Green.Tech
06-02 02:00 PM
Contributed $100 for June
Receipt ID: 47W850****
Thanks, coopheal!
Receipt ID: 47W850****
Thanks, coopheal!
TeddyKoochu
12-10 07:20 PM
What are you repenting? That you were not married in July 07 ... well that's not your 'sin' or is it?
Friend agree with what you say, but the pain for Jul 07 Misser's is the maximum (Or atleast one of the worst) in the group. I just happened to miss the windfall because my labor was approved couple of months later. For individuals in our group being able to file for 485 is itself equivalent to getting GC as it enables us to get EAD & AP for self and family, if you ask us we don't mind paying the fee. We don’t know when we will reach the Toll Plaza for the 485 tunnel, or where it is right now or how far are we! Every year is part of hoping till the very end, only our optimism lives on.
Friend agree with what you say, but the pain for Jul 07 Misser's is the maximum (Or atleast one of the worst) in the group. I just happened to miss the windfall because my labor was approved couple of months later. For individuals in our group being able to file for 485 is itself equivalent to getting GC as it enables us to get EAD & AP for self and family, if you ask us we don't mind paying the fee. We don’t know when we will reach the Toll Plaza for the 485 tunnel, or where it is right now or how far are we! Every year is part of hoping till the very end, only our optimism lives on.
GCOP
08-13 03:52 PM
Thank you Conchshell , willwin for your active participation to resolve EB3 visa problem.
I agree to go to DC and meet congress members , which would probably help to win support for Visa Recapture Bill.
Whichever date you decide, just PM to me.
IV help will be appreciated to arrange the meetings.
I don't think we can do 'anything' about EB3 I. We are 100% at the mercy of USA (politicians, USCIS, DOS or whoever).
some 50-100 EB3 I applicants should go to DC and meet high officials, CHC folks and every department that is influential to EB immigrant VISA and make them understand our plight. No guarantee that this would work. But, we will get a first hand response that may help atleast help us to chose from one of 3 options listed above.
I agree to go to DC and meet congress members , which would probably help to win support for Visa Recapture Bill.
Whichever date you decide, just PM to me.
IV help will be appreciated to arrange the meetings.
I don't think we can do 'anything' about EB3 I. We are 100% at the mercy of USA (politicians, USCIS, DOS or whoever).
some 50-100 EB3 I applicants should go to DC and meet high officials, CHC folks and every department that is influential to EB immigrant VISA and make them understand our plight. No guarantee that this would work. But, we will get a first hand response that may help atleast help us to chose from one of 3 options listed above.
th5000th
06-11 07:31 PM
There are approximately 25,000 EB2 and 25,000 EB3 applicants currently
queued at the Department of State awaiting visa numbers.
There are currently approximately 25,000 EB2 India cases
which have been reviewed by USCIS and queued up at the Department of State
awaiting visa numbers for the "green cards" to be approved.
What does this mean? All the pending EB2 cases for visa numbers are from India?
Isn't it too ridiculous?
queued at the Department of State awaiting visa numbers.
There are currently approximately 25,000 EB2 India cases
which have been reviewed by USCIS and queued up at the Department of State
awaiting visa numbers for the "green cards" to be approved.
What does this mean? All the pending EB2 cases for visa numbers are from India?
Isn't it too ridiculous?
more...
GC_1000Watt
01-03 02:19 PM
Dear Friends!
(By mistake I posted this in another thread. I think this is the right one)
Good Morning and Happy New Year! Wish you all success, good health, peace of mind and great prosperity!!!
Though I visit the forum quite often, I do not particiapte in a big way. I just read to understand the view points of others. After a lot of hesitation I took time to draft this note!
I am not sure how far my views would find acceptance, but I would like to share some of my thoughts!
1. Although I would sincerely like to give credit to the IV forum for all what they have done (and doing), I personally feel that that the days of prayer and petition are gone!
2. To achieve something concrete and tangible, atleast a minimum of 100,000 (Desis + Chinese / Filippinos if possible) should rally in Washington DC to press our case.
