.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 46 100.0% of 390 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 60,490 61.7%
Jim Brandt
Dem 33,907 34.6%
Dennis Chang Lib 3,693 3.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 47 100.0% of 256 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Loretta Sanchez (I)
Dem 31,656 61.9%
Tan Nguyen
GOP 19,525 38.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 48 100.0% of 575 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Campbell (I)
GOP 86,479 59.0%
Steve Young
Dem 55,839 38.1%
Bruce Cohen Lib 4,264 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Placer - District 4 100.0% of 365 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 44,469 48.9%
Charlie Brown
Dem 42,387 46.6%
Dan Warren Lib 4,153 4.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Plumas - District 4 100.0% of 29 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,161 50.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,645 44.5%
Dan Warren Lib 393 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 41 100.0% of 188 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 11,802 61.3%
Louie Contreras
Dem 7,445 38.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 44 100.0% of 329 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 46,465 56.0%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 33,849 40.8%
Kevin Akin PFP 2,664 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 45 100.0% of 559 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mary Bono (I)
GOP 62,007 59.4%
David Roth
Dem 42,384 40.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 49 100.0% of 206 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 24,100 61.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 13,624 34.8%
Lars Grossmith Lib 1,389 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 3 100.0% of 522 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 75,352 58.8%
Bill Durston
Dem 49,473 38.6%
Douglas Tuma Lib 2,013 1.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 1,330 1.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 4 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,255 54.6%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,174 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 371 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 5 100.0% of 410 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Doris Matsui (I)
Dem 76,013 70.9%
Claire Yan
GOP 25,028 23.3%
Jeff Kravitz Grn 4,728 4.4%
John Reiger PFP 1,483 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 10 100.0% of 11 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 275 58.1%
Darcy Linn
GOP 198 41.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Benito - District 17 100.0% of 57 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 6,506 69.9%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 2,808 30.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 25 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 12,506 53.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 9,692 41.4%
David Erickson Lib 1,189 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 26 100.0% of 148 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 27,333 56.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 18,452 37.8%
Ted Brown Lib 1,803 3.7%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,185 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 41 100.0% of 372 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 70,209 67.8%
Louie Contreras
Dem 33,332 32.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 43 100.0% of 287 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Joe Baca (I)
Dem 43,571 65.0%
Scott Folkens
GOP 23,432 35.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
paskal
07-11 12:16 PM
is there any way, any way in this whole freakin process, that we can get some sort of explanation for eb3-I first hand from DOS or USCIS? i mean there needs to be some justification for the acts? i know there are laws to interpret these dates, but how do we know that those laws are interpreted correctly by DOS or USCIS? though i am in eb3-I , jan 2003, i personally know atleast 3 folks who are in 2002 - eb3-I. Can we get some sort of guidance here.
i will ask the iv folks who keep in touch with USCIS if they know anything. AFAIK though, USCIS has come out with no answers other than quoting the non availability of adequate visa numbers. if there is any more info i will let you know...
i will ask the iv folks who keep in touch with USCIS if they know anything. AFAIK though, USCIS has come out with no answers other than quoting the non availability of adequate visa numbers. if there is any more info i will let you know...
2011 Cartoon+devil+horns+and+
santa123
07-11 09:26 AM
Just wondering...
How many people would benefit out of this big movement?
What estimated # of applications is USCIS expecting through this movement?
If the dates were current last year same time, how many ppl with PDs between 2004 and 2006 would have missed the bus last year? Dont think many wld have...
Excuse my ignorance if there is a basic mistake in my assumption
How many people would benefit out of this big movement?
What estimated # of applications is USCIS expecting through this movement?
If the dates were current last year same time, how many ppl with PDs between 2004 and 2006 would have missed the bus last year? Dont think many wld have...
Excuse my ignorance if there is a basic mistake in my assumption
more...
gc_bucs
03-10 11:28 AM
I'm not sure if the IV members were aware of this or not.
The following is from http://www.immigration-law.com/ which in turn is quoting AILA.
"However, the report indicates that the Judiciary Committee is working on a tight schedule as the Senate Majority leader Bill Frist reportedly threatened that unless the Committee completes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill by March 27, 2006, he would bypass the Senate Judiciary Committee and attempt to have his own Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill totally focusing on the border security and enforcement issues only passed by the full Senate. It is thus critically important that the Judiciary Committee passes the bill in one form or another by March 27, 2006. Please stay tuned to this website for the breath-taking development. "
The following is from http://www.immigration-law.com/ which in turn is quoting AILA.
