subba
07-07 09:40 PM
This is what my lawyer mailed us today (I have always had good service from him):
In my very initial thoughts, on July 2 and July 3, I believed the lawsuit had no chance; but in following this more closely and doing my own research, I think increasingly that the lawsuit has merit. USCIS and DOS appear to have violated various of its internal rules and arguably actual statutes and regulations in handling all this.
Not that I am holding my breath, but just wanted pass it on....
In my very initial thoughts, on July 2 and July 3, I believed the lawsuit had no chance; but in following this more closely and doing my own research, I think increasingly that the lawsuit has merit. USCIS and DOS appear to have violated various of its internal rules and arguably actual statutes and regulations in handling all this.
Not that I am holding my breath, but just wanted pass it on....
wallpaper British actress Keira Knightley poses for photographers as she arrives for
sreeni78
11-18 08:54 AM
Sent it to MI senators and my congressman.
dish
12-10 12:21 PM
Kennedy, McCain, 2 congressmen meet
By Jerry Kammer
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
December 9, 2006
WASHINGTON � Two of the most liberal members of Congress met with two of their most conservative colleagues this week to revive immigration legislation that passed the Senate but was throttled by House Republican leaders who resisted its attempt to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Sen. Edward Kennedy
�The plan is to bring the bill up in late winter,� said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a conservative stalwart who attended the meeting in the office of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The other participants were Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.
The strategy session Wednesday came amid speculation about how the dynamics of the immigration debate might change, if at all, when Democrats take control of the House and Senate next month.
Flake said that Kennedy, who will be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, wants to let the new Congress deal first with issues such as the war in Iraq and proposals to raise the minimum wage.
�Then he'll be ready to go� with a new version of the bill that the Senate approved in April.
Sen. John McCain
Republicans ran the show in both houses of Congress then, and passionate divisions in their ranks over immigration policy became a dominant feature of the debate. Democrats, particularly in the House, were mostly content to sit back and enjoy the stalemate, even as they campaigned against the �do-nothing Republican Congress.�
Now Democrats face the hazards of immigration politics.
Immigration-law changes are conspicuously absent from the legislative agenda laid out by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Observers here say it will be difficult for Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to honor her campaign-season pledge to work for a new comprehensive immigration law without splitting a caucus that includes freshly elected Democrats who vowed to secure the border and crack down on illegal immigration.
The November midterm elections seemed to send mixed messages.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez
In a cliffhanger contest, Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth, a conservative Republican and strident foe of illegal immigration, was defeated by Democrat Harry Mitchell.
Immigration advocates such as Ben Johnson of the Immigration Policy Center say Hayworth's defeat showed that immigration �did not turn out to be the firebrand issue that some people thought it could be.�
But immigration restrictionists point out that Mitchell made getting tough on immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. They also say Mitchell cleverly used the issue against Hayworth, saying his Republican opponent was part of a political regime that wasn't competent enough to stop the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that sweep across Arizona's southern border each year.
While Mitchell said he favored legal status for long-established immigrants, he insisted that immigration policy can be fixed only by �members of Congress who are willing to enforce the law, produce real immigration reform and stop playing politics with the issue.�
Rep. Jeff Flake
That enforcement-heavy approach is fine with immigration advocates as long as it is part of a package that provides permanent legal status to those who are beckoned across the border by agriculture, restaurant, construction, landscaping and janitorial jobs. The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is estimated to be at least 11 million.
Immigrant-rights advocates, along with their allies at the National Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations, also support a proposal to provide hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers every year for employers who demonstrate that they are unable to find Americans to fill the slots.
While McCain and Kennedy describe this as a �temporary-worker program,� the legislation they sponsored would put the workers on a path to citizenship.
At a time of anxiety about the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, the McCain-Kennedy bill's efforts to import low-wage labor has drawn the anger of critics across the political spectrum. That is why Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration restrictions, predicts Pelosi will be reluctant to get behind a proposal that could endanger the new Democratic majority.
