desigirl
05-06 08:00 AM
I have asked a few of my friends to call the list too. And I did another round of calling Tier 1 republicans only. It was pretty much the same response as the last time. I think that is their standard way of answering, - to sit on the fence.
Unless these issues are being discussed and called to vote, they will pander to whoever is talking. But, I think we still need to put continued pressure on them, hence the friends :)
Unless these issues are being discussed and called to vote, they will pander to whoever is talking. But, I think we still need to put continued pressure on them, hence the friends :)
tcsonly
07-21 04:49 PM
Here is a list of 53 members so far registered in SoCal chapter:
Jimi_Hendrix
GCSOON-Ihope
eagerr2i
days_go_by
485Mbe4001
yogkc
tcsonly
willgetgc2005
MY_GC_DREAMS
payal_nag
genius
Not2Happy
thirumalkn
meetdebasish
GC Process
baleraosreedhar
caydee
rkotamurthy
hourglass
murali77
satishku_2000
acruix
imv116
santb1975
amaruns
IN2US
twinbrothers
kumhyd2
xstal
mashu
zoooom
tcsonly
drona
DCQC
jasmin45
gctoget
rsamudrala
satishbsk
SDdesi
Progressive
abhisam
smuthu2000
hmehta
rfarkiya
eb3stuck
imv116
northstar1
manishs7
navkap
mangelschots
Pia
kkcal2002
GC_Applicant
I doubt if Jimi_Hendrix is still active in SoCal chapter.
-C.
Jimi_Hendrix
GCSOON-Ihope
eagerr2i
days_go_by
485Mbe4001
yogkc
tcsonly
willgetgc2005
MY_GC_DREAMS
payal_nag
genius
Not2Happy
thirumalkn
meetdebasish
GC Process
baleraosreedhar
caydee
rkotamurthy
hourglass
murali77
satishku_2000
acruix
imv116
santb1975
amaruns
IN2US
twinbrothers
kumhyd2
xstal
mashu
zoooom
tcsonly
drona
DCQC
jasmin45
gctoget
rsamudrala
satishbsk
SDdesi
Progressive
abhisam
smuthu2000
hmehta
rfarkiya
eb3stuck
imv116
northstar1
manishs7
navkap
mangelschots
Pia
kkcal2002
GC_Applicant
I doubt if Jimi_Hendrix is still active in SoCal chapter.
-C.
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 11:06 AM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
hiralal
05-29 12:05 AM
if your loan is denied while on EAD ..count yourself as lucky !!!
my advice ..be careful before you take a plunge when on EAD or on temporary visa (H1).
-----------------
MONDAY, MAY 25, 2009
OTHER VOICES
The Housing Hurricane Will Howl Again
By MIKE MORGAN | MORE ARTICLES BY AUTHOR
This is only a lull in the housing hurricane.
WE'RE OUT OF THE EYE OF THE HURRICANE, but here comes the back half of the storm. A lot of people think that we've seen the worst of the housing crisis. They're talking about green shoots and glimmers of hope, when they should be back in the storm shelter, preparing for a flood of inventory that will overwhelm the markets and produce another round of falling prices
For the past few months there has been a semi-moratorium on foreclosures. Most institutions with delinquent mortgages didn't foreclose. The signs that blanket many neighborhoods have been posted by a fraction of the lenders. Now the rest of the banks are rushing to get their properties on the market.
[ov]
Christoph Hitz for Barron's
We're still supporting misguided programs that only add to inventory woes. They encourage builders to put up more homes and penalize anyone else trying to sell a home.
As a Florida real-estate broker who works with bank asset managers to dispose of foreclosed properties, I get a good view of this market. From December 2008 through mid-March 2009, the number of asset managers calling to discuss REO (real estate owned) properties on their client banks' books dropped by more than 80% from the level at which it previously had been running. In the past two months, however, asset managers have been busy, with most interested in how many properties we could handle at once.
Law firms for banks are once again lining up to file foreclosures and to process evictions. The asset managers we work with have warned us to expect a flood of properties, beginning in early June. This will hit as the number of potential buyers continues to dwindle. Builders, traditional sellers and investors who entered too early are already loaded with REO properties.
ALL OF THE OBAMA administration's attempts to revive, resuscitate and shock the housing markets into recovery have failed. Potential buyers can't purchase homes when they are losing their jobs, regardless of how attractive the credits and mortgages are. The price of homes will continue to fall until the properties are affordable for potential buyers.
