chanduv23
06-18 11:39 AM
No - I am not suggesting that!!
What I am suggesting is that the right time to take this up is when a recession is not in full swing. Between 2004 (when this law was enacted) and 2007 was a great time to pick this battle. Maybe another year down the line would also be a great time to pick it. Picking up this particular battle right now would probably make YOUR and MY lives much more difficult in the medium term.
Like you and the OP - I am a selfish individual. I will pick up only those fights which are in my interest. I believe that this particular fight is a lose-lose proposition in the current climate. I am disputing your (and OPs) belief that this will be beneficial for you/me/rest of us.
Lets take the example of the same Goldman Sachs manager. Tomorrow ICE comes to him and says you need to get rid of these 50 guys under you. What will he do? He cant increase the budget in the current environment. So he probably will hire a couple of GC holders/Citizens and replaces the whole division (with 50 GC/Citizens besides the 50 'violators') with an offshore team.
Think about it!!
Now is the time when everybody is thinking in terms of cost cutting. If you create costly disruptions now - then either the company becomes GM and lose out to overseas competitors or migrates the eitire division out.
Your reasoning is weak. If the same Goldman manager wants to screw you - he won't see if it is recession or not - he will screw you - period.
What happens with ICE and goldman is an issue they sort it out. If his budget is tight - he will figure out a way.
As far as jobs are concerned - there is no gaurantee that the best and brightest is always in jobs or those who suck up always have jobs - YOU are responsible on how you choose and carve your career
What I am suggesting is that the right time to take this up is when a recession is not in full swing. Between 2004 (when this law was enacted) and 2007 was a great time to pick this battle. Maybe another year down the line would also be a great time to pick it. Picking up this particular battle right now would probably make YOUR and MY lives much more difficult in the medium term.
Like you and the OP - I am a selfish individual. I will pick up only those fights which are in my interest. I believe that this particular fight is a lose-lose proposition in the current climate. I am disputing your (and OPs) belief that this will be beneficial for you/me/rest of us.
Lets take the example of the same Goldman Sachs manager. Tomorrow ICE comes to him and says you need to get rid of these 50 guys under you. What will he do? He cant increase the budget in the current environment. So he probably will hire a couple of GC holders/Citizens and replaces the whole division (with 50 GC/Citizens besides the 50 'violators') with an offshore team.
Think about it!!
Now is the time when everybody is thinking in terms of cost cutting. If you create costly disruptions now - then either the company becomes GM and lose out to overseas competitors or migrates the eitire division out.
Your reasoning is weak. If the same Goldman manager wants to screw you - he won't see if it is recession or not - he will screw you - period.
What happens with ICE and goldman is an issue they sort it out. If his budget is tight - he will figure out a way.
As far as jobs are concerned - there is no gaurantee that the best and brightest is always in jobs or those who suck up always have jobs - YOU are responsible on how you choose and carve your career
wallpaper Golden Retrievers For Sale
buckeye98
09-24 09:56 PM
add me to the R.Williams list
buckeye98 - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
I am really frustrated now. Whats the use of my doing every effort to make sure my application reaches the first day. Why is USCIS receipting cases from August when so many july 2 filers are still waiting? Should we all send some inquiry into our cases together?
buckeye98 - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
I am really frustrated now. Whats the use of my doing every effort to make sure my application reaches the first day. Why is USCIS receipting cases from August when so many july 2 filers are still waiting? Should we all send some inquiry into our cases together?
akhilmahajan
05-16 11:55 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\//\//\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
2011 Cute Golden Retriever
nrk
10-01 10:56 AM
Two of my colleagues on Nov 04 and Dec 04 didn't cleared out till.
I don't think so they are on IV, but they will use 6 cards (1+1 in one case and 1+3 in another case)
Since 2004 EB2 is cleared, I am seeing less number of posts being made on IV.Yay I became a senior member, will that mean I will get a green card?
