chanduv23
09-13 08:58 PM
I got CPO on September 10th
Changed to Decision on September 11th
Changed to CPO again on September 13th, today
Looks like a cycle :)
Waiting for actual cards.
Changed to Decision on September 11th
Changed to CPO again on September 13th, today
Looks like a cycle :)
Waiting for actual cards.
wallpaper justin bieber kissing selena
DallasBlue
09-27 02:18 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_chrono.shtml
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
transpass
08-18 12:34 PM
We received the snail mail welcome notice today after receiving the email ADIT stuff last Tuesday (August 10). That makes it five business days. On the notice it says that we should receive our permanent resident card within three weeks. Anybody who actually received it within three weeks?
I received it within a week...
CIS sent welcome notice on 8/2, and they sent the cards on 8/9...
But this was early Aug. Now it may take few days more due to many approvals in the pipeline..When you receive another update (like post decision activity) saying that they mailed decision notice, that usually means they mailed the cards...
I received it within a week...
CIS sent welcome notice on 8/2, and they sent the cards on 8/9...
But this was early Aug. Now it may take few days more due to many approvals in the pipeline..When you receive another update (like post decision activity) saying that they mailed decision notice, that usually means they mailed the cards...
2011 Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
Nil
03-12 10:57 AM
The thread will not 'die' i guess.
We'll need to resurrect it as we get ready with our plan of actions.
We'll need to resurrect it as we get ready with our plan of actions.
more...
InTheMoment
08-04 09:21 PM
Very relevant info regarding FBI namecheck:
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
puddonhead
06-18 11:49 AM
>> Your reasoning is weak. If the same Goldman manager wants to screw you - he won't see if it is recession or not - he will screw you - period.
Well - I am not assuming that the Goldman manager "wants" to screw me/you/anybody.
I am assuming that he is there to do his job at the least cost possible. By introducing costly disruptions - we tilt the balance in favor of porting the entire division out (thereby indirectly screwing ourselves. Note: the Goldman manager is not screwing us - we are indirectly screwing ourselves by bidding up - aka UAW of GM). Since the threshold for outsourcing is quite a bit lower in a recession - I am suggesting that we don't pick this fight right now and wait for a little while.
Well - I am not assuming that the Goldman manager "wants" to screw me/you/anybody.
I am assuming that he is there to do his job at the least cost possible. By introducing costly disruptions - we tilt the balance in favor of porting the entire division out (thereby indirectly screwing ourselves. Note: the Goldman manager is not screwing us - we are indirectly screwing ourselves by bidding up - aka UAW of GM). Since the threshold for outsourcing is quite a bit lower in a recession - I am suggesting that we don't pick this fight right now and wait for a little while.
more...
SunnySurya
08-07 10:16 AM
Thank you , you are the first one to understand my message.
Thousands of people are paying thousands of dollars to port to EB2 but they can't spare even a shameful 5 bucks to support a truly great initiative.
By the way , I am serious about lawsuit. As it will block an easy way out for most people.
I guess everybody should support Rolling and Sunny because this initative will create an opening for all other immigration issues.
Everyone waiting for years to get their GC has a real reason to think why USCIS didn't do their job right.
I would say if Sunny and Rolling stone really file a lawsuit, it is like they turning the spotlight on USCIS and from there the rest us can work to bring more light to the bigger issues with USCIS
Thousands of people are paying thousands of dollars to port to EB2 but they can't spare even a shameful 5 bucks to support a truly great initiative.
By the way , I am serious about lawsuit. As it will block an easy way out for most people.
I guess everybody should support Rolling and Sunny because this initative will create an opening for all other immigration issues.
Everyone waiting for years to get their GC has a real reason to think why USCIS didn't do their job right.
I would say if Sunny and Rolling stone really file a lawsuit, it is like they turning the spotlight on USCIS and from there the rest us can work to bring more light to the bigger issues with USCIS
2010 Caught Kissing Selena Gomez On
rajuseattle
04-06 12:23 AM
GC_info:
YOU can apply her AP with the instructions to deliver the AP to nearby US consulate in India. Upon AP approval, she can go and collect her AP from the consulate and come back using AP.
YOU can apply her AP with the instructions to deliver the AP to nearby US consulate in India. Upon AP approval, she can go and collect her AP from the consulate and come back using AP.
more...
rajsat
10-01 10:12 PM
I recieved 2 notices in mail today.
One is the welcome notices which says that I-485 is approved.
Another notice which says that they reviewing or reconsidering the decision previously taken.
Called 1-800 # and the infopass. They say that reopened or reconsidering the case as the visa numbers retrogressed.
How can that be when am current in oct as well.
Mine is EB2 and the priority date is Dec 2004.
Any suggestions to have this fixed.
One is the welcome notices which says that I-485 is approved.
Another notice which says that they reviewing or reconsidering the decision previously taken.