�Nancy Pelosi knows the Democrats are on probation for the next two years,� Krikorian said.
He predicted that Pelosi would back less ambitious immigration change, such as a plan to provide legal status to undocumented students, rather than take on the explosive issue of mass legalization, which critics condemn as an amnesty that would spawn more illegal immigration.
But Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which advocates for immigrant rights, argues that next year will be pivotal because of the presidential race that follows.
Advertisement
�I think that once we hit primary (election) season, controversial issues get a lot harder to do,� Sharry said. �Everybody I talk to says 2007 is the window of opportunity.�
Pelosi was noncommittal this week on whether the House would take up immigration legislation. She sought to deflect some of the responsibility to the White House, suggesting that she expects President Bush to offer more specifics than his call to �match willing worker with willing employer.�
�That's up to the president,� Pelosi said. �We want to work closely with him because it has to be comprehensive and bipartisan.�
President Bush's political advisers, meanwhile, have acknowledged that revamping immigration law may be necessary to shore up sagging support for Republicans among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group. Republicans received just 30 percent of the Hispanic vote this year, down from 44 percent in 2004.
By Jerry Kammer
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
December 9, 2006
WASHINGTON � Two of the most liberal members of Congress met with two of their most conservative colleagues this week to revive immigration legislation that passed the Senate but was throttled by House Republican leaders who resisted its attempt to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Sen. Edward Kennedy
�The plan is to bring the bill up in late winter,� said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a conservative stalwart who attended the meeting in the office of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The other participants were Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.
The strategy session Wednesday came amid speculation about how the dynamics of the immigration debate might change, if at all, when Democrats take control of the House and Senate next month.
Flake said that Kennedy, who will be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, wants to let the new Congress deal first with issues such as the war in Iraq and proposals to raise the minimum wage.
�Then he'll be ready to go� with a new version of the bill that the Senate approved in April.
Sen. John McCain
Republicans ran the show in both houses of Congress then, and passionate divisions in their ranks over immigration policy became a dominant feature of the debate. Democrats, particularly in the House, were mostly content to sit back and enjoy the stalemate, even as they campaigned against the �do-nothing Republican Congress.�
Now Democrats face the hazards of immigration politics.
Immigration-law changes are conspicuously absent from the legislative agenda laid out by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Observers here say it will be difficult for Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to honor her campaign-season pledge to work for a new comprehensive immigration law without splitting a caucus that includes freshly elected Democrats who vowed to secure the border and crack down on illegal immigration.
The November midterm elections seemed to send mixed messages.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez
In a cliffhanger contest, Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth, a conservative Republican and strident foe of illegal immigration, was defeated by Democrat Harry Mitchell.
Immigration advocates such as Ben Johnson of the Immigration Policy Center say Hayworth's defeat showed that immigration �did not turn out to be the firebrand issue that some people thought it could be.�
But immigration restrictionists point out that Mitchell made getting tough on immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. They also say Mitchell cleverly used the issue against Hayworth, saying his Republican opponent was part of a political regime that wasn't competent enough to stop the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that sweep across Arizona's southern border each year.
While Mitchell said he favored legal status for long-established immigrants, he insisted that immigration policy can be fixed only by �members of Congress who are willing to enforce the law, produce real immigration reform and stop playing politics with the issue.�
Rep. Jeff Flake
That enforcement-heavy approach is fine with immigration advocates as long as it is part of a package that provides permanent legal status to those who are beckoned across the border by agriculture, restaurant, construction, landscaping and janitorial jobs. The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is estimated to be at least 11 million.
Immigrant-rights advocates, along with their allies at the National Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations, also support a proposal to provide hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers every year for employers who demonstrate that they are unable to find Americans to fill the slots.
While McCain and Kennedy describe this as a �temporary-worker program,� the legislation they sponsored would put the workers on a path to citizenship.
