easygoer
06-25 02:50 PM
I called Rep Lamar Smith office. The lady who picked up the phone asked me we are getting lot of calls. She asked me are you in supprot of the bill? I told her yes. I also told her that I am having master's degree from USA. My children are top student but may not get admission in some of NJ medical college just because we did not get GC since last 7 years. So we need help from Rep Lamar Smith to make USA more competitive. She also wanted to know that from where I was calling.
She told me that she will convey the message to Rep Lamar Smith.
She told me that she will convey the message to Rep Lamar Smith.
wallpaper site:apple.com steve jobs.
dilvahabilyeha
07-20 10:11 AM
He did not voted
Absent! mean 'NAY', that's what earlier post says to me!
Absent! mean 'NAY', that's what earlier post says to me!
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
2011 Graces Cover of Time Magazine
ind_game
05-14 04:47 PM
There is no official process or filing fee. Attorneys generally represent both the employer and the employee. Because revoking the petition could harm the employee, a conflict of interest arises. Accordingly, most immigration attorneys would not want to be involved in assisting in the revocation of petitions.
Do you mean to say, the employer just sends a letter with a signature and LIN numbers to revoke and USCIS revokes them?
In that case does USCIS send a confirmation of revocation of all the requested LIN numbers to be revoked? Or it is just a one-sided handshake?
Do you mean to say, the employer just sends a letter with a signature and LIN numbers to revoke and USCIS revokes them?
In that case does USCIS send a confirmation of revocation of all the requested LIN numbers to be revoked? Or it is just a one-sided handshake?
more...
jungalee43
03-12 11:54 AM
Pappu,
I have been a donor since 2006 and donated about $1000+ through 3 or 5 one time payments and monthly subscription of $20.
But I discontinued my monthly subscription seeing absence of IV core for long time in 2008. But more than that I was completely pissed off with free riders with one time questions and then disappearing, nanny questions, people sharing jokes on this forum, people commenting on the internal matters of their own country and so on. I felt the forum was being used for all other matters except the one issue it was formed to address: "RETROGRESSION in EB IMMIGRATION".
I am fully supportive of paid membership and welcome this step. I thank IV admin for the same.
Now my questions are
What is the vision / mission/ purpose behind the "donor forum"?
whether members will still be able to post questions for free and get answers? And of course vanish after that.
Would the anti immigrants still be able to use our forum and make posts to tease us?
And most importantly do I have start monthly subscription again to gain access to this forum? If yes, Can I just restart my $20 monthly subscription?
I have been a donor since 2006 and donated about $1000+ through 3 or 5 one time payments and monthly subscription of $20.
But I discontinued my monthly subscription seeing absence of IV core for long time in 2008. But more than that I was completely pissed off with free riders with one time questions and then disappearing, nanny questions, people sharing jokes on this forum, people commenting on the internal matters of their own country and so on. I felt the forum was being used for all other matters except the one issue it was formed to address: "RETROGRESSION in EB IMMIGRATION".
I am fully supportive of paid membership and welcome this step. I thank IV admin for the same.
Now my questions are
What is the vision / mission/ purpose behind the "donor forum"?
whether members will still be able to post questions for free and get answers? And of course vanish after that.
Would the anti immigrants still be able to use our forum and make posts to tease us?
And most importantly do I have start monthly subscription again to gain access to this forum? If yes, Can I just restart my $20 monthly subscription?
ImmiLosers
07-23 06:41 PM
Guys, We just got the magic e-mail.!!
Card Production ordered
PD AUG 2004
RD DEC 2004
EB3 INDIA :) :) :)
thx everyone for your help and suppport!!
What is RD?
Card Production ordered
PD AUG 2004
RD DEC 2004
EB3 INDIA :) :) :)
thx everyone for your help and suppport!!
What is RD?
more...
pappu
08-01 05:10 PM
would really like to reflect my thoughts, experience & opinion in writing, but please do note: i don`t have a journalisim background.
Thanks for the help. Journalism background is not really needed. All we need is some good writing skills to make the article impactful.
Thanks for the help. Journalism background is not really needed. All we need is some good writing skills to make the article impactful.
2010 TIME magazine named the
ind_game
05-13 10:51 PM
� I-140 filed 05/04/2007
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.
� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.
� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
more...
thomachan72
06-04 11:35 AM
OK here is a question.
Person working for past 4 years in the US.
Applied LC this February (2/26/07)
wants to go to canada and then reenter may be next year.
According to the new point based GC system--
1) Will the person get points for the 4 years of work in the US? (those 4 years were continuous, however, the person applies for GC after the canadian break of lets say 1 year)
Person working for past 4 years in the US.
Applied LC this February (2/26/07)
wants to go to canada and then reenter may be next year.
According to the new point based GC system--
1) Will the person get points for the 4 years of work in the US? (those 4 years were continuous, however, the person applies for GC after the canadian break of lets say 1 year)
hair The Steve Jobs cover story
conchshell
08-14 06:51 PM
Guys good news from my side. Just got most awaited Card production Ordered emails for my wife and my son. I have not received the email for myself though. When I checked the status on Case Status Online site, I found that 485 for all three of us have been approved.
My priority date was Oct 2004 at NSC. Came to US in Feb 2000, so almost 8.5 years of waiting is finally finally over. I hope that NSC picks up the pace and approve all the people who are current.
Trust me!! I am not going anywhere. I will enjoy my green but at the same time will always work relentlessly to get the immigration reforms. I also prey from God almighty that all my friends/family members stuck in EB2/EB3 will also get their GC ASAP.
