WillIBLucky
02-02 09:01 AM
Thomas does say about the amendment. It was included in minimum wage bill that has passed in senate.
Even this amendment S. Amd 187 was agreed to in senate. So I believe if the minimum wage billed has been passed then same goes with the amendments too. So we can still hope and not that this was hoax.
Even this amendment S. Amd 187 was agreed to in senate. So I believe if the minimum wage billed has been passed then same goes with the amendments too. So we can still hope and not that this was hoax.
wallpaper (Layne Staley by ~Borj)
raj2007
06-13 11:15 PM
There will be a few lucky ones indeed. Those who get I-485 cleared within 3 - 4 months. But retrogression will kick in ( as applications get approved ) and the PD of 2003,2004 etc will become valuable.
It happened in 1999-2000 when they made all the dates current for 3 months and after that it went back by 3 years.But good thing this time is that you can change the jobs after 6 months.
It happened in 1999-2000 when they made all the dates current for 3 months and after that it went back by 3 years.But good thing this time is that you can change the jobs after 6 months.
GCNirvana007
09-01 02:29 PM
I feel really sad...thanks to USCIS error, I lost my 8/2004 PD. Now I have an 8/2006 PD. Just sharing my sorrow :(
If you are so sure its their error why dont you take it up to them?.
If you are so sure its their error why dont you take it up to them?.
2011 layne staley demri. layne
needhelp!
05-15 02:13 PM
Please call all of them. They asked me whether I was from district or particular organization, and I said I am not from the district but I am a member of Immigration Voice and they have taken down my message.
the person who took the phone asked where are you calling from? I think they care for calls only from the rep's distrcit? Also would verbal messages to any staff be sufficent? no fax?
the person who took the phone asked where are you calling from? I think they care for calls only from the rep's distrcit? Also would verbal messages to any staff be sufficent? no fax?
more...
Macaca
02-02 11:38 AM
If this amendment had really passed, and if it had not been modified in the conference between house and senate and if hard cap had become a law, then this amendment would have done more harm than good.
This is senate approval only. Doesn't it have to go through Congress also. Where are the votes in congress?
I also understand that there was no real intention on Kennedy to bring up our case. It was pure politics.
Please explain both points. Thanks
This is senate approval only. Doesn't it have to go through Congress also. Where are the votes in congress?
I also understand that there was no real intention on Kennedy to bring up our case. It was pure politics.
Please explain both points. Thanks
PD_Dec2002
07-11 10:23 PM
"It has also come to my attention that USCIS began returning visa numbers to the State Department as early as Thursday, July 5, 2007, due to their inability to review applications effectively."[/SIZE]
http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1810
So is it possible that the following was USCIS' plan all along in a bid to (1) force applicants to pay the higher fees and (2) reduce the number of applications they would receive. So let's try and see where USCIS or DOS acually broke the law. BTW, the following is pure speculation on my part.
1. DOS makes all categories current in the visa bulletin dated June 12.
2. This screws up USCIS's plans. So they have to force the DOS to issue a revision before July 1st.
3. USCIS frantically starts requesting visa numbers. Even for 485s with pending FBI checks.
4. Come July 2nd, USCIS still hasn't used up all the 60,000 or so numbers, but still informs DOS that all visa numbers have been exhausted.
5. DOS publishes a revised visa bulletin dated July 02 where everthing becomes unavailable.
6. USCIS acts on DOS revised visa bulletin and decides to reject all I-485s filed on July 02 and beyond.
7. July 05 onwards, USCIS starts returning the numbers to DOS. This could be for applications that have pending FBI checks.
8. DOS now decides to use some caution before issuing August bulletin. They will probably not make all categories current, but will probably shift them by a few months based on June bulletin.
9. USCIS now gets all new applications with higher fees and a reduced number of applications.
Please add to this sequence of events if you think I missed anything.
IMHO, USCIS broke the law in #4. And DOS broke the law in #5 if it was aware that visa numbers were still being issued as of July 02.