At a time of anxiety about the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, the McCain-Kennedy bill's efforts to import low-wage labor has drawn the anger of critics across the political spectrum. That is why Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration restrictions, predicts Pelosi will be reluctant to get behind a proposal that could endanger the new Democratic majority.
�Nancy Pelosi knows the Democrats are on probation for the next two years,� Krikorian said.
He predicted that Pelosi would back less ambitious immigration change, such as a plan to provide legal status to undocumented students, rather than take on the explosive issue of mass legalization, which critics condemn as an amnesty that would spawn more illegal immigration.
But Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which advocates for immigrant rights, argues that next year will be pivotal because of the presidential race that follows.
Advertisement
�I think that once we hit primary (election) season, controversial issues get a lot harder to do,� Sharry said. �Everybody I talk to says 2007 is the window of opportunity.�
Pelosi was noncommittal this week on whether the House would take up immigration legislation. She sought to deflect some of the responsibility to the White House, suggesting that she expects President Bush to offer more specifics than his call to �match willing worker with willing employer.�
�That's up to the president,� Pelosi said. �We want to work closely with him because it has to be comprehensive and bipartisan.�
President Bush's political advisers, meanwhile, have acknowledged that revamping immigration law may be necessary to shore up sagging support for Republicans among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group. Republicans received just 30 percent of the Hispanic vote this year, down from 44 percent in 2004.
2011 Starring: Keira Knightley
keshtwo
08-13 08:09 PM
It is a hard fact but I guess I do not want to scare anyone. If you notice some people have got their JuLY 2ND filed cases receipt # and most of them have a Notice date of 08/04/2007 (the guys who got their receipt #). This notice date is the day the Receipt was generated. So today is 08/13/2007. It seems that USCIS is delaying this process of issuing receipts as that will give them a chance to reject applications after 17th. So I guess we should brace ourselves for rejection notices also......
Nonsense. once its in, its in. Or they will be facing another lawsuit.
Nonsense. once its in, its in. Or they will be facing another lawsuit.
more...
gjoe
10-09 06:18 AM
Why do you think FIFO is scientifically impossible? If you beleive that weather forecast is reliable like most of the Americans do, making the FIFO system work more effeciently without wasting even a single visa is possible.
It is not necessary to issue the visa if the case is still pending for some reason, but if it has cleared all it has a visa number ready to complete the case. If all the visa numbers are allocated ( not necessarily issued) each year there will be no waste. There is no need to go back and recapture visa numbers because all visa numbers are already allocated. Obove all these reasons, those people with PD's as old as 1999 coming out from the BEC need not face another nightmare like first waiting for the I485 to become current before even he can file and then wait in the end of the queue for new applicants to move forward before having his case handled.
This GC system broke because the system was revamped without taking into account the whole process.
First I-485 is triggered by an act of the applicant (he has to apply). So USCIS is never going to know whether an earlier applicant is still out there trying to file his application or not. In fact I would blame the entire retrogression on USCIS' attempt at FIFO which is scientifically impossible. It only results in wastage of visa numbers. In 2004 USCIS wasted 47000 visa numbers, in 2006 it wasted 10000 visa numbers. What USCIS could think of doing is just approve whoever is approvable. So the visa bulletin has only 2 possible values "C" and "U". If an earlier I485 applicant is stuck in name check then he should take appropriate action (writing to senators, FL, GWB or file WoM) and get his case adjudicated.
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
It is not necessary to issue the visa if the case is still pending for some reason, but if it has cleared all it has a visa number ready to complete the case. If all the visa numbers are allocated ( not necessarily issued) each year there will be no waste. There is no need to go back and recapture visa numbers because all visa numbers are already allocated. Obove all these reasons, those people with PD's as old as 1999 coming out from the BEC need not face another nightmare like first waiting for the I485 to become current before even he can file and then wait in the end of the queue for new applicants to move forward before having his case handled.
This GC system broke because the system was revamped without taking into account the whole process.
