Called TSC using the POJ method. Office told me that my case was approved on 10/26 (today) and card production was ordered. Officer told me that I should recieve the card in 30 days or less.
I checked the online status, it still shows the same status as 09/15/2007. There are no LUDs either. I didnt get any emails or text message on my phone.
Has anyone experienced anything similar?
Why cant for once something be smooth sailing for me? I will call TSC again around 4 PM (just to confirm from some other officer).
I checked the online status, it still shows the same status as 09/15/2007. There are no LUDs either. I didnt get any emails or text message on my phone.
Has anyone experienced anything similar?
Why cant for once something be smooth sailing for me? I will call TSC again around 4 PM (just to confirm from some other officer).
wallpaper goldfish tank. goldfish tank
What are you showing hunter here? American hipocracy & bigotry in full light? How is your culture any good with what you have posted?
Oh, did that comment on Brahma and Saraswati incest hurt you? tsk, tsk, tsk.. too bad.
Well, you should have read and responded to the comment before that before pretending to be hurt about my response. I didn't start it.
If you are ready to make such bigoted comment, NEVER expect that you can get away that. Believe me, internet is limitless and I can shovel dirt about India in this forum, if I want to with a google search(which is not my intent here)
Oh, did that comment on Brahma and Saraswati incest hurt you? tsk, tsk, tsk.. too bad.
Well, you should have read and responded to the comment before that before pretending to be hurt about my response. I didn't start it.
If you are ready to make such bigoted comment, NEVER expect that you can get away that. Believe me, internet is limitless and I can shovel dirt about India in this forum, if I want to with a google search(which is not my intent here)
you are partially correct about this statement worldwide level = 140000 & EB3 = 28.6% of
but there is another rules that screws us
per country limit is 7% of the total, hence
140,000 * 0.07 = 9800 per country limit
9800/3 = 3266.66 per category if we assume that there are 3 categories. If we include EB4 & 5 the number is less than 3k per country. I think that this number is more accurate because most of the other blogs mention the fact that EB3 1 will get maximum of 3k per year if there is no spillover. My PD will be current if they set 5.5k per country for EB3 I, having been stuck in every step of this !@#!@ process i feel that the number will be around 2.8 (consular processing etc).
I am not considering any spill over etc...
here is what says on visa bulletin
Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
worldwide level = 140000
EB3 = 28.6% of 140000
can you please clarify ?
but there is another rules that screws us
per country limit is 7% of the total, hence
140,000 * 0.07 = 9800 per country limit
9800/3 = 3266.66 per category if we assume that there are 3 categories. If we include EB4 & 5 the number is less than 3k per country. I think that this number is more accurate because most of the other blogs mention the fact that EB3 1 will get maximum of 3k per year if there is no spillover. My PD will be current if they set 5.5k per country for EB3 I, having been stuck in every step of this !@#!@ process i feel that the number will be around 2.8 (consular processing etc).
I am not considering any spill over etc...
here is what says on visa bulletin
Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second
preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
worldwide level = 140000
EB3 = 28.6% of 140000
can you please clarify ?
2011 Goldfish-Tank
I agree I too have never seen H1B only ad's anywhere even body shoppers never post this kind of ad which is blatant discrimination. .
IGATE Mastech was fined by DOJ not too long ago
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/h1_b_discrimination_doj_fine/
Pittsburgh computer consultancy is paying $45,000 in civil penalties over claims it discriminated against legal US residents by advertising only for developers on H-1B visas.
The case was brought against iGate Mastech for placing an ad for 30 programmers between May and June 2006 "that expressly favored H-1B visa holders to the exclusion of US citizens, lawful permanent citizens and other legal US workers" according to the US Department of Justice.
So-called citizenship status discrimination is prohibited by the US Immigration and Nationality Act. The DoJ said it is "committed to protection the right of all authorized workers in the United States against citizenship status discrimination".
Get your facts right before posting. mastech is not the only firm that did it. As you pointed out, many of these fly-by-night operators (and bigger outsourcing companies) offer below market salaries, pocketing the difference like parasites.
