eb3_nepa
07-10 09:50 AM
Why would they think like that?, USCIS made a mistake. They tried to cover (by making visas unavailable) their ass to save their jobs. Thats why we have congress to help us out.
For USCIS its a bad publicity.
We have congress "helping us out" by doing WHAT exactly?? So far we have exactly ONE congresswoman who made a statement. After that no one has even BOTHERED to do anything.
It may be bad publicity for the USCIS, but guess what? NO ONE GIVES A S**T. The USCIS is an INDEPENDANT body and it made a MISTAKE. Everyone makes mistakes, remember?
For USCIS its a bad publicity.
We have congress "helping us out" by doing WHAT exactly?? So far we have exactly ONE congresswoman who made a statement. After that no one has even BOTHERED to do anything.
It may be bad publicity for the USCIS, but guess what? NO ONE GIVES A S**T. The USCIS is an INDEPENDANT body and it made a MISTAKE. Everyone makes mistakes, remember?
wallpaper Katharine McPhee Global Action
thakurrajiv
11-25 09:47 AM
I was absolutely pissed off with the "local" ppl that got greedy and dragged the whole economy with them. Seeing that there are ppl like you (one of us) who are pretty much the same, i am seething with rage. Because of idiots like you, people with a pristine credit history of more than ten years and some saved money cant buy a decent house in the bay area (and elsewhere) and have to see their hard-earned money go down the drain in 401k and stocks.....I wish ppl like you rot in foreclosure hell and no one ever lends credit you, ever again!!!
boreal, cool down. Just think what you will do if you are in that situation.
At personal level ( micro level) these people are making right decisions. As long as you are not committing crime, nothing wrong with making decisions which are good for you. I will probably do the same thing if I am in that situation.
The core problem with system was cheap money because of lax lending standard and low interest rates ( blame Greenspan) and affordable housing (like ACORN from Dems). These decisions are made by people in power and so called smart people. Individuals do have their contribution to the problem but the macro decisions provided them means to have things which they can not afford. The bubble had to burst sooner or later ....
So right now, remember wealth is always relative. So since you haven't bought house, you don't have negative equity or declining value home.You haven't foreclosed so you can still get loan at decent rate and buy house at much cheaper price. All the people with money in the market are affected by recent downturn. So relatively speaking you are doing much better than a lot of other people ....
BTW I am in the same situation as you are and waiting for good opportunity to buy house at cheap price. Do you see the positive side ? I hope you do .....
boreal, cool down. Just think what you will do if you are in that situation.
At personal level ( micro level) these people are making right decisions. As long as you are not committing crime, nothing wrong with making decisions which are good for you. I will probably do the same thing if I am in that situation.
The core problem with system was cheap money because of lax lending standard and low interest rates ( blame Greenspan) and affordable housing (like ACORN from Dems). These decisions are made by people in power and so called smart people. Individuals do have their contribution to the problem but the macro decisions provided them means to have things which they can not afford. The bubble had to burst sooner or later ....
So right now, remember wealth is always relative. So since you haven't bought house, you don't have negative equity or declining value home.You haven't foreclosed so you can still get loan at decent rate and buy house at much cheaper price. All the people with money in the market are affected by recent downturn. So relatively speaking you are doing much better than a lot of other people ....
BTW I am in the same situation as you are and waiting for good opportunity to buy house at cheap price. Do you see the positive side ? I hope you do .....
alkg
10-01 11:11 AM
I filed my I485 on July 2with my wife.
But till today(1st Oct,2007) i have not received recipt no. And it has already been 90 days.
But till today(1st Oct,2007) i have not received recipt no. And it has already been 90 days.
2011 Idol: Katharine McPhee
immi2006
07-09 10:11 PM
This they cannot send there.... they have to take this :D
more...
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
pani_6
08-21 07:32 PM
I have not seen any place where the change the rules of the Games inbetween..So for EB-3's of early 2000..we were expecting GC's in 2-4 years and EB-2 in 1-3 years..we didnt see any big difference here..ok we said we can apply in EB-3 and wait a year longer...
If we knew that DOL would suddenly change the rules..there was no reason for us to apply in EB-3..we could have looked for another job or convinced our manager to apply to apply in EB-2..if the situation could turn so dire as we know now..Now look at the new guys..they will never apply in EB-3..even the lawyers will advise thier clients to apply in EB-2..so the old intrepretation should remain for the older cases and new interpretation for cases when USCIS decided to change the interpretation...
YOU CANT CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME!
