anjans
07-15 11:25 PM
only the month of AUg approvals is going to validate or invalidate...but makes sense so far. ;-)
wallpaper justin bieber funny or die gif
gccovet
06-08 01:08 PM
What do we have to provide for the following question:
Part 7. Complete only if applying for an Advance Parole.
On a separate piece of paper, please explain how you would qualify for an Advance Parole and what circumstances warrant issuance of Advance Parole. Include copies of any documents you wish considered. (See instructions.)
Also, do we need to send Passport Pictures right away with the application or wait for USCIS letter?
Thanks a lot.
GCCovet
Part 7. Complete only if applying for an Advance Parole.
On a separate piece of paper, please explain how you would qualify for an Advance Parole and what circumstances warrant issuance of Advance Parole. Include copies of any documents you wish considered. (See instructions.)
Also, do we need to send Passport Pictures right away with the application or wait for USCIS letter?
Thanks a lot.
GCCovet
needhelp!
02-08 04:15 PM
We need about 20 volunteers from the strong state chapters like CA, Tristate, TX.... maybe 10 in the rest of the state chapters.
If each volunteer can set a target and collect 200 letters each, we can easily meet the target.
Is that too much to ask for?
If each volunteer can set a target and collect 200 letters each, we can easily meet the target.
Is that too much to ask for?
2011 Dies is shake my ieber world
skynet2500
05-30 09:53 PM
Excerpts from same site http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/9c1274840ebee3c3852572eb006fde98?OpenDocument
Reallocation of Immigrant Visa Numbers
Immigrant visa quotas would be substantially realigned under S. 1348. Our current law provides for a baseline annual quota of 140,000 immigrant visas for foreign nationals immigrating on the basis of employment. In the past several years, a backlog has developed in several employment-based immigrant categories, with multiyear waits for some prospective immigrant workers. The Senate bill would, in the first five years after enactment, increase the quota for merit-based and employment-based cases, in part to address existing backlogs. An estimated 247,000 numbers would be available for work-related immigration. Beginning in the sixth fiscal year after enactment, however, the quota would drop to 140,000 numbers per year. This level would remain in place for at least two years, until approximately the eighth year after enactment, when the quota would rise to a baseline of 380,000 per year, with additional numbers made available for previously undocumented immigrants who become eligible to apply for permanent residence.
Is the interpretation of current Bill (without amendment) is correct for the work related immigration?
This looks like good news. This says work related immigration would get 247000 instead of 90000. Who is misinterpreting the bill?
Reallocation of Immigrant Visa Numbers
Immigrant visa quotas would be substantially realigned under S. 1348. Our current law provides for a baseline annual quota of 140,000 immigrant visas for foreign nationals immigrating on the basis of employment. In the past several years, a backlog has developed in several employment-based immigrant categories, with multiyear waits for some prospective immigrant workers. The Senate bill would, in the first five years after enactment, increase the quota for merit-based and employment-based cases, in part to address existing backlogs. An estimated 247,000 numbers would be available for work-related immigration. Beginning in the sixth fiscal year after enactment, however, the quota would drop to 140,000 numbers per year. This level would remain in place for at least two years, until approximately the eighth year after enactment, when the quota would rise to a baseline of 380,000 per year, with additional numbers made available for previously undocumented immigrants who become eligible to apply for permanent residence.
Is the interpretation of current Bill (without amendment) is correct for the work related immigration?
This looks like good news. This says work related immigration would get 247000 instead of 90000. Who is misinterpreting the bill?
more...
gcformeornot
03-20 06:56 PM
I have had this query before. I had an H1B stamping on my passport for a company I never worked for. (Company A)
But, when I applied for a H1B for a different company (Company B). My lawyer asked me if I ever worked for them and received any salary from them ... this was a RFE on my H1B case.
All I did was replied to my lawyer with a negative answer to both questions (worked, salary for Company A).
I got my new H1B approval I guess within 30 days of that RFE reply.
You might want to contact a lawyer to draft a reply to USCIS though. I do not have a copy of the letter to provide to you ... Sorry!
not be as simple as H1 renewal. G325 is pretty important form. The information provided on it is wrong. They could treat it as falsifying document.
OP please contact your lawyer asap.
But, when I applied for a H1B for a different company (Company B). My lawyer asked me if I ever worked for them and received any salary from them ... this was a RFE on my H1B case.
All I did was replied to my lawyer with a negative answer to both questions (worked, salary for Company A).
I got my new H1B approval I guess within 30 days of that RFE reply.
You might want to contact a lawyer to draft a reply to USCIS though. I do not have a copy of the letter to provide to you ... Sorry!
not be as simple as H1 renewal. G325 is pretty important form. The information provided on it is wrong. They could treat it as falsifying document.
OP please contact your lawyer asap.
gc_kaavaali
06-07 03:20 PM
Dear XXXXX:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding immigration policy. I appreciate hearing from you.
You are absolutely right that we need to tackle comprehensive immigration reform now. That is why I recently sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, asking him to make comprehensive immigration reform a priority. It is imperative that we have a workable immigration system that balances the needs of our economy. We cannot keep pushing back reform for another day.
We must be tough and smart to get our immigration system under control. It is unacceptable to have 12 million people in our country living outside the legal system. We must secure the border, and also require the undocumented to register and become legal, pay a fine, pay their taxes, learn English, and pass criminal background checks. Those who have a serious criminal record should be sent back to the country from which they came.
I support comprehensive immigration reform because it will restore common sense and control to our immigration system, so that we are once again both a nation of immigrants and laws. Without reform, cash-strapped local governments are footing the bill for federal inaction and small businesses are reliant on an immigrant workforce face uncertainty. Comprehensive immigration reform will help the economy by turning undocumented workers into legal taxpayers who are paying their fair share. This issue must be addressed in order to make sure that we have a system in place that cracks down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and ensures all are playing by the rules.
Our immigration system is broken, and it cannot be fixed by one small piece of reform. We should address immigration as a whole, and that is a primary goal of mine here in the Senate.
I will continue to represent the priorities of Coloradans and all Americans in a thoughtful and independent manner. Please know that I will keep your concerns in mind as Congress addresses these issues.
For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator and about issues of importance to Colorado and our nation, I invite you to visit my website at Michael Bennet - United States Senator for Colorado : Home (http://bennet.senate.gov/). Again, thank you for contacting me.
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding immigration policy. I appreciate hearing from you.
You are absolutely right that we need to tackle comprehensive immigration reform now. That is why I recently sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, asking him to make comprehensive immigration reform a priority. It is imperative that we have a workable immigration system that balances the needs of our economy. We cannot keep pushing back reform for another day.
We must be tough and smart to get our immigration system under control. It is unacceptable to have 12 million people in our country living outside the legal system. We must secure the border, and also require the undocumented to register and become legal, pay a fine, pay their taxes, learn English, and pass criminal background checks. Those who have a serious criminal record should be sent back to the country from which they came.
I support comprehensive immigration reform because it will restore common sense and control to our immigration system, so that we are once again both a nation of immigrants and laws. Without reform, cash-strapped local governments are footing the bill for federal inaction and small businesses are reliant on an immigrant workforce face uncertainty. Comprehensive immigration reform will help the economy by turning undocumented workers into legal taxpayers who are paying their fair share. This issue must be addressed in order to make sure that we have a system in place that cracks down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and ensures all are playing by the rules.
Our immigration system is broken, and it cannot be fixed by one small piece of reform. We should address immigration as a whole, and that is a primary goal of mine here in the Senate.
I will continue to represent the priorities of Coloradans and all Americans in a thoughtful and independent manner. Please know that I will keep your concerns in mind as Congress addresses these issues.
For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator and about issues of importance to Colorado and our nation, I invite you to visit my website at Michael Bennet - United States Senator for Colorado : Home (http://bennet.senate.gov/). Again, thank you for contacting me.
more...
andy garcia
11-28 09:33 AM
...
I bet they have only issued around 120,000 EB visas in the year 2006 (Oct 2005 - Sept 2006), even though the quota is around 250,000. (140,000 direct + 100,000 from family other category).
TheLPR flow for EB was 159,081 in 2006.
Employment Preference Limit
The annual limit is equal to 140,000 plus unused FS preferences in the previous FY. There were 3,949 unused FS preferences in 2005. The 2006 EB limit was 143,949 (140,000 plus 3,949). The REAL ID Act of 2005 recaptured 50,000 unused EB visas, 5,125 of which were used in 2005. In 2006, 33,341 of these visas were used, exceeding the 2006 limit.