This alone will generate enough publicity. We can show our strength and if there is a consensus, opt for a hunger strike.History has always shown that "direct action" alone has yielded results.
3. Unlike European countries where the laws of immigration and naturalization are simple, here it is very convoluted and confusing. All laws in the USA ONLY favour the employers and the law firms. Due to this, several of us have been harassed by our employers.
4. Instead of harping on the existing archiac and immigrant unfriendly rules, we could propose something like this:
a. Provide Green Cards for all legal immigrants who have completed 8 years of continuous stay, as on say, June 1, 2010. Continuity would mean not leaving the USA for a period of 90 days at a stretch. (I have completed more than 9 years personally, but I am suggesting a time line of 8 years because H1 is valid for 6 years and L1 is for 7 years. It will certianly not acceptable for the US Government to provide GC to every H1 / L1 holder. Any period below 8 years may meet with very stiff opposition)
b. The legal immigrants with 8 + years should have a criminal free record (barring minor traffic offenses) and should have filed their tax returns
c. Citizenship status should be provided to all legal immigrants with 10+ years
Note 1 : Rules in the UK/ Europe are :
Permanent residency after 5 years of legal stay
Citizenship after 10 years of legal stay or 15 yearls of illegal stay
5.We are always getting drawn into the trap and quagmire of the existing regulations and the INS / US goverment / Law firms / Employers are enjoying the fun
Note 2: I have stated everything based on my stay in different countries and keeping in mind the interests of the immigrant community very sincerely. It is upto IV to publish this or discard this. I will also NOT respond to any comments / cristicisms. I am just requesting the readers to kindly intrsopect!
Best wishes!
To be honest it seems that all of the points you made here are by taking yourself into consideration.
Most of the people here know about immigration policies in Europe, but here the system is altogether different. Isn't it? It will require herculean effort to turn around the whole system. And by the way the current system is not too bad, its just that USCIS sucks big time.
Hold on my friend. We'll be fine. Go IV.
Happy new year.
(By mistake I posted this in another thread. I think this is the right one)
Good Morning and Happy New Year! Wish you all success, good health, peace of mind and great prosperity!!!
Though I visit the forum quite often, I do not particiapte in a big way. I just read to understand the view points of others. After a lot of hesitation I took time to draft this note!
I am not sure how far my views would find acceptance, but I would like to share some of my thoughts!
1. Although I would sincerely like to give credit to the IV forum for all what they have done (and doing), I personally feel that that the days of prayer and petition are gone!
2. To achieve something concrete and tangible, atleast a minimum of 100,000 (Desis + Chinese / Filippinos if possible) should rally in Washington DC to press our case.
This alone will generate enough publicity. We can show our strength and if there is a consensus, opt for a hunger strike.History has always shown that "direct action" alone has yielded results.
3. Unlike European countries where the laws of immigration and naturalization are simple, here it is very convoluted and confusing. All laws in the USA ONLY favour the employers and the law firms. Due to this, several of us have been harassed by our employers.
4. Instead of harping on the existing archiac and immigrant unfriendly rules, we could propose something like this:
a. Provide Green Cards for all legal immigrants who have completed 8 years of continuous stay, as on say, June 1, 2010. Continuity would mean not leaving the USA for a period of 90 days at a stretch. (I have completed more than 9 years personally, but I am suggesting a time line of 8 years because H1 is valid for 6 years and L1 is for 7 years. It will certianly not acceptable for the US Government to provide GC to every H1 / L1 holder. Any period below 8 years may meet with very stiff opposition)
b. The legal immigrants with 8 + years should have a criminal free record (barring minor traffic offenses) and should have filed their tax returns
c. Citizenship status should be provided to all legal immigrants with 10+ years
Note 1 : Rules in the UK/ Europe are :
Permanent residency after 5 years of legal stay
Citizenship after 10 years of legal stay or 15 yearls of illegal stay
5.We are always getting drawn into the trap and quagmire of the existing regulations and the INS / US goverment / Law firms / Employers are enjoying the fun
Note 2: I have stated everything based on my stay in different countries and keeping in mind the interests of the immigrant community very sincerely. It is upto IV to publish this or discard this. I will also NOT respond to any comments / cristicisms. I am just requesting the readers to kindly intrsopect!
