senthil1
07-12 12:01 AM
Various conspiracy theories are
1. They made all PD current for July to encourage legal immigrants to support CIR. CIR is failed they backed out on July. But it has weak argument as they moved PD for about 2 years in previous month.
2. They made PD current based on rules and regulations as 60k Visa was available. But USCIS may lose fees increase so they backed out to get more revenue. If this is correct they will make all PD current in Oct 2007. But I do not think this will be reason as just for more money for Organization anyone will risk their career. If anyone gets personal financial gain then they might do but here there is no chance for that
3. Because first 2 weeks of June not much approvals of I485 DOS made all PD current. But when USCIS started approving cases they realized that there were enough applications already and alerted DOS and DOS issued revised VB
4. USCIS does not want flooding of I485 applications as that will be shown up as backlog. To prevent that they asked DOS to issue revised VB
There is going to be 3 important questions in Lawsuit(If court accepts lawsuit for consideration) or congress hearing(if happens)
1. Whether DOS or USCIS violated law in issuing revised VB.
2. Whether they violated law in bypassing FBI check for applications to make Visa numbers unavailable
3. Why they could not accept the I485 applications based on First VB? What is the need for issuing revised VB?
If this is true it's really horrible and scary that this gov. agency is handling our applications.
1. They made all PD current for July to encourage legal immigrants to support CIR. CIR is failed they backed out on July. But it has weak argument as they moved PD for about 2 years in previous month.
2. They made PD current based on rules and regulations as 60k Visa was available. But USCIS may lose fees increase so they backed out to get more revenue. If this is correct they will make all PD current in Oct 2007. But I do not think this will be reason as just for more money for Organization anyone will risk their career. If anyone gets personal financial gain then they might do but here there is no chance for that
3. Because first 2 weeks of June not much approvals of I485 DOS made all PD current. But when USCIS started approving cases they realized that there were enough applications already and alerted DOS and DOS issued revised VB
4. USCIS does not want flooding of I485 applications as that will be shown up as backlog. To prevent that they asked DOS to issue revised VB
There is going to be 3 important questions in Lawsuit(If court accepts lawsuit for consideration) or congress hearing(if happens)
1. Whether DOS or USCIS violated law in issuing revised VB.
2. Whether they violated law in bypassing FBI check for applications to make Visa numbers unavailable
3. Why they could not accept the I485 applications based on First VB? What is the need for issuing revised VB?
If this is true it's really horrible and scary that this gov. agency is handling our applications.
wallpaper imagenes de amor con movimiento. Amor en movimiento | Flickr - Photo Sharing
waitnwatch
11-09 11:36 AM
Mr. Dobbs at it again....spinning it his way. This is so pathetic that it isn't even amusing.
Here's the link http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/08/Dobbs.Nov9/index.html
The relevant sections are below.....He's so desperate that he puts up his nativist colors on full display by equating English to a vote against illegal immigration. Really clutching at straws.
He fails to say that Jon Kyl is not the strident anti-immigrant that Graf and Hayworth are. Does he not get the message? Or is he just "staying the course."
-----------------------------------------------
Take for example the state of Arizona, where voters sorted through 19 ballot initiatives, eight House races, one Senate race and chose a governor. Arizona voters approved four separate measures that revealed their frustration with the endless influx of illegal aliens into that state, including one measure that makes English the official language of Arizona. And don't think that the vote was an expression of social conservatism: Arizona also became the first state in the country's history to reject a ban on same-sex marriage, the only state among eight to do so this November.
Arizonans re-elected Senator John Kyl, who co-sponsored tough legislation to establish border security and reject illegal immigration. At the same time, they refused to send anti-illegal immigration candidates Randy Graf and incumbent J.D. Hayworth to Washington.
-------------------------------------------
Here's the link http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/08/Dobbs.Nov9/index.html
The relevant sections are below.....He's so desperate that he puts up his nativist colors on full display by equating English to a vote against illegal immigration. Really clutching at straws.
He fails to say that Jon Kyl is not the strident anti-immigrant that Graf and Hayworth are. Does he not get the message? Or is he just "staying the course."
