zCool
07-15 08:36 PM
7yg31-8hrh9
wallpaper hyundai elantra touring
diptam
08-25 10:48 AM
Finally after about 20 days of verbal bargaining over phone i got the physical form 7001 from my employer at hand and mailed it by Certified USPS mail to the following address ::
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ombudsman Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225 Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Come on folks - its always better being late than never.PM me if you need any details.
Also please let us know if anyone is sending Form 7001 to Ombudsman or got any reply !
Thanks,
Diptam
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ombudsman Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225 Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Come on folks - its always better being late than never.PM me if you need any details.
Also please let us know if anyone is sending Form 7001 to Ombudsman or got any reply !
Thanks,
Diptam
samnay
07-18 01:11 PM
Contributed another $100. I am not very active member on this board but I do follow it regularly and I have made contributions in the past.
Let me also take this opportunity to thank IV for putting legal EB immigration on the front page and its ability to galvanize the grass-root efforts in the momentum not seen before. I think we can only go forward from here and if we keep united, make regular contributions and fight for our justified cause, we can do wonders!
I will also exhort other non-members and members for bringing in more people to this forum and helping with contributions.
Thanks
Let me also take this opportunity to thank IV for putting legal EB immigration on the front page and its ability to galvanize the grass-root efforts in the momentum not seen before. I think we can only go forward from here and if we keep united, make regular contributions and fight for our justified cause, we can do wonders!
I will also exhort other non-members and members for bringing in more people to this forum and helping with contributions.
Thanks
2011 hyundai elantra touring
inskrish
09-28 09:59 PM
I can work on weekend for free, where to apply? atleast i can push some of them out of line. i mean i am very good in approving cases.
Long live. Libra! :D When you do it , could you please find out my missing application from the mounds of USCIS documents, and push it through the system? :D
Regards,
IK
Long live. Libra! :D When you do it , could you please find out my missing application from the mounds of USCIS documents, and push it through the system? :D
Regards,
IK
more...
ahaadi
03-04 05:03 PM
Don't know what it means :) but my priority date is Aug 2006.
Thanks.
Any one else with recent RFEs/LUDs on their I-485 ? Pl post.
Thanks.
Any one else with recent RFEs/LUDs on their I-485 ? Pl post.
h1b_professional
07-20 10:19 AM
Should we send emails to our Senators requesting them to vote for SKIL bill
Email campaign may be
Email campaign may be
more...
pappu
09-11 11:10 PM
Dear members,
It is time now to do a massive mother of all media campaigns and inform every reporter, TV station, Radio station, Magazine and newspaper in this country about the rally.
We start this campaign now and we will continue it until Monday. Media publicity is very important for the success of the rally. IV is already doing an email campaign to hundreds of immigration reporters today. (Ps.This list was compiled by few IV volunteers from various forums and threads. It will not be made public. So if you have any such list do not post on IV.)
Here is what we want everyone to do:
1) Someone pls draft a cover letter/Letters and post on this thread. We need several such letters so that all emails look different.
2) Copy paste press releases from
touchdownusa.org/RallyCentral/WashingtonDCRallyPressRelease.html
//http://www.touchdownusa.org/RallyCentral/WashingtonDCRallyPressRelease.html
//http://www.touchdownusa.org/RallyCentral/WashingtonDCRallyPressRelease.pdf
//http://www.touchdownusa.org/RallyCentral/WashingtonDCRallyPressRelease.doc
3) Go to the site-
http://capwiz.com/aila2/dbq/media/
and search for various media offices and people in various states and start sending them emails with the press release.
4) If you already know of other media offices, go to their websites and email them.
5) Do a Google search for ' press release distribution'. Go to each site, create a quick account and submit the press release. This will ensure that internet will be flooded with our rally press releases and more people will know about it.
6) If you want to call media offices, then start calling them. You will get phone numbers from
http://capwiz.com/aila2/dbq/media/
Thanks
IV team
It is time now to do a massive mother of all media campaigns and inform every reporter, TV station, Radio station, Magazine and newspaper in this country about the rally.