If an investor could purchase a home and rent it out for close to breakeven, we might be getting close to a bottom. But we are nowhere close to that level in most critical markets. Until it is approached, prices will continue to fall. In fact, the negative cash flow now evident, along with the flood of properties coming into the inventory pool, warn of lower prices.
There's no light at the end of the tunnel yet. We're still supporting builders through misguided programs that are only adding to the inventory woes. California decided to offer a $10,000 credit to buyers of new homes, on top of the $8,000 federal credit. But California made the $10,000 available only for new homes purchased directly from builders. That shows the power of the builders' lobby, but it only adds to California's housing-industry problem. It encourages builders to construct dwellings we don't need, and it penalizes anyone else trying to sell a home.
Housing inventory soon will flood a market in which more than 500,000 homes are being built each year, even though the annual sales pace for new homes is closer to 300,000. We must also deal with a system clogged with impossible short sales, a surge of second and vacation homes being dumped, and third-wave flippers realizing that they entered the market too soon.
FOR THE BANKS, the back half of the hurricane will destroy balance sheets, unless the Obama administration comes up with another plan to mythically mark these assets on the books. Or we might see some chimerical plan to write down mortgage payments, or move toxic mortgages into a dark pool, or create some new illusion that glosses over the problem.
Our experience with banks' selling REOs is they realize about 50%-75% of what they initially think they will get. Moreover, their expenses to bring these properties to market and manage them are growing. Court systems bogged down with foreclosures are raising fees so that they can hire additional staff. More and more homeowners being evicted are stripping homes to the bone, removing appliances, fixtures, carpet, cabinets, air handlers, motorized garage-door openers and anything else that they can carry off or sell.
Unemployment presents a two-pronged problem. If homeowners lose their jobs, they have difficulty meeting mortgage payments. And a high jobless rate forces more people to put their homes on the market.
During the housing bubble, many second homes were purchased with the mythical equity from primary residences. These second homes are coming onto the market at an alarming rate, as many middle- and upper-class sellers need to raise cash. In some very exclusive private communities in Florida, where home prices are in the seven figures, more than 50% of the homes are on the market. (For more on the vacation-home market, see Cover Story.)
Unfortunately, there are no signs of recovery, despite the hype and the twisting of numbers in many media reports. The end of the unofficial moratorium on foreclosures, combined with rising unemployment, signals that the back half of this housing hurricane is only just beginning.
my advice ..be careful before you take a plunge when on EAD or on temporary visa (H1).
-----------------
MONDAY, MAY 25, 2009
OTHER VOICES
The Housing Hurricane Will Howl Again
By MIKE MORGAN | MORE ARTICLES BY AUTHOR
This is only a lull in the housing hurricane.
WE'RE OUT OF THE EYE OF THE HURRICANE, but here comes the back half of the storm. A lot of people think that we've seen the worst of the housing crisis. They're talking about green shoots and glimmers of hope, when they should be back in the storm shelter, preparing for a flood of inventory that will overwhelm the markets and produce another round of falling prices
For the past few months there has been a semi-moratorium on foreclosures. Most institutions with delinquent mortgages didn't foreclose. The signs that blanket many neighborhoods have been posted by a fraction of the lenders. Now the rest of the banks are rushing to get their properties on the market.
[ov]
Christoph Hitz for Barron's
We're still supporting misguided programs that only add to inventory woes. They encourage builders to put up more homes and penalize anyone else trying to sell a home.
As a Florida real-estate broker who works with bank asset managers to dispose of foreclosed properties, I get a good view of this market. From December 2008 through mid-March 2009, the number of asset managers calling to discuss REO (real estate owned) properties on their client banks' books dropped by more than 80% from the level at which it previously had been running. In the past two months, however, asset managers have been busy, with most interested in how many properties we could handle at once.
Law firms for banks are once again lining up to file foreclosures and to process evictions. The asset managers we work with have warned us to expect a flood of properties, beginning in early June. This will hit as the number of potential buyers continues to dwindle. Builders, traditional sellers and investors who entered too early are already loaded with REO properties.
ALL OF THE OBAMA administration's attempts to revive, resuscitate and shock the housing markets into recovery have failed. Potential buyers can't purchase homes when they are losing their jobs, regardless of how attractive the credits and mortgages are. The price of homes will continue to fall until the properties are affordable for potential buyers.
If an investor could purchase a home and rent it out for close to breakeven, we might be getting close to a bottom. But we are nowhere close to that level in most critical markets. Until it is approached, prices will continue to fall. In fact, the negative cash flow now evident, along with the flood of properties coming into the inventory pool, warn of lower prices.
There's no light at the end of the tunnel yet. We're still supporting builders through misguided programs that are only adding to the inventory woes. California decided to offer a $10,000 credit to buyers of new homes, on top of the $8,000 federal credit. But California made the $10,000 available only for new homes purchased directly from builders. That shows the power of the builders' lobby, but it only adds to California's housing-industry problem. It encourages builders to construct dwellings we don't need, and it penalizes anyone else trying to sell a home.
Housing inventory soon will flood a market in which more than 500,000 homes are being built each year, even though the annual sales pace for new homes is closer to 300,000. We must also deal with a system clogged with impossible short sales, a surge of second and vacation homes being dumped, and third-wave flippers realizing that they entered the market too soon.
FOR THE BANKS, the back half of the hurricane will destroy balance sheets, unless the Obama administration comes up with another plan to mythically mark these assets on the books. Or we might see some chimerical plan to write down mortgage payments, or move toxic mortgages into a dark pool, or create some new illusion that glosses over the problem.
Our experience with banks' selling REOs is they realize about 50%-75% of what they initially think they will get. Moreover, their expenses to bring these properties to market and manage them are growing. Court systems bogged down with foreclosures are raising fees so that they can hire additional staff. More and more homeowners being evicted are stripping homes to the bone, removing appliances, fixtures, carpet, cabinets, air handlers, motorized garage-door openers and anything else that they can carry off or sell.
Unemployment presents a two-pronged problem. If homeowners lose their jobs, they have difficulty meeting mortgage payments. And a high jobless rate forces more people to put their homes on the market.
During the housing bubble, many second homes were purchased with the mythical equity from primary residences. These second homes are coming onto the market at an alarming rate, as many middle- and upper-class sellers need to raise cash. In some very exclusive private communities in Florida, where home prices are in the seven figures, more than 50% of the homes are on the market. (For more on the vacation-home market, see Cover Story.)
Unfortunately, there are no signs of recovery, despite the hype and the twisting of numbers in many media reports. The end of the unofficial moratorium on foreclosures, combined with rising unemployment, signals that the back half of this housing hurricane is only just beginning.
more...
purgan
04-30 02:43 PM
steve king is the new tancredo in congress. dobbs best buddy. advised by numbersusa, FAIR and CIS.
A hard core anti-immigrant from Iowa
A hard core anti-immigrant from Iowa
pbojja
09-11 05:17 PM
What we are expecting after this calc. camp ? I dont think so they will revise bulletin nor they will give single extra visa above 140k. I think we should focus on HR 5882 .. We should send something to lawmakers.
Just a thought.
I think they will improve the communication between USCIS and DOL . Dont you think it unjustice for 2003-2005 PD holders when they move dates to 2006 and approve 2006 cases ? cant they just move it to 2005 and say approve as many cases as possible for them ? why approve 2006 cases .
Yes focus on HR 5882 is very important but nothing wrong with this campign either ....Just my thoughts
Just a thought.
I think they will improve the communication between USCIS and DOL . Dont you think it unjustice for 2003-2005 PD holders when they move dates to 2006 and approve 2006 cases ? cant they just move it to 2005 and say approve as many cases as possible for them ? why approve 2006 cases .
Yes focus on HR 5882 is very important but nothing wrong with this campign either ....Just my thoughts
more...
swo
07-21 04:05 AM
Kindly note yourself John, that using fonts like this are obnoxious. Also note that in America we write it like this: 240,000. Not 2,40,000. I'm not sure why I keep seeing this here. Is this some kind of Indian thing?
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill, which itself is a failed bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 2,40,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill, which itself is a failed bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 2,40,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
insbaby
09-01 10:07 AM
Arrived 2000-February
1st Labor - 2003 - Company A (RIR)
2nd Labor - 2004 - Company B (RIR) (no one knows where it went)
3rd Labor - 2006 - Company B (PERM)
Managed to get a seat in 07-2007 bus
Still sleeping in the bus. Don't know when I reach the destination.
Even if life ends before the journey completes, the corpse will continue the travel until it gets the GC.
(not sure if AC-21s are applicable for corpses)
Poor EB3-I s, they have to travel with many corpses...
1st Labor - 2003 - Company A (RIR)
2nd Labor - 2004 - Company B (RIR) (no one knows where it went)
3rd Labor - 2006 - Company B (PERM)
Managed to get a seat in 07-2007 bus
Still sleeping in the bus. Don't know when I reach the destination.
Even if life ends before the journey completes, the corpse will continue the travel until it gets the GC.
(not sure if AC-21s are applicable for corpses)
Poor EB3-I s, they have to travel with many corpses...
more...
baleraosreedhar
09-12 02:48 PM
Instead of sending Pen,clock and flowers on 1 day , for a big impact lets send it for continously for 5 days starting on Sept 29 monday and ending on Oct 3 friday.
This way atleast Main Stream media will hear our woes and help in getting the message to the right parties.
This way atleast Main Stream media will hear our woes and help in getting the message to the right parties.
makemygc
07-06 01:09 PM
Thats what he is saying.. he is an expensive lawyer...
and about crap---who the hell are you to decide... if you dont like then just ignore the post...
I'm sure he is an expensive lawyer....care to expose his name?
What happened to his prediction on 12:15AM stuff in your last post. Can you please ask him?
and about crap---who the hell are you to decide... if you dont like then just ignore the post...
I'm sure he is an expensive lawyer....care to expose his name?
What happened to his prediction on 12:15AM stuff in your last post. Can you please ask him?
more...
gk_2000
08-23 10:50 PM
Then why you are fighting for the spill over rules as they stand. Because its going to help you :confused:
Read all the pages and let us know where anyone is stating to close the program. All we are saying is to close the loophole.
Context is everything
And people here are scolding and ranting against the program, not "loophole". But why even fight against the so-called loopholes? Don't we have anything better to do? Visa recapture is a much more worthy goal
And BTW, a 30k salary doesn't matter for executives. Jerry Yang works for $1 a year, so does it mean he is not eligible? And what about the executives working for free for a noble cause? Not everyone is money-minded, and they may choose their goals and priorities
Read all the pages and let us know where anyone is stating to close the program. All we are saying is to close the loophole.
Context is everything
And people here are scolding and ranting against the program, not "loophole". But why even fight against the so-called loopholes? Don't we have anything better to do? Visa recapture is a much more worthy goal
And BTW, a 30k salary doesn't matter for executives. Jerry Yang works for $1 a year, so does it mean he is not eligible? And what about the executives working for free for a noble cause? Not everyone is money-minded, and they may choose their goals and priorities
Macaca
09-12 04:06 PM
RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEELA BANERJEE: nbanerjee@nytimes.com *
JAMES BARRON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NINA BERNSTEIN: nbernstein@nytimes.com *
JULIE BOSMAN
EMILY BRADY
CARA BUCKLEY
DAVID W. CHEN
MARJORIE CONNELLY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HELENE COOPER
ANNIE CORREAL
NICOLE COTRONEO
MONICA DAVEY
LAWRENCE DOWNES
TIMOTHY EGAN
KAREEM FAHIM
ALAN FEUER
ROBIN FINN
IAN FISHER
SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN sgfreedman@nytimes.com
DAVID GONZALEZ
STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Clyde Haberman
RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JOSEPH P. HOAR
JOHN HOLUSHA
CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
KIRK JOHNSON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
CLIFFORD KRAUSS
PAUL KRUGMAN krugman@nytimes.com
MARC LACEY
BRUCE LAMBERT
DAVID LEONHARDT Leonhardt@nytimes.com
PATRICIA NELSON LIMERICK
STEVE LOHR: slohr@nytimes.com *
MICHAEL LUO (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEIL MacFARQUHAR
EILEEN MARKEY
ROBERT D. McFADDEN
JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
TIM MURPHY
MIREYA NAVARRO
JACQUELINE PALANK: jpalank@nytimes.com
ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) rpear@nytimes.com
JULIA PRESTON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) juliapreston@nytimes.com
ANTHONY RAMIREZ: aramirez@nytimes.com | anthonyramirez@nytimes (did not work)
DAVID K. RANDALL
SAM ROBERTS
JESS ROW
JIM RUTENBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
MARC SANTORA (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
DAVID STOUT (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HEATHER TIMMONS
ROBIN TONER
MICHAEL WINERIP parenting@nytimes.com
JEFF ZELENY
NEELA BANERJEE: nbanerjee@nytimes.com *
JAMES BARRON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NINA BERNSTEIN: nbernstein@nytimes.com *
JULIE BOSMAN
EMILY BRADY
CARA BUCKLEY
DAVID W. CHEN
MARJORIE CONNELLY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HELENE COOPER
ANNIE CORREAL
NICOLE COTRONEO
MONICA DAVEY
LAWRENCE DOWNES
TIMOTHY EGAN
KAREEM FAHIM
ALAN FEUER
ROBIN FINN
IAN FISHER
SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN sgfreedman@nytimes.com
DAVID GONZALEZ
STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Clyde Haberman
RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JOSEPH P. HOAR
JOHN HOLUSHA
CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
KIRK JOHNSON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
CLIFFORD KRAUSS
PAUL KRUGMAN krugman@nytimes.com
MARC LACEY
BRUCE LAMBERT
DAVID LEONHARDT Leonhardt@nytimes.com
PATRICIA NELSON LIMERICK
STEVE LOHR: slohr@nytimes.com *
MICHAEL LUO (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEIL MacFARQUHAR
EILEEN MARKEY
ROBERT D. McFADDEN
JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
TIM MURPHY
MIREYA NAVARRO
JACQUELINE PALANK: jpalank@nytimes.com
ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) rpear@nytimes.com
JULIA PRESTON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) juliapreston@nytimes.com
ANTHONY RAMIREZ: aramirez@nytimes.com | anthonyramirez@nytimes (did not work)
DAVID K. RANDALL
SAM ROBERTS
JESS ROW
JIM RUTENBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
MARC SANTORA (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
DAVID STOUT (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HEATHER TIMMONS
ROBIN TONER
MICHAEL WINERIP parenting@nytimes.com
JEFF ZELENY
more...
Sakthisagar
02-24 11:41 AM
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has successfully blocked consideration of all immigration legislation until amnesty is brought up for a vote. Unless and until the issue of amnesty is resolved, we aren't going to see anything. On the other hand, if amnesty is voted down, then expect to see just about everything else passed.
The good news is that the jobs bill is ready to pass the Senate within the next day or two. On Thursday, they are going to have the health care summit. At that point, they will either decide to push the health care bill through via reconciliation, or go into extended negotiations with the Republicans. Either way, it definitely looks like a window might open up for CIR in the next couple of weeks.
The above is what Ron Gotcher (imminfo.com) says rather gives hope for the future!
The good news is that the jobs bill is ready to pass the Senate within the next day or two. On Thursday, they are going to have the health care summit. At that point, they will either decide to push the health care bill through via reconciliation, or go into extended negotiations with the Republicans. Either way, it definitely looks like a window might open up for CIR in the next couple of weeks.
The above is what Ron Gotcher (imminfo.com) says rather gives hope for the future!
I_need_GC
03-25 02:23 PM
If both the AP's are stamped they will put a stamp on the back or close to it.
Its not a big problem you are allowed multiple entries :D
Its not a big problem you are allowed multiple entries :D
more...
485Mbe4001
01-26 05:54 PM
I think there was a call last week at 7:15 which i missed, i checked my emails late.
abhijitp
07-06 02:48 PM
We should learn something from USCIS.. If they have worked hard for 48 hours on last weekend, we should work more this weekend and do whatever we can to help core members.
__________________________________________________ ______________
I second that!
__________________________________________________ ______________
I second that!
more...
calgirl
09-10 08:26 PM
Is there any way of knowing how many visas (for GC) are left for this year?
When will we know how many GC's were issued (Employment based) this year?
When will we know how many GC's were issued (Employment based) this year?
smuggymba
08-23 08:26 AM
Does it mean the eligibility criteria/job requirement for EB2 is changed from 5 to 10 years?
I don't know but I'm scared now....My attorney is filing 140 this week and I was planning on premium processing.
Is this memo in effect already or what? Can someone throw more light on this?
I don't know but I'm scared now....My attorney is filing 140 this week and I was planning on premium processing.
Is this memo in effect already or what? Can someone throw more light on this?
nirav_patel
07-15 03:34 PM
just sent by billpay
needhelp!
05-28 11:10 AM
Seems like there are so many threads about EAD renewals right now, are we going to be content with renewing EADs for the next 5,6,8 years? While there are no restrictions on discussing individual issues, lets not lose sight of the real cause of our group.
Contribute so that IV can assign more resources to work on fixing this whole mess!
Contribute so that IV can assign more resources to work on fixing this whole mess!
santb1975
06-03 01:30 PM
Please work on our Action Item
Mailed a check for $100 today.
Mailed a check for $100 today.
No comments:
Post a Comment