Wish you all the best, even though I have crossed the fence towards the greener pasture, I am always there to lend you a hand and help you climb up and jump across the fence.
My priority date was Oct 2004 at NSC. Came to US in Feb 2000, so almost 8.5 years of waiting is finally finally over. I hope that NSC picks up the pace and approve all the people who are current.
Trust me!! I am not going anywhere. I will enjoy my green but at the same time will always work relentlessly to get the immigration reforms. I also prey from God almighty that all my friends/family members stuck in EB2/EB3 will also get their GC ASAP.
Wish you all the best, even though I have crossed the fence towards the greener pasture, I am always there to lend you a hand and help you climb up and jump across the fence.
more...
priti8888
07-23 05:12 PM
Thanks for the reply and encouragement. This is what makes this Immigration Voice community different from others...
no problem
no problem
hot Cover illustration for MacFan
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!
more...
house Image - Time Magazine
kaisersose
07-19 12:32 PM
Cases will be processed on RD only. However approval is based on PD.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
Due to heavy backlogs, it is automatically assured that the person with an older PD will get his GC first - even if he filed later.
tattoo Jobs Finalist For Time#39;s
LuckyPaji
07-24 05:42 AM
I think I have been very lucky so far. I don't think USCIS processes based on anything concrete, I think it's a little random. Or maybe I am just lucky.
I applied for PERM in Sep 2006 - EB3 - India.
I got approved for PERM in Mar 2007.
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
I-140 got approved July 20, 2007 and on July 23, 2007 I received all 4 receipts for I-140, I-485, EAD and AP. So my approval came before my receipt. I live in California so everything went to Nebraksa.
Lawyers emailed saying they also received the EAD card yesterday July 23, 2007.
Now I have to wait for only AP and Adjustment. And I still have 5 years left on my H1-B (2 years on this visa and then another extension).
So I say, anything is possible. I wake up every morning and pray to USCIS because they made my life better :) :) :)
I applied for PERM in Sep 2006 - EB3 - India.
I got approved for PERM in Mar 2007.
I applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in Jun 2007.
I-140 got approved July 20, 2007 and on July 23, 2007 I received all 4 receipts for I-140, I-485, EAD and AP. So my approval came before my receipt. I live in California so everything went to Nebraksa.
Lawyers emailed saying they also received the EAD card yesterday July 23, 2007.
Now I have to wait for only AP and Adjustment. And I still have 5 years left on my H1-B (2 years on this visa and then another extension).
So I say, anything is possible. I wake up every morning and pray to USCIS because they made my life better :) :) :)
more...
pictures Steve jobs named to Time
sidbee
08-15 11:49 AM
If its 2001 or 2003 ... ppl like me who r in EB 3 (with PD March 2007) will not get GC for next 4-5 yrs until and unless they spill Eb 1 cases evenly to Eb2 and Eb3...which is next to impossible :eek:
dost,
who told u, that the PD progresses linearly with time ,
I am also 2007 PD , and if there is no change i am sure we are not gonna see a GC in 10-20 years.
dost,
who told u, that the PD progresses linearly with time ,
I am also 2007 PD , and if there is no change i am sure we are not gonna see a GC in 10-20 years.
dresses Steve Jobs on the cover
ak_2006
06-04 01:15 PM
:)Thanks to Zappy and rpchalasani...
Zappy...:DEnjoy the moments....:D
Zappy...:DEnjoy the moments....:D
more...
makeup Jobs is given the Warhol
needhelp!
09-12 03:02 PM
http://www.prleap.com/pr/93560/
http://www.express-press-release.com
http://www.texas-press-release.com
http://www.pressmethod.com/releasestorage/22524.htm
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200709/1189618576.html
http://www.i-newswire.com
http://www.express-press-release.com
http://www.texas-press-release.com
http://www.pressmethod.com/releasestorage/22524.htm
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200709/1189618576.html
http://www.i-newswire.com
girlfriend Download Fabolous – Steve Jobs
Desertfox
04-30 05:30 PM
I sincerely hope that your interpretation is correct!
For all those who are upset with the House hearing, please take it easy. Please do not expect the hearing to discuss the details of each and every GC applicant's case. The objective of the hearing was to bring the folks involved in visa bulletins and GC processing, and make them all publically say and agree that Lofgren-Sensenbrenner bill will not flood the country with new people on the borders but at the same time since the federal agencies did not do their job properly, so it would make sense to recapture the visa numbers, and that's it.
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
For all those who are upset with the House hearing, please take it easy. Please do not expect the hearing to discuss the details of each and every GC applicant's case. The objective of the hearing was to bring the folks involved in visa bulletins and GC processing, and make them all publically say and agree that Lofgren-Sensenbrenner bill will not flood the country with new people on the borders but at the same time since the federal agencies did not do their job properly, so it would make sense to recapture the visa numbers, and that's it.
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
hairstyles Time magazine#39;s latest cover
lonedesi
08-13 02:12 PM
lonedesi,
Any word this ?
You should be fine. Everything we are doing is legal. We are not doing anything illegal by requesting Ombudsman's office to look into this processing delays.
Any word this ?
You should be fine. Everything we are doing is legal. We are not doing anything illegal by requesting Ombudsman's office to look into this processing delays.
gbof
03-05 07:08 PM
While EAD filed during June/July 08 for Primary & Dependant got approved with 2-year validity. But, dependant daughter's EAD filed in Jan09 was approved last week with 1-year validity. Does it mean with PD of 10/05 AOS approval is coming in months? Any Thoughts?
CADude
10-27 01:20 PM
I sent the email to ombudsman. Thanks for PM.
No comments:
Post a Comment