IGATE Mastech was fined by DOJ not too long ago
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/h1_b_discrimination_doj_fine/
Pittsburgh computer consultancy is paying $45,000 in civil penalties over claims it discriminated against legal US residents by advertising only for developers on H-1B visas.
The case was brought against iGate Mastech for placing an ad for 30 programmers between May and June 2006 "that expressly favored H-1B visa holders to the exclusion of US citizens, lawful permanent citizens and other legal US workers" according to the US Department of Justice.
So-called citizenship status discrimination is prohibited by the US Immigration and Nationality Act. The DoJ said it is "committed to protection the right of all authorized workers in the United States against citizenship status discrimination".
Get your facts right before posting. mastech is not the only firm that did it. As you pointed out, many of these fly-by-night operators (and bigger outsourcing companies) offer below market salaries, pocketing the difference like parasites.
My understanding is that this is incorrect:
In the old system any unused visa from EB3 Row would got EB1 India/China first and then EB2 -I/C and then Eb3 -I/C.
What you described ("last few rows") is what they are following now, Einstein!!!
[Except this piece EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)]
So what will be the flow? I guess the following
EB1-> EB3-ROW (until current)
EB2-ROW -> EB2-I/C
Once Eb3-ROW becomes current
EB2-ROW -> EB2-I/C
EB3-ROW -> EB3-I/C
EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)
In the old system any unused visa from EB3 Row would got EB1 India/China first and then EB2 -I/C and then Eb3 -I/C.
What you described ("last few rows") is what they are following now, Einstein!!!
[Except this piece EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)]
So what will be the flow? I guess the following
EB1-> EB3-ROW (until current)
EB2-ROW -> EB2-I/C
Once Eb3-ROW becomes current
EB2-ROW -> EB2-I/C
EB3-ROW -> EB3-I/C
EB1 -> older of (EB2-I, EB2-C, EB3-I, EB3-C)
Good news guys, my checks have been encashed this morning, looks like they are processing july 2nd cases now, probably because of all the pressure from congressmen and all the complaints that have been going out to uscis-complaints.
Finally some relief, the receipt #'s are printed at back of the check and its starts with SRC so i guess it has been transferred to either CA or TX.
Hang in there guys iam sure all july 2nd filers will surely see their applications processed by early next week.
My details Filed at NCS @ 9:01 am received by R.Mickels
Finally some relief, the receipt #'s are printed at back of the check and its starts with SRC so i guess it has been transferred to either CA or TX.
Hang in there guys iam sure all july 2nd filers will surely see their applications processed by early next week.
My details Filed at NCS @ 9:01 am received by R.Mickels
what does it means ???
Take your I 485 application. There is a received date column and Notice date column.
Date received is the date they received your application,Notice date is the date they entered your application was entered into their system.
So, if someone with priority date of 08MAY2006 (EB2), but with a notice date of Aug 30 2007 will get the green card earlier than someone with priority date of 20April2006 (Eb2) with a notice date of Sept 15.
Take your I 485 application. There is a received date column and Notice date column.
Date received is the date they received your application,Notice date is the date they entered your application was entered into their system.
So, if someone with priority date of 08MAY2006 (EB2), but with a notice date of Aug 30 2007 will get the green card earlier than someone with priority date of 20April2006 (Eb2) with a notice date of Sept 15.
2010 Goldfish Aquarium. Share
Thank you, FatJoe, for sharing your experience.
Would you mind sharing which state you reside in? I am wondering if anyone contacted Maryland senators/congressmen.
Neelu:
My attr said that uscis does not follow any chrological order to approve cases. Rather, it takes any 485 application filed before Jan 22, 05. So, your point on "giving more time" won't work here.
This is what I did. I did not get GC yet though, but got to know where I'm at.
1. Contacated NCS numerous times and raised two SRs.
2. Took inforpass a couple of times. Infopass IOs have more detailed info about our cases.
3. Contact Senator requesting that my appln be assigned to an IO, and it was done so. It is with an IO now. Hoping and praying that my IO picks up application to approve it this week.
4. Contacted Ombudsman late last week. Hoping to get some good actions taken on my application.
5. You might consider contacting Janet Napolitino as well.
All the best.
Would you mind sharing which state you reside in? I am wondering if anyone contacted Maryland senators/congressmen.
Neelu:
My attr said that uscis does not follow any chrological order to approve cases. Rather, it takes any 485 application filed before Jan 22, 05. So, your point on "giving more time" won't work here.
This is what I did. I did not get GC yet though, but got to know where I'm at.
1. Contacated NCS numerous times and raised two SRs.
2. Took inforpass a couple of times. Infopass IOs have more detailed info about our cases.
3. Contact Senator requesting that my appln be assigned to an IO, and it was done so. It is with an IO now. Hoping and praying that my IO picks up application to approve it this week.
4. Contacted Ombudsman late last week. Hoping to get some good actions taken on my application.
5. You might consider contacting Janet Napolitino as well.
All the best.
What about this bill and look at the following section. Does it mean EB visas will go up to 260,000. Then its good news.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3938:
'Title VI SEC. 601. INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT BASED VISAS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the number of employment-based visas made available under sections 201(d) and 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d), 1153(b)) for each fiscal year (beginning with the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act) is hereby increased by 120,000'.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3938:
'Title VI SEC. 601. INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT BASED VISAS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the number of employment-based visas made available under sections 201(d) and 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d), 1153(b)) for each fiscal year (beginning with the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act) is hereby increased by 120,000'.
hair Some cool goldfish aquarium
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/2248492.html
What the employers are doing seems illegal. Govt issues us this card for a lot of money, and now we can't use it for work?
I agree. I was wondering why legal needs to be consulted for EADs.
But then this company is fully aware of of EADs and AC21 requirements. I think legal gets involved to ensure job codes are matching, etc., which would make sense. The applicant may not have completed 180 days, may be applying for a different job code, etc. They do invest a lot of money on an employee during the first year and they obviously do not want to end up losing that investment due to immigration issues, something they can avoid.
But this is something I was not aware of until today. The good thing is most employers are receptive to EADs which is good.
I agree. I was wondering why legal needs to be consulted for EADs.
But then this company is fully aware of of EADs and AC21 requirements. I think legal gets involved to ensure job codes are matching, etc., which would make sense. The applicant may not have completed 180 days, may be applying for a different job code, etc. They do invest a lot of money on an employee during the first year and they obviously do not want to end up losing that investment due to immigration issues, something they can avoid.
But this is something I was not aware of until today. The good thing is most employers are receptive to EADs which is good.
hot Aquarium
Well I could choose to make a one time donation of let us say $100. Or I could choose for 10 recurring donations for $10. What difference does it make?
Guys do not feed the freeloaders by telling anything you are reading in the donor forum. Let these people help themselves by signing up for recurring contributions if they want helpful nformation about their EB2 PD movemement. We are still not meeting of our advocacy day amount. It is all because most people want free lunches. This needs to stop. The 200 people going to DC tomorrow are going to speak for you and me for yours and mine greencard. They are taking time off and spending own money for you and me. Nothing is free in this world. IV is also doing this for you and me and we are taking it for granted. Let people do some good deed today if they want to know good information
Guys do not feed the freeloaders by telling anything you are reading in the donor forum. Let these people help themselves by signing up for recurring contributions if they want helpful nformation about their EB2 PD movemement. We are still not meeting of our advocacy day amount. It is all because most people want free lunches. This needs to stop. The 200 people going to DC tomorrow are going to speak for you and me for yours and mine greencard. They are taking time off and spending own money for you and me. Nothing is free in this world. IV is also doing this for you and me and we are taking it for granted. Let people do some good deed today if they want to know good information
house about Goldfish Aquarium
I am in the same situation. Details Below.