"However, the report indicates that the Judiciary Committee is working on a tight schedule as the Senate Majority leader Bill Frist reportedly threatened that unless the Committee completes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill by March 27, 2006, he would bypass the Senate Judiciary Committee and attempt to have his own Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill totally focusing on the border security and enforcement issues only passed by the full Senate. It is thus critically important that the Judiciary Committee passes the bill in one form or another by March 27, 2006. Please stay tuned to this website for the breath-taking development. "
amitpan007
08-26 11:57 AM
I have a loan with LIC. The rates are pretty good and no-prepayment penalty if paid using NRI funds only. Took some time to set all this up. Definitely need a local person to carry out all the paperwork and good support from the builder. Their email system is not very efficient. Tried with HDFC before this in Hyd and had lots of problems getting the loan even after contacting the CEO.
more...
truthinspector
01-04 12:43 PM
I am really appalled at the responses for the facts I posted here on the forum. I apologize to all who are offended by the posts.However I strongly believe that my comments represent facts.Personally I do not believe an individual can "bash" a country. I have certainly erred with my presumption that my opinions/comments would be received with some maturity of thoughts instead of surging patriotic emotions.
I have expressed thoughts about immigration where some policies of US are severely criticized. At this point I can only urge the community to read/write with a certain openness of mind to have a fair exchange of experiences and opinions.
I have expressed thoughts about immigration where some policies of US are severely criticized. At this point I can only urge the community to read/write with a certain openness of mind to have a fair exchange of experiences and opinions.
2010 Cartoon idea with sleepy eye
nojoke
09-05 09:11 PM
I remember that in the early nineties it was next to impossible to get a home loan in India. I think the only company which gave out home loans was HDFC and the interest rate was a whopping 16%. Property prices at that time conformed to what people could actually afford as the house had to be either paid in full or you had to take out a loan from your provident fund.
Fast forward to 2000 and beyond. After the Indian rupee became fully convertible and the banking regulations were relaxed every bank or finance company started to make loans. The upshot of that is that everyone could buy a house and car through taking out loans. This of course created this huge demand for new housing from the middle class which translated into a steep increase in land and property prices.
This may not exactly be a total bubble as loans are there to stay. What is happening though is that home construction is going on at a rapid pace and at some point Indian cities and their suburbs may be overbuilt. At that point you would be stuck with your house and not be able to sell as is happening in the US. Of course some markets will correct but I donot think Bombay, Bangalore or Hyderabad will.
I'm a a total layman regarding such issues and I am just trying to reason this through.
There has been a correction already going on in Bombay and Bangalore. Bombay has lost 30%. It is in the news.
Fast forward to 2000 and beyond. After the Indian rupee became fully convertible and the banking regulations were relaxed every bank or finance company started to make loans. The upshot of that is that everyone could buy a house and car through taking out loans. This of course created this huge demand for new housing from the middle class which translated into a steep increase in land and property prices.
This may not exactly be a total bubble as loans are there to stay. What is happening though is that home construction is going on at a rapid pace and at some point Indian cities and their suburbs may be overbuilt. At that point you would be stuck with your house and not be able to sell as is happening in the US. Of course some markets will correct but I donot think Bombay, Bangalore or Hyderabad will.
I'm a a total layman regarding such issues and I am just trying to reason this through.
There has been a correction already going on in Bombay and Bangalore. Bombay has lost 30%. It is in the news.
more...
sam_hoosier
01-03 04:26 PM
I come from a nuclear family in India and see no reason why my kid cannot develop into a good citizen the way my parents made sure I did..........
I learnt at a very young age that living with your cousins/uncles/aunts is not necessarily a guarantee of being close........ I am a lot closer to family I never lived with in the same city than I am to family who lived a few blocks from where we did.........
It is all in how the parents mold the environment for their kids. if we as parents fail in our duty towards our kids, does not matter where you live, we will do a great disservice to society..........
Sure, I dont think there is any one correct answer for this dilemma. Most of us are going to base our decisions on our personal circumstances and hope that they turn out correct in the long run :)
I learnt at a very young age that living with your cousins/uncles/aunts is not necessarily a guarantee of being close........ I am a lot closer to family I never lived with in the same city than I am to family who lived a few blocks from where we did.........