We start this campaign now and we will continue it until Monday. Media publicity is very important for the success of the rally. IV is already doing an email campaign to hundreds of immigration reporters today. (Ps.This list was compiled by few IV volunteers from various forums and threads. It will not be made public. So if you have any such list do not post on IV.)
Here is what we want everyone to do:
1) Someone pls draft a cover letter/Letters and post on this thread. We need several such letters so that all emails look different.
2) Copy paste press releases from
touchdownusa.org/RallyCentral/WashingtonDCRallyPressRelease.html
//http://www.touchdownusa.org/RallyCentral/WashingtonDCRallyPressRelease.html
//http://www.touchdownusa.org/RallyCentral/WashingtonDCRallyPressRelease.pdf
//http://www.touchdownusa.org/RallyCentral/WashingtonDCRallyPressRelease.doc
3) Go to the site-
http://capwiz.com/aila2/dbq/media/
and search for various media offices and people in various states and start sending them emails with the press release.
4) If you already know of other media offices, go to their websites and email them.
5) Do a Google search for ' press release distribution'. Go to each site, create a quick account and submit the press release. This will ensure that internet will be flooded with our rally press releases and more people will know about it.
6) If you want to call media offices, then start calling them. You will get phone numbers from
http://capwiz.com/aila2/dbq/media/
Thanks
IV team
2010 hyundai elantra touring
aristotle
07-20 05:05 PM
My take is that Sen. Cornyn's bill is too ambitious and tries to solve ALL the problems. It is never going to fly, especially in this political environment.
We should focus on EB retrogression relief and try to get in only the absolute minimum relief needed to eliminate current backlogs.
In my opinion, this is the absolute minimum:
1) Clear DOL backlogs in BECs
2) Recapture lost visa numbers
3) Dont count dependants
4) Raise per-country cap to 10%
If we can only these rolled in to amendment, it should be easy to pass. We can start an awareness initiative to educate the senators and ensure it passes. If we shoot for too much, its next to impossible. Thats the sad reality.
We should focus on EB retrogression relief and try to get in only the absolute minimum relief needed to eliminate current backlogs.
In my opinion, this is the absolute minimum:
1) Clear DOL backlogs in BECs
2) Recapture lost visa numbers
3) Dont count dependants
4) Raise per-country cap to 10%
If we can only these rolled in to amendment, it should be easy to pass. We can start an awareness initiative to educate the senators and ensure it passes. If we shoot for too much, its next to impossible. Thats the sad reality.
more...
prince_waiting
07-05 10:45 AM
My area senator is Mr. Sessions :eek:. What do you guys think, should I email him or not? I am sure that I am not going to get a courteous reply or as a fact of matter a reply at all.
hair hyundai elantra touring
vparam
10-11 06:33 PM
vparam...
Thanks for your detailed anwers.
have you opened your own LLC currently while on EAD?
Yes, Opened and have done business worth 10K :-)
Thanks for your detailed anwers.
have you opened your own LLC currently while on EAD?
Yes, Opened and have done business worth 10K :-)
more...
ArkBird
09-15 04:21 PM
Did you check the grammar of your polling question?
I support this. But might to be able to help with the fee
If this is EB2, I am glad/proud/honor to be EB3
:)
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
I support this. But might to be able to help with the fee
If this is EB2, I am glad/proud/honor to be EB3
:)
People, most of us here are just afraid that they will get red dots, be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the things is; If we don't fight for our rights, who will. We have to defend our place in the queue, which at the moment is at substantial risk.
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
hot hyundai elantra touring
skv
06-22 11:18 AM
Mine is filed on May 14th at Atlanta :-(. My employer told me that off late it's taking anywhere between 90 to 120 days.
But I hope I can beat this time after 5 long years. :-)
Cheer up guys, nothing to gain being sad. :-)
But I hope I can beat this time after 5 long years. :-)
Cheer up guys, nothing to gain being sad. :-)
more...
house Hyundai Elantra Touring Fresh
gcisadawg
02-09 10:05 AM
This, effectively, means that if the girl stops earning for any reason such as pregnancy or is unable to earn, she immediately forfeits the right to send money to her parents. This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard.