Best wishes!
To be honest it seems that all of the points you made here are by taking yourself into consideration.
Most of the people here know about immigration policies in Europe, but here the system is altogether different. Isn't it? It will require herculean effort to turn around the whole system. And by the way the current system is not too bad, its just that USCIS sucks big time.
Hold on my friend. We'll be fine. Go IV.
Happy new year.
yabadaba
07-11 12:37 PM
The movement EB-2 china gets some times is solely because of the visa number that category gets. This typically happens in the first Q. EB2-I and EB2-C will have different PD's . Some time in 2nd Q or mid 2nd Q, both I and C will have used up their quota and they will continue to have the same PD until the end of the fiscal year as PD is the only thing that matters.
the point was that they if their dates also move to june 2006, then it would be the first time they crossed the jan 2006 threshold.
the point was that they if their dates also move to june 2006, then it would be the first time they crossed the jan 2006 threshold.
more...
GCNirvana007
09-17 06:12 AM
Explain to the DMV about this... and try not to go on a weekend. They are extremely busy on weekends are easily irritated. Find them when they are relatively calm and free...
pal :)
Mr.CoolPal - No offense to you. However your suggestion basically says we should be at their mercy and most of us let them treat us this way.
This is God damn license. If you have all the right paperwork why the f*** we need to care about their mood. They need to do their job. If they dont give you the license when you have all the paperwork, go sue them. But do we do that?. No. We are Chickens. All we do is come to a free forum and whine.
Yeah all the chickens go give red.
pal :)
Mr.CoolPal - No offense to you. However your suggestion basically says we should be at their mercy and most of us let them treat us this way.
This is God damn license. If you have all the right paperwork why the f*** we need to care about their mood. They need to do their job. If they dont give you the license when you have all the paperwork, go sue them. But do we do that?. No. We are Chickens. All we do is come to a free forum and whine.
Yeah all the chickens go give red.
optimystic
09-10 09:36 PM
HR 5882 has the answer for the FIFO problem.
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
more...
eb3_nepa
07-14 01:33 PM
Subway sandwich and that too a FOOTLONG.....so get going to mail those checks.
$5 gives you:
1 subway sandwich FOOT long but may also give you
1 Green Card LIFE long
$5 gives you:
1 subway sandwich FOOT long but may also give you
1 Green Card LIFE long
h14life
03-18 01:00 AM
Follow the link below and enter the questionnaire to see if you qualify or not:
http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/
FROM IRS SITE:
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which authorized the pre-payment of this one-time credit, stipulates that the payment is not to be made to any of the following:
* Individuals who can be claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return;
* Nonresident aliens; or
* Anyone who does not have a valid Social Security Number.
If you become eligible during 2008, you may be able to claim the credit on your Tax Year 2008 return, but you will not receive the advance payment this year, since that is based on your 2007 return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Having said that, since we are non-resident aliens (i.e the ones without green card or US citizenship) will not get a stimulus package?
http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/
FROM IRS SITE:
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which authorized the pre-payment of this one-time credit, stipulates that the payment is not to be made to any of the following:
* Individuals who can be claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return;
* Nonresident aliens; or
* Anyone who does not have a valid Social Security Number.
If you become eligible during 2008, you may be able to claim the credit on your Tax Year 2008 return, but you will not receive the advance payment this year, since that is based on your 2007 return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Having said that, since we are non-resident aliens (i.e the ones without green card or US citizenship) will not get a stimulus package?
more...
pappu
04-29 02:57 PM
As the CIR bill outline is getting introduced today, we all need to do our share in making our voice heard. Our issues are real and affect about a million people patiently waiting in line for past several years. We are high-skilled immigrants who have followed all the rules and contribute significantly to the innovation and economy of this county. Our strength is our grassroots efforts, so let us all call our lawmakers and ask them to take immediate action on the immigration bill.
