shankar_thanu
07-11 09:07 AM
Looks like someone already added one of the stories to digg
http://www.digg.com/politics/Green_Card_Seekers_In_Flowery_U_S_Protest
please digg this story and any other relevant one...
http://www.digg.com/politics/Green_Card_Seekers_In_Flowery_U_S_Protest
please digg this story and any other relevant one...
wallpaper Lady Gaga
gc_on_demand
09-09 12:01 PM
Called up all the above
~~~
~~~
h1techSlave
03-26 10:20 AM
As I see it, not hiring the best qualified person (irrespective of his status) is does not make much financial sense.
Don't you think it is an aspect of socialism to give protection to American citizens, even when they are not the best suitable person for the job?
That suit will not stand a chance, not becasue it doesn't have legal merit but because it goes to the core of capitalistic system.
Don't you think it is an aspect of socialism to give protection to American citizens, even when they are not the best suitable person for the job?
That suit will not stand a chance, not becasue it doesn't have legal merit but because it goes to the core of capitalistic system.
2011 house makeup lady gaga
walking_dude
01-14 10:36 AM
Posted on my blog too http://fix-gc-now.blogspot.com/.
I request everyone to embed it in your blog and or provide link to it. This will give publicity to our effort by increasing the web footprint.
Posted below is the HTML snippet to embed the video
<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGpSCdeEkB4&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGpSCdeEkB4&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>
I request everyone to embed it in your blog and or provide link to it. This will give publicity to our effort by increasing the web footprint.
Posted below is the HTML snippet to embed the video
<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGpSCdeEkB4&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGpSCdeEkB4&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>
more...
gcisadawg
08-20 02:33 PM
I'm at Oct 2004 (EB3-I), 35 years for me .... you don't say!
No seriously guys, 'spatial' brings up a good point; the laws are up for interpretation by the USCIS.
Man, believe me, I'd be happy to accept that my numbers are incorrect!
Thanks,
gcisadwag
No seriously guys, 'spatial' brings up a good point; the laws are up for interpretation by the USCIS.
Man, believe me, I'd be happy to accept that my numbers are incorrect!
Thanks,
gcisadwag
morchu
06-17 01:18 PM
So attack on L1 is on the way.
What about another plan to attack F1?
You are NOT supposed to have immigration intent when you apply F1. So what about targeting all those F1 now, since it is very obvious that they didnt come here just to study and go back. So lets smoke them out based on their "fraud intentions" at the time of F1 application.
After that lets attack the H1 landers. Many of them landed in H1 with body shoppers, and later changed to some big american company. Lets find some thing or other against these body shoppers, and all those H1 came with these body shoppers should go back (even though they are with some other company).
Ok. what is left.......... lets find out something bad about everybody else, except me.
Ohh... wait a sec..... we were supposed to be "united", by this forum, not "divided".
What about another plan to attack F1?
You are NOT supposed to have immigration intent when you apply F1. So what about targeting all those F1 now, since it is very obvious that they didnt come here just to study and go back. So lets smoke them out based on their "fraud intentions" at the time of F1 application.
After that lets attack the H1 landers. Many of them landed in H1 with body shoppers, and later changed to some big american company. Lets find some thing or other against these body shoppers, and all those H1 came with these body shoppers should go back (even though they are with some other company).
Ok. what is left.......... lets find out something bad about everybody else, except me.
Ohh... wait a sec..... we were supposed to be "united", by this forum, not "divided".
more...
cbpds
04-01 12:45 PM
Rodnyb,
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
2010 hot Crazy Lady Gaga haircut
FinalGC
01-10 11:12 AM
Please unite to help the Green card Immigration issues be resolved. I am planning to send 3 letters from my house...One for me, my wife and my son.....writing directly to the President.
Lets flood the white house with letters, so that they will know how many GC applications are stuck at the USCIS and do something about it.