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
My stand is based on the premise that a man is financially responsible for his wife and his kids and not to wife's parents! The point I was making is about a completely non working spouse. It is not about a wife that leaves workforce for medical reason temporarily.
Let us not confuse the responsibility towards a man's wife and kids with that of in-laws!
Using the same token, a man shouldn't expect/demand any property/cash from in-laws!
I'm perfectly OK with humanitarian and need based help. What crosses the line, according to me, is that 'taking for granted' attitude!
If the brother in OP's story is taking care of his parents, then this situation wouldn't have occurred. Look at it other way. If the man's parents are in need of money, it is better to ask the man instead of their son-in-law!
A man taking a stand and be done with it has a better chance of saving a marriage than a man caving to the demand and building resentment. Hey, if a man is willing to please his in-laws in all possible ways, then who are we to stop him! Let him enjoy!!
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
My stand is based on the premise that a man is financially responsible for his wife and his kids and not to wife's parents! The point I was making is about a completely non working spouse. It is not about a wife that leaves workforce for medical reason temporarily.
Let us not confuse the responsibility towards a man's wife and kids with that of in-laws!
Using the same token, a man shouldn't expect/demand any property/cash from in-laws!
I'm perfectly OK with humanitarian and need based help. What crosses the line, according to me, is that 'taking for granted' attitude!
If the brother in OP's story is taking care of his parents, then this situation wouldn't have occurred. Look at it other way. If the man's parents are in need of money, it is better to ask the man instead of their son-in-law!
A man taking a stand and be done with it has a better chance of saving a marriage than a man caving to the demand and building resentment. Hey, if a man is willing to please his in-laws in all possible ways, then who are we to stop him! Let him enjoy!!
tattoo hyundai elantra touring
mbartosik
06-23 10:43 AM
I've already entered details into http://www.trackins.com
Data was:
PD 12/19/2002
Approved EB3 RIR 6/14/2006
received copy today
Originally NY DOL
Philly BEC
That was 1272 days
Here is a little good news for most....
I had estimated that I would get my approval around beginning Sept, but I got it about 6 weeks earlier. I had been tracking estimating etc., also I had asked a paralegal about whether her customers were being processed in order or if people were disappearing into black holes (as a few appear to a trackins.com). None of her customers were in black holes.
Currently it does appear that Nov and Dec 2002 are being processed at Philly BEC, and in general it does seem to be advancing in date order, with a few approvals now being a few months behind (oldest approval recieved in Dec 2006 was Aug 2002) so the spread was Aug 2002 to Dec 2002 being processed in June 2006. This is based on info at trackins.com and my paralegal's customers.
Also from trackins.com it appears that most 45 day letters have been issued.
They made a public commitment (and in court) to have data entry done by end of June 2006 (i.e. next week). So anyone who has not received a 45 day letter by the end of July should be banging on their door. They appear to be close to all data entry done, so that estimate looks to have been credible. Thus their estimate of all applications processed for Sept 2007 gains some credibility.
Also I based my estimate of when I'd get my LC partly on their estimates of when they'd finish LC processing.
Data was:
PD 12/19/2002
Approved EB3 RIR 6/14/2006
received copy today
Originally NY DOL
Philly BEC
That was 1272 days
Here is a little good news for most....
I had estimated that I would get my approval around beginning Sept, but I got it about 6 weeks earlier. I had been tracking estimating etc., also I had asked a paralegal about whether her customers were being processed in order or if people were disappearing into black holes (as a few appear to a trackins.com). None of her customers were in black holes.
Currently it does appear that Nov and Dec 2002 are being processed at Philly BEC, and in general it does seem to be advancing in date order, with a few approvals now being a few months behind (oldest approval recieved in Dec 2006 was Aug 2002) so the spread was Aug 2002 to Dec 2002 being processed in June 2006. This is based on info at trackins.com and my paralegal's customers.
Also from trackins.com it appears that most 45 day letters have been issued.
They made a public commitment (and in court) to have data entry done by end of June 2006 (i.e. next week). So anyone who has not received a 45 day letter by the end of July should be banging on their door. They appear to be close to all data entry done, so that estimate looks to have been credible. Thus their estimate of all applications processed for Sept 2007 gains some credibility.
