amitjoey
07-03 04:15 PM
I understand your concern, it could be a waste of time and might not get us relief, but look, we have been trying to raise awareness and get media attention. And this law-suit will definately get us attention and open up debate about legal-immigrants.
Lawsuit against USCIS, generates a lot of media articles and also the wrong-doing will be highlighted and brought to the administration's attention.
WHY funds man..Please concentrate on something else instead of working on this lawsuit. It is waste of time I think..This is my openion.
Ask funds for some other work but not for lawsuit..
Lawsuit against USCIS, generates a lot of media articles and also the wrong-doing will be highlighted and brought to the administration's attention.
WHY funds man..Please concentrate on something else instead of working on this lawsuit. It is waste of time I think..This is my openion.
Ask funds for some other work but not for lawsuit..
wallpaper How to Do Marie Antoinette
feedfront
09-20 12:06 PM
Does anyone know, how much attorney gonna charge to reply RFE?
CSPAvictim
07-10 05:38 PM
Note: Administrators/Moderators, please move this post to the appropriate thread, or delete it if this has already been posted elsewhere.
Source: http://www.murthy.com
Update on AILF's Legal Action Center Visa Bulletin Litigation (Updated 7/10/07) Posted 2:45pm
The response has been so strong that currently we do not need any more potential plaintiffs who submitted an adjustment application for receipt in July, unless the individuals have an unusual situation or especially compelling facts, such as an aging-out child. At this time, we also would like to hear from the �non-filers� -- people who did not and do not plan to submit an adjustment application for receipt in July but would have done so �but for� the DOS and USCIS actions. These individuals will represent a separate class of plaintiffs. And we�d like to hear from more �other worker� adjustment applicants who applied in June, even if they have not yet received a rejection notice. These individuals will represent a separate class as well.
If the lawsuit is successful (and we fully expect it will be), the court will certify classes, and all people who meet the class descriptions will receive the relief the court orders. The class members will not need to �sign up� with AILF to enjoy those rights.
Regarding �non-filers� � As our July 7 InfoNet update explained, and as we explain in our FAQ, we will include a class of people who would have submitted their adjustment applications for receipt in July, �but for� the government�s actions. The government may try to, or the court may want to treat this class differently from the class of people who submitted applications for receipt in July. Our aim is to do the best possible for both groups.
How soon will we file the law suit? Very soon. It is not easy or quick to prepare class action litigation involving numerous people and numerous claims, but we are working quickly because of the urgency of these events for so many people.
Injunction? AILF knows many people want a quick resolution, as do we. A temporary or ill-conceived order might create more chaos and confusion than we saw in late June / early July. And the government presumably would immediately appeal, creating even more confusion about whether applications were being accepted. By contrast, we intend to seek an injunction that will be forward-looking and will not create another crisis situation for AILA members or the government.
Source: http://www.murthy.com
Update on AILF's Legal Action Center Visa Bulletin Litigation (Updated 7/10/07) Posted 2:45pm
The response has been so strong that currently we do not need any more potential plaintiffs who submitted an adjustment application for receipt in July, unless the individuals have an unusual situation or especially compelling facts, such as an aging-out child. At this time, we also would like to hear from the �non-filers� -- people who did not and do not plan to submit an adjustment application for receipt in July but would have done so �but for� the DOS and USCIS actions. These individuals will represent a separate class of plaintiffs. And we�d like to hear from more �other worker� adjustment applicants who applied in June, even if they have not yet received a rejection notice. These individuals will represent a separate class as well.
If the lawsuit is successful (and we fully expect it will be), the court will certify classes, and all people who meet the class descriptions will receive the relief the court orders. The class members will not need to �sign up� with AILF to enjoy those rights.
Regarding �non-filers� � As our July 7 InfoNet update explained, and as we explain in our FAQ, we will include a class of people who would have submitted their adjustment applications for receipt in July, �but for� the government�s actions. The government may try to, or the court may want to treat this class differently from the class of people who submitted applications for receipt in July. Our aim is to do the best possible for both groups.
How soon will we file the law suit? Very soon. It is not easy or quick to prepare class action litigation involving numerous people and numerous claims, but we are working quickly because of the urgency of these events for so many people.
Injunction? AILF knows many people want a quick resolution, as do we. A temporary or ill-conceived order might create more chaos and confusion than we saw in late June / early July. And the government presumably would immediately appeal, creating even more confusion about whether applications were being accepted. By contrast, we intend to seek an injunction that will be forward-looking and will not create another crisis situation for AILA members or the government.