It is all in how the parents mold the environment for their kids. if we as parents fail in our duty towards our kids, does not matter where you live, we will do a great disservice to society..........
Sure, I dont think there is any one correct answer for this dilemma. Most of us are going to base our decisions on our personal circumstances and hope that they turn out correct in the long run :)
hair cartoon tattoos – x men
eb3_nepa
03-09 01:21 PM
Black_logs are you ABSOLUTELY sure that they eat into the EB3 numbers? On the Visa Bulletin, they have a seperate entry below the EB3. Just curious if we are getting this Schedule A thing correctly
more...
Beta_mle
06-10 07:46 AM
This is not a free market for labour. This is no kind of freedom, let's call it what it is, it is indentured servitude.
hot Pointing Devil clip art
mbawa2574
07-06 02:25 AM
what is "something" you want to do?
wwbd? what would bawa do?
U need to change ur handle :-)
wwbd? what would bawa do?
U need to change ur handle :-)
more...
house animated tattoo
pathiren
07-21 03:10 PM
Count me in. I am in Irvine and would be more than helpful to work for this cause. Cheers all!! Wave is building up for a revolution to chage the immigration laws of US!!!!
tattoo Cartoon+devil+horns+and+
knnmbd
04-25 12:59 PM
Guys what about the type of visa? I mean shud the start date be ur H1B start date or ur F1 entry date? Coz if some people start on an H1 a lot of us also started on an F1. In that case doesnt it make more sense to root for the clause that says the immigrant can apply for his own GC that is employer independant? If i am not mistaken, is that not already a part of the PACE act?
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
I agree. Also, since F1 is not a dual intent visa this will not hold water. Anyways this is a ridiculous demand. We are not the law makers and we should consider ourselves lucky that couple of IV's amendments are in a few of the senator’s bills, though there are no guarantees if they will be included in the final text or let alone be passed. We should only push for what is already include in the 2 bills and not confuse everyone every time one of us comes up with this "brilliant" idea of using H1B entry date as priority date. So what's the next amendment we want " include the day I first envisioned that I will come to America as the priority date". WE NEED ONE VOICE and we have already been heard so let’s stick to what is practical and push those amendments through.
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
I agree. Also, since F1 is not a dual intent visa this will not hold water. Anyways this is a ridiculous demand. We are not the law makers and we should consider ourselves lucky that couple of IV's amendments are in a few of the senator’s bills, though there are no guarantees if they will be included in the final text or let alone be passed. We should only push for what is already include in the 2 bills and not confuse everyone every time one of us comes up with this "brilliant" idea of using H1B entry date as priority date. So what's the next amendment we want " include the day I first envisioned that I will come to America as the priority date". WE NEED ONE VOICE and we have already been heard so let’s stick to what is practical and push those amendments through.
more...
pictures Reclining Devil
Libra
09-13 04:30 PM
thank you GCNaseeb and sunty for contribution. LET'S GO TO DC.
$100 Sent thru Paypal. (ID #9U1869976C484994N)
Go IV Go.
$100 Sent thru Paypal. (ID #9U1869976C484994N)
Go IV Go.
dresses webkitchen devils website,
zoooom
08-10 11:06 PM
I dont think this is true coz I am juky 2nd filer and my checks havent been cashed yet...
more...
makeup Animated Tasmanian Devil Taz
h1techSlave
05-01 02:35 PM
Cool
The gray dots come when you get either approval/disapproval from somebody who has:
less than 30 posts.
overall negative reputationgray dots have no affect on your reputation. This is to prevent new or disreputes from irresponsibly affecting others' reputations.
The gray dots come when you get either approval/disapproval from somebody who has:
less than 30 posts.
overall negative reputationgray dots have no affect on your reputation. This is to prevent new or disreputes from irresponsibly affecting others' reputations.
girlfriend Cocky Devil Tattoo - Cartoon
bigboy007
06-02 07:53 PM
Hey Canadian Dream:
I know things might change , i wish this law doesnt pass through at all. But in its form this is interpretation of major members and attorneys in current stage. Please correct me if i am wrong.