Also I based my estimate of when I'd get my LC partly on their estimates of when they'd finish LC processing.
more...
pictures hyundai elantra touring
saimrathi
08-23 02:59 PM
I have filed I-129 and I-539 at VSC (RD 7/16/07) and also concurrently file I-140 + 485 at NSC on 7/2/07 (No Checks cashed yet). My H1 and spouse's H4 expires on 9/30/07. And so does our DL.
I called the PA DoT and they said that they need the following documentation for the DL renewal:
H1B & H4 Visa
Passport
I-94
Visa
Proof of employment (For H1 only)
2 Proofs of residency (For H1 only)
Rejection letter from SS Office (for H4 only)
They will not accept a Receipt Notice. They also said that if the Visa wasn’t valid for more than a year, they will not renew DL. I don’t know if they will accept a Visa stamp on the passport or approval of I-129 & I-539 will suffice.
From your experience, at this time, if we apply for PP, will they process my spouse's application along with mine, so both approvals come around the same time? Please advise.
I called the PA DoT and they said that they need the following documentation for the DL renewal:
H1B & H4 Visa
Passport
I-94
Visa
Proof of employment (For H1 only)
2 Proofs of residency (For H1 only)
Rejection letter from SS Office (for H4 only)
They will not accept a Receipt Notice. They also said that if the Visa wasn’t valid for more than a year, they will not renew DL. I don’t know if they will accept a Visa stamp on the passport or approval of I-129 & I-539 will suffice.
From your experience, at this time, if we apply for PP, will they process my spouse's application along with mine, so both approvals come around the same time? Please advise.
dresses hyundai elantra touring
billu
09-04 08:33 AM
I think there is more smartness needed than luck in the greencard process. If you look at the posts in this thread there are some people that came to USA in 1990s and still waiting, while some that came much later are on their way to citizenship. Some got the EB2 route and are happy and some in EB3 have only gloom before them.
This in my opinion has helped smart folks among us:
- They applied for GC as soon as possible. Those who waited did not give importance to Greencard as soon as they started a job in USA are now paying for their mistakes. During the initial days of career I have seen people saying that GC is not important to them etc but when their H1B is about to expire they panic and get desperate for Green Card.
- Before pre-PERM era in 2005, smart folks took up jobs in states where labor certification had no backlog. They are now either waiting for citizenship or already citizens. On the other hand people in states like CA, NY etc suffered due to labor backlogs and far from getting greencard in hand.
- Any company can be good or bad for an individual. It it not a question of consulting vs fortune 500 or small vs big size of a company. Smart folks know what matters them the most when they join a company. When company sees them as a valuable asset, it applies for them. I have seen where company applied for GC as soon as the employee joined it. And I have seen posts where people had to wait for several years before company applied.
- People who took advantage of the Labor substitution got faster labors. Some could take advantage of EB2 labors and they are very fortunate. This is in no way endorsing the labor substitution rule, but in pre 2007 times nobody was protesting against it. This is a sad reality.
- Smart folks took the risk and changed jobs wth EB2 job requirements, so that they can file in EB2. Such folks with 2007 PD are happy today and people with 2003 PDs in EB3 will have to wait for a long time.
- If you read posts on this thread, many people have posted that they feel they are being screwed by their employer or lawyer. But hardly anyone has said they took any action against it. This is also a sad reality where we as a community have failed and will continue to suffer.
- Many folks have said that they thought they were in EB2. But found they are in EB3. This shows another weakness of our community and lack of awareness. IV forum tries to spread the awareness but unless an individual takes initiative, they will suffer.
Many people were able to file I485 in July 2007 due to IV effort. Imagine a 2004 EB3 India person without EAD today? How will he survive a job loss on H1B in a bad economy? We should take a lesson from that event and try for another big push. There is no other shortcut for us. It is shocking to find people on this thread that are in this country for more than 10 years and without a green card. These folks should be the most vocal folks in this effort.
-
great analysis of the GC queue. Those who missed the july 2007 boat (despite working here)or those who started GC 2-3 years after starting a job have themselves to blame. I am one of them. Also, I have several friends who are working on h1b with ridiculous contracts with no sign of GC being filed. They are blissfully ignorant of the GC mess despite my warnings. Each year thousands of students still come from India on F1 and most of them later file h1b and GC. I wish they were made aware of this mess. Most of us have the famous "chalta hai" attitude of india that smirks of no farsightedness or pre-planning due to which we are in this mess, especially folks on EB3.
This in my opinion has helped smart folks among us:
- They applied for GC as soon as possible. Those who waited did not give importance to Greencard as soon as they started a job in USA are now paying for their mistakes. During the initial days of career I have seen people saying that GC is not important to them etc but when their H1B is about to expire they panic and get desperate for Green Card.
- Before pre-PERM era in 2005, smart folks took up jobs in states where labor certification had no backlog. They are now either waiting for citizenship or already citizens. On the other hand people in states like CA, NY etc suffered due to labor backlogs and far from getting greencard in hand.
- Any company can be good or bad for an individual. It it not a question of consulting vs fortune 500 or small vs big size of a company. Smart folks know what matters them the most when they join a company. When company sees them as a valuable asset, it applies for them. I have seen where company applied for GC as soon as the employee joined it. And I have seen posts where people had to wait for several years before company applied.
- People who took advantage of the Labor substitution got faster labors. Some could take advantage of EB2 labors and they are very fortunate. This is in no way endorsing the labor substitution rule, but in pre 2007 times nobody was protesting against it. This is a sad reality.
- Smart folks took the risk and changed jobs wth EB2 job requirements, so that they can file in EB2. Such folks with 2007 PD are happy today and people with 2003 PDs in EB3 will have to wait for a long time.
- If you read posts on this thread, many people have posted that they feel they are being screwed by their employer or lawyer. But hardly anyone has said they took any action against it. This is also a sad reality where we as a community have failed and will continue to suffer.
- Many folks have said that they thought they were in EB2. But found they are in EB3. This shows another weakness of our community and lack of awareness. IV forum tries to spread the awareness but unless an individual takes initiative, they will suffer.
Many people were able to file I485 in July 2007 due to IV effort. Imagine a 2004 EB3 India person without EAD today? How will he survive a job loss on H1B in a bad economy? We should take a lesson from that event and try for another big push. There is no other shortcut for us. It is shocking to find people on this thread that are in this country for more than 10 years and without a green card. These folks should be the most vocal folks in this effort.
-
great analysis of the GC queue. Those who missed the july 2007 boat (despite working here)or those who started GC 2-3 years after starting a job have themselves to blame. I am one of them. Also, I have several friends who are working on h1b with ridiculous contracts with no sign of GC being filed. They are blissfully ignorant of the GC mess despite my warnings. Each year thousands of students still come from India on F1 and most of them later file h1b and GC. I wish they were made aware of this mess. Most of us have the famous "chalta hai" attitude of india that smirks of no farsightedness or pre-planning due to which we are in this mess, especially folks on EB3.
more...
makeup hyundai elantra touring
immm
07-19 01:21 PM
Cases will be processed on RD only. However approval is based on PD.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June, 2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
girlfriend hyundai elantra touring
santb1975
07-15 09:41 PM
Great Going. The funding drive that was started earlier halted at 19881. Glad to see things pick up again
to IV PO Box.
to IV PO Box.
hairstyles hyundai elantra touring
sheela
09-28 07:38 PM
[QUOTE=JunRN;175492]They are working overtime for it, hopefully 24 hours as well.
Let us hope like on july 2nd week-end (when they worked on sat-sun to make 60,000 visa numbers available and adjucated even when name checks were not cleared for many applicants) these guys are working the same way this weekend ......
Let us hope like on july 2nd week-end (when they worked on sat-sun to make 60,000 visa numbers available and adjucated even when name checks were not cleared for many applicants) these guys are working the same way this weekend ......
mhathi
09-10 05:04 PM
Just contributed $100 towards the rally! Me and my wife are grateful to IV for their leadership on this issue. GO IV GO!
Mhathi.
Mhathi.
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
No comments:
Post a Comment