I don't think so they are on IV, but they will use 6 cards (1+1 in one case and 1+3 in another case)
Since 2004 EB2 is cleared, I am seeing less number of posts being made on IV.Yay I became a senior member, will that mean I will get a green card?
more...
mhathi
09-15 03:43 PM
Called all but nine of congressmen. Will try to call all of them before 5:00pm eastern
malibuguy007
09-09 05:33 PM
Only 6 pages so far - we should be at 60!!!
more...
nk2006
09-09 11:46 AM
Started calling. Took the numbers from another thread (pasted below). Please confirm if calling these congressmen/women is enough or if we need to call any others. Thanks.
Call Compaign For HR 5882.
Number USA is calling congress Rep not to pass HR 5882. Please lets start calling from our side. OR it will create -ve impact and bill will not forward.
Here is list to call . Once you call please update thread.
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001
Call Compaign For HR 5882.
Number USA is calling congress Rep not to pass HR 5882. Please lets start calling from our side. OR it will create -ve impact and bill will not forward.
Here is list to call . Once you call please update thread.
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001
2010 Cute Golden Retriever T-Shirt
Canadian_Dream
11-26 01:57 PM
Punjabi77,
Here is a list of things you can do to protect and improve you cash cushion (and may be avoid foreclosure)
1. If you drive one of those luxury cars that cost upwards of 25K and have paid it off. Get rid of it now. These cars depreciate more in dollar terms compared to cheaper cars. Buy a less expensive, no frill used car for 9-10K, put the difference in bank. That might bring in 10K of much needed cash. Even if you have not paid it off look for deals to sell and reduce your monthly payments.
2. Open an account at quicken online (http://quicken.intuit.com/online-banking-finances.jsp) it is free. Connect your banks and monitor ALL your expenses carefully. Find out what portion of spending is discretionary and cut down on it.
3. Hunt coupons, shop at Costco/Walmart (even if you hate the shopping experience). Avoid brand names and stick to Kirkland/Great Value. This might save you in monthly expenses.
4. Also, you can add cash by working part-time. I am not talking about those hard to come software moonlighting jobs. Any job that pays 10-12 an hour will add 12 x 4hr x 5days x 4 Weeks = $960 per month.
5. If you live in a duplex with a bathroom/bedroom downstairs, you can rent it to someone from local college/university. Underbid by quoting super low rent on craigslist and you can get $400-500 per month.
6. Use online services like LegalZoom (or Prepaid legal from work) to prepare contracts for rentals etc.
7. Cut down on travel/eating out and anything that you can live without. A little cash could go a long way.
Also, when it is hard to stay put and make payments, always remember there is a silver lining in owning a house too. If there is a hyper inflation (which is very likely) rents will sky rocket and salary might go up to keep pace with it, but your home mortgage frozen in time for next 20-30 years will remain unchanged and you could potentially have lower monthly expenses compared to renters. That's a bright side of staying put.
Hope things workout for you. Good Luck.
Here is a list of things you can do to protect and improve you cash cushion (and may be avoid foreclosure)
1. If you drive one of those luxury cars that cost upwards of 25K and have paid it off. Get rid of it now. These cars depreciate more in dollar terms compared to cheaper cars. Buy a less expensive, no frill used car for 9-10K, put the difference in bank. That might bring in 10K of much needed cash. Even if you have not paid it off look for deals to sell and reduce your monthly payments.
2. Open an account at quicken online (http://quicken.intuit.com/online-banking-finances.jsp) it is free. Connect your banks and monitor ALL your expenses carefully. Find out what portion of spending is discretionary and cut down on it.
3. Hunt coupons, shop at Costco/Walmart (even if you hate the shopping experience). Avoid brand names and stick to Kirkland/Great Value. This might save you in monthly expenses.
4. Also, you can add cash by working part-time. I am not talking about those hard to come software moonlighting jobs. Any job that pays 10-12 an hour will add 12 x 4hr x 5days x 4 Weeks = $960 per month.