I bet they have only issued around 120,000 EB visas in the year 2006 (Oct 2005 - Sept 2006), even though the quota is around 250,000. (140,000 direct + 100,000 from family other category).
TheLPR flow for EB was 159,081 in 2006.
Employment Preference Limit
The annual limit is equal to 140,000 plus unused FS preferences in the previous FY. There were 3,949 unused FS preferences in 2005. The 2006 EB limit was 143,949 (140,000 plus 3,949). The REAL ID Act of 2005 recaptured 50,000 unused EB visas, 5,125 of which were used in 2005. In 2006, 33,341 of these visas were used, exceeding the 2006 limit.
2010 Justin Bieber wearing the
paskal
09-23 12:09 AM
better believe it :-)
more...
gsc999
02-08 10:41 PM
If your statement has been endorsed by the core that they want a million number then forget about this effort.I am feeling sad that i was part of this effort.I am not going to be part anymore unless i see some direct addressals from core to do it hence forth.I wish your million signature drive doesnt drive away many more like me.
C'mon bestin, where is your sense of humor. Digital is part of the highly motivated Northern California posse ;)
C'mon bestin, where is your sense of humor. Digital is part of the highly motivated Northern California posse ;)
hair (Remember, Justin Bieber did
gcfordesi
04-25 07:14 PM
Date of sign up: Apr. 25, 2008
Subscription Name: Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution
Subscription Number: S-1KD34378HJ281644A
Item Number: Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution
Subscription Terms:
$50.00 USD for each month
Thanks.
Subscription Name: Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution
Subscription Number: S-1KD34378HJ281644A
Item Number: Secure $50 Per Month Recurring Contribution
Subscription Terms:
$50.00 USD for each month
Thanks.
more...
jackisback
02-25 06:55 PM
Me and my wife had each sent a letter on Feb 10 to the President and the IV PO Box. I did not see my id in the names of peeps who sent a letter.
Just posting here to make sure you guys got the copies I sent you.
Maybe my letter was not considered in the total sent so far and there could be others like me.
Just a thought...
Just posting here to make sure you guys got the copies I sent you.
Maybe my letter was not considered in the total sent so far and there could be others like me.
Just a thought...
hot justin bieber hair flip never
rajarao
03-06 08:38 PM
I too got the exact letter. I was annoyed to see they do not know what is the priority date. Now we know the reason for random approvals.
I will be faxing to core, also will contribute for responding as decided by core
I will be faxing to core, also will contribute for responding as decided by core
more...
house JUSTIN BIEBER DESERVED IT GO
gcdedo
07-06 10:31 AM
Does anybody knows when this bill is going to be discussed in the House?
tattoo justin bieber
sweet23guyin
06-23 06:25 PM
Folks,
Don't worry about what to talk with some unknown government employee /staff!...she is dam cool to talk; guess what? even before I started my speach, she told what bills i am calling for, and what her BOSS has to do...do your self a favor and talk to this nice women :D
Don't worry about what to talk with some unknown government employee /staff!...she is dam cool to talk; guess what? even before I started my speach, she told what bills i am calling for, and what her BOSS has to do...do your self a favor and talk to this nice women :D
more...
pictures +or+die.com+justin+ieber
franklin
09-07 02:19 AM
Got IV tshirt?
Check!
Got plane ticket?
Check!
Got hotel?
Check!
Got motivation?
Check!
Got the will to make a change?
Check!
Got greencard?
...
Check!
Got plane ticket?
Check!
Got hotel?
Check!
Got motivation?
Check!
Got the will to make a change?
Check!
Got greencard?
...
dresses justin bieber funny or die
stldude
07-05 11:04 AM
Just called USCIS and told her that My application was mailed on Jun 28th and it got delivered on July 02. I also told her that my PD is May 2003 (hence i'm eligible to file in June)..
She told me that since i mailed it in June and this Notice goes into effect in July 02 my application WILL NOT be rejected... She asked me to wait for receipt notice :)
GOING CRAZZZZZZZZZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
hilarious!!!!
