PD200711
06-11 01:03 PM
Sent to my Senators (NC)
wallpaper The Middle Ages were riddled
ujjvalkoul
01-17 03:00 PM
The Monthly newsletter that IV sent out may not be enough.....some people do not even read that...Subject line may have to be more urgent.....so that people take notice of the dire situation we are in in terms of funds....
Can IV Core send email to every member to contribute one time or recurring...in a separate email
Can IV Core send email to every member to contribute one time or recurring...in a separate email
kramesh_babu
07-27 10:40 AM
Everest Consulting Group Inc is really good. I know them personally for more than 10 years now & they do what they say and do NOT torture their employees like many other consulting firms. I just got my GC thru them :)
I hope this helps somebody & please let me know if I can be any further help!
Thanks.
Ramesh.
I hope this helps somebody & please let me know if I can be any further help!
Thanks.
Ramesh.
2011 are Middle Ages weapons
sdrblr
08-21 11:32 AM
I just want to add that "Ignorance of a law is not an excuse" and no court or USCIS will buy that argument.
more...
RNGC
09-18 09:19 PM
All I want to stress are these keywords in all our prints "Legal - Highly Skilled"
bigboy007
07-18 12:47 PM
I think all of us cautious at this time is very imp and we keep calling uscis pref next week so that we ensure we have enough backup avail and we have 30 days till.
more...
Macaca
07-17 09:42 AM
Immigration bill ignites grass-roots fire (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=89612&postcount=461) The conservative group NumbersUSA has seen its numbers skyrocket. Activists pressure wavering senators. By Nicole Gaouette (nicole.gaouette@latimes.com), Times Staff Writer, June 24, 2007
Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed By JULIA PRESTON New York Times, June 10, 2007: part 1 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80626&postcount=203), part 2 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80627&postcount=204)
Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed By JULIA PRESTON New York Times, June 10, 2007: part 1 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80626&postcount=203), part 2 (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=80627&postcount=204)
2010 middle agesmedieval,
sagar_nyc
06-10 02:07 PM
This is correct. EAD is based on pending 485 in most of our case. that's it.
what the heck r u talking. i just renewed my EAD myself, no employment letter, no pay slip, no crap. Don't blabber if you dont know the details.
what the heck r u talking. i just renewed my EAD myself, no employment letter, no pay slip, no crap. Don't blabber if you dont know the details.
more...
pappu
09-10 11:14 AM
I'm not able to figure out how to post a mssg in chat..is it 'coz I'm restricted or something? At the bottom of the page I see my name as logged in members though..I've over 150 posts and 4 dots..not enough for access to chat or is it that I'm not able to figure out how to post mssgs? Appreciate it if someone can explain it to me.
Thank you.
You can post. Just type the messages on the left hand side panel.
Thank you.
You can post. Just type the messages on the left hand side panel.
hair from the middle ages.
nirenjoshi
03-09 12:53 PM
EB3 ROW has been retrogressed as predicted in Oh's website.
All non-India EB3 are at March 03 now....
Will they keep them at March 03 for few months and give a bump to EB3?
Something is cooking...Otherwise they wouldn't retrogress ROW by almost 2 years...
From the bulletin -
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or �unavailability� at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
All non-India EB3 are at March 03 now....
Will they keep them at March 03 for few months and give a bump to EB3?
Something is cooking...Otherwise they wouldn't retrogress ROW by almost 2 years...
From the bulletin -
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or �unavailability� at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
more...
perm2gc
01-16 06:08 PM
Guys please post any websites/forum where we can post our message.I will post it.I have already done in many websites but missed a few that are non-english.
hot The+middle+ages+weapons
ak27
11-29 09:36 AM
Good Morning Everyone,
Let us setup a time and talk about meeting Law Makers. I can be reached at ajay1857@gmail.com
My no is 732-910-5926.. Please get as many friend you can get signed up for our chapter. We have very few signed up so far. I would think that we have thousands of people like us in this boat.
Thank you
Let us setup a time and talk about meeting Law Makers. I can be reached at ajay1857@gmail.com
My no is 732-910-5926.. Please get as many friend you can get signed up for our chapter. We have very few signed up so far. I would think that we have thousands of people like us in this boat.
