sunty
01-13 02:12 PM
I sent a hand written letter to the President and CC'd it to CA IV PO BOX. and I feel a lot better after writing it.
I have also sent a personalized hand written letter to the Colorado Congressmen Ed Perlmutter. I will set up a meeting once I get a positive response or in the next few weeks, whichever is earlier.
Parijat
I also thought of writing the letter in my own hand writing. I guess they WILL read it then. But my writing is so bad, it might have had an adverse effect..:D
Good work..
I have also sent a personalized hand written letter to the Colorado Congressmen Ed Perlmutter. I will set up a meeting once I get a positive response or in the next few weeks, whichever is earlier.
Parijat
I also thought of writing the letter in my own hand writing. I guess they WILL read it then. But my writing is so bad, it might have had an adverse effect..:D
Good work..
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
bayarea07
09-15 05:22 PM
I remember IV Core had Efax as a functionality last year,can IV Core reactivate that again for this week ,s o that we can fax senators
Anyone knows when is the bill actually scheduled for voting..
Anyone knows when is the bill actually scheduled for voting..
jsb
10-07 10:16 PM
Is anybody questioning as to what these weekly updates (on USCIS claims that receipts cleared for dates in August) mean when we are still waiting receipts for July 2 filings ?
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
sanjayb
09-25 01:09 AM
J.BARRET:
sanjayb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 08/05
Ashres11 - 2nd July/ 10:28/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN
Sairam - 2nd July/10:28/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No RN - 07/28
InsKrish - 2nd July/10.25/J.Barret/NSC/I-140 approved from TSC/No CC/RN
sudhi - 2nd July/ 10:25/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN - CHECKS CASHED 09/13 -- Received Receipts
Danu2007 - 2nd July/10:25AM/J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
Triviagal - 2nd July/ 10:25AM/ J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
rkartik78- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
GCFISH- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ 485 went to NE/NO RN NOCC
rexjamla- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
kmkanth- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
BU007- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
veerufs - 2nd july/10:28am/J. BARRET/I140-TSC/NO RN/NO CC
123456mg - 2nd july/10:25am at NSC/J BARRET/I140-Approved from TSC/NO RN/NO CC
aussie731- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
nkavjs - 2nd July/ 10:25am/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ I-140 TSC lud on I-140 8-5-07/ NO CC/ NO RN
jsb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/27
gc_us - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/28
srinitls - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/NO RN NO CC
realraghu - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
vg1778 - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140/No CC/No RN
R Mickels :
giddu- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
mahendra_t - 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
Satya- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
pareshtyagi- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
sapking - 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140 pending-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
smshen- 2nd July/9:01/Fedex/R Mickels/NSC/140 - TSS/No CC/No RN
gcgoodluck- 2nd July/9:01/Fedex/R Mickels/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN/No data
dudenj - 2nd july/9:03am/R.Mickels/I140-NSC/NO RN/NO CC/NO EAD
trajendrababu - 2nd july/9:01/R. Mickels/NSC/No CC/No RN
F HEINAUER:
cadude- 2nd July/11.11am/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
helpme1234-2nd July/11.14am/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
cowboy-2nd July/12.34 pm/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
R.Williams :
Jignesh - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
doshhar-2nd July/2:02PM/ R.Williams /I140 -TCS/ NO RN NO CC - I-140 LUD 08/05
buckeye98 - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
C UHRMACHER :
Bayboy -2nd July/8.oam/C UHRMACHER/I140-TSC/NO RN NO CC
nk2007-2nd July/8.26am/C UHRMACHER/I140-TSC/NO RN NO CC
Other -
zdong -- 2nd july No check encash/No RN
HNaik-2nd July/10:04am/ Armstrong/I140 -TCS/ NO RN NO CC