Call your Legislators:
Immigration Voice is organizing a nationwide call-the-lawmakers drive. We request members to call each and every senator and congress member. This drive will precede the ‘Advocacy Day(s)’ in Washington, DC and ‘Meet the lawmaker’ drive in local districts. Members can use this phone call conversation with their local lawmaker offices to follow-up with lawmakers when they meet during the break just after the Memorial day.
Don’t miss this opportunity:
This is the perfect time to call the lawmakers. The bill needs a push via support from people like us and all lawmakers needs to be encouraged and urged to help us. There are indications that there will be lot of activity on immigration issues in both House and Senate after the Memorial day. We need to make those activities go in our favor and not die like the CIR bill in 2006 & 2007. Thus it is important to starting calling lawmakers, starting from the Senate members. In order to capitalize on this opportunity, it is very important that everyone calls every lawmaker of this country. The similar next opportunity will be in 2013. We can participate now or we will all have ourselves to blame.
When:
This campaign starts today at 4:00 PM EST on 29th April, 2010) (Today) and will run until the end of next week. All IV members are encouraged to make multiple phone calls whenever they find some time during the day.
Who:
This is the order in which we would prefer that members call. Call all the senators listed here, even if they are not from your state.
This is the list of offices where there is maximum potential to swing votes either because they are new in the US senate or because they may be reconsidering their position on CIR if the bill has stricter provisions in it.
TIER I: LIST OF KEY SENATORS FOR CIR
Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)
(202) 224-4543
Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
(202) 224-3324
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)
(202) 224-4814
Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming)
(202) 224-3424
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
(202) 224-5972
Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada)
(202) 224-6244
Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
(202) 224-5251
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
(202) 224-2934
Senator John Kyl (R-Texas)
(202) 224-4521
Senator Mitch Mcconnell (R-Kentuky)
(202) 224-2541
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)
(202) 224-3244
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
(202) 224-6154
Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana)
(202) 224-2644
Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia)
(202) 224-4024
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island)
(202) 224-2921
What you could say to the Senator offices listed above:
When you call:
Be courteous. Tell the lawmaker office that:
--------------------------------------------
I am a high skilled immigrant and a member of Immigration Voice. I fully support the proposed comprehensive immigration reform proposal released a few days back.
I am calling to express my support for the high skilled provisions to resolve the current green card backlogs of the doctors, engineers, research scientist and professors etc. This group of highly skilled immigrants stimulates every part of the economy participating in creating economic prosperity, innovation and entrepreneurship for creating more jobs in America.
I strongly urge the Senator to please support this proposal. If it is possible, could you please share the position of the Senator on the recently released (last week) Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposal?
Thank you and I am counting on the Senator’s support for this very important issue of national importance. Please convey regards to the Senator.
--------------------------------------------
If you belong to the constituency (State) of the lawmaker, then tell them that you belong to their district/state and are calling to seek their help. If you are talking to a Senator office then tell them you are anxiously waiting for a Senators support for the immigration bill.
Then ask: What is the lawmaker’s position on immigration proposal? If the position is
- Supportive: Then thank the lawmaker office for it.
- If they oppose it: Then request them to support the high skilled green card provisions of the bill that will greatly help you. You sincerely hope that the lawmaker will reconsider his/her position and help you.
Be polite and persuasive in your message.
Question What if some Senators say they do not support amnesty. -
Answer "For last 10 years there has been no High-skilled immigration bill passed by the Congress. The world has changed in last 10 years. I understand that the Senator is a champion for creating more jobs in America. Employment based green cards will create jobs in America. I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card.
I would sincerely request you to please convey to the Senator if he would consider supporting some version of the immigration
giving more weight to green cards and creating jobs in America, or maybe the Senator could lead the effort for improving the proposal"
TIER II: LIST OF KEY SENATORS SPONSORING OR CO-SPONSORING CIR BILL
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada)
(202) 224-3542
Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois)
(202) 224-2152
Senator Chuck Schumer (New York)
(202) 224-6542
Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
(202) 224-4242
Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
(202) 224-3841
Senator Bob Menendez (New Jersey)
(202) 224-4744
Sen. Ben Cardin (Maryland)
(202) 224-4524
What:
When you call:
Be courteous. Tell the lawmaker office that:
--------------------------------------------
I am a high skilled immigrant and a member of Immigration Voice. I fully support the proposed comprehensive immigration reform proposal due to be introduced later in the day today.