There is no ambiguity in law. The law is clear. One law (and one rule) should yield one interpretation. If someone interperting the languge of law differently; then that is their mistake. Thats what DOS was doing in between 2001 and 2006. This could be possible for them because no one was going after DOS. Now somehow they realized (or some affected applicants notified DOS). If the old practice is a result of correct interpretation of law, why they should change now? This is very high sensitive area; DOS might have not changed their practice without risk analysis. They should not care about how much retrogression in India; They should only care about implementing the law correctly, as becuase they are executive branch of government not legislative branch to worry about retrogression.
If we knew that DOL would suddenly change the rules..there was no reason for us to apply in EB-3..we could have looked for another job or convinced our manager to apply to apply in EB-2..if the situation could turn so dire as we know now..Now look at the new guys..they will never apply in EB-3..even the lawyers will advise thier clients to apply in EB-2..so the old intrepretation should remain for the older cases and new interpretation for cases when USCIS decided to change the interpretation...
YOU CANT CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME!
There is no ambiguity in law. The law is clear. One law (and one rule) should yield one interpretation. If someone interperting the languge of law differently; then that is their mistake. Thats what DOS was doing in between 2001 and 2006. This could be possible for them because no one was going after DOS. Now somehow they realized (or some affected applicants notified DOS). If the old practice is a result of correct interpretation of law, why they should change now? This is very high sensitive area; DOS might have not changed their practice without risk analysis. They should not care about how much retrogression in India; They should only care about implementing the law correctly, as becuase they are executive branch of government not legislative branch to worry about retrogression.
more...
glamzon
06-29 04:01 PM
http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/alerts/july_2007_visa_bulletin_revision.htm
check this .
check this .
2010 tattoo Short Hair For A Wedding katharine mcphee wedding ring. katharine
jungalee44
05-06 08:48 AM
For the benefit of all. There is another way to know receipt number and it is valid only if you have given your own personal checks to USCIS. When the check is cleared from the bank, they make image of check available on their on line banking web site. The image shows front of the check; page down here and see the back side of the check. You will find all your receipt numbers on the back side.
I found out all my receipt numbers even before my attorney knew about it.
I found out all my receipt numbers even before my attorney knew about it.
more...
funny
09-09 04:49 PM
Just finished calling 10 congressman's office. Will continue until the list is finished.
^^^ Don't let this thread slip down^^
^^^ Don't let this thread slip down^^
hair images 2011 Katharine McPhee
bigboy007
05-11 12:01 AM
Hunter's Internet knowledge is awesome and hilarious .. May be this is how he does his coding if hez an IT guy... :D I dont think we all should get to his level to argue... Argument should be made with equally knowledgeable ppl.
His "Distortion" of facts will not change the current scenario.. nor his Internet Knowledge will land him an OSCAR award.. Let him live in his fantasy life.. No doubt Hunter is from a "Great" culture... Unfortunately he doesnt know the meaning of that...
Are you sure you are not confusing with Indian epics that discuss how Lord Brahma had sex with his own daughter? :D :D
Unfortunately, you are showing your culture here with responses like this by clearly proving that you are incapable of provding a proper response. You are not making any case here, actually you are undermining it. This clearly shows the contempt that you have for the people of the country where you are desparately trying to immigrate to.
If things were so rosy in India compared to US, you wouldn't be posting in this forum, will you?
As a matter of fact, people like you, irrespective of the qualifications, should never be allowed to immigrate to anywhere. You should remain in India or should I say "arsha-bharatha"?
His "Distortion" of facts will not change the current scenario.. nor his Internet Knowledge will land him an OSCAR award.. Let him live in his fantasy life.. No doubt Hunter is from a "Great" culture... Unfortunately he doesnt know the meaning of that...
Are you sure you are not confusing with Indian epics that discuss how Lord Brahma had sex with his own daughter? :D :D
Unfortunately, you are showing your culture here with responses like this by clearly proving that you are incapable of provding a proper response. You are not making any case here, actually you are undermining it. This clearly shows the contempt that you have for the people of the country where you are desparately trying to immigrate to.
If things were so rosy in India compared to US, you wouldn't be posting in this forum, will you?
As a matter of fact, people like you, irrespective of the qualifications, should never be allowed to immigrate to anywhere. You should remain in India or should I say "arsha-bharatha"?
more...
Robert Kumar
03-30 06:17 PM
Hopefully this is not a April fool joke!!!.
Hope all the dreams come true with flying colors, like India winning the cricket match againt pakistan today, what a great match it was..
Lets hope for the best for all. Cant wait for the next bulletin.
Do not forget to contribute to IV, even in small amounts as even a drop in the ocean matters, for providing us all this nice platform to share info.
Hope all the dreams come true with flying colors, like India winning the cricket match againt pakistan today, what a great match it was..
Lets hope for the best for all. Cant wait for the next bulletin.