First I-485 is triggered by an act of the applicant (he has to apply). So USCIS is never going to know whether an earlier applicant is still out there trying to file his application or not. In fact I would blame the entire retrogression on USCIS' attempt at FIFO which is scientifically impossible. It only results in wastage of visa numbers. In 2004 USCIS wasted 47000 visa numbers, in 2006 it wasted 10000 visa numbers. What USCIS could think of doing is just approve whoever is approvable. So the visa bulletin has only 2 possible values "C" and "U". If an earlier I485 applicant is stuck in name check then he should take appropriate action (writing to senators, FL, GWB or file WoM) and get his case adjudicated.
There are a lot of misconceptions about AoS. Let me write it here.
1. A visa number is not needed to get AoS adjudicated. A visa number is only required to file the application. But USCIS' stand is that visa number is required both while filing and adjudicating. This according to the statutes and regulations is not true and valid. If USCIS screwed up and delayed adjudicating your application that is their problem. According to statutes and regulations a visa number is only required at the time the application is filed.
2. Neither Statutes nor regulations call for any fbi name check. Remember FBI name check is different from criminal back ground check or finger print check. The name check is an arbitrary decision by FBI and USCIS and will not stand in any court of law.
3. An FBI name check was never called for by USCIS on AoS applicants. It was only required for naturalization applicants. FBI screwed up by sending every one's name through this dreaded name check and now claims that it has too many names to check.
4. If your AoS application is pending for more than a year file a law suit against USCIS because USCIS violated regulations 103.2(b)(18). According to this regulation if an investigation is pending for 6 months district director should review it. At the end of 1 year he should again review it. After that it has to be escalated to higher authorities. Trust me this never happens. Violation of regulations is a serious offense.
So FIFO will never happen because USCIS cannot control who will apply when. Second FIFO is really bad because USCIS then has to keep shuffling its visa numbers around. Instead if it just approves anyone who is approvable atleast visa numbers would get used.
mhtanim
05-20 02:23 PM
Hi,
I filed mine on 27th July, 2007;
Do I need to apply for renewal now? How sooner or later we can apply for renewal?
You can file for renewal beginning 120 days before your EAD/AP expires.
I filed mine on 27th July, 2007;
Do I need to apply for renewal now? How sooner or later we can apply for renewal?
You can file for renewal beginning 120 days before your EAD/AP expires.
more...
hiUS
09-12 09:57 AM
Congratulations to everyone who is getting their applications approved.
My PD is Aug 2006 and I might have a remote chance of getting approved this month. Can someone give me the customer service number to talk about the 485 status. I keep seeing that many people talk to the customer service and get updates on the case. My case is pending at TSC. Thanks a lot.
It is the same number which you see on the 485 notice which you have.
select options as if you are checking your status on the phone (i.e. push buttons leading that direction, enter your receipt # listen to your LUD etc.). After that select the option which refers to "you believe you have a problem with your application" section (I think that is option 3). Then select the option which points problem with multiple applications (like if you believe your derivatives application seperated etc.). That one is option #4. That will end up at TSC IO. I hope my intstructions above will be helpful to you.
My PD is Aug 2006 and I might have a remote chance of getting approved this month. Can someone give me the customer service number to talk about the 485 status. I keep seeing that many people talk to the customer service and get updates on the case. My case is pending at TSC. Thanks a lot.
It is the same number which you see on the 485 notice which you have.
select options as if you are checking your status on the phone (i.e. push buttons leading that direction, enter your receipt # listen to your LUD etc.). After that select the option which refers to "you believe you have a problem with your application" section (I think that is option 3). Then select the option which points problem with multiple applications (like if you believe your derivatives application seperated etc.). That one is option #4. That will end up at TSC IO. I hope my intstructions above will be helpful to you.
2010 Keira Knightley is Flat
Sri_1975
08-31 01:49 PM
No Recipts yet..:)
more...
akhilmahajan
02-09 02:18 PM
Thanks a lot kate123.
Grand Total - $328
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
25$
Transaction Id: 49C78926VG6647649
Contributed via paypal
Thank you all,
Keep up the good work.