Called 1-800 # and the infopass. They say that reopened or reconsidering the case as the visa numbers retrogressed.
How can that be when am current in oct as well.
Mine is EB2 and the priority date is Dec 2004.
Any suggestions to have this fixed.
hair Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
addsf345
01-13 04:03 PM
I assume others have got this too...please share next steps. I assume MTR is one of them. I have attached the jpeg file.
What happens after sending letters to the ombudsman?
Is it necessary to have MTR before sending to ombudsman?
Mohican
Read on the URL that jayleno provided, ombudsman has provided specific instructions what to do next. Also consult your lawyer for an MTR. Wish you good luck!
What happens after sending letters to the ombudsman?
Is it necessary to have MTR before sending to ombudsman?
Mohican
Read on the URL that jayleno provided, ombudsman has provided specific instructions what to do next. Also consult your lawyer for an MTR. Wish you good luck!
more...
reddyram
08-18 11:31 PM
my case got approved few days ago . CPO , P Decision Acitivty etc still expected.
hot selena gomez justin bieber
hpandey
08-07 04:09 PM
Why don't you just ask those 10 guys you know are comitting fraud ( by not joining the desi consulting companies and trying to workaround etc ) which company\companies they are working with and then file a complaint with DOL about them. I am sure DOL would surely look into their workings and will very very surely find out that they are doing something illegal in other things ( even if this is not one of them ). Those companies will get blacklisted and will set an example for other companies.
But I don't think you should stop anyone who is doing it legitimately. If one qualifies for EB2 and has been in the queue for a long time he has the right to do it.
But I don't think you should stop anyone who is doing it legitimately. If one qualifies for EB2 and has been in the queue for a long time he has the right to do it.
more...
house Justin Bieber Selena Gomez
ourgcapproved
08-13 12:45 PM
Thanks Appas.. I sent an email to ombudsman on tueday and got a response on wednesday with the message. I also attached DS701 form, copy of I140 approved notice, I485 receipt notice.
Dear Sir/Madam:
We have received your case problem. We will initiate a formal inquiry with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
We appreciate your continued patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Office of the CIS Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
did they contact you after this email? or any LUD on your case?
Dear Sir/Madam:
We have received your case problem. We will initiate a formal inquiry with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
We appreciate your continued patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Office of the CIS Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
did they contact you after this email? or any LUD on your case?
tattoo selena gomez justin bieber
addsf345
11-25 01:12 PM
^^BUMPER^^
Guys, we need more letters...forwarded to my 4 other friends, they promised to send letters by tomorrow before thanksgivings break.
Guys, we need more letters...forwarded to my 4 other friends, they promised to send letters by tomorrow before thanksgivings break.
more...
pictures selena gomez justin bieber
vg1778
09-26 03:21 PM
Guys just want to appreciate the efforts by different members here. At least it gives a sense of support that you are not alone in this whole fiasco when you hear around you people getting their FP or EADs and you are left feeling frustrated and anxious.
This forum actually has become quite important and please keep on posting details and updates.
Wishing that it ends soon for all of us and ease our anxiety.
Cheers!!!!
This forum actually has become quite important and please keep on posting details and updates.
Wishing that it ends soon for all of us and ease our anxiety.
Cheers!!!!
dresses justin bieber kissing selena
senthil1
01-07 11:09 PM
All of those fixes are non controversial and can be acheivable within short time. It does not require months like legistrative fixes
more...
makeup Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
vbkris77
09-23 07:32 PM
knacath, I am hoping that EB2 will be current this year and EB3 begins to get spillover though very little this year.
Some more specifics
Annual Quota ------------------------------------------------------------------------> 140,000
Pending EB1, EB4, EB5----------------------------------------------------------------> 7,653
Estimate of all categories current applied this year and approved this year -----> 10,000
Remaining visas -----------------------------------------------------------------------> 122,347
All pending EB2s (includes retrogressed) -------------------------------------------> 74932
Remaining visas available to EB3(includes retrogressed) --------------------------> 47415
The only flaw in above is ignoring CP and assuming all 140K Quota to AOS. The majority of EB1, EB2 and EB3 are AOS. So I am safely ignoring CP. Even if CP is 15% of annual quota as some one put it, EB3 gets its allocated 40K quota and around 65K pending EB2s get out of queue.
I agree that it should be current. But knowing CIS ability to process, Shouldn't we ask DoS to move date of EB2 and make them current. So that the CIS will not waste them. They wasted earlier, So they can do it again.
It takes an year if not 2 for them to clear the new I485s. I don't anticipate many. But there will be some..