Do not forget to contribute to IV, even in small amounts as even a drop in the ocean matters, for providing us all this nice platform to share info.
hot 2011 2011 katharine mcphee
vishwak
03-29 09:03 AM
I read the news too at The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/)
Hope this hold and comes true. All the best to my brothers and me.
Hope this hold and comes true. All the best to my brothers and me.
more...
house 2011 hairstyles Katharine
aratatous
10-04 05:27 PM
Hi:
I am a July 2nd filer too and still waiting for the checks to be cashed. Please add me to the waiting club.
PD -May 2006, EB2
I-140 Approved - July 2006,TSC
I-485/I-765 - RD 07/02/07 signed by J. Barrett at 10:25 am @ NSC
Checks Cashed - Not yet
I am surprised to see the list compiled by Sanjay b that all the pendig applications are received in the same time frame and received by J. Barrett. Do you guys think this package of applications is mispalced or something?
CADude and others... maybe your efforts are paying off. What I learned in this process is that have faith in your application filing. If everything is fine you'll definitely get the receipts. It may be either next week or in 2 weeks.
Couple of things...
1) Calling USCIS is useless...
2) Look for checks for cashed....
3) Keep in touch with our pending group. I gives you support and motivation.
santosh19-2nd july/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140-TSC/No CC/No RN
sanjayb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 08/05 -- CHECKS CASHED -- 09/25 --- CASE IN TSC
Ashres11 - 2nd July/ 10:28/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN
Sairam - 2nd July/10:28/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No RN - 07/28
InsKrish - 2nd July/10.25/J.Barret/NSC/I-140 approved from TSC/No CC/RN
sudhi - 2nd July/ 10:25/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN - CHECKS CASHED 09/13 -- Received receipts too.
Danu2007 - 2nd July/10:25AM/J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
Triviagal - 2nd July/ 10:25AM/ J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
rkartik78- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
GCFISH- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ 485 went to NE/NO RN NOCC
rexjamla- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
kmkanth- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
BU007- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
veerufs - 2nd july/10:28am/J. BARRET/I140-TSC/NO RN/NO CC
123456mg - 2nd july/10:25am at NSC/J BARRET/I140-Approved from TSC/NO RN/NO CC
aussie731- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
nkavjs - 2nd July/ 10:25am/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ I-140 TSC lud on I-140 8-5-07/ NO CC/ NO RN
jsb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/27
gc_us - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/28
srinitls - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/NO RN NO CC
realraghu - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
vg1778 - nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
aratatous- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140-Approved - TSC/No CC/No RN
I am a July 2nd filer too and still waiting for the checks to be cashed. Please add me to the waiting club.
PD -May 2006, EB2
I-140 Approved - July 2006,TSC
I-485/I-765 - RD 07/02/07 signed by J. Barrett at 10:25 am @ NSC
Checks Cashed - Not yet
I am surprised to see the list compiled by Sanjay b that all the pendig applications are received in the same time frame and received by J. Barrett. Do you guys think this package of applications is mispalced or something?
CADude and others... maybe your efforts are paying off. What I learned in this process is that have faith in your application filing. If everything is fine you'll definitely get the receipts. It may be either next week or in 2 weeks.
Couple of things...
1) Calling USCIS is useless...
2) Look for checks for cashed....
3) Keep in touch with our pending group. I gives you support and motivation.
santosh19-2nd july/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140-TSC/No CC/No RN
sanjayb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 08/05 -- CHECKS CASHED -- 09/25 --- CASE IN TSC
Ashres11 - 2nd July/ 10:28/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN
Sairam - 2nd July/10:28/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No RN - 07/28
InsKrish - 2nd July/10.25/J.Barret/NSC/I-140 approved from TSC/No CC/RN
sudhi - 2nd July/ 10:25/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ NO CC/ NO RN - CHECKS CASHED 09/13 -- Received receipts too.
Danu2007 - 2nd July/10:25AM/J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
Triviagal - 2nd July/ 10:25AM/ J. Barret/NSC/140-TSC/NO RN
rkartik78- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ NO RN NO CC
GCFISH- 2nd july/10:25am/ J.Barret/ I140-TSC/ 485 went to NE/NO RN NOCC
rexjamla- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
kmkanth- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
BU007- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
veerufs - 2nd july/10:28am/J. BARRET/I140-TSC/NO RN/NO CC
123456mg - 2nd july/10:25am at NSC/J BARRET/I140-Approved from TSC/NO RN/NO CC
aussie731- 2ndJuly/10:25am/J.Barret/ I-140-NSC/ NO RN NO CC
nkavjs - 2nd July/ 10:25am/ Fedex/ J.Barrret/ NSC/ I-140 TSC lud on I-140 8-5-07/ NO CC/ NO RN
jsb - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/27
gc_us - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN 140 LUD - 07/28
srinitls - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/NO RN NO CC
realraghu - 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
vg1778 - nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140 - TSC/No CC/No RN
aratatous- 2nd July/10:25/FedEx/J.Barret/NSC/140-Approved - TSC/No CC/No RN
tattoo katharine mcphee and brad
masouds
09-12 11:34 PM
Hello all,
Will it make sense to put the posters for this campaigns in local grocery stores and mandirs over the weekend, so as to create more awareness.
Yes please. Talk to owners first. Once you get them onboard they will make sure that the sign stays there.
Remember: NumbersUSA faxed the senate offices one million times when CIR was being considered. We have to do more than them this time, as they are twisting the facts (Same way Mr. Dobbs of CNN does): Here is a quote from Numbers USA website:
....The bill�s sponsor, Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif), claims it would �recapture unused employer-sponsored visas� from as far back as 1991 and then add them to the current numerical cap of 140,000 employer-sponsored visas that are available each year. Current law, however, clearly states that any employer-sponsored visas not used in one year are allocated to the family-preference categories in the following year. That means that there are no �unused� visas from past years to �recapture.�
The last line above is a blatant lie. Specially when USCIS ombudsman who has access to all the internal material of USCIS says otherwise. Please call, and let the congressmen and congresswomen know about this.
Will it make sense to put the posters for this campaigns in local grocery stores and mandirs over the weekend, so as to create more awareness.
Yes please. Talk to owners first. Once you get them onboard they will make sure that the sign stays there.
Remember: NumbersUSA faxed the senate offices one million times when CIR was being considered. We have to do more than them this time, as they are twisting the facts (Same way Mr. Dobbs of CNN does): Here is a quote from Numbers USA website:
....The bill�s sponsor, Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif), claims it would �recapture unused employer-sponsored visas� from as far back as 1991 and then add them to the current numerical cap of 140,000 employer-sponsored visas that are available each year. Current law, however, clearly states that any employer-sponsored visas not used in one year are allocated to the family-preference categories in the following year. That means that there are no �unused� visas from past years to �recapture.�
The last line above is a blatant lie. Specially when USCIS ombudsman who has access to all the internal material of USCIS says otherwise. Please call, and let the congressmen and congresswomen know about this.
more...
pictures tattoo 2011 katharine mcphee
pappu
08-04 06:10 PM
more info
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
dresses Katharine McPhee#39;s gorgeous
Sri_1975
08-20 11:56 AM
Nice. Whats next.:mad:
more...
makeup 2011 images katharine mcphee
gc_on_demand
08-25 03:19 PM
Ok...the way I see this is 5000min/month at $25 (not adding taxes) is 5 cents a minutes...that is more than what I pay for my calling cards....bottom line....if your monthly calling bill is less than $ 25 there is no reason why you should get Vonage.
Use this one !
Free online calculators for home, work, and school (http://www.calculateforfree.com/)
Use this one !
Free online calculators for home, work, and school (http://www.calculateforfree.com/)
girlfriend 2011 Katherine McPhee at the
snathan
08-26 01:24 AM
wrong calculation 5000/2500=2. It is 2 cents perminute. Have you used C# program?:)
Any way with vonage, one can call other friends in all other 60 counties and others part of us too..
If 2 cents per min = 5000 X 2 = 10000 cents = $100?
Any way with vonage, one can call other friends in all other 60 counties and others part of us too..
If 2 cents per min = 5000 X 2 = 10000 cents = $100?
hairstyles katharine mcphee 2011
ourgcapproved
08-17 02:21 PM
ok.. the letter is dated 4th august and did you get any information again that your case is assigned to a officer? if yes can you please tell how you contacted them? and after how many days?
letstalklc
09-15 03:16 PM
I want to move from reliance to airtel or trueroots before deciding on vonage. Can someone tell me as how good is airtel 1c/min offer? hows the quality to india and other countries?
Thanks
Airtel call quality is really good and it's cheap compare to reliance....I stopped using reliance almost 3 years......if you pay 9.99+taxes will give you 600 minutes talk time and 45 days validity...I also used for australia and singapore, call quality was great...never had any problems...
Thanks
Airtel call quality is really good and it's cheap compare to reliance....I stopped using reliance almost 3 years......if you pay 9.99+taxes will give you 600 minutes talk time and 45 days validity...I also used for australia and singapore, call quality was great...never had any problems...
Prashant
09-10 11:38 AM
Some one gave me a red for calling.
Called
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - Supports the bill
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - took the message
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - took the message
and calling others as well. Please stand up for this cause
Called
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - Supports the bill
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - took the message
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - took the message
and calling others as well. Please stand up for this cause
No comments:
Post a Comment