5. If you live in a duplex with a bathroom/bedroom downstairs, you can rent it to someone from local college/university. Underbid by quoting super low rent on craigslist and you can get $400-500 per month.
6. Use online services like LegalZoom (or Prepaid legal from work) to prepare contracts for rentals etc.
7. Cut down on travel/eating out and anything that you can live without. A little cash could go a long way.
Also, when it is hard to stay put and make payments, always remember there is a silver lining in owning a house too. If there is a hyper inflation (which is very likely) rents will sky rocket and salary might go up to keep pace with it, but your home mortgage frozen in time for next 20-30 years will remain unchanged and you could potentially have lower monthly expenses compared to renters. That's a bright side of staying put.
Hope things workout for you. Good Luck.
more...
ganesha
08-20 12:33 PM
Dear IV friends,
One news, call to india free for 24.99 from vonage plan starts today.
Thanks.
Just changed my plan from Premium Unlimited to World Plan at no extra cost....
One news, call to india free for 24.99 from vonage plan starts today.
Thanks.
Just changed my plan from Premium Unlimited to World Plan at no extra cost....
hair Golden Retriever Puppy
Prashant
09-09 05:26 PM
Called
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - Supports the bill
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - took the message
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - took the message
and calling others as well. Please stand up for this cause
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - Supports the bill
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - took the message
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - took the message
and calling others as well. Please stand up for this cause
more...
vbkris77
04-01 11:38 AM
Don't drag me into this.. It is totally cool if you want get information from multiple sources.. IV intention is not to provide news updates..
IV is a platform for fixing legal immigration.. That takes money to do that.. So there various innovative ways an organization can try get money to reach its goals.. This is one way..
I support and understand this initiate and hence I am writing in Donor forum..
I am not sure if u were born as an idiot or became an idiot after being turning a so called "donor".
To be frank I stopped contributing as and when IV started having donor forums.
There are thousands of websites and forums througout the internet to get info and what VKBris posted may not even come close to what Q and Teddy and so many others used to share as a group.
Now coming on to freebies,What benefit does IV provide to past contributors.I have contributed in the past, have been active at the initial stages,have spent my own money and booked airtickets to meet senators.Been a leader in a state chapter.But later realised that it was not worth for this forum which has partitions among so called donors.
Why the heck does any one want to see in a home page about posts on a donor forum.Just hide it and keep it among yourself and discuss .
Now red may follow,and a possible ban.
IV is a platform for fixing legal immigration.. That takes money to do that.. So there various innovative ways an organization can try get money to reach its goals.. This is one way..
I support and understand this initiate and hence I am writing in Donor forum..
I am not sure if u were born as an idiot or became an idiot after being turning a so called "donor".
To be frank I stopped contributing as and when IV started having donor forums.
There are thousands of websites and forums througout the internet to get info and what VKBris posted may not even come close to what Q and Teddy and so many others used to share as a group.
Now coming on to freebies,What benefit does IV provide to past contributors.I have contributed in the past, have been active at the initial stages,have spent my own money and booked airtickets to meet senators.Been a leader in a state chapter.But later realised that it was not worth for this forum which has partitions among so called donors.
Why the heck does any one want to see in a home page about posts on a donor forum.Just hide it and keep it among yourself and discuss .
Now red may follow,and a possible ban.
hot Golden Retriever
soni7007
08-07 01:14 PM
Yes, I agree that not filing GC earlier is not an excuse for MBA. The point is he still would have been in the same situation (EB3, 2003 is not too different from EB2, 2005) in terms of how fast he will get his GC.
What stopped (from legal stand point) MBA guy to file for eb3 based GC in 2003? Remember both have BS in Engineering at that time. No employer was ready to file GC for the MBA guy (in 2003) is not a valid legal argument.
Remember, one does not need to be employed to file for GC and GC is for the future job.
It is not what you or I think is fair. From legal point of view, both had equal opportunity to file for GC in 2003 for eb3 job. Just because, the MBA person didn't go for it is not a valid argument. Don't you agree?
What stopped (from legal stand point) MBA guy to file for eb3 based GC in 2003? Remember both have BS in Engineering at that time. No employer was ready to file GC for the MBA guy (in 2003) is not a valid legal argument.
Remember, one does not need to be employed to file for GC and GC is for the future job.
It is not what you or I think is fair. From legal point of view, both had equal opportunity to file for GC in 2003 for eb3 job. Just because, the MBA person didn't go for it is not a valid argument. Don't you agree?
more...
house Golden Retriever
krupa
04-25 01:48 PM
50% rule applicable only to an organization which has more than 50 employees.
Since most of the consulting companies employees strength is less than 50 ( I believe) the rule of 50% rule will not be applicable and they can file application till they reach 50.
Since most of the consulting companies employees strength is less than 50 ( I believe) the rule of 50% rule will not be applicable and they can file application till they reach 50.
tattoo Golden Retriever Dog Lovers
singhv_1980
02-05 01:40 PM
I've been stuck in India now for 55 days !:mad:
I am sure you must have given this information earlier but can you please tell me where did you apply? And was it your first stamping or a renewal case?
Also are u stuck coz of PIMS or 221 g clause?
Thanks
I am sure you must have given this information earlier but can you please tell me where did you apply? And was it your first stamping or a renewal case?
Also are u stuck coz of PIMS or 221 g clause?
Thanks
more...
pictures stock photo : 5 cute Golden
pappu
11-06 03:28 PM
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.
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.
dresses Cute Golden Retriever Puppy
virginia_desi
01-31 09:07 AM
Dear Vamsi, SVK, NK, Shahuja, Abuddyz, and all eligible visa aspirants:
I just got an email from the Chennai consulate, 29th day from the interview, stating the visa was stamped today:
"Thank you for your e-mail.
Our records show that your visa was issued today, January 31. You
should be receiving your passport/visa soon.
Visa Information Unit
American Consulate General
Chennai 600006, India
Telephone: 91 44 2857 4242
Fax: 91 44 2811 2027
Website: http://chennai.usconsulate.gov"
This means there is light at the end of the tunnel. Please have faith in your abilities, and in your God. You will hear back soon.
Moral of the story: "Never use a Consulate in India for visa re-validation again."
Please learn from this story, and never again trust Consulates in India for extension purposes.
God bless you all.:)
How do you know that experience in Canada or Mexico will be any different from experience in India? It can be only better at a consulate that hasn't yet implemented PIMS, which I don't think there are any at this point. At least you are at home with family. I think the worst is to be stuck in Canada or Mexico for a month. I think the moral of the story is to use AP whenever possible.
I just got an email from the Chennai consulate, 29th day from the interview, stating the visa was stamped today:
"Thank you for your e-mail.
Our records show that your visa was issued today, January 31. You
should be receiving your passport/visa soon.
Visa Information Unit
American Consulate General
Chennai 600006, India
Telephone: 91 44 2857 4242
Fax: 91 44 2811 2027
Website: http://chennai.usconsulate.gov"
This means there is light at the end of the tunnel. Please have faith in your abilities, and in your God. You will hear back soon.
Moral of the story: "Never use a Consulate in India for visa re-validation again."
Please learn from this story, and never again trust Consulates in India for extension purposes.
God bless you all.:)
How do you know that experience in Canada or Mexico will be any different from experience in India? It can be only better at a consulate that hasn't yet implemented PIMS, which I don't think there are any at this point. At least you are at home with family. I think the worst is to be stuck in Canada or Mexico for a month. I think the moral of the story is to use AP whenever possible.
more...
makeup cute golden retriever puppy
hebbar77
09-10 01:10 PM
Is this campaign for people with min 50 reputation points? :D
girlfriend retriever puppy cute
drona
07-10 10:31 PM
From the Washington Post article, this was an interesting comment:
"We know the reason behind it and understand the symbolism. We donated them in the same spirit in which they were provided to us," said an agency official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a lawsuit over the matter filed by an advocacy group.