Me: EB2(10/2006) Pending I-140
Wife: EB3(04/2002 SUBSTITUTION) Pending I-140
Reply from My Lawyer.
"Many people are in your scenario.
There are many ways to do this. Each one being a little more expensive then others.
What can be done:
Your wife files as primary and you secondary on her 140.
You file as primary and her secondary on your 140.
Option #2
You file alone on your 140
She files alone on her 140.
Somehow if the dates should move backwards and her 140 on labor substitution should get denied (you never know with labor sub); then for her to file on your 140 the date has to be current or she canʼt file until it becomes current.
You and her just file on her 140. Problem is if the 140 gets denied then the window of opportunity to file the 485 again may not be for a couple of years.
You and her just file on your 140. Problem is that it may take a long time for you to eventually get the greencard approved.
If you want to be safe and want to spend more money then she would file as primary on her 140 and you as dependent. Then at same time we would file you as primary on your 140 and her as dependent on your 140.
Reply from Wife's Lawyer(Murthy):
"It is not possible for you to be her derivative as well as your own primary, and vice versa. It would require the filing of 2 I-485s and this causes nothing but confusion on the part of the USCIS. You have 2 choices. You could pick a case that you are going to proceed under, most likely the one with the earliest priority date, so long as there is confidence that the I-140 will be approved. Or, you can hedge your bets by each filing as your own primary because if one of the cases falls into a problem, the person can switch to be a derivative, but could run into a problem if there were not current priority dates at the time. But, so long as your both remain in H-1B status, and not use EAD/AP, that is minimized"
Me: EB2(10/2006) Pending I-140
Wife: EB3(04/2002 SUBSTITUTION) Pending I-140
Reply from My Lawyer.
"Many people are in your scenario.
There are many ways to do this. Each one being a little more expensive then others.
What can be done:
Your wife files as primary and you secondary on her 140.
You file as primary and her secondary on your 140.
Option #2
You file alone on your 140
She files alone on her 140.
Somehow if the dates should move backwards and her 140 on labor substitution should get denied (you never know with labor sub); then for her to file on your 140 the date has to be current or she canʼt file until it becomes current.
You and her just file on her 140. Problem is if the 140 gets denied then the window of opportunity to file the 485 again may not be for a couple of years.
You and her just file on your 140. Problem is that it may take a long time for you to eventually get the greencard approved.
If you want to be safe and want to spend more money then she would file as primary on her 140 and you as dependent. Then at same time we would file you as primary on your 140 and her as dependent on your 140.
Reply from Wife's Lawyer(Murthy):
"It is not possible for you to be her derivative as well as your own primary, and vice versa. It would require the filing of 2 I-485s and this causes nothing but confusion on the part of the USCIS. You have 2 choices. You could pick a case that you are going to proceed under, most likely the one with the earliest priority date, so long as there is confidence that the I-140 will be approved. Or, you can hedge your bets by each filing as your own primary because if one of the cases falls into a problem, the person can switch to be a derivative, but could run into a problem if there were not current priority dates at the time. But, so long as your both remain in H-1B status, and not use EAD/AP, that is minimized"
tattoo optimum goldfish aquarium
Nothing, Zilch, Nada....My lawyer said that of the 40 applications they filed on July 2nd. they got RN for only 5 so..... Seems to be a very long wait
It is told that most of the July 2 filings are waiting, but July 17 filings have received RN. Perhaps it all depends where USCIS folks put bundles of applications initially meant for rejection/return. I am also one of the July 2 filers still waiting
It is told that most of the July 2 filings are waiting, but July 17 filings have received RN. Perhaps it all depends where USCIS folks put bundles of applications initially meant for rejection/return. I am also one of the July 2 filers still waiting
pictures Goldfish tank - tank
VFS locations, timing and address:
Tirupati Apartments, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Opp. Mahalakshmi Temple,
Mumbai - 400026.
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
Gujarat Chambers Building, Shri Ambika Mills, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380009 .
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
106, Sohrab Hall 1st Floor, Sassoon Road, Behind Pune Station Junction,
Pune - 411001 .
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
Please remember to watch out for the emails around 1:00 - 1:30 pm, so that you can submit your PP for stamping on the same day. I ended up missing today's deadline of 3pm and essentially losing one day.
Good luck,
G Pawar
Hi GPawar,
Do they specifically mention only these VFS ? I have my interview in Mumbai but then will proceed to North East on vacation. If it is any VFS, Calcutta is much convenient (and economic) for me. Also do they have an option to submit the passport to consulate directly?
Tirupati Apartments, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Opp. Mahalakshmi Temple,
Mumbai - 400026.
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
Gujarat Chambers Building, Shri Ambika Mills, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380009 .
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
106, Sohrab Hall 1st Floor, Sassoon Road, Behind Pune Station Junction,
Pune - 411001 .
0800-1300 & 1400-1500
Please remember to watch out for the emails around 1:00 - 1:30 pm, so that you can submit your PP for stamping on the same day. I ended up missing today's deadline of 3pm and essentially losing one day.
Good luck,
G Pawar
Hi GPawar,
Do they specifically mention only these VFS ? I have my interview in Mumbai but then will proceed to North East on vacation. If it is any VFS, Calcutta is much convenient (and economic) for me. Also do they have an option to submit the passport to consulate directly?
dresses Free - Demo Goldfish Tank With
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.
makeup Goldfish Quarantine Tank
Flying through Asian Countires is not an option for people residing in East Coast. I am travelling to India in the next week Via Amsterdam. I am told by the consulate that we do not need Transit Visas. My H1B Visa is expired and I am travelling on AP. Did any one hear differently?
Thanks
Thats correct - they don't need transit visas - I did in mid-Dec, 2007 - absolutely no hassle. Also, I find Schipol one of the most pleasant airports in Europe (barring Munich).
Thanks
Thats correct - they don't need transit visas - I did in mid-Dec, 2007 - absolutely no hassle. Also, I find Schipol one of the most pleasant airports in Europe (barring Munich).
girlfriend with goldfish. The tank is
thanks to digital, here's an email template if you need.
---------------------
PLEASE SPREAD THIS MESSAGE AND CALL
Dear Friends and well wishers,
Please take a minute and Your call today can help half million people ( Talented, Legal immigrants ) in waiting ...
BACKGROUND & TALKING POINTS
HR5882 was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Sensenbrenner. This bill recaptures all the unused visa numbers that have been lost since 1992 due to processing delays in Employment based category and Family category. It is estimated that 216000 green cards will be recaptured which would help to eleviate the employment based backlogs.
Please use the instructions provided below to make the phone calls.
(1) Call the congressman/woman office and request to speak with the aide who handles Legislative and Immigration matters
(2) If they are not available leave a VM for them -
"I would like Representative "Representative Name" to support HR 5882, bill to recapture the green cards lost due to processing and bureaucratic delays. As you may already know that this is a bi-partisan bill with wide bipartisan support in the house and will help improve American competitiveness & reduce the back logs associated with USCIS. This bill is non controversial measures that will help US to stay competitive with a highly educated and skilled work force and address family based backlogs also."
To All congress-critters:
In a nutshell, this bill allows USCIS to manage their workflow more effectively, which provides better customer service, and will eventually lead to better turn-around times.
Pls inform Majority Members Democrats: More people will be able to get their citizenship in reasonable times.
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Please inform Minority Members Republicans: Companies will be able to attract more talent which improves economic performance."
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member] 202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
(3) As usual Do NOT get into the CIR issue or illegal Immigration. If the aide is confusing with CIR or illegal immigration, just tell them that these are legal immigration bills.
(4) If the aide asks whether you belong to the district or not, tell them NO if you don't. Mention to them that you already spoke with your representative and would like the congressman/congresswoman
support.
Community of half million will appreciate and bless you for your efforts...
Thank You
House Judiciary Committee Members
... all phone numbers here from
... http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=286772#post286772 ....
More info :
Please take a minute and review the list of Judiciary members http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html. If you, your friends, or your
family have any district-based connection with any of them, please reach out to these members (phone, email, fax, etc), let them know how important it is
to get the bill passed this month and urge them to vote YEA on the bill. Constituent interest/support from key individuals, health care providers,
recruiters and other organizations is critical at this stage.
It will be great be to have major support from House Judiciary Committee http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html on Wednesday, September 10,
2008. In these economic and crucial times for our country...
---------------------
PLEASE SPREAD THIS MESSAGE AND CALL
Dear Friends and well wishers,
Please take a minute and Your call today can help half million people ( Talented, Legal immigrants ) in waiting ...
BACKGROUND & TALKING POINTS
HR5882 was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Sensenbrenner. This bill recaptures all the unused visa numbers that have been lost since 1992 due to processing delays in Employment based category and Family category. It is estimated that 216000 green cards will be recaptured which would help to eleviate the employment based backlogs.
Please use the instructions provided below to make the phone calls.
(1) Call the congressman/woman office and request to speak with the aide who handles Legislative and Immigration matters
(2) If they are not available leave a VM for them -
"I would like Representative "Representative Name" to support HR 5882, bill to recapture the green cards lost due to processing and bureaucratic delays. As you may already know that this is a bi-partisan bill with wide bipartisan support in the house and will help improve American competitiveness & reduce the back logs associated with USCIS. This bill is non controversial measures that will help US to stay competitive with a highly educated and skilled work force and address family based backlogs also."
To All congress-critters:
In a nutshell, this bill allows USCIS to manage their workflow more effectively, which provides better customer service, and will eventually lead to better turn-around times.
Pls inform Majority Members Democrats: More people will be able to get their citizenship in reasonable times.
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Please inform Minority Members Republicans: Companies will be able to attract more talent which improves economic performance."
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member] 202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
(3) As usual Do NOT get into the CIR issue or illegal Immigration. If the aide is confusing with CIR or illegal immigration, just tell them that these are legal immigration bills.
(4) If the aide asks whether you belong to the district or not, tell them NO if you don't. Mention to them that you already spoke with your representative and would like the congressman/congresswoman
support.
Community of half million will appreciate and bless you for your efforts...
Thank You
House Judiciary Committee Members
... all phone numbers here from
... http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=286772#post286772 ....
More info :
Please take a minute and review the list of Judiciary members http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html. If you, your friends, or your
family have any district-based connection with any of them, please reach out to these members (phone, email, fax, etc), let them know how important it is
to get the bill passed this month and urge them to vote YEA on the bill. Constituent interest/support from key individuals, health care providers,
recruiters and other organizations is critical at this stage.
It will be great be to have major support from House Judiciary Committee http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html on Wednesday, September 10,
2008. In these economic and crucial times for our country...
hairstyles GOLDFISH TANK FLAKE FOOD
In the process of calling all of them. Gone through a few already. Come on people it is really easy and effective.
You want to foreclose for a matter of 20K -- I'm really surprised by your thinking process. Based on it, I would assume you had a zero down loan.
In my opinion and this is my opinion only ( and this is only from a financial perspective only ), taking a hit on your credit report for 7 years for a 20k monetary hit doesnt make sense.
the moral , ethical part of it -- well there are quite a few folks on either side of it and I'll let them continue arguing for/against it :-)
In my opinion and this is my opinion only ( and this is only from a financial perspective only ), taking a hit on your credit report for 7 years for a 20k monetary hit doesnt make sense.
the moral , ethical part of it -- well there are quite a few folks on either side of it and I'll let them continue arguing for/against it :-)
Now my status changed to 'Initial Review' because post office returned my mail :confused: Within 12 hrs status changed from 'Card Production' (05.03 PM) to 'Initial Review' (06.33 AM).
I had updated my new address 3 yrs before and was confirmed by infopass appointment.
I had updated my new address 3 yrs before and was confirmed by infopass appointment.