Grand Total - $328
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
25$
Transaction Id: 49C78926VG6647649
Contributed via paypal
Thank you all,
Keep up the good work.
hair (and she#39;s flat-chested)
sreenivas11
08-14 08:48 AM
Update from http://www.immigration-law.com/
more...
BharatPremi
03-26 07:50 AM
EB3-India with PD 2003 and before - Most will be out by December 2008 -
Perhaps 10% may still rot in NC further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2004 - DEC 2004 - Most will be out by August 2009
Perhaps 20% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2005 - April 2005 - Most will be out by April 2010
Perhaps 5% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India May 2005 Onwards - Can not predict - It is good to look for other
options and that option certainly MUST not
be switching to EB2
Perhaps 10% may still rot in NC further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2004 - DEC 2004 - Most will be out by August 2009
Perhaps 20% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2005 - April 2005 - Most will be out by April 2010
Perhaps 5% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India May 2005 Onwards - Can not predict - It is good to look for other
options and that option certainly MUST not
be switching to EB2
hot The Good: Keira Knightley
nandakumar
09-17 03:22 PM
Something needs to be done to make USCIS accountable for its actions.
I welcome this initiative by joining today and pledging to contribute if at least 1000 others come together to push forward this effort.
I have sent my details to man-woman-and-gc.
I welcome this initiative by joining today and pledging to contribute if at least 1000 others come together to push forward this effort.
I have sent my details to man-woman-and-gc.
more...
house Keira Knightley#39;s flat burgled
GreenMe
07-03 11:34 AM
trust me, everyone will write for 2 days more, then move on... i know that! agar kuch karna hi hotta to apna desh kahaan se kahaan pahunch gaya hotta... apne desh ko to badal nahi sakte idhar kya karengey? hehe
keep writing, let me also see how many of us can do this..
sab bol bacchan amitabh bachchan..
Mr. "Imconfused", Please shut your mouth if you are not going to send the flowers. If u think u are not "Bol Bacchan" then why not you send the flowers first.
Others - I have sent the flowers to be delivered on 9th July Monday.
keep writing, let me also see how many of us can do this..
sab bol bacchan amitabh bachchan..
Mr. "Imconfused", Please shut your mouth if you are not going to send the flowers. If u think u are not "Bol Bacchan" then why not you send the flowers first.
Others - I have sent the flowers to be delivered on 9th July Monday.
tattoo More Keira Knightley
nousername
02-02 01:14 PM
Minimalist....
First off, do not generalize H1 to IT industry only.. Trust me, Indian are present in other fields also and they are doing well there :)
Now about your comments, so I guess you truly believe in jungle raj.. Basically, do whatever you think benefits you.. Forget about what other people might need. May be you don't understand the mean of "society" and what makes humans different from animals. Sad, very sad..
About your example, I hope that does not happen to anyone but if it does then yes the employer should pay for the return flight back home but please do not mix two separate issues.
Anyway, I do not think I need to waist any more time with you because you fail to understand the underlining issue.
Good luck with you immigration because that seems to be the focus of your life.
nousername,If your would-be employer had sponsored the visa,it got selected and then he has to not hire you on Oct1st because of his business not doing so well, what would you do?
Ideally your employer should rescind your offer and buy you a ticket back home.
But in the IT industry, that is the reason most people still work with desi employer, even thouh they know that they will be taken advantage of.
Is it illegal? Yes. But there is a risk for the people involved.
Also, when someone tries to land H1 for the first time, it is really tough to find an employer who can apply 6 months in advance.Most american companies don't even go through the hassle unless they are hiring for non-IT positions. Then you have companies like Infosys who apply in bunches and keep them ready for the business they are expecting in future. Try and argue with them that they shouldn't do that as many people who have jobs lined up right now will not get H1s.
In my opinion most people who are on H1 n IT with american companies, either got in there via OPT- H1 or H1 transfer.