Lets flood the white house with letters, so that they will know how many GC applications are stuck at the USCIS and do something about it.
more...
heywhat
11-26 01:00 PM
kuhelica2000/sledge_hammer,
There is no similarity between example you are giving and what Punjabi is in ..
Punjabi is not returning it to actual seller but it is returning it to Bank which is not a seller of that house .
morally i do not think this is right. Financially also I think people should avoid it if they are planning to stay in USA, because they might end up paying more in long run.
Punjabi,
This is directly not going to impact your I485, indirectly it might if you get pink slip in your new job and then you try to get another job but they reject it because of foreclosure while doing background check. And if you remain unemployed for long time and USCIS rejecting I485 application.
Also you might end up paying more in future instead of saving anything out of this entire foreclosure ..
I got your point and I difffer with that. Your point is-only defective items should be returned and I am saying it doesn't need to be defective. As long as you are not completely satisfied you should be able to return it and price is an element in customer satisfaction. That's why stores do price match so you don't need to return their merchandise. Stores that don't do price match deserve their goods to be returned.
Also, I didn't put words in your mouth. "Returning used merchandise is a fraud" - these words came out of your own mouth. Check your own post.
There is no similarity between example you are giving and what Punjabi is in ..
Punjabi is not returning it to actual seller but it is returning it to Bank which is not a seller of that house .
morally i do not think this is right. Financially also I think people should avoid it if they are planning to stay in USA, because they might end up paying more in long run.
Punjabi,
This is directly not going to impact your I485, indirectly it might if you get pink slip in your new job and then you try to get another job but they reject it because of foreclosure while doing background check. And if you remain unemployed for long time and USCIS rejecting I485 application.
Also you might end up paying more in future instead of saving anything out of this entire foreclosure ..
I got your point and I difffer with that. Your point is-only defective items should be returned and I am saying it doesn't need to be defective. As long as you are not completely satisfied you should be able to return it and price is an element in customer satisfaction. That's why stores do price match so you don't need to return their merchandise. Stores that don't do price match deserve their goods to be returned.
Also, I didn't put words in your mouth. "Returning used merchandise is a fraud" - these words came out of your own mouth. Check your own post.
hair lady gaga hairstyles love game
realizeit
03-29 11:48 AM
There are two waves of movement going to happen for EB2 this year. One starting in May and the other starting in July.
The 12000 unused visa numbers from EB1 is not the total for the year 2011. It is almost certain that, this is the spillover from the first 2 quarters of 2011. Along with this, there are some numbers from EB2 ROW as well. The spillover will only get applied to all those countries which are retrogressed.
12000 visa numbers would move mathematically the dates to somewhere in Sept 2006 for India and China Eb2. The porting from EB3 to EB2 is still a factor, but that won't exceed more then 1500 (which are ready to be assigned visa).
In order to utilize these 12000 visa numbers, USCIS may possibly consider 15000 applicants so that they will get 12000 approvable, background check free and non-delayed cases.
So, i think for EB2 the dates could move to either Oct/Nov/Dec of 2006.
In July, the next wave of spill over could move the dates further into 2007.
The 12000 unused visa numbers from EB1 is not the total for the year 2011. It is almost certain that, this is the spillover from the first 2 quarters of 2011. Along with this, there are some numbers from EB2 ROW as well. The spillover will only get applied to all those countries which are retrogressed.
12000 visa numbers would move mathematically the dates to somewhere in Sept 2006 for India and China Eb2. The porting from EB3 to EB2 is still a factor, but that won't exceed more then 1500 (which are ready to be assigned visa).
In order to utilize these 12000 visa numbers, USCIS may possibly consider 15000 applicants so that they will get 12000 approvable, background check free and non-delayed cases.
So, i think for EB2 the dates could move to either Oct/Nov/Dec of 2006.
In July, the next wave of spill over could move the dates further into 2007.
more...
ram_ram
01-04 03:25 PM
http://www.murthy.com/ed_news/edyear06.html
pro-bono -> To work for the good of the public rather than for a profit or income.