She told me that since i mailed it in June and this Notice goes into effect in July 02 my application WILL NOT be rejected... She asked me to wait for receipt notice :)
GOING CRAZZZZZZZZZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
hilarious!!!!
more...
makeup die justin bieber died.
Circus123
02-29 02:59 PM
I could arrange 10 letters for the campaign.
Go IV!
Go IV!
girlfriend Does Justin Bieber want a
yabadaba
07-20 03:39 PM
And look what our desi reporters write
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1779190.cms
what does that article mean???? 20k-65k??? what the hell is this reporter talking about?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1779190.cms
what does that article mean???? 20k-65k??? what the hell is this reporter talking about?
hairstyles justin bieber funny or die
needhelp!
03-06 05:16 PM
Section 6: Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests Section 6 of the Open Government Act has two provisions that address time limits for complying with FOIA requests, and the consequences of failing to do so. Significantly, this section does not take effect until one year after the date of enactment and will apply to FOIA requests �filed on or after that effective date.� Accordingly, agencies have until December 31, 2008 to take any necessary steps to prepare for the implementation of this Section.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
Prijay
09-20 10:50 AM
In fact I had the same thought! I did talk to a number of fellow participants on Sep 18th rally. Everybody seemed to welcome the idea!
Come on guys, think over it...
Which of the following news will attract the attention of the congress more?
About 1000 Legal immigrants rally in Washington DC!
Or
Thousands and thousands of legal immigrants rally all over the country!
It is very obvious that the total number of participants (put together) will be much higher in local rallies. For instance, I was the only one in the Sep 18th rally from my family. If it was local, all the four of my family would have been there! I am sure that this is the case with most of us!!
Sep 18th was a golden day in our strong movement! We learnt a lot from the dedicated organizers. Many of the participants (including myself) have gained practical experience about what is involved in organizing a rally. Let us build up on this experience to organize multiple but simultaneous rallies in different parts of the country (in almost all the state capitals and big cities).
I have a lot to share.... but can't do it more during my office time.
Shall come back to you during the week end.
Meanwhile, I would love to hear from others about this concept!!
Come on guys, think over it...
Which of the following news will attract the attention of the congress more?
About 1000 Legal immigrants rally in Washington DC!
Or
Thousands and thousands of legal immigrants rally all over the country!
It is very obvious that the total number of participants (put together) will be much higher in local rallies. For instance, I was the only one in the Sep 18th rally from my family. If it was local, all the four of my family would have been there! I am sure that this is the case with most of us!!
Sep 18th was a golden day in our strong movement! We learnt a lot from the dedicated organizers. Many of the participants (including myself) have gained practical experience about what is involved in organizing a rally. Let us build up on this experience to organize multiple but simultaneous rallies in different parts of the country (in almost all the state capitals and big cities).
I have a lot to share.... but can't do it more during my office time.
Shall come back to you during the week end.
Meanwhile, I would love to hear from others about this concept!!
greendream
07-17 01:40 PM
Gurus,
I would like to discuss about changing from EB3 India category to EB2 India category. Currently the PD for EB3 India is somewhere in October 2001. We know people with PD November 2001 to current waiting for GC to get approved. Now the questions I have and topic I would like to discuss are,
1. Do you guys think that people with PD November 2001 to November 2002 should change the category from EB3 to EB2? (If they are eligible and if they want)
If you have any reason that these people should stay where they are and wait, please share your opinion.
2. Do you think that that people with PD November 2002 to November 2003 should change the category from EB3 to EB2?
3. What about people with PD after January 2004?
4. Where do we draw the line? We need to help our community to make the best decision on whether to move it EB2 category or stay where they are.
Thanks.
G.
I would like to discuss about changing from EB3 India category to EB2 India category. Currently the PD for EB3 India is somewhere in October 2001. We know people with PD November 2001 to current waiting for GC to get approved. Now the questions I have and topic I would like to discuss are,
1. Do you guys think that people with PD November 2001 to November 2002 should change the category from EB3 to EB2? (If they are eligible and if they want)
If you have any reason that these people should stay where they are and wait, please share your opinion.
2. Do you think that that people with PD November 2002 to November 2003 should change the category from EB3 to EB2?
3. What about people with PD after January 2004?
4. Where do we draw the line? We need to help our community to make the best decision on whether to move it EB2 category or stay where they are.
Thanks.
G.
No comments:
Post a Comment