Thank you
more...
house Era: Middle Ages (400 – 1400AD
grinch
03-07 07:43 PM
Aw darn!
It's alright nirvana, yet I think the only people in this right now are me, sun, eilsoe, and spark?
It's alright nirvana, yet I think the only people in this right now are me, sun, eilsoe, and spark?
tattoo weaponry of middle ages.
WeldonSprings
10-15 02:12 PM
Can someone please direct me to the sample letter.
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
pictures in the middle ages was the
saimrathi
07-05 01:52 PM
In the time it took you to write all this up, mayb you coudl have enlightened a senator or two...
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
dresses during the middle ages.
lazycis
01-18 06:54 PM
By law, you are not suppose to make copies of an official US document.
I am not sure what are you talking about here. Is it illegal to make a copy of the approval notice or driver license? Police may not accept it, but it is not illegal. I received that advice from an attorney when I asked whether I have to carry a GC with me all the time.
I am not sure what are you talking about here. Is it illegal to make a copy of the approval notice or driver license? Police may not accept it, but it is not illegal. I received that advice from an attorney when I asked whether I have to carry a GC with me all the time.
more...
makeup The Middle-Ages.
pappu
01-17 01:43 PM
it is a slow process. This recurring contribution is a good process in long run. We will inspire our members to contribute. This will grow in to thousands eventually. Keep up the good work with our core objectives.
Yes it is upto members if they want this process to be like the greencard process and we can wait for years to get a bill passed. Ultimately the onus of getting sucess is on each and every one of us. We represent a community of highly skilled and get paid above average (than average american) but If we want 20 opinions per month on what IV should focus on, we can get those right away. However $20 per month is difficult.
IV really want to go all out and use all resources to get the bill passed. We cannot do it without the support of all members.Pls. Visit this page http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25
and start contributing today.
Yes it is upto members if they want this process to be like the greencard process and we can wait for years to get a bill passed. Ultimately the onus of getting sucess is on each and every one of us. We represent a community of highly skilled and get paid above average (than average american) but If we want 20 opinions per month on what IV should focus on, we can get those right away. However $20 per month is difficult.
IV really want to go all out and use all resources to get the bill passed. We cannot do it without the support of all members.Pls. Visit this page http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=25
and start contributing today.
girlfriend sword Middle+ages+weapons
morpheus
07-24 10:21 AM
I believe you are overlooking three very important facts.
1. The USCIS main priority at the moment is to reduce backlogs. Unfortunately retrogression works in their favor because it reduces the processing they have to do. Your proposal would increase the processing by forcing them to accept 485 filings and building up a backlog.
2. The USCIS administrator would not be allowed to make a decision like this without input from Congress. It's radically different from concurrent processing, which is a minor administrative change. With AC21, filing 485 without a visa number would allow people to change jobs etc, so it is in the realm of political decisions, not administrative.
3. The USCIS can't even manage to get premium I140 processing (planned since 2002), multi-year EAD's (overdue for years now) or issue regulations on AC21 (due since 2000). Even Congress can barely get them to act!
1. The USCIS main priority at the moment is to reduce backlogs. Unfortunately retrogression works in their favor because it reduces the processing they have to do. Your proposal would increase the processing by forcing them to accept 485 filings and building up a backlog.
2. The USCIS administrator would not be allowed to make a decision like this without input from Congress. It's radically different from concurrent processing, which is a minor administrative change. With AC21, filing 485 without a visa number would allow people to change jobs etc, so it is in the realm of political decisions, not administrative.
3. The USCIS can't even manage to get premium I140 processing (planned since 2002), multi-year EAD's (overdue for years now) or issue regulations on AC21 (due since 2000). Even Congress can barely get them to act!
hairstyles from the Middle Ages to
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
pappu
01-31 02:32 PM
This was a great effort by a few members and we were able to see a rise in membership and will see better search engine rankings due to this effort. Each and every small effort is important for our success and such efforts will not go unnoticed. Thank you to everyone especially the ones that were driving this thread.
We need more members to drive this further and get IV's message to more people.
Anyone willing?
We need more members to drive this further and get IV's message to more people.
Anyone willing?
jcmenon
07-24 09:31 AM
I totally agree with you. Lets go allout for this. We have to convince this first to IV core to take this up with priority then only we can pursue this with USCIS.
Post a Comment