mashu -- 2nd july/11:34am/Gerkenmeyer/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC
abhis0 -- 2nd july/11:34am/Gerkenmeyer/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC 140 LUD - 08/05
i99 -- I140/485 concurrent/NSC/July@d/R.Williams/No CC/No RN
vikramy-- 2nd July/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC
sivanu -- 2nd july/I140 TSC/No RN - 140 LUD 7/28
kcham -- 2nd July/8:45am/Pitcher/I140 TSC/No RN No CC
Applications are returned:Incorrect filing fees :
noendinsight- 2nd July/NSC/1-40 Approved NSC/NO RN NO CC
sanjayb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 08/05
Ashres11 - 2nd July/ 10:28/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN
Sairam - 2nd July/10:28/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No RN - 07/28
InsKrish - 2nd July/10.25/J.Barret/NSC/I-140 approved from TSC/No CC/RN
sudhi - 2nd July/ 10:25/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN - CHECKS CASHED 09/13 -- Received Receipts
Danu2007 - 2nd July/10:25AM/J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
Triviagal - 2nd July/ 10:25AM/ J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
rkartik78- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
GCFISH- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ 485 went to NE/NO RN NOCC
rexjamla- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
kmkanth- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
BU007- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
veerufs - 2nd july/10:28am/J. BARRET/I140-TSC/NO RN/NO CC
123456mg - 2nd july/10:25am at NSC/J BARRET/I140-Approved from TSC/NO RN/NO CC
aussie731- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
nkavjs - 2nd July/ 10:25am/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ I-140 TSC lud on I-140 8-5-07/ NO CC/ NO RN
jsb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/27
gc_us - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/28
srinitls - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/NO RN NO CC
realraghu - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
vg1778 - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140/No CC/No RN
R Mickels :
giddu- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
mahendra_t - 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
Satya- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
pareshtyagi- 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
sapking - 2nd july/9:01am/R Mickels/ I140 pending-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
smshen- 2nd July/9:01/Fedex/R Mickels/NSC/140 - TSS/No CC/No RN
gcgoodluck- 2nd July/9:01/Fedex/R Mickels/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN/No data
dudenj - 2nd july/9:03am/R.Mickels/I140-NSC/NO RN/NO CC/NO EAD
trajendrababu - 2nd july/9:01/R. Mickels/NSC/No CC/No RN
F HEINAUER:
cadude- 2nd July/11.11am/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
helpme1234-2nd July/11.14am/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
cowboy-2nd July/12.34 pm/F HEINAUER/NSC/1-40 TSC/NO RN NO CC
R.Williams :
Jignesh - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
doshhar-2nd July/2:02PM/ R.Williams /I140 -TCS/ NO RN NO CC - I-140 LUD 08/05
buckeye98 - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
C UHRMACHER :
Bayboy -2nd July/8.oam/C UHRMACHER/I140-TSC/NO RN NO CC
nk2007-2nd July/8.26am/C UHRMACHER/I140-TSC/NO RN NO CC
Other -
zdong -- 2nd july No check encash/No RN
HNaik-2nd July/10:04am/ Armstrong/I140 -TCS/ NO RN NO CC
mashu -- 2nd july/11:34am/Gerkenmeyer/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC
abhis0 -- 2nd july/11:34am/Gerkenmeyer/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC 140 LUD - 08/05
i99 -- I140/485 concurrent/NSC/July@d/R.Williams/No CC/No RN
vikramy-- 2nd July/I140 TSC/ No RN No CC
sivanu -- 2nd july/I140 TSC/No RN - 140 LUD 7/28
kcham -- 2nd July/8:45am/Pitcher/I140 TSC/No RN No CC
Applications are returned:Incorrect filing fees :
noendinsight- 2nd July/NSC/1-40 Approved NSC/NO RN NO CC
more...
pvgupt01
10-06 03:32 PM
everyone...
I was a July 2nd filer and my cheque got encashed on Oct 4th 2007:). It feels good :)and from the receipt number on back of my cheque my application is now in texas. All the best to all of you.
I was a July 2nd filer and my cheque got encashed on Oct 4th 2007:). It feels good :)and from the receipt number on back of my cheque my application is now in texas. All the best to all of you.
eb_retrogession
01-23 07:36 PM
Guys,
Have we contacted national newspapers New York Times,Washington Post ?