You gotta do what you gotta do. If you keep thinking about all deserving people,you would never take a step forward. At everypoint in life you will have certain options and every option woul cause some or other discomfort. Unless you are involved in clearcut criminal activity, everything else is fair, in my opinion.
First off, do not generalize H1 to IT industry only.. Trust me, Indian are present in other fields also and they are doing well there :)
Now about your comments, so I guess you truly believe in jungle raj.. Basically, do whatever you think benefits you.. Forget about what other people might need. May be you don't understand the mean of "society" and what makes humans different from animals. Sad, very sad..
About your example, I hope that does not happen to anyone but if it does then yes the employer should pay for the return flight back home but please do not mix two separate issues.
Anyway, I do not think I need to waist any more time with you because you fail to understand the underlining issue.
Good luck with you immigration because that seems to be the focus of your life.
nousername,If your would-be employer had sponsored the visa,it got selected and then he has to not hire you on Oct1st because of his business not doing so well, what would you do?
Ideally your employer should rescind your offer and buy you a ticket back home.
But in the IT industry, that is the reason most people still work with desi employer, even thouh they know that they will be taken advantage of.
Is it illegal? Yes. But there is a risk for the people involved.
Also, when someone tries to land H1 for the first time, it is really tough to find an employer who can apply 6 months in advance.Most american companies don't even go through the hassle unless they are hiring for non-IT positions. Then you have companies like Infosys who apply in bunches and keep them ready for the business they are expecting in future. Try and argue with them that they shouldn't do that as many people who have jobs lined up right now will not get H1s.
In my opinion most people who are on H1 n IT with american companies, either got in there via OPT- H1 or H1 transfer.
You gotta do what you gotta do. If you keep thinking about all deserving people,you would never take a step forward. At everypoint in life you will have certain options and every option woul cause some or other discomfort. Unless you are involved in clearcut criminal activity, everything else is fair, in my opinion.
more...
pictures Keira Knightley Shows Her Flat Chest in Venice
edd
06-11 04:45 PM
I know one of us got it. Any one else ?
dresses Keira Knightley defends flat
GCKarma
05-02 07:43 PM
Is it already introduced in Senate?
I could not find any thing on this from http://thomas.loc.gov/
I could not find any thing on this from http://thomas.loc.gov/
more...
makeup Chanel Vernis Flats Photograph
jfredr
08-13 02:14 PM
chek the front log dates announced as of August 10th
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes081007.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes081007.pdf
girlfriend Ballerina Flat Photograph
stucklabor
06-27 10:10 AM
First up, thanks to everyone for resolving this issue on their own, in a reasonable and civil manner.
In a truly democratic environment, we may want to modify the core IV goals to reflect that (Ideally I would prefer that there be a vote for what should be the core goals...after all most people here have contributed something towards the cause...and only those who have contributed should be allowed to vote...no free lunch).
1. Allow people to file for 485 and get EAD even if visa numbers are not available
2. Allow EAD to be FULLY portable without restrictons (i.e., irrespective of job description or job title or job location or salary).
The above two dont ask for sweeping changes in immigration laws such as increase visa numbers etc. etc. and are easy for the average American person to understand. And so can hopefuly be passed easily.
With the above two passed, I dont think many people will complain if it takes another 5 years to get their GC. Agree?
By the way, I have got my EAD card and my PD is also current. So the above two goals will be redundant for me. My story is that I am stuck in FBI namecheck. But the moderators have already indicated that it cant be one of the core goals. So I would not list that even if I would like that to be one of the core goals.
Santosh
Santosh, those are good suggestions that I will take up to the IV team.
1. The idea of a democratically elected IV goals is a good one but there are huge practical problems. As it stands, the present IV goals are those that most people have indicated are those that the organization should strive for, and from our discussions with Congress/Senate staff, these goals are achievable. With democratically selected goals, the IV core team would have the unenviable task of fighting for whatever goals the populace decides is right, without regard to the achievability of the goals. For instance, if the junta votes on goals, many people would say 'Full portability of GC' or 'Automatic clearance of all pending labor cert applications in the BECs'. Those would probably not fly. Our current talking point is that our goals are small changes to the process; we do not skip any steps; and we do not change the process significantly. A full portability to any job changes the process significantly. Even yesterday, Spgtopper met the staff member of a very powerful House member and the staffer was quite positive on our goals - we do not ask for more green cards, we limit our goals to ones that are reasonable.