I might agree with your conclusion of start date, but Now coming to to cases :
Petetion for an employment based visa = I 140 , that were filed prior to the date of intro ( for our sake its Oct 2008 or May 15 2007 ) that were pending or approved , shall be treated as if such provision remained effective.
An approved petition may server as basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
and for all people who are still in Labor stage will preserve their priority date.
Now based on this , if you have filed an I140 before the date of enactment what ever it might one should be fine. Once dates becomes current and I140 approved one can file for 485 in previous system.
I dont see any conclusion based on 485 is approved or not its just adjustment of status once PD become current , i think its all 140 that determines you are approved as an immigrant or not.
===========================
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
I know things might change , i wish this law doesnt pass through at all. But in its form this is interpretation of major members and attorneys in current stage. Please correct me if i am wrong.
I might agree with your conclusion of start date, but Now coming to to cases :
Petetion for an employment based visa = I 140 , that were filed prior to the date of intro ( for our sake its Oct 2008 or May 15 2007 ) that were pending or approved , shall be treated as if such provision remained effective.
An approved petition may server as basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
and for all people who are still in Labor stage will preserve their priority date.
Now based on this , if you have filed an I140 before the date of enactment what ever it might one should be fine. Once dates becomes current and I140 approved one can file for 485 in previous system.
I dont see any conclusion based on 485 is approved or not its just adjustment of status once PD become current , i think its all 140 that determines you are approved as an immigrant or not.
===========================
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
hairstyles cartoon tattoo designs.
hopefulgc
09-12 12:13 PM
why do we have to get names from people...
simply decide a course of action... like send out letters or the big-as calculator brother singhsa3 suggested and let them ship it out individually
Most people here just want to discuss but when it comes to action - you will notice that they would not even give out their proper name to IV while registering - so mobilizing is not as easy as discussing it here.
Discussion forums are good because ideas emerge here - ideas are needed for execution and discussing pressing issues must lead us towards a path to execution.
The question is - can all those who do that talk actually walk the talk?
simply decide a course of action... like send out letters or the big-as calculator brother singhsa3 suggested and let them ship it out individually
Most people here just want to discuss but when it comes to action - you will notice that they would not even give out their proper name to IV while registering - so mobilizing is not as easy as discussing it here.
Discussion forums are good because ideas emerge here - ideas are needed for execution and discussing pressing issues must lead us towards a path to execution.
The question is - can all those who do that talk actually walk the talk?
Imm_Exploited
07-24 10:59 PM
priti8888
Congratulations!! Enjoy your freedom.
My PD is October 2003 (EB2 India) and I have always detested the fact that in some states the LC used to be approved very fast. If I remember correctly, the LC approvals used to have a state-wise bulletins prior to PERM and there was a time when in states like Maine, some got their GCs within a year of filing their LC. The majority unlucky ones got stuck in red tape racist states and LCs were moved to BECs.
priti888's LC was approved before December 2004 and she was able to file I-140 + I-485 concurrently in December 2004 becuase EB3 India was 'C' in December 2004 VB (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1343.html).
The title of the thread if funny (like the Monday Headlines in Jay Leno's Show) - card production ordered!!! July 23th :) instead of July 23rd
LuckyPaji - I don't even want to attempt to respond to his case. His explanantion that he has an undergraduate degree from Punjab is too clean and too good to be true.
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
Congratulations!! Enjoy your freedom.
My PD is October 2003 (EB2 India) and I have always detested the fact that in some states the LC used to be approved very fast. If I remember correctly, the LC approvals used to have a state-wise bulletins prior to PERM and there was a time when in states like Maine, some got their GCs within a year of filing their LC. The majority unlucky ones got stuck in red tape racist states and LCs were moved to BECs.
priti888's LC was approved before December 2004 and she was able to file I-140 + I-485 concurrently in December 2004 becuase EB3 India was 'C' in December 2004 VB (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1343.html).
The title of the thread if funny (like the Monday Headlines in Jay Leno's Show) - card production ordered!!! July 23th :) instead of July 23rd
LuckyPaji - I don't even want to attempt to respond to his case. His explanantion that he has an undergraduate degree from Punjab is too clean and too good to be true.
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
gctest
09-15 04:19 PM
That memo/document you pointed out is an interpretation. We have already said that USCIS's interpretation is incorrect. We intend to correct this interpretation with this lawsuit.
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
No comments:
Post a Comment