In effort to make legislators and people aware of legal immigration issues, we should take help of media.This would be most effective.
Hiring a lobbying firm to pursue our issues with legislators is a good idea but it should be accompanied with media awareness as well.This is money intensive project and it will take time to reach its target of 100k.We need some other channel of awareness open as well and we need to do that soon so that it has some effect on Feb bills.
People are not aware that we are going thru such long waits to get immigrate legally.This issue needs to be highlighted.
Lawmakers would listen to legal immigration issues if they read in leading newspapers NYT and Washington Post. These newspapers are very influential.
Java,
We are working on it. Media coverage isn't easy and immediate. They check us out, and take their time to research facts before even considering.
But the process has started.
If you know of any serious contacts that can help out, or have any suggestions about regional/local media pls send a note to info@immigrationVoice.org with "Media" as the subject, and it'll come to me
Thanks
Have we contacted national newspapers New York Times,Washington Post ?
In effort to make legislators and people aware of legal immigration issues, we should take help of media.This would be most effective.
Hiring a lobbying firm to pursue our issues with legislators is a good idea but it should be accompanied with media awareness as well.This is money intensive project and it will take time to reach its target of 100k.We need some other channel of awareness open as well and we need to do that soon so that it has some effect on Feb bills.
People are not aware that we are going thru such long waits to get immigrate legally.This issue needs to be highlighted.
Lawmakers would listen to legal immigration issues if they read in leading newspapers NYT and Washington Post. These newspapers are very influential.
Java,
We are working on it. Media coverage isn't easy and immediate. They check us out, and take their time to research facts before even considering.
But the process has started.
If you know of any serious contacts that can help out, or have any suggestions about regional/local media pls send a note to info@immigrationVoice.org with "Media" as the subject, and it'll come to me
Thanks
more...
jasmin45
12-08 09:16 AM
Great job MACACA! you are the man!
These are interesting facts.
These are interesting facts.
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
Kalpen
06-20 09:31 AM
Hi,
I am filing up form 485 and on Part 3 Section - Processing Information, there is a question asking for Nonimmigrant Visa Number.
Any clue about this?
Thanks in advance,
Kalpen
I am filing up form 485 and on Part 3 Section - Processing Information, there is a question asking for Nonimmigrant Visa Number.
Any clue about this?
Thanks in advance,
Kalpen
more...
TUnlimited
09-16 12:44 PM
My I-140 approved by NSC and my I-485 now pending with NSC. No Texas listed. :D
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
i99
09-14 11:59 AM
no nothing... our attorneys are absolutely useless in addition to this situation.
more...
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
cbpds
04-01 12:45 PM
Rodnyb,
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
GCBy3000
01-16 12:40 PM
Can we ourselves verify the data in PIMS even before going for stamping? Is this info public anywhere? This would help us to take better decesion on whether to go for stamping or use AP.
Hi,
I'd appeared for my H1B (F1 to H1) Visa interview on the 4th Jan at Mumbai. After almost 4 hours of waiting, the visa officer told me that they were unable to view/ verify my I-797 info as it was not updated in their Database. I was also told that this is an existing issue and that I should ask my company lawers to contact the Immigration Services office at DC. On being asked she told me the eta was 7-10 business days (or however long it takes for the info to get updated). I was then given the yellow slip and asked to submit my passport for stamping, after I receive an email indicating that my data is now updated. it's been 8 business days since my initial interview and I still haven't received any emails or calls.
1) anyone who interviewed on or around 4th Jan who has received a call or email?
2) Anyone who's aware of the procedure by which my company can expidite this issue (maybe through our lawyers)
3) any additional info on how long the wait might be?
I was told that on the 27th dec there were about 350 H1b pending cases (yellow slip) at the Mumbai consulate and around 150- 200 similar cases the following days. A freind of mine who appeared for his H1b interview on the 7th breezed through it with no issues.
Thanks very much!