Looking forward to the coming year, our goals for outreach expand to certain pro-bono cases and lobbying for improvements in laws and procedures to benefit our clients and U.S. businesses that are suffering as long as caps and retrogression remain as they are. We will continue to fight for you and your causes in 2006 and beyond. We will further strengthen our fight for better pro-immigration laws. We at the Murthy Law Firm will work to persuade the USCIS to issue opinions and letters that better address the business realities, requiring faster decisions and interpretations to help the business community and unite families - all for a better America!
pro-bono -> To work for the good of the public rather than for a profit or income.
Looking forward to the coming year, our goals for outreach expand to certain pro-bono cases and lobbying for improvements in laws and procedures to benefit our clients and U.S. businesses that are suffering as long as caps and retrogression remain as they are. We will continue to fight for you and your causes in 2006 and beyond. We will further strengthen our fight for better pro-immigration laws. We at the Murthy Law Firm will work to persuade the USCIS to issue opinions and letters that better address the business realities, requiring faster decisions and interpretations to help the business community and unite families - all for a better America!
hot crazy lady gaga hairstyles.
letstalklc
10-01 11:25 AM
This is what i am doing to call a cell phone or any land line in india. Vonage has a call forwarding feature. Simply log in to your vonage account and go to features and configure the call forwarding feature.Configure such that the call is forwarded after 20 sec's. Intially vonage rings and after that it is forwarded to the india cell or landline forwarding number. Its free of charge as calling from vonage to india #'s is free. Hope this puts the debate to rest.
smsthss - Thanks for posting useful information, yes, this will really helps a lot for others who wanted to call from cell phone/desk no (office).....just keep change the call forward no that you wanted to call...
Lingo will charge money for calling from cell phone by using the lingo account (first 10mts free, after that they will charge, also there is charge of 79 center for each call), so there is no point in signing up with that, this is my opinion...
smsthss - Thanks for posting useful information, yes, this will really helps a lot for others who wanted to call from cell phone/desk no (office).....just keep change the call forward no that you wanted to call...
Lingo will charge money for calling from cell phone by using the lingo account (first 10mts free, after that they will charge, also there is charge of 79 center for each call), so there is no point in signing up with that, this is my opinion...
more...
house girlfriend lady Malta lady
angelfire76
04-24 06:34 PM
Forget about it impacting desi companies, do you know how many companies will be impacted if the "no contracting" clause is retained in the H1B/L1 bill. It essentially means that no company can "purchase" the services of another company and use a H1B worker to work on the project at it's site. We are talking about biggies like IBM Consulting (where about 10% of it's workforce is on H1B) , Oracle consulting etc. who's clients depend on the expertise of the techies to help their teams by working with them onsite.
Oracle and IBM are rich by software support and consulting services, not just by their product lines.
Do business working on non-govt or non-defense apps care whether their contractor is on H1B or not? No they care about 2 things 1. Price 2. Can the contractor help get their system working?
It's pretty obvious that neither of these senators have any business experience.
Oracle and IBM are rich by software support and consulting services, not just by their product lines.
Do business working on non-govt or non-defense apps care whether their contractor is on H1B or not? No they care about 2 things 1. Price 2. Can the contractor help get their system working?
It's pretty obvious that neither of these senators have any business experience.
tattoo love Lady+gaga+2011+hair
andy garcia
07-10 07:43 PM
We all know that IV is not Indian. More Indian!=All Indian. Lets not worry about it and most importantly I request IV members from all countries to ignore it as a reporter mistake as they script stories in their fashion to elicit more coverage. It is almost impossible to edit the story that has been distributed by Reuters/AP. Once its gone, its out of their hands.
Maybe 80 -90 % Indian.:)
Maybe 80 -90 % Indian.:)
more...
pictures lady gaga hairstyles love game
drirshad
01-09 01:43 PM
DOW has crossed the 11,000 mark that is good for the economy .......
dresses dresses Lady Gaga Love Game
mdy_tvr
05-09 02:18 PM
Guys
I would appreciