funny
09-11 04:40 PM
Thats the only thing hadn't happened so far......and now we have it...People are blaming IV now...I hope this is not true.
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/124475663/last-page/
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/124475663/last-page/
wallpaper wiz-khalifa-rolling-stone-
Macaca
10-01 03:27 PM
Worldwide Limits
(a) FS Preference Limitation:
The overall ceiling for relatives is 480,000, from which the previous year's total of immediate relatives and other family classes which are exempt from the numerical ceiling are deducted to determine the level of family-based preference immigration. Although the difference could be greater or less than 226,000, that figure is established as a minimum for the FS preference immigrant limitation.
Specifically, if such family-related numerically-exempt immigrants and parolees are fewer than 254,000, the family-sponsored preferences will be entitled to more than 226,000 in the following fiscal year. On the other hand, if such family-related numerically-exempt immigrants and parolees exceed 254,000, the FS preferences are still provided at least 226,000 numbers by virtue of the minimum annual limit assured by Sec. 201(c).
So # legal immigrants/year = 480K (FS) + 140K (EB) + 50K (diversity) + Refugee + Asylum + ... = 670K + ... ~= 1M (reported in articles)
(a) FS Preference Limitation:
The overall ceiling for relatives is 480,000, from which the previous year's total of immediate relatives and other family classes which are exempt from the numerical ceiling are deducted to determine the level of family-based preference immigration. Although the difference could be greater or less than 226,000, that figure is established as a minimum for the FS preference immigrant limitation.
Specifically, if such family-related numerically-exempt immigrants and parolees are fewer than 254,000, the family-sponsored preferences will be entitled to more than 226,000 in the following fiscal year. On the other hand, if such family-related numerically-exempt immigrants and parolees exceed 254,000, the FS preferences are still provided at least 226,000 numbers by virtue of the minimum annual limit assured by Sec. 201(c).
So # legal immigrants/year = 480K (FS) + 140K (EB) + 50K (diversity) + Refugee + Asylum + ... = 670K + ... ~= 1M (reported in articles)
gcsim
06-10 07:02 AM
yeah just checked....EB3 'U' and EB2 1 April 2004 :-( more waiting ......nothing like last July.God help us.
2011 Being Wiz Khalifa If there
purgan
08-17 11:29 PM
grupak/mirage/pani6
i support your efforts and have printed out and sent letters to the people mentioned. Momentum for release of information should build up even if we have 50-100 letters from affected people...otherwise people won't know of EB-3 IND's plight.
I suppose we should followup with phone calls in 15 days to cement our request. We should have a poll on who all has sent the letter and made the call.
i support your efforts and have printed out and sent letters to the people mentioned. Momentum for release of information should build up even if we have 50-100 letters from affected people...otherwise people won't know of EB-3 IND's plight.
I suppose we should followup with phone calls in 15 days to cement our request. We should have a poll on who all has sent the letter and made the call.
more...
pappu
02-01 11:59 PM
could someone take the initiative of organizing conference calls.
Miya Maqbool
09-10 03:32 PM
HI Pappu,
PLease post the total amount received end of the day on the web site....
Hopefully we will exceed the required amount....
Go IV!!!
PLease post the total amount received end of the day on the web site....
Hopefully we will exceed the required amount....
Go IV!!!
more...
Administrator2
04-30 01:27 PM
IV Team,
I have been calling the list of Senators - and some of them say they do not support amnesty. I do talk about high skilled immigrants (from pappu's brief). My question is how do I make the distinction between the two groups without sounding that I am being against the undocumented?
Appreciate your help on this as I continue calling the Senators. Thanks
Thanks, we expect some of the offices will say this. There can be lot of answers to this question. One way to respond is -
"For last 10 years there has been no High-skilled immigration bill passed by the Congress. The world has changed in last 10 years. I understand that the Senator is a champion for creating more jobs in America. Employment based green cards will create jobs in America. I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card.
I would sincerely request you to please convey to the Senator if he would consider supporting some version of the immigration bill
giving more weight to green cards and creating jobs in America, or maybe the Senator could lead the effort for improving the proposal"
Please always end the call on a cordial note thanking the Staff member.
I have been calling the list of Senators - and some of them say they do not support amnesty. I do talk about high skilled immigrants (from pappu's brief). My question is how do I make the distinction between the two groups without sounding that I am being against the undocumented?
Appreciate your help on this as I continue calling the Senators. Thanks
Thanks, we expect some of the offices will say this. There can be lot of answers to this question. One way to respond is -
"For last 10 years there has been no High-skilled immigration bill passed by the Congress. The world has changed in last 10 years. I understand that the Senator is a champion for creating more jobs in America. Employment based green cards will create jobs in America. I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card.
I would sincerely request you to please convey to the Senator if he would consider supporting some version of the immigration bill
giving more weight to green cards and creating jobs in America, or maybe the Senator could lead the effort for improving the proposal"
Please always end the call on a cordial note thanking the Staff member.
2010 Stoned- Wiz Khalifa
pappu
06-10 01:49 PM
The state chapters don't seem to be very effective.
I thought I was a member of the CA chapter but in the last few months I received no information from anybody in this chapter.
I was semi-active, meaning I helped with phone calls, money and prints and that's as much as I could do at this point in time.
And at some point there was a discussion about a new user group of only the people that are active and can contribute and it seems they went through with it.
I understand that some things might be better discussed in a smaller group with the people that can dedicate more time, but there are different levels of commitment and if you're not open and accept that some want to help but can't do as much as others, you're cutting yourself short.
When there is a big initiative or a push for funds and effort, you're not even reaching out to the bigger group; you're relying on the same small number of people and they too have limited resources and energy and will get tired.
Maybe I’m just having a bad day but that was my experience and CA is one of the most active chapters so maybe all is well I’m an isolated case.
Sometimes chapter leaders are unable to communicate the message to members on time or must be busy for their own reasons. We will note your feedback for future. Thanks.
I thought I was a member of the CA chapter but in the last few months I received no information from anybody in this chapter.
I was semi-active, meaning I helped with phone calls, money and prints and that's as much as I could do at this point in time.
And at some point there was a discussion about a new user group of only the people that are active and can contribute and it seems they went through with it.
I understand that some things might be better discussed in a smaller group with the people that can dedicate more time, but there are different levels of commitment and if you're not open and accept that some want to help but can't do as much as others, you're cutting yourself short.
When there is a big initiative or a push for funds and effort, you're not even reaching out to the bigger group; you're relying on the same small number of people and they too have limited resources and energy and will get tired.
Maybe I’m just having a bad day but that was my experience and CA is one of the most active chapters so maybe all is well I’m an isolated case.
Sometimes chapter leaders are unable to communicate the message to members on time or must be busy for their own reasons. We will note your feedback for future. Thanks.
more...
shreekhand
07-18 05:50 PM
priti8888,
That is not true. Receipt Date is when the service center physically receives the package. They date stamp it and then use it to enter that RD when they generate the Notice on the ND.
What you see on the status page for sure reflects the ND and NOT the RD. So you can pretty much ignore what the status page says and rely on what your physical notice says (it states the actual RD when they physically received the package!)
Hope this is a clear explanation.
RECIPT DATE is the date when they input your info in the system. Before inputting in the system they check I140,medicals,etc. Notice date has no bearing. If your packet looks fine you get your receipt number and then you will be able to view the status on uscis.gov. The status will be something like "On july 9th 2007 we received your applivction ..............etc"
"Status :case received and pending"
That is not true. Receipt Date is when the service center physically receives the package. They date stamp it and then use it to enter that RD when they generate the Notice on the ND.
What you see on the status page for sure reflects the ND and NOT the RD. So you can pretty much ignore what the status page says and rely on what your physical notice says (it states the actual RD when they physically received the package!)
Hope this is a clear explanation.
RECIPT DATE is the date when they input your info in the system. Before inputting in the system they check I140,medicals,etc. Notice date has no bearing. If your packet looks fine you get your receipt number and then you will be able to view the status on uscis.gov. The status will be something like "On july 9th 2007 we received your applivction ..............etc"
"Status :case received and pending"
hair Wiz Khalifa Covers Rolling
immi_enthu
08-10 06:14 PM
Any updates from USCIS regarding lockbox & receipting dates?
it's still not a week since 08/03/2007 for USCIS :D. they have more 7 days in a week :rolleyes:.
it's still not a week since 08/03/2007 for USCIS :D. they have more 7 days in a week :rolleyes:.
more...
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
hot New Music: Wiz Khalifa –
panky72
06-25 04:08 PM
Loosing my investments
Since I am sure that my GC will take 5 to 10 years more. Meanwhile too many things will change that might make me go back home. So I decided to invest in home(India). I sold lot of stocks. Stopped contributing to 401K above employers match (I used to contribute full 15K). Deferred buying house until my 140 approved.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
Why is loosing such a loosely used word?. Guys, it is losing not loosing. Lose and loose have different meanings.
One more guy who is "loosing" things:D
Since I am sure that my GC will take 5 to 10 years more. Meanwhile too many things will change that might make me go back home. So I decided to invest in home(India). I sold lot of stocks. Stopped contributing to 401K above employers match (I used to contribute full 15K). Deferred buying house until my 140 approved.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
Why is loosing such a loosely used word?. Guys, it is losing not loosing. Lose and loose have different meanings.
One more guy who is "loosing" things:D
more...
house Wiz Khalifa got his very first
qplearn
12-18 04:38 PM
While we all sit here discussing Gandhigiri, time is silently slipping by. New congress session is only two weeks away, but guess what � immigration is not even on the agenda���..
CIR has come and gone�.
Elections have come and gone�.
Lame duck has come and gone�.
I guess the season for waiting is still here�.may be for a very long time
so rajaram, what do you suggest? any updates on action in Jan?
CIR has come and gone�.
Elections have come and gone�.
Lame duck has come and gone�.
I guess the season for waiting is still here�.may be for a very long time
so rajaram, what do you suggest? any updates on action in Jan?
tattoo on Lupe and Wiz…Plus More
reddymjm
03-03 11:13 AM
Not much movement.
EB2-I : 15 August 2004
Eb3-I : Either U or 15 Jan 2002.
Thank's
MDix
Definetly more movement than this. U - not so soon for EB3. It might be mid 2002.
EB2-I : 15 August 2004
Eb3-I : Either U or 15 Jan 2002.
Thank's
MDix
Definetly more movement than this. U - not so soon for EB3. It might be mid 2002.
more...
pictures Wiz Khalifa - Stoned
learning01
03-16 12:55 PM
[I posted this comment at another thread a few minutes ago. For a wider read I am also posting here]
Newt said Nothing is going to happen on this Specter or any other immigration bills in Senate. The conference with House will not agree to anything.
I also sincerely believe that Nothing is going to happen I say, these senators are doing CYAs; they will bitch it to media, their constituents, hey look, we did attempt these immigration reforms.
I am talking from my long experience and wisdom and take it from me. The only force that can improve the pitiable conditions of Indian and Chinese due to retrogression and lack of visa numbers is the big corporate employers . Each one whose LC is approved, whose I-140 is approved, who is waiting to file for adjustment of status AND who are indispensable to the employer / work at this stage should write to the HR/ Immigration/ Attorney.
I am in such a position. I am a technical lead in my IT department. PD Nov 2001. I write about these issues and the difficulties once in a month my team manager, or project manager or Immigration department.
Newt said Nothing is going to happen on this Specter or any other immigration bills in Senate. The conference with House will not agree to anything.
I also sincerely believe that Nothing is going to happen I say, these senators are doing CYAs; they will bitch it to media, their constituents, hey look, we did attempt these immigration reforms.
I am talking from my long experience and wisdom and take it from me. The only force that can improve the pitiable conditions of Indian and Chinese due to retrogression and lack of visa numbers is the big corporate employers . Each one whose LC is approved, whose I-140 is approved, who is waiting to file for adjustment of status AND who are indispensable to the employer / work at this stage should write to the HR/ Immigration/ Attorney.
I am in such a position. I am a technical lead in my IT department. PD Nov 2001. I write about these issues and the difficulties once in a month my team manager, or project manager or Immigration department.
dresses wiz khalifa rolling stone
rongha_2000
04-30 04:05 PM
So what happens next?
more...
makeup Wiz Khalifa – Taylor Gang
lonedesi
08-06 08:24 AM
Raydon, thanks for expressing your situation. But I still feel we are not requesting TSC to expedite our cases. All we are asking his, please do justice to us and follow the FIFO for the I-140 petitions. TSC has been consistently approving cases filed in recently and just continuing to ignore our cases. If you can explain your attorney, I am sure he will understand. Or atleast have him, fill out form 7001 on your behalf and send his own letter explaining the situation to Ombudsman's office.
I understand that I-140 is employer petition, but it ulitmately belongs to you. So you need to do whatever you can do some how convince your employer or attorney to assist you one time. I-485 is your petition, and you do not need any consent, if you need to send a letter to Ombudsman's office. So please try your best and see if you can mail the form & letter to Ombudsman's office.
lonedesi,
Much as I'd like to participate in this campaign, it's the employer's signature that I can't guarantee. My employer is a big and prestigious (supposedly) company and will not want to sign this petition or do anything against the counsel of the attorney. The attorney is not gaining anything by expedited processing of the I-140 and won't support this either. He's an AILA member too, if that's of any significance.
If this is worthless without the employer's signature, then I'm unable to participate in this campaign, though it is a worthy effort.I would urge all members who can get the employer's consent to definitely participate and wake up the USCIS from it's slumber.They need a big kick up their you-know-where, especially the TSC.
I understand that I-140 is employer petition, but it ulitmately belongs to you. So you need to do whatever you can do some how convince your employer or attorney to assist you one time. I-485 is your petition, and you do not need any consent, if you need to send a letter to Ombudsman's office. So please try your best and see if you can mail the form & letter to Ombudsman's office.
lonedesi,
Much as I'd like to participate in this campaign, it's the employer's signature that I can't guarantee. My employer is a big and prestigious (supposedly) company and will not want to sign this petition or do anything against the counsel of the attorney. The attorney is not gaining anything by expedited processing of the I-140 and won't support this either. He's an AILA member too, if that's of any significance.
If this is worthless without the employer's signature, then I'm unable to participate in this campaign, though it is a worthy effort.I would urge all members who can get the employer's consent to definitely participate and wake up the USCIS from it's slumber.They need a big kick up their you-know-where, especially the TSC.
girlfriend WIZ KHALIFA COVERS ROLLING
kumar4j2ee
09-17 02:02 PM
Order Details - Sep 17, 2007 1:33 PM EDT
Google Order #371403364547278
Google Order #371403364547278
hairstyles Wiz Khalifa on the COVER of
coopheal
10-01 11:52 AM
Yes we all are frustrated, but one thing we can do is contribute to IV. Let IV core have some resources in hand to implement strategies they have thought of for advancement of our cause.
Contributed $100 for this month
Google Order #552474927075339
Contributed $100 for this month
Google Order #552474927075339
Karthikthiru
07-20 01:28 PM
The report shows 144,000 PERMs between March 28, 2005 - June 1, 2007 (NOT between oct 2006- march 2007). That i sover a period of 2years and 4 months. This is not bad as we all are thinking
Karthik
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/dolsta1207.pdf
there were 144,000 PERM's done between oct 2006- march 2007
india, china have retro for both EB2 and EB3
mexico, philippines and bunch of other countries have retro for EB3
PERM is only for the Primary applicant. For I-485 every dependent of Primary applicant needs one separate application
Considering all these 750,000 I-485 filings in next 1 month sounds a reasonable estimate.
Karthik
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/dolsta1207.pdf
there were 144,000 PERM's done between oct 2006- march 2007
india, china have retro for both EB2 and EB3
mexico, philippines and bunch of other countries have retro for EB3
PERM is only for the Primary applicant. For I-485 every dependent of Primary applicant needs one separate application
Considering all these 750,000 I-485 filings in next 1 month sounds a reasonable estimate.
HRPRO
02-23 04:31 PM
Well, I had a Infopass last week to check on a Soft LUD on my I-140, I heard slightly different story, they did not say adjudicating the EB application, but Process the EB application, which I guess what they were saying is pre-adjudicating the cases, in the last few weeks with lot of cases being transferred (both EB2/EB3) to different offices, pre-adjudicating the cases makes sense....but hey, we are talking about USCIS here, we never know, whatever you heard could be true too......
One piece of information that made me happy reading your comment was "a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff", this is good news.....but wondering what does legal/illegal mean to USCIS anyway......and how does it help us from retrogression point of view??
What is LUD
One piece of information that made me happy reading your comment was "a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff", this is good news.....but wondering what does legal/illegal mean to USCIS anyway......and how does it help us from retrogression point of view??
What is LUD
No comments:
Post a Comment