Hi,
I'd appeared for my H1B (F1 to H1) Visa interview on the 4th Jan at Mumbai. After almost 4 hours of waiting, the visa officer told me that they were unable to view/ verify my I-797 info as it was not updated in their Database. I was also told that this is an existing issue and that I should ask my company lawers to contact the Immigration Services office at DC. On being asked she told me the eta was 7-10 business days (or however long it takes for the info to get updated). I was then given the yellow slip and asked to submit my passport for stamping, after I receive an email indicating that my data is now updated. it's been 8 business days since my initial interview and I still haven't received any emails or calls.
1) anyone who interviewed on or around 4th Jan who has received a call or email?
2) Anyone who's aware of the procedure by which my company can expidite this issue (maybe through our lawyers)
3) any additional info on how long the wait might be?
I was told that on the 27th dec there were about 350 H1b pending cases (yellow slip) at the Mumbai consulate and around 150- 200 similar cases the following days. A freind of mine who appeared for his H1b interview on the 7th breezed through it with no issues.
Thanks very much!
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
ArunAntonio
07-09 06:51 PM
from doing that, what do you think you would achieve by the flowers being delivered at the hospital instead of the USCIS, the point has been made and the Director has acknowledged the effort - That was the end goal and infact the flowers will do more benefit to those in the hospital.
Call the place where you've ordered flowers and ask for a refund if flowers are delivered elsewhere. It should be up to USCIS to recieve and then ship those flowers to the hospitals.
Call the place where you've ordered flowers and ask for a refund if flowers are delivered elsewhere. It should be up to USCIS to recieve and then ship those flowers to the hospitals.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
satyasaich
01-10 09:48 AM
Subject: From the office of Congressman Todd Akin
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:25:23 -0500
Thank you for contacting me and expressing concern regarding
immigration.
As you are aware, the massive influx of illegal aliens is one of the
most important issues confronting our nation. According to the Center for
Immigration Studies, there are at least 8 million illegal immigrants in
the United States. The United States Census Bureau estimates that the
illegal population in the United States grows by at least 500,000 per
year. All Americans have good reason to be concerned about this issue,
given the dynamics of assimilation, language and employment raised by
illegal immigration.
Amnesty proposals and guest worker permits are just some of the options
that Congress currently is considering. Another possibility is the H2B
Working Visa, which allows foreign nationals to enter the United States
temporarily to meet a one-time need in non-agricultural employment.
This is a good option, but I would not support H2B visas whose provisions
could not be enforced strictly and were not offset by immigration
cutbacks in some other area.
The problem with most of the options before us is that they do not deal
with the fundamental problem at hand: Millions of immigrants have
entered the country illegally. When we can establish firm, thorough and
effective enforcement measures we can better address the appropriate level
and need for H1 and L1 visas.
Border control is essential for our economic and physical security. I
appreciate your deep concern with this issue, and will keep your
thoughts in mind as Congress considers our legislative options.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Feel free to contact me again if I
might be of assistance in the future
----------
Indeed i approached him specifically for backlog reduction and other important features (similar to those in S1932 Sec8001) but i got the above response.
Anyway, one thing is very clear: We need to increase efforts in a much productive manner to clearly emphasise on legal immigration which is broken & SHALL NEVER be kept in the same tray of illegal immigration
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:25:23 -0500
Thank you for contacting me and expressing concern regarding
immigration.
As you are aware, the massive influx of illegal aliens is one of the
most important issues confronting our nation. According to the Center for
Immigration Studies, there are at least 8 million illegal immigrants in
the United States. The United States Census Bureau estimates that the
illegal population in the United States grows by at least 500,000 per
year. All Americans have good reason to be concerned about this issue,
given the dynamics of assimilation, language and employment raised by
illegal immigration.
Amnesty proposals and guest worker permits are just some of the options
that Congress currently is considering. Another possibility is the H2B
Working Visa, which allows foreign nationals to enter the United States
temporarily to meet a one-time need in non-agricultural employment.
This is a good option, but I would not support H2B visas whose provisions
could not be enforced strictly and were not offset by immigration
cutbacks in some other area.
The problem with most of the options before us is that they do not deal
with the fundamental problem at hand: Millions of immigrants have
entered the country illegally. When we can establish firm, thorough and
effective enforcement measures we can better address the appropriate level
and need for H1 and L1 visas.
Border control is essential for our economic and physical security. I
appreciate your deep concern with this issue, and will keep your
thoughts in mind as Congress considers our legislative options.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Feel free to contact me again if I
might be of assistance in the future
----------
Indeed i approached him specifically for backlog reduction and other important features (similar to those in S1932 Sec8001) but i got the above response.
Anyway, one thing is very clear: We need to increase efforts in a much productive manner to clearly emphasise on legal immigration which is broken & SHALL NEVER be kept in the same tray of illegal immigration
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
Hunter
05-09 02:02 PM
You want to talk about skills .. Huh?
Lets start with Madoff ...... :D:D:D:D
You can take him and keep him in a cell with Satyam Raju. I don't care.
How pathetic, you don't even have a response for the "skills" practiced by H1/L1/Indian offshroe companies/fly-by-night operators!!
Lets start with Madoff ...... :D:D:D:D
You can take him and keep him in a cell with Satyam Raju. I don't care.
How pathetic, you don't even have a response for the "skills" practiced by H1/L1/Indian offshroe companies/fly-by-night operators!!
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
2008FebEb2
09-15 12:18 PM
How can this thread go down today?
Why can't the members understand that nothing else is more important for us today than H.R. 5882 support calls.
Nothing else matters today, not your tax questions, not your political views, no RFEs... nothing.... NOT EVEN LEHMAN BORTHERS.
So Call Call and Call
Hi Junglee, when is HR5882 scheduled again?
Is it tomorrow or on 18th?
Thanks.
Why can't the members understand that nothing else is more important for us today than H.R. 5882 support calls.
Nothing else matters today, not your tax questions, not your political views, no RFEs... nothing.... NOT EVEN LEHMAN BORTHERS.
So Call Call and Call
Hi Junglee, when is HR5882 scheduled again?
Is it tomorrow or on 18th?
Thanks.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
imneedy
05-16 02:31 PM
Will i face any problems in future when our pd becomes current.
Our lawyer says there should not be any problem but i don't know if he is correct.:(
It is not clear what you mean when you say that. How can you get EAD without filing for 485 [which you can file only when your PD is current].
Our lawyer says there should not be any problem but i don't know if he is correct.:(
It is not clear what you mean when you say that. How can you get EAD without filing for 485 [which you can file only when your PD is current].
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
aristotle
05-22 06:53 PM
thanks, I am going to look into that also.
I am still trying to talk the old employer. Is it such a big deal that they cant even write a letter of future employment for me? i told them that they are not obligated to hire me but they are scared that they are trying to show that they are in losses and that by filing for a GC and promising a future employment they will not be able to show that they are suffering losses.
Why is it so difficult and complicated?
I am losing hope in it.
There is no harm in trying the new application in parallel. Assuming your employer is paying for it/you can afford the extra fees. Time is critical as CIR might mess things up if you delay too much.
I am still trying to talk the old employer. Is it such a big deal that they cant even write a letter of future employment for me? i told them that they are not obligated to hire me but they are scared that they are trying to show that they are in losses and that by filing for a GC and promising a future employment they will not be able to show that they are suffering losses.
Why is it so difficult and complicated?
I am losing hope in it.
There is no harm in trying the new application in parallel. Assuming your employer is paying for it/you can afford the extra fees. Time is critical as CIR might mess things up if you delay too much.
ingenix
09-09 12:01 PM
Called up all the above
drona
07-10 02:42 PM
Pineapple, we are only posting media coverage here. There are other threads that are posting flower orders, delivery confirmation, etc. This just in:
Post by dtekkedil
CNN Covers story in India!
Looks like CNN - India covered the our flower campaign story on TV!
Just got an SMS from India!
Post by dtekkedil
CNN Covers story in India!
Looks like CNN - India covered the our flower campaign story on TV!
Just got an SMS from India!
No comments:
Post a Comment