Some more specifics
Annual Quota ------------------------------------------------------------------------> 140,000
Pending EB1, EB4, EB5----------------------------------------------------------------> 7,653
Estimate of all categories current applied this year and approved this year -----> 10,000
Remaining visas -----------------------------------------------------------------------> 122,347
All pending EB2s (includes retrogressed) -------------------------------------------> 74932
Remaining visas available to EB3(includes retrogressed) --------------------------> 47415
The only flaw in above is ignoring CP and assuming all 140K Quota to AOS. The majority of EB1, EB2 and EB3 are AOS. So I am safely ignoring CP. Even if CP is 15% of annual quota as some one put it, EB3 gets its allocated 40K quota and around 65K pending EB2s get out of queue.
I agree that it should be current. But knowing CIS ability to process, Shouldn't we ask DoS to move date of EB2 and make them current. So that the CIS will not waste them. They wasted earlier, So they can do it again.
It takes an year if not 2 for them to clear the new I485s. I don't anticipate many. But there will be some..
girlfriend Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
Sunx_2004
01-07 02:12 PM
Rajpatelemail,
Overcome your fears, If you don't ask answer is no. No one before July 2007 thought that dates will become current for all categories but it did happened.
To me it seems a genuine demand, We need to bring this arguement/demand forward in very rational way keeping emotions aside.
Remember, This is in addition to whatever we are doing to expedite the GC.
Cheers
Guys... I am all to do anything for GC, that itself is big thing..
Anybody in this thread who support this idea and was here since 1998
pls come forward...
Then you really know , what it is about...
Upto GC, it is fine to do any movement/lead..perfectly acceptable.
But do not waste energy and aggressivness on citizenship related things. It rather damages the effort, just by adding citizenship related things.
It is as equal as what happened in the past, that adding illegal and legal based reform in teh single capsule blowed out everything and no benefit came out finally.
Now
i am asking you guys in this thread...
who support this idea and was here since 1998 or atleast from 2000
(Pls note you shd have started your GC process on or before 2000. Then you know the things.
If you came in 1998 and started GC just 1 or 2 years back..You may not be knowing the reality.)
pls come forward...
I am not questioning or discouraging your intentions/enthu/aggressiveness...
I am asking not to waste the energy on useless things.
Pls concentrate on GC related things which will benefit everybody.
People laugh for the resolutions you suggested , if they can be proposed to any legislative member.
Overcome your fears, If you don't ask answer is no. No one before July 2007 thought that dates will become current for all categories but it did happened.
To me it seems a genuine demand, We need to bring this arguement/demand forward in very rational way keeping emotions aside.
Remember, This is in addition to whatever we are doing to expedite the GC.
Cheers
Guys... I am all to do anything for GC, that itself is big thing..
Anybody in this thread who support this idea and was here since 1998
pls come forward...
Then you really know , what it is about...
Upto GC, it is fine to do any movement/lead..perfectly acceptable.
But do not waste energy and aggressivness on citizenship related things. It rather damages the effort, just by adding citizenship related things.
It is as equal as what happened in the past, that adding illegal and legal based reform in teh single capsule blowed out everything and no benefit came out finally.
Now
i am asking you guys in this thread...
who support this idea and was here since 1998 or atleast from 2000
(Pls note you shd have started your GC process on or before 2000. Then you know the things.
If you came in 1998 and started GC just 1 or 2 years back..You may not be knowing the reality.)
pls come forward...
I am not questioning or discouraging your intentions/enthu/aggressiveness...
I am asking not to waste the energy on useless things.
Pls concentrate on GC related things which will benefit everybody.
People laugh for the resolutions you suggested , if they can be proposed to any legislative member.
hairstyles justin bieber kissing selena
Googler
08-06 04:07 AM
All of this info and more is available in the documents listed in this thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11087
All you have to do is read them.:)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11087
All you have to do is read them.:)
bazuka6
03-09 11:00 PM
5 years in US legally and paid taxes: get a Greencard.
10 years ,,,..,, Citizenship.
I do not get a benefit in this directy, but the queue will be reduced
Lets go for it .. LETS DO SOMETHING... what are we waiting for...???????
Make sure you preserve your Social Security statement and IRS tax transcript. If you have a house - the HUD statement
Then meet meet with your senator and make the case. 10 years legally in the US - no longer want to be treated like an alien
IV must include this in campaign
10 years ,,,..,, Citizenship.
I do not get a benefit in this directy, but the queue will be reduced
Lets go for it .. LETS DO SOMETHING... what are we waiting for...???????
Make sure you preserve your Social Security statement and IRS tax transcript. If you have a house - the HUD statement
Then meet meet with your senator and make the case. 10 years legally in the US - no longer want to be treated like an alien
IV must include this in campaign
SunnySurya
08-07 10:45 AM
Its sad to see this policy is working. Divide on EB3/EB2 bases etc. We are fighting a common cause to eliminate employment based country quota system. I'm surprised that IV is allowing such threads to be posted. If it so, its a v sad day for IV.
Read your post again, we are already divided. Why would ROW candidate want to eleminate country quota and let you be in front of him...
Read your post again, we are already divided. Why would ROW candidate want to eleminate country quota and let you be in front of him...
0 comments:
Post a Comment