2011 Marie Antoinette by
optimystic
03-18 08:35 PM
Urgh.. Here come the red squares...Why do I even bother posting comments!
more...
aditya
11-10 09:55 AM
From Jersey City Here
reach me at aditya17.nyc@gmail.com
reach me at aditya17.nyc@gmail.com
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
more...
sunny1000
01-19 10:40 PM
Well, this is NOT a cooked up story. This happened to me yesterday at Harlingen (HRL) Texas airport.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel’s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer’s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I’m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in “ORGANE”.
Are you sure that it was a police officer and not a CBP inspector? The reason I ask is that the fact that you mentioned that he said that he could have deported you. Also, it was after the security check where CBP inspectors are present usually.
I was stopped by a cop for allegedly speeding in Vermont. The second question after asking "do you know why I stopped you" was that "what nationality I was" and "am I a U.S citizen"? I answered him and he asked what was my profession. After that, he just took my drivers license and issued a ticket. He also gave me a break and reduced the speed reading by 5 miles in order for me to pay lesser fine. He did not ask for my passport or immigration papers.
I flew into JFK last week from India and there was a CBP inspector standing at the yellow line where I usually wait for the next available inspector. He asked for my passport to see the visa and then, he let me go to the immigration counter for processing by another inspector. This is pretty new as I flew back to JFK from India in Nov and I was not screened before getting to the immigration counter.
On January 16, 2008, I went to Mexico for H1-B visa stamping at Matamoras US consulate. I got my H1-B visa stamped and returned to Brownville, Texas.
On January 17, 2008, I was at Harlingen (HRL), Texas airport for my final destination.
One of the TSA security personnel’s is in process of verifying my ticket before proceeding to security check. As every one knows, we must present one of the government issued PHOTO-ID to them to clear the security check. I have shown my driver license and he has cleared the security check (name check).
I was about to proceed further for security screening; mean while, a Police Officer came to me and asked me following questions.
Sir, are you a US citizen?
I said, No
Then, he asked me, can I see your immigration documents.
I have shown my passport to the police officer.
He looked at H1-B visa and I-94 and asked me; who do you work for?
I said my employer’s name.
Later, he gave me my passport back.
Now,
I have asked the Police Officer few questions
1. Sir, I’m in domestic traveling, is it mandatory to carry my immigration documents at all times?
Police Officer said, as per the US LAW, all non-immigrants must carry immigration documents and passport at all times.
2. What would you have done to me, if I had failed to present my passport?
Police office said, I could have DEPORTED you.
3. Sir, it is not possible for any one to carry passport at all times. Could the LAW allow me to carry photo copies of my passport and immigrations documents?
Police office said, No. Technically, you must carry original documents at all times.
I would advice you to carry Passport at all times.
I did not know this until Police Officer told me about this LAW.
P.S: BTW, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) level is in “ORGANE”.
Are you sure that it was a police officer and not a CBP inspector? The reason I ask is that the fact that you mentioned that he said that he could have deported you. Also, it was after the security check where CBP inspectors are present usually.
I was stopped by a cop for allegedly speeding in Vermont. The second question after asking "do you know why I stopped you" was that "what nationality I was" and "am I a U.S citizen"? I answered him and he asked what was my profession. After that, he just took my drivers license and issued a ticket. He also gave me a break and reduced the speed reading by 5 miles in order for me to pay lesser fine. He did not ask for my passport or immigration papers.
I flew into JFK last week from India and there was a CBP inspector standing at the yellow line where I usually wait for the next available inspector. He asked for my passport to see the visa and then, he let me go to the immigration counter for processing by another inspector. This is pretty new as I flew back to JFK from India in Nov and I was not screened before getting to the immigration counter.
2010 Marie Antoinette (1938)
new_horizon
10-23 12:40 AM
my detailed post went missing:mad: ...dunno why nojoke edited it out :D.
to put it briefly, i never heard anybody hiring a ceo based on his experience of having organized the company picnic (read community organizer to prez :rolleyes:).
to put it briefly, i never heard anybody hiring a ceo based on his experience of having organized the company picnic (read community organizer to prez :rolleyes:).
more...
GCKaIntezar
01-30 10:31 AM
Yes. Ajay and I'll take care of the Metropark distribution.
Re: EBC Radio
For 2 times a day AD, for a month would cost $1000 + $300 (One time, Ad prep cost) = $1300. It would cost $1000 (from month 2 onward)
If we sign-up for a year, they give a free program for 30 minutes (10 minutes intro/conclusion etc, so 20 minutes really).
If we only want to do the 1/2hr program, it would cost $500.