Thank you for the Senator’s leadership on this very important issue of immigration. Please convey my gratitude, full support and regards to the Senator.
--------------------------------------------
Be polite and persuasive in your message.
Stick to the message and you will really make a big difference.
Please post the outcome of your call on this thread. For more information please contact IV.
Thank You,
Immigration Voice
Call your Legislators:
Immigration Voice is organizing a nationwide call-the-lawmakers drive. We request members to call each and every senator and congress member. This drive will precede the ‘Advocacy Day(s)’ in Washington, DC and ‘Meet the lawmaker’ drive in local districts. Members can use this phone call conversation with their local lawmaker offices to follow-up with lawmakers when they meet during the break just after the Memorial day.
Don’t miss this opportunity:
This is the perfect time to call the lawmakers. The bill needs a push via support from people like us and all lawmakers needs to be encouraged and urged to help us. There are indications that there will be lot of activity on immigration issues in both House and Senate after the Memorial day. We need to make those activities go in our favor and not die like the CIR bill in 2006 & 2007. Thus it is important to starting calling lawmakers, starting from the Senate members. In order to capitalize on this opportunity, it is very important that everyone calls every lawmaker of this country. The similar next opportunity will be in 2013. We can participate now or we will all have ourselves to blame.
When:
This campaign starts today at 4:00 PM EST on 29th April, 2010) (Today) and will run until the end of next week. All IV members are encouraged to make multiple phone calls whenever they find some time during the day.
Who:
This is the order in which we would prefer that members call. Call all the senators listed here, even if they are not from your state.
This is the list of offices where there is maximum potential to swing votes either because they are new in the US senate or because they may be reconsidering their position on CIR if the bill has stricter provisions in it.
TIER I: LIST OF KEY SENATORS FOR CIR
Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)
(202) 224-4543
Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
(202) 224-3324
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)
(202) 224-4814
Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming)
(202) 224-3424
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
(202) 224-5972
Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada)
(202) 224-6244
Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
(202) 224-5251
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
(202) 224-2934
Senator John Kyl (R-Texas)
(202) 224-4521
Senator Mitch Mcconnell (R-Kentuky)
(202) 224-2541
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)
(202) 224-3244
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
(202) 224-6154
Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana)
(202) 224-2644
Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia)
(202) 224-4024
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island)
(202) 224-2921
What you could say to the Senator offices listed above:
When you call:
Be courteous. Tell the lawmaker office that:
--------------------------------------------
I am a high skilled immigrant and a member of Immigration Voice. I fully support the proposed comprehensive immigration reform proposal released a few days back.
I am calling to express my support for the high skilled provisions to resolve the current green card backlogs of the doctors, engineers, research scientist and professors etc. This group of highly skilled immigrants stimulates every part of the economy participating in creating economic prosperity, innovation and entrepreneurship for creating more jobs in America.
I strongly urge the Senator to please support this proposal. If it is possible, could you please share the position of the Senator on the recently released (last week) Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposal?
Thank you and I am counting on the Senator’s support for this very important issue of national importance. Please convey regards to the Senator.
--------------------------------------------
If you belong to the constituency (State) of the lawmaker, then tell them that you belong to their district/state and are calling to seek their help. If you are talking to a Senator office then tell them you are anxiously waiting for a Senators support for the immigration bill.
Then ask: What is the lawmaker’s position on immigration proposal? If the position is
- Supportive: Then thank the lawmaker office for it.
- If they oppose it: Then request them to support the high skilled green card provisions of the bill that will greatly help you. You sincerely hope that the lawmaker will reconsider his/her position and help you.
Be polite and persuasive in your message.
Question What if some Senators say they do not support amnesty. -
Answer "For last 10 years there has been no High-skilled immigration bill passed by the Congress. The world has changed in last 10 years. I understand that the Senator is a champion for creating more jobs in America. Employment based green cards will create jobs in America. I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card.