Thanks,
Jayant
http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1810
So is it possible that the following was USCIS' plan all along in a bid to (1) force applicants to pay the higher fees and (2) reduce the number of applications they would receive. So let's try and see where USCIS or DOS acually broke the law. BTW, the following is pure speculation on my part.
1. DOS makes all categories current in the visa bulletin dated June 12.
2. This screws up USCIS's plans. So they have to force the DOS to issue a revision before July 1st.
3. USCIS frantically starts requesting visa numbers. Even for 485s with pending FBI checks.
4. Come July 2nd, USCIS still hasn't used up all the 60,000 or so numbers, but still informs DOS that all visa numbers have been exhausted.
5. DOS publishes a revised visa bulletin dated July 02 where everthing becomes unavailable.
6. USCIS acts on DOS revised visa bulletin and decides to reject all I-485s filed on July 02 and beyond.
7. July 05 onwards, USCIS starts returning the numbers to DOS. This could be for applications that have pending FBI checks.
8. DOS now decides to use some caution before issuing August bulletin. They will probably not make all categories current, but will probably shift them by a few months based on June bulletin.
9. USCIS now gets all new applications with higher fees and a reduced number of applications.
Please add to this sequence of events if you think I missed anything.
IMHO, USCIS broke the law in #4. And DOS broke the law in #5 if it was aware that visa numbers were still being issued as of July 02.
Thanks,
Jayant
more...
Ahimsa
07-19 10:20 AM
What do we say when people correlate illegal and legal immigrations as closely connected?
There was a hearing yesterday in the house "Should We Embrace the Senate's Grant of Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens and Repeat the Mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?"
Look what Mr. Steven A. Camarota (Center for Immigration Studies) quotes in his testimony (shown in italics): (http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/camarota071806.pdf)
...many observers have pointed out that when you reward law breaking, you make legal immigrants who have played by the rules, and in some cases have waited many years to come to our country, look like fools for taking America�s law seriously.
True. But see what he says then...
...Amnesties and Increased Legal Immigration Don�t Solve Problem. �Amnesty spurs more illegal immigration, as does increases in legal immigration. A 1997 report from the INS found that there was a surge of new illegal immigration when the 1986 amnesty went into effect. The increase seems to have been the result of family members joining their newly legalized relatives�
One of the most controversial provisions in S2611 is the very large increase in legal immigration it creates. The larger the pool of immigrants (legal or illegal) in the United States, the greater is the pull for more illegal immigration. Illegal aliens often live with legal immigrants and it is legal immigrants who often provide information about jobs and housing to their relatives and friends back home. Legal immigration has been increasing for more than three decades, and illegal immigration has been increasing right along with it. The top sending countries for legal immigration are by and large the top sending countries for illegal immigration. A survey funded by the National Institute of Health found that one-third of new legal immigrants were former illegal aliens. Legal and illegal immigration are closely linked. The past shows that if you increase one you increase the other. The Senate bill repeats the mistake of thinking amnesty plus increases in legal immigration will solve the problem. It did not in the past and there is no reason to think it will this time around. Instead, S2611 will almost certainly stimulate more illegal mmigration...
Obviously Mr. Camarota was generalizing the legal immigration and was not talking about employer sponsored immigration.
There was a hearing yesterday in the house "Should We Embrace the Senate's Grant of Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens and Repeat the Mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?"
Look what Mr. Steven A. Camarota (Center for Immigration Studies) quotes in his testimony (shown in italics): (http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/camarota071806.pdf)
...many observers have pointed out that when you reward law breaking, you make legal immigrants who have played by the rules, and in some cases have waited many years to come to our country, look like fools for taking America�s law seriously.
True. But see what he says then...
...Amnesties and Increased Legal Immigration Don�t Solve Problem. �Amnesty spurs more illegal immigration, as does increases in legal immigration. A 1997 report from the INS found that there was a surge of new illegal immigration when the 1986 amnesty went into effect. The increase seems to have been the result of family members joining their newly legalized relatives�
One of the most controversial provisions in S2611 is the very large increase in legal immigration it creates. The larger the pool of immigrants (legal or illegal) in the United States, the greater is the pull for more illegal immigration. Illegal aliens often live with legal immigrants and it is legal immigrants who often provide information about jobs and housing to their relatives and friends back home. Legal immigration has been increasing for more than three decades, and illegal immigration has been increasing right along with it. The top sending countries for legal immigration are by and large the top sending countries for illegal immigration. A survey funded by the National Institute of Health found that one-third of new legal immigrants were former illegal aliens. Legal and illegal immigration are closely linked. The past shows that if you increase one you increase the other. The Senate bill repeats the mistake of thinking amnesty plus increases in legal immigration will solve the problem. It did not in the past and there is no reason to think it will this time around. Instead, S2611 will almost certainly stimulate more illegal mmigration...
Obviously Mr. Camarota was generalizing the legal immigration and was not talking about employer sponsored immigration.
2010 Layne Staley and Demri Parrott
GCScrewed
04-08 07:41 PM
No forward movement in EB2 (I or C).
EB3 is "Unavailable" for all countries of chargebility.
Where did the visas go this? Who got them that they are already out of them??
I have been wondering the same thing. Where did all the visas go? Some statistics on CIS website did not seem to indicate that many EB numbers were used last year. So weird!!! :confused:
Maybe as someone said, they just did not want to work. If they make visas unavailable, no case would be counted in the backlog queue and they will therefore meet their "blacklog reduction" target as published earlier???
Bottomline, looks like the new adminstration is no better than the old one to legal EB immigrants, although they have suspended raid on illegals. This is just getting better and better. :rolleyes:
EB3 is "Unavailable" for all countries of chargebility.
Where did the visas go this? Who got them that they are already out of them??
I have been wondering the same thing. Where did all the visas go? Some statistics on CIS website did not seem to indicate that many EB numbers were used last year. So weird!!! :confused:
Maybe as someone said, they just did not want to work. If they make visas unavailable, no case would be counted in the backlog queue and they will therefore meet their "blacklog reduction" target as published earlier???
Bottomline, looks like the new adminstration is no better than the old one to legal EB immigrants, although they have suspended raid on illegals. This is just getting better and better. :rolleyes:
more...
sravani
05-15 02:17 PM
My 485 reached NSC and the receipt date is - 04/19/2007.
What is the approximate NSC processing time for sending out the Finger Print notices after applying the 485?
Appreciate your help
What is the approximate NSC processing time for sending out the Finger Print notices after applying the 485?
Appreciate your help
hair Layne Staley.. by ~rachey-roo
desi3933
02-26 04:10 PM
charts are useless without the story behind those charts..its is as good as a tissue paper.
typical baniya mentality..u want to hoard the wealth ..not share it..;-)
I guess, then there is no need to put chart for today.
Also, would you mind sharing how I am "hoarding the wealth"?
Thank You.
typical baniya mentality..u want to hoard the wealth ..not share it..;-)
I guess, then there is no need to put chart for today.
Also, would you mind sharing how I am "hoarding the wealth"?
Thank You.
more...
sandy_anand
05-08 10:35 AM
You don't have a choice, as far as I know. If you're in NY, it has to go to Atlanta. I'm from NJ, went to Atlanta. Atlanta is very very slow. I've been waiting for three months now.
hot (Layne Staley.)
brb2
06-05 09:07 AM
The objection by house members to this bill is the easy way out for the reps, who are in trouble for a million things such as high gas prices, another Vietnam type bogging down in Iraq, high spending on medicare etc. The only way for conservatives to curry favors with their base is to throw in the defense of marriage bill, and do nothing about the CIR. The next few days will be critical for the bill. It dies or goes to the conference where it might come out radically changed.
I am opening a new thread to post all updates on the CIR. It seems today is a crucial day when the house comes in session and work on forming the committee might start. If people hear any updates you can post in this thread.
I read on immigration-law that conservative republications are trying to torpedo the CIR with a new technical legislative argument. It sure is going to be a difficult task to have this bill passed since house has republican majority and they are saying in the media that they will not have the bill passed.
"Report indicates that the House hardliners who opposed the Senate-passed S. 2611 have come up with a weapon to block the House-Senate Conference Committee and the S.2611. The weapon they have hammered out involves a constitutional issue as to whether the provision in S. 2611 that requires guest worker applicants to "pay the back taxes" as condition for the legal status constitutes a federal government's measure to raise the revenue. These hardliners argue that the U.S. Constitution mandates that any legislation to raise revenue for the government must originate in the House and S. 2611 violated the U.S. Constitution by originating such legislative bill in the Senate. When the Congress returns on Monday, there will be a see-saw fight between the S. 2611 proponents and opponents on this legal technicality issue. One wonders how the House hardliners would defend their prior violations in the past in another legislations that involved such legal technicality issues. Besides, there is no clear definition as to whether such back-tax payment requirement indeed constitutes a revenue raising measure. "
I am opening a new thread to post all updates on the CIR. It seems today is a crucial day when the house comes in session and work on forming the committee might start. If people hear any updates you can post in this thread.
I read on immigration-law that conservative republications are trying to torpedo the CIR with a new technical legislative argument. It sure is going to be a difficult task to have this bill passed since house has republican majority and they are saying in the media that they will not have the bill passed.
"Report indicates that the House hardliners who opposed the Senate-passed S. 2611 have come up with a weapon to block the House-Senate Conference Committee and the S.2611. The weapon they have hammered out involves a constitutional issue as to whether the provision in S. 2611 that requires guest worker applicants to "pay the back taxes" as condition for the legal status constitutes a federal government's measure to raise the revenue. These hardliners argue that the U.S. Constitution mandates that any legislation to raise revenue for the government must originate in the House and S. 2611 violated the U.S. Constitution by originating such legislative bill in the Senate. When the Congress returns on Monday, there will be a see-saw fight between the S. 2611 proponents and opponents on this legal technicality issue. One wonders how the House hardliners would defend their prior violations in the past in another legislations that involved such legal technicality issues. Besides, there is no clear definition as to whether such back-tax payment requirement indeed constitutes a revenue raising measure. "
more...
house (Layne Staley Photo Th)
JunRN
10-05 05:06 PM
Big movement usually comes in June (last quarter of the fiscal year) because DOS is not good in statistics (they are hiring US citizens...just kidding, no offense meant) and only that time it realizes that there are more visas to give. And then suddenly some big VB movements (i think DOS should hire us instead as statistician....i can make accurate VB...lol).
But I believe for FY2008, big movement will come on April (DOS doesn't like a repeat of the July VB fiasco).
But I believe for FY2008, big movement will come on April (DOS doesn't like a repeat of the July VB fiasco).
tattoo in chains, layne staley
pappu
04-18 02:13 PM
We now have 10,716 members.
Let us set a target of 15,000 by the end of May. I think it is doable since we now have more members to take part in it. Could some members help run this campaign and thread?
Also post your innovative ideas you have used to get members.
Let us set a target of 15,000 by the end of May. I think it is doable since we now have more members to take part in it. Could some members help run this campaign and thread?
Also post your innovative ideas you have used to get members.
more...
pictures makeup Layne Staley - Alice in Chains layne staley alice in chains. chains.
Macaca
06-14 11:29 AM
I am appalled at the insensitivity and selfishness of some of the posters here.
Those of you who have just had good news yesterday that YOU are ok should be ASHAMED of yourselves by telling people in a much more depressing situation to lighten up.:confused:
I am much more appalled at LC applicants who can not summarize their problems in Employment Based (EB) Skilled Immigration Applicants (http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=314286&boardsparam=Page%3D2)
Those of you who have just had good news yesterday that YOU are ok should be ASHAMED of yourselves by telling people in a much more depressing situation to lighten up.:confused:
I am much more appalled at LC applicants who can not summarize their problems in Employment Based (EB) Skilled Immigration Applicants (http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=314286&boardsparam=Page%3D2)
dresses layne staley alice in chains. Tags: alice in chains,
Saralayar
04-10 01:13 PM
NKR & saralayar, you guys are stirring up Hornet's nest ... ppl will come up with loads of arguments from both sides of fence .. its best to not to change the diection of the citizenship discussion ..
Agreed.