"We know the reason behind it and understand the symbolism. We donated them in the same spirit in which they were provided to us," said an agency official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a lawsuit over the matter filed by an advocacy group.
hairstyles From Cute Golden Retriever
Michael chertoff
03-29 04:42 PM
Can you update your profile for a better EB community statistics?
Can you please ask snathan same thing.
Can you please ask snathan same thing.
coldcloud
09-23 04:24 PM
I guess we'll need to ADD to that number:
1. BEC stuck folks who could not file in July 07
2. PERM approvals starting August 07
to the 47,728. Plus multiply by 2.1( for dependents ). That'll give the total VISA numbers required for this category to make it Current.
If I have to guess-- (1) would be very less, may be 100-200 max
(2) around 5000 ( just a PUMA)
So, there are about 53000 EB2 I applications. and 2.1 * 53000 = 111300.
If we can create 111300, EB2 I visas then it'll be CURRENT. easy:)
I believe you dont need to multiply all of the 485 by 2.1 as already applied I485 will include the family?
1. BEC stuck folks who could not file in July 07
2. PERM approvals starting August 07
to the 47,728. Plus multiply by 2.1( for dependents ). That'll give the total VISA numbers required for this category to make it Current.
If I have to guess-- (1) would be very less, may be 100-200 max
(2) around 5000 ( just a PUMA)
So, there are about 53000 EB2 I applications. and 2.1 * 53000 = 111300.
If we can create 111300, EB2 I visas then it'll be CURRENT. easy:)
I believe you dont need to multiply all of the 485 by 2.1 as already applied I485 will include the family?
apnair2002
01-21 10:35 PM
This is the Chuck Hagel Bill that was put forth 10/25. No further action has been taken since.
Specter's bill will prolly include some sections of this bill.
01/21/2006: Republican National Committee Resolution: Support Legal Immigration & Guest Worker Program, Oppose Legalization
Report indicates that the Republican National Committee voted on 01/20/2006 to back the Bush's call for a guest-worker program, and adopted a resolution that calls for continued "legal immigration," criticizes illegal immigration and endorses a "new work program for foreign workers," but states there should be "no amnesty for those persons presently in the United States illegally." Read on.
There are several Comprehensive Immigration Reform bills pending in the Senate. The Senate is expected to return to the Hill next month and the specific agenda for the debate of these conflicting bills have yet to be announced by Sen. Bill Frist. He previously announced that these bills would be tabled for the debate in February. Please stay tuned to this website for the upcoming comprehensive immigration reform debates in the Hill. These bills are expected to bring a reform in the employment-based immigration increasing the employment-based immigrant visa numbers substantially. There are no strong opposition to this part of the comprehensive immigration reform.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
Specter's bill will prolly include some sections of this bill.
01/21/2006: Republican National Committee Resolution: Support Legal Immigration & Guest Worker Program, Oppose Legalization
Report indicates that the Republican National Committee voted on 01/20/2006 to back the Bush's call for a guest-worker program, and adopted a resolution that calls for continued "legal immigration," criticizes illegal immigration and endorses a "new work program for foreign workers," but states there should be "no amnesty for those persons presently in the United States illegally." Read on.
There are several Comprehensive Immigration Reform bills pending in the Senate. The Senate is expected to return to the Hill next month and the specific agenda for the debate of these conflicting bills have yet to be announced by Sen. Bill Frist. He previously announced that these bills would be tabled for the debate in February. Please stay tuned to this website for the upcoming comprehensive immigration reform debates in the Hill. These bills are expected to bring a reform in the employment-based immigration increasing the employment-based immigrant visa numbers substantially. There are no strong opposition to this part of the comprehensive immigration reform.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