-----------------------------------------------
Take for example the state of Arizona, where voters sorted through 19 ballot initiatives, eight House races, one Senate race and chose a governor. Arizona voters approved four separate measures that revealed their frustration with the endless influx of illegal aliens into that state, including one measure that makes English the official language of Arizona. And don't think that the vote was an expression of social conservatism: Arizona also became the first state in the country's history to reject a ban on same-sex marriage, the only state among eight to do so this November.
Arizonans re-elected Senator John Kyl, who co-sponsored tough legislation to establish border security and reject illegal immigration. At the same time, they refused to send anti-illegal immigration candidates Randy Graf and incumbent J.D. Hayworth to Washington.
-------------------------------------------
roseball
04-07 10:36 PM
A small correction - the notice sent by IRS did not mention that my filing status was changed from "married filing jointly" to "married filing separately" or "filing single". The notice says that
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
In this case, I would file her W-7, call IRS when the ITIN is available and follow their instructions.
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
In this case, I would file her W-7, call IRS when the ITIN is available and follow their instructions.
2011 imagenes de amor con
waitin_toolong
07-29 05:04 AM
how is the baby supposed to sponsor the parents ??
more...
santb1975
02-14 03:37 PM
Thanks for sending the letters out. We hope to see you at our next event
I would have loved to attend, but since this a long weekend I am going out on Friday and will not be back until Monday.
Just FYI.. I did send the letters last week.
Thanks,
Abhay
I would have loved to attend, but since this a long weekend I am going out on Friday and will not be back until Monday.
Just FYI.. I did send the letters last week.
Thanks,
Abhay
newbee7
04-12 02:48 PM
If I were you, I would send a letter with the facts. I do not see a downside to this. On the upside, if the employer decides to settle you could potentially get some of your money back.
more...
humdesi
02-17 03:59 AM
Which was effectively nullified by
"Default Re: Predicted Visa Bulletin movement
Nothing was said, but logically, unless there is worldwide EB3 movement, EB2 for China and India can't advance. EB for India and China have already maxed out for the year and all additional movement is based on leftovers from the rest of the world."
"Default Re: Predicted Visa Bulletin movement
Nothing was said, but logically, unless there is worldwide EB3 movement, EB2 for China and India can't advance. EB for India and China have already maxed out for the year and all additional movement is based on leftovers from the rest of the world."
2010 imagenes de amor con movimiento. de amor con movimiento
sasidhar79
09-16 02:37 PM
I just signed the online petition to drop Dobbs, I hope everybody in IV will do it and help us get rid of this Hatemonger.
more...
ram112
09-03 05:09 AM
Folks,
I got greened today, surprisingly. Could anyone let me know what are the good numbers to reach a human in USCIS, hopefully with less wait time. I wanted to check with them what address they have on file. I filed an address change in JUne but I am not sure if they have it right in their systems. Also, is there a way to get this information without calling them.
Thanks a lot ..
I got greened today, surprisingly. Could anyone let me know what are the good numbers to reach a human in USCIS, hopefully with less wait time. I wanted to check with them what address they have on file. I filed an address change in JUne but I am not sure if they have it right in their systems. Also, is there a way to get this information without calling them.
Thanks a lot ..
hair Amor en el juego »
honge_kamyaab
11-30 09:24 AM
Remember I-140 is owned by your employer. If you quit the job your greencard process will start from PERM again with your new employer.
Portability applys six months after filing I-485.
Hope that helps.
Portability applys six months after filing I-485.
Hope that helps.
more...
prinive
02-16 01:14 PM
:rolleyes: Bump
hot imagenes de amor con
p.guptapost
11-06 05:54 PM
2 K number comes from I485 inventory report from USCIS. It shows 2K visas filed overall in 2009 till Aug.
more...
house imagenes de amor con frases y
purgan
04-13 10:13 AM
USINPAC, for instance, promotes its role in the India-US nuclear deal.
It has also listed immigration as one of its issues, but all it cares about there is family immigration, so all those citizens can sponsor their own relatives. A bunch of A$^#^
himu73, why don't you try to contact these two oganizations + USINPAC to see what kind of traction you can get? The core is busy and needs all the help it can get. Are you upto it?