In my opinion, distributing fliers is the BEST and Most cost-effective option. Because our goal (with any type of marketing) is to bring-in more membership/contribution, paying $1800 (1 month ad + 1 program) = 90 people pitching-in for $20 contribution.
I say we leave this Radio/TV Ads option, and just concentrate on distributing fliers and meeting with congressmen/congresswomen as a group in addition to meeting them 1:1.
-Sanjay
Hi varsha,
I think sanjay or Rajeev was suppose to work with Ajay in metropark
Sekar
Re: EBC Radio
For 2 times a day AD, for a month would cost $1000 + $300 (One time, Ad prep cost) = $1300. It would cost $1000 (from month 2 onward)
If we sign-up for a year, they give a free program for 30 minutes (10 minutes intro/conclusion etc, so 20 minutes really).
If we only want to do the 1/2hr program, it would cost $500.
In my opinion, distributing fliers is the BEST and Most cost-effective option. Because our goal (with any type of marketing) is to bring-in more membership/contribution, paying $1800 (1 month ad + 1 program) = 90 people pitching-in for $20 contribution.
I say we leave this Radio/TV Ads option, and just concentrate on distributing fliers and meeting with congressmen/congresswomen as a group in addition to meeting them 1:1.
-Sanjay
Hi varsha,
I think sanjay or Rajeev was suppose to work with Ajay in metropark
Sekar
hair Marie Antoinette was famed for
Libra
10-17 09:53 AM
bump
more...
ak27
02-02 09:51 AM
Hello Everyone,
Many thanx to Varsha, Sanjay and all others. I am uploaded the updated flyers. As we have discussed over concall last week, we shall be meeting at Bridgewater Temple...
AK27
Many thanx to Varsha, Sanjay and all others. I am uploaded the updated flyers. As we have discussed over concall last week, we shall be meeting at Bridgewater Temple...
AK27
hot of Marie Antoinette,
GCBy3000
12-27 09:44 AM
I have been in different states and this drivers licence rule differ substantially. California / florida strictly goes with your H1b validity date. For H4, it is much more difficult and my wife did not get it in CA but somehow managed ot get it in FL. When I moved to wisconsin, they gave me 3+years over my H1b validity date and also for my wife. The entire DMV process took us 5 mins whereas in FL, we stood in line from morining 3 am till evening 5pm and eventually got appointment for next day. When I asked about this in WI DMV, they said Wisconsin does not follow this and they are not aware of this.
If financial institutions are following govt regulations, does it mean that Govt mandated this against h1b? One of those gimmicks where a H1b is subject to difficulty like obtaining driver lisence etc...is this the same gimmick to legally give hardship to h1b?
If financial institutions are following govt regulations, does it mean that Govt mandated this against h1b? One of those gimmicks where a H1b is subject to difficulty like obtaining driver lisence etc...is this the same gimmick to legally give hardship to h1b?
more...
house Marie-Antoinette
prioritydate
12-20 08:52 PM
No worries for you, if you were inadmissible they would not let you back into the country.
I think so. I went in an out of country 4 times. 2 Indian trips and 2 Canadian trips.
I think so. I went in an out of country 4 times. 2 Indian trips and 2 Canadian trips.
tattoo Fashion Friday
acecupid
07-13 11:57 AM
I suggest this thread be closed and we stop giving murthy any more publicity than she actually deserves. :mad:
more...
pictures No wonder Marie Antoinette
jonty_11
06-12 02:35 PM
it is very easy to say - support CIR and get our ammendments attached to CIR...we were not even able to put forth our ammdmt on the floor last time around....It is not as easy as 1-2-3 ...
SUpport BILL - Get Ammdt attached- Live happily ever after....
NUmber 2 above - Getting Ammddt attached - is next to impossible given the anti immigrant mood already persistant in senators (due to so many provisions for illegals) and also the Anti H1B lobbying thats been going on.
Remember we are always grouped with H1B folks, when it comes to GC
SUpport BILL - Get Ammdt attached- Live happily ever after....
NUmber 2 above - Getting Ammddt attached - is next to impossible given the anti immigrant mood already persistant in senators (due to so many provisions for illegals) and also the Anti H1B lobbying thats been going on.
Remember we are always grouped with H1B folks, when it comes to GC
dresses Marie-Antoinette would
sugaur
08-22 12:57 AM
I am not sure why you guys are so harsh when someone is asking for guidance and help. If you have lot of time please go after the antis...there are lot of websites to rant your farustartion. If you can not give any useful information...please refrain from posting. It just gives very bad light.
Hey, I think the suggestion to contact congressman/senator/newspaper is a good one, probably the best anyone has given so far.
I couldnt resist making a crack, here's a person with ABSOLUTELY no clue about US immigration system blaming the USCIS for sending an RFE. And taking care of a 500 pounder doesnt qualify for a waiver for labour certification:D
Hey, I think the suggestion to contact congressman/senator/newspaper is a good one, probably the best anyone has given so far.
I couldnt resist making a crack, here's a person with ABSOLUTELY no clue about US immigration system blaming the USCIS for sending an RFE. And taking care of a 500 pounder doesnt qualify for a waiver for labour certification:D
more...
makeup Marieantoinette Back-1
sanju
04-04 03:43 PM
You are confused on this. IEEE is against increase of H1B visas. They have never said anything about GCs. If they have, show me where.
That is a good question. And here is a reply to that.
Why does IEEE oppose H1? Because its members do not like competition from people whose profile match IV members i.e. people on H1B. If IEEE would be in love with green card and people waiting on green card, they would not support John Miano and his testimony. IEEE-USA's memberships consist of middle aged racist engineers who cannot keep up with the competition from mostly Asian younger workers. In the 80s and 90s, they were talking about globalization and its benefits as they got a jump start to get most of the global work. Now, other people in other nations have caught up and same globalization is causing them to pee in their pants. They understand that globalization is good for the country and the society. But what is good for the nation is not always good for each and every individual. So to save their lazy ass, they now want protection from their government, without realizing that if they get the protection they are seeking, they will not be able to enjoy that protection for very long as the companies will be compelled to look for more efficient and cost effective ways to do work.
Anyways, answer to your question is in your question i.e. How could someone be against H1b and for green card?
That is a good question. And here is a reply to that.
Why does IEEE oppose H1? Because its members do not like competition from people whose profile match IV members i.e. people on H1B. If IEEE would be in love with green card and people waiting on green card, they would not support John Miano and his testimony. IEEE-USA's memberships consist of middle aged racist engineers who cannot keep up with the competition from mostly Asian younger workers. In the 80s and 90s, they were talking about globalization and its benefits as they got a jump start to get most of the global work. Now, other people in other nations have caught up and same globalization is causing them to pee in their pants. They understand that globalization is good for the country and the society. But what is good for the nation is not always good for each and every individual. So to save their lazy ass, they now want protection from their government, without realizing that if they get the protection they are seeking, they will not be able to enjoy that protection for very long as the companies will be compelled to look for more efficient and cost effective ways to do work.
Anyways, answer to your question is in your question i.e. How could someone be against H1b and for green card?
girlfriend Marie Antoinette
getgreensoon1
05-23 02:22 PM
Thank You ! That was a good peek into your level of knowledge and understanding. No wonder you are always jealous of IT guys.
I am not jealous of computer workers, I pity their life, their overall ignorance about things around and their unwarrented arrogance.
I am not jealous of computer workers, I pity their life, their overall ignorance about things around and their unwarrented arrogance.
hairstyles about Marie Antoinette#39;s
GCwaitforever
02-22 11:41 AM
EB-2 India went to unavailable because USCIS stamped 2003/2004 petitions left and right to consume VISA numbers. Then they realized there were bunch of 2001/2002 petitions gathering dust. After no VISA numbers left, they had no option but to move the priority date backwards to make very few petitions current.
I am betting that they will move the dates forward to 2003 in August or September and process few more EB-2 India petitions. For any forward movement to happen to India EB-2/EB-3, ROW EB-2/EB-3 must become current again. If not, we have to wait till October 2008 for new quota to become effective.
I am betting that they will move the dates forward to 2003 in August or September and process few more EB-2 India petitions. For any forward movement to happen to India EB-2/EB-3, ROW EB-2/EB-3 must become current again. If not, we have to wait till October 2008 for new quota to become effective.
trueguy
08-27 01:32 PM
Did anybody notice that FB I-485 processed numbers are same for every month. How USCIS can allocate same numbers to FB every month and not to EB. Wouldn't it be easy if they allocate annual quota of EB visas per month and any leftover from every month can be allocated to retrogressed countries in the same month.
ukats02
10-20 09:00 AM
If you download and read Obama's immigration plan (PDF), it is more or less the same ( Vs MacCain's plan). Except for no mention in specific words about increasing the H1 #'s or GC #'s, the plan actually makes note of the hardships faced by legal immigrants. The problem is acknowledged and they accept that the legal immigrations system is broken, which to me, means that they will try to fix it.
-Ukats.
-Ukats.
No comments:
Post a Comment