Agreed.
more...
makeup layne staley demri.
gsc999
09-20 02:03 AM
I went to the DC rally anyway...
I meet new friends but cant remember all their unusual names (FBI name check problem :D, just kidding) ...
pose for a picture in front of the US Capitol...
see the White House live!!!...
got inside the US congress buildings (was little embarassed, wearing jeans during lobbying :cool:)...
see old-time friends in DC and have lunch at Chipotle near Tysons Corner mall...
watch some drivers get angry due to the traffic caused by the parade (huh!)...
lost some carbs due to walking, ...
saw nice gals jogging on the streets of DC at the parade route...
5 hours sitting down in the airplane from CA to DC, 5 hours again from DC to CA...
LASTLY, HAPPY JUST BEING THERE FOR THE IV Cause...
P.S. they have good food inside the US congress cafeteria...
Thanks to Drona and Ramesh for making my trip happend.
---
Dante: Thanks for coming.
I wanted to take your advise and explore how to get Philipino community involved with IV. Please send me or Drona a PM
I meet new friends but cant remember all their unusual names (FBI name check problem :D, just kidding) ...
pose for a picture in front of the US Capitol...
see the White House live!!!...
got inside the US congress buildings (was little embarassed, wearing jeans during lobbying :cool:)...
see old-time friends in DC and have lunch at Chipotle near Tysons Corner mall...
watch some drivers get angry due to the traffic caused by the parade (huh!)...
lost some carbs due to walking, ...
saw nice gals jogging on the streets of DC at the parade route...
5 hours sitting down in the airplane from CA to DC, 5 hours again from DC to CA...
LASTLY, HAPPY JUST BEING THERE FOR THE IV Cause...
P.S. they have good food inside the US congress cafeteria...
Thanks to Drona and Ramesh for making my trip happend.
---
Dante: Thanks for coming.
I wanted to take your advise and explore how to get Philipino community involved with IV. Please send me or Drona a PM
girlfriend layne staley alice in chains.
krishnam70
07-11 09:07 PM
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Posted July 11, 2007
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
Posted July 9, 2007
Is this because of the strong condemnation from the US congress women Ms Lof that prompted it to do this to cover their tracks? Did some people miss their chance because of this?
Posted July 11, 2007
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
Posted July 9, 2007
Is this because of the strong condemnation from the US congress women Ms Lof that prompted it to do this to cover their tracks? Did some people miss their chance because of this?
hairstyles Layne Staley
EB2_Unite
09-26 10:12 AM
Possibly not. But it has to reach USCIS and I was thinking of getting through the liason process of the senators / congressmen.
If IV can take up this effort, then there is a channel that we can get through. But I dont think it is going to happen, because of the infights. Even if USCIS does'nt react, we can use this process to challenge the intrepretation and show them the mess that they have created. May be that will help
============
I believe in talking simple and straight. Well, EB3 friends have every right to work for their benefit. Nothing wrong with that. EB2 people should therefore unite and protect their interests too. EB2 group should unite and lobby hard to ensure that the current equation EB1 > EB2 > EB3 is not disturbed. After all, everyone is selfish when the pins are down. EB2 friends, can we be proactive and protect our interests before it is too late? Nothing to get emotional about
If IV can take up this effort, then there is a channel that we can get through. But I dont think it is going to happen, because of the infights. Even if USCIS does'nt react, we can use this process to challenge the intrepretation and show them the mess that they have created. May be that will help
============
I believe in talking simple and straight. Well, EB3 friends have every right to work for their benefit. Nothing wrong with that. EB2 people should therefore unite and protect their interests too. EB2 group should unite and lobby hard to ensure that the current equation EB1 > EB2 > EB3 is not disturbed. After all, everyone is selfish when the pins are down. EB2 friends, can we be proactive and protect our interests before it is too late? Nothing to get emotional about
knowDOL
06-18 10:25 AM
I am not sure if we can use this reason to sue, but government would act fast if we try to sue on the backlog itself. Probabaly we shoudl talk to Rajiv.
Munshi75
04-10 09:56 AM
Thanks for your replies
No comments:
Post a Comment