It has also listed immigration as one of its issues, but all it cares about there is family immigration, so all those citizens can sponsor their own relatives. A bunch of A$^#^
himu73, why don't you try to contact these two oganizations + USINPAC to see what kind of traction you can get? The core is busy and needs all the help it can get. Are you upto it?
tattoo imagenes de amor con movimiento. +de+amor+con+movimiento
lazycis
02-18 04:27 PM
"The spouse and children of a person who has previously immigrated to the U.S. may be entitled to obtain an immigrant visa at a later date. If you would like to see if you are eligible for follow-to-join status, please send us (consulate in India) a copy of the principal applicant's permanent resident card or I-551 or a copy of the principal applicant's passport pages indicating admission to the U.S. as an immigrant. Please also submit a copy of your birth certificate and/or marriage certificate. The documents must come with a letter of request clearly indicating the name of the applicant(s) and all relevant contact addresses and telephone numbers. Once the Immigrant Visa Unit has determined you are eligible for follow-to-join status, we will contact you and provide instructions on how to apply for the visas."
In this case baby would qualify for follow-to-join visa.
I do agree with wandmaker that having child in the US is much much more preferable.
In this case baby would qualify for follow-to-join visa.
I do agree with wandmaker that having child in the US is much much more preferable.
more...
pictures amor fotos. de amor
sbdol
08-05 06:33 PM
...
What if all the background adjudication of 485 is done in 1 year and then we change from EB3 to EB2, its not going to affect the current 485 ? It will just put the file in a better category ?
If every EB3 is ported to EB2 then EB2 will retrogress to 2001 and EB3 will become current.
What if all the background adjudication of 485 is done in 1 year and then we change from EB3 to EB2, its not going to affect the current 485 ? It will just put the file in a better category ?
If every EB3 is ported to EB2 then EB2 will retrogress to 2001 and EB3 will become current.
dresses imagenes de amor con movimiento. La luz, el movimiento
daishwarya
07-20 03:03 PM
@Sanjay, sent you a private message. Please check.
more...
makeup de amor con movimiento
hopein07
03-14 12:29 PM
Don't ignore Dubai. It is a boom town and will give red carpet welcome to your wife because she is a US trained doc. I know of a few Indian docs who were on J1 visa and never got waiver jobs went to work in Dubai instead because with US degree they can practise there without any major issues. Dubai is good for IT folks too with the internet city. You may want to google and find more about Dubai's requirements.
girlfriend +de+amor+con+movimiento
gee_see
10-19 12:06 PM
As i mentioned in my first post, new job offer salary is more than prevailing wages for that location.
My concern is how USCIS will interpret AC21 cases where the salary is more than prevailing wages for the new location but less than specified in LC.
Does it help if we include a letter explaining salary difference and prevailing wage information for the new location from DOL site
Please advise
My concern is how USCIS will interpret AC21 cases where the salary is more than prevailing wages for the new location but less than specified in LC.
Does it help if we include a letter explaining salary difference and prevailing wage information for the new location from DOL site
Please advise
hairstyles imagenes de amor con movimiento. Amor en movimiento | Flickr - Photo Sharing
h1techSlave
04-27 10:32 PM
This one is from Mathew Oh:
After all, we should just focus on the upcoming CIR process rather than these piecemeal legislative bills.
After watching all these dramas in the Senate/House, I feel the law makers are testing the waters with various types of immigration bills. Like the IV core team has always suggested, our only real chance is the CIR, whether we like it or not.
Cheers,
h1techSlave
After all, we should just focus on the upcoming CIR process rather than these piecemeal legislative bills.
After watching all these dramas in the Senate/House, I feel the law makers are testing the waters with various types of immigration bills. Like the IV core team has always suggested, our only real chance is the CIR, whether we like it or not.
Cheers,
h1techSlave
eb3India
02-21 11:08 AM
who really cares what they put up on those stupdi dates,
they can make up anything and call the that as a law, no body to question them, not checks and balances
they can make up anything and call the that as a law, no body to question them, not checks and balances
john2255
07-21 08:31 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
No comments:
Post a Comment