I would sincerely request you to please convey to the Senator if he would consider supporting some version of the immigration
giving more weight to green cards and creating jobs in America, or maybe the Senator could lead the effort for improving the proposal"
TIER II: LIST OF KEY SENATORS SPONSORING OR CO-SPONSORING CIR BILL
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada)
(202) 224-3542
Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois)
(202) 224-2152
Senator Chuck Schumer (New York)
(202) 224-6542
Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
(202) 224-4242
Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
(202) 224-3841
Senator Bob Menendez (New Jersey)
(202) 224-4744
Sen. Ben Cardin (Maryland)
(202) 224-4524
What:
When you call:
Be courteous. Tell the lawmaker office that:
--------------------------------------------
I am a high skilled immigrant and a member of Immigration Voice. I fully support the proposed comprehensive immigration reform proposal due to be introduced later in the day today.
Thank you for the Senator’s leadership on this very important issue of immigration. Please convey my gratitude, full support and regards to the Senator.
--------------------------------------------
Be polite and persuasive in your message.
Stick to the message and you will really make a big difference.
Please post the outcome of your call on this thread. For more information please contact IV.
Thank You,
Immigration Voice
uumapathi
03-04 01:17 PM
I have a refi approval from DCU for a 15yr 5% 0pts and I am in AOS status. They did not have any issues with that.
more...
GoldRod
09-10 03:11 PM
Guys,
Its only Green card and I am not sure why people get upset big deal. Nobody asked us to move here. And if there is a system in place we cannot be saying its bad and this and that. My PD is DEC 04 do I feel bad someone in 2006 gets it. YES. Is the system crappy yes. I have a MS in US. So all this hoopla about US ms are getting it and not us is wrong. The other question is should I be getting it over others who dont have a MS from US. I believe yes we should.
but thats my thoughts on the subject if someone does not like it I respect his thoughts.
*********
Agree with you. Nobody cares about this system, because it does not serve those who vote.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif
Its only Green card and I am not sure why people get upset big deal. Nobody asked us to move here. And if there is a system in place we cannot be saying its bad and this and that. My PD is DEC 04 do I feel bad someone in 2006 gets it. YES. Is the system crappy yes. I have a MS in US. So all this hoopla about US ms are getting it and not us is wrong. The other question is should I be getting it over others who dont have a MS from US. I believe yes we should.
but thats my thoughts on the subject if someone does not like it I respect his thoughts.
*********
Agree with you. Nobody cares about this system, because it does not serve those who vote.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif
hazishak
07-18 07:19 PM
What if out of all 10000 , 9999 don't have priority date current.Do you think they will still not look at the 1 in the pile which has a current PD.They will look at it , Even if it is number 10000 in the list.Actually there will be no pile because 9999 people won't even be in contention.
Why do you think labour substitution was so HOT?Just because by getting an earlier PD , you were going to steam roll everybody who filed before you , just because you got an earlier PD..
PD has to be current in order to get the RD advantage.
Why do you think labour substitution was so HOT?Just because by getting an earlier PD , you were going to steam roll everybody who filed before you , just because you got an earlier PD..
PD has to be current in order to get the RD advantage.
more...
eb3retro
03-11 01:37 PM
Hi eb3retro,
I understand from your signature that you Receipt date is 7/2/07. was your case transferred to Vermont or something and transferred back to TSC. Do you know what was the Receipt date mentioned in the Transfer Notice.
I am just trying to guess when they may come to my case. My receipt date for 485 was from Vermont and is 7/31/07. But then it was transferred back to Texas and this has a Receipt date of 10/1/07. I am just trying to find out which Receipt date will be considered to pre-adjudicate my application.
Thanks.
my case was never transferred from anywhere..it remained in NSC. my gut feeling says that they have gone past ur case, since you are in 2002 and i am in 2003, in which case, you probably will not get any RFE
I understand from your signature that you Receipt date is 7/2/07. was your case transferred to Vermont or something and transferred back to TSC. Do you know what was the Receipt date mentioned in the Transfer Notice.
I am just trying to guess when they may come to my case. My receipt date for 485 was from Vermont and is 7/31/07. But then it was transferred back to Texas and this has a Receipt date of 10/1/07. I am just trying to find out which Receipt date will be considered to pre-adjudicate my application.
Thanks.
my case was never transferred from anywhere..it remained in NSC. my gut feeling says that they have gone past ur case, since you are in 2002 and i am in 2003, in which case, you probably will not get any RFE
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
more...
tinamatthew
07-22 06:58 PM
Hi Tina,
Thanks for your reply. I am in Eb3. I am willing to relocate but you know that every state has different rules for Physical Therapists. As I have 3 yrs of experience from India, I wonder who can sponsor me.
How are things going? Any luck with job hunting? Yes you are right every state is different regarding requirements. Your best bet is to look hard in NY. Call up PT colleagues, the ones you know well and the ones you don't! Let them know there is a PT that needs a job! AND DON'T tell the employer you need them to sponsor you until at the interview. Let them see you, like you and like what you have to offer! Very important! Then they will do whatever it takes to get you on board.
Hope this helps
Thanks for your reply. I am in Eb3. I am willing to relocate but you know that every state has different rules for Physical Therapists. As I have 3 yrs of experience from India, I wonder who can sponsor me.
How are things going? Any luck with job hunting? Yes you are right every state is different regarding requirements. Your best bet is to look hard in NY. Call up PT colleagues, the ones you know well and the ones you don't! Let them know there is a PT that needs a job! AND DON'T tell the employer you need them to sponsor you until at the interview. Let them see you, like you and like what you have to offer! Very important! Then they will do whatever it takes to get you on board.
Hope this helps
hebron
10-22 10:00 AM
Hi 9Years and VayuMahesh,
Thanks for the info. This helps people who are planning to port.
1. Did you refile under EB2 with the same employer? If so, would you mind sharing details - job description used for EB3 and EB2? I have an MCA from India with 12+ years of experience. My current employer filed my GC under EB3 (PD 2004), job description used was Software Engineer. I was promoted since then to Principal S/W Engineer and I was hoping I could ask my current employer to refile under EB2. But my attorney says that it is risky since the current job description of Principal Software Engineer has to be different from Software Engineer by atleast 50%.
2. Did you get any RFE during the new PERM or I-140?
It will be of great help if you could advice.
Thanks in advance!
Thanks for the info. This helps people who are planning to port.
1. Did you refile under EB2 with the same employer? If so, would you mind sharing details - job description used for EB3 and EB2? I have an MCA from India with 12+ years of experience. My current employer filed my GC under EB3 (PD 2004), job description used was Software Engineer. I was promoted since then to Principal S/W Engineer and I was hoping I could ask my current employer to refile under EB2. But my attorney says that it is risky since the current job description of Principal Software Engineer has to be different from Software Engineer by atleast 50%.
2. Did you get any RFE during the new PERM or I-140?
It will be of great help if you could advice.
Thanks in advance!
GoldRod
09-10 02:38 PM
Green card is a gold rod. anybody knows why?
sukhwinderd
04-01 08:15 AM
FL stopped issuing DLs if you are on AOS (ie 485 pending) only with no backup H1/H4.
my wife got her DL extended till AP validity even though her I-94 has expired. she entered as parolee.
this is just FYI.
my wife got her DL extended till AP validity even though her I-94 has expired. she entered as parolee.
this is just FYI.
GOTGC
07-24 03:46 PM
EB5 doesn't need I-140. In fact EB5 does not apply with I-485, EB5 application# is I-526. Either we are missing out some crucial information on LuckyPaji's case or he is having little fun at our expense. They haven't even completed receipting June 29 cases. This guy is just playing with us or his dates are completely wrong.
Since it is absolutely impossible with EB3 Sep 2006 PD I thought he might have applied in a different category..Do not know the specifics of EB5...Incase what you said is true whatever that guy said is just a JOKE!
Since it is absolutely impossible with EB3 Sep 2006 PD I thought he might have applied in a different category..Do not know the specifics of EB5...Incase what you said is true whatever that guy said is just a JOKE!
No comments:
Post a Comment