2. IV goals are not written in stone. Name check is definitely an issue but it is an issue that not many of our people face. If our membership's problems changes from retrogression to name check, then we would have to work on that. It may be smarter to anticipate the magnitude of the problem and start work early. If you would be kind enough to partially lead the effort, that would be great. Logiclife is working on this issue on his own, and WaldenPond is also working on this. Please PM them. Logiclife is on vacation so he may take a while to respond.
In a truly democratic environment, we may want to modify the core IV goals to reflect that (Ideally I would prefer that there be a vote for what should be the core goals...after all most people here have contributed something towards the cause...and only those who have contributed should be allowed to vote...no free lunch).
1. Allow people to file for 485 and get EAD even if visa numbers are not available
2. Allow EAD to be FULLY portable without restrictons (i.e., irrespective of job description or job title or job location or salary).
The above two dont ask for sweeping changes in immigration laws such as increase visa numbers etc. etc. and are easy for the average American person to understand. And so can hopefuly be passed easily.
With the above two passed, I dont think many people will complain if it takes another 5 years to get their GC. Agree?
By the way, I have got my EAD card and my PD is also current. So the above two goals will be redundant for me. My story is that I am stuck in FBI namecheck. But the moderators have already indicated that it cant be one of the core goals. So I would not list that even if I would like that to be one of the core goals.
Santosh
Santosh, those are good suggestions that I will take up to the IV team.
1. The idea of a democratically elected IV goals is a good one but there are huge practical problems. As it stands, the present IV goals are those that most people have indicated are those that the organization should strive for, and from our discussions with Congress/Senate staff, these goals are achievable. With democratically selected goals, the IV core team would have the unenviable task of fighting for whatever goals the populace decides is right, without regard to the achievability of the goals. For instance, if the junta votes on goals, many people would say 'Full portability of GC' or 'Automatic clearance of all pending labor cert applications in the BECs'. Those would probably not fly. Our current talking point is that our goals are small changes to the process; we do not skip any steps; and we do not change the process significantly. A full portability to any job changes the process significantly. Even yesterday, Spgtopper met the staff member of a very powerful House member and the staffer was quite positive on our goals - we do not ask for more green cards, we limit our goals to ones that are reasonable.
2. IV goals are not written in stone. Name check is definitely an issue but it is an issue that not many of our people face. If our membership's problems changes from retrogression to name check, then we would have to work on that. It may be smarter to anticipate the magnitude of the problem and start work early. If you would be kind enough to partially lead the effort, that would be great. Logiclife is working on this issue on his own, and WaldenPond is also working on this. Please PM them. Logiclife is on vacation so he may take a while to respond.
hairstyles Keira Knightley took time out
navyug
08-13 11:16 AM
Card Ordered!!!
I-765 mailed- 07/08/2008
I-765 approved- 08/13/2008
I-765 mailed- 07/08/2008
I-765 approved- 08/13/2008
skynet2500
09-11 11:33 PM
Congratulations to everyone who is getting their applications approved.
My PD is Aug 2006 and I might have a remote chance of getting approved this month. Can someone give me the customer service number to talk about the 485 status. I keep seeing that many people talk to the customer service and get updates on the case. My case is pending at TSC. Thanks a lot.
My PD is Aug 2006 and I might have a remote chance of getting approved this month. Can someone give me the customer service number to talk about the 485 status. I keep seeing that many people talk to the customer service and get updates on the case. My case is pending at TSC. Thanks a lot.
asdf123
08-27 12:15 AM
My application filed on 1 august.
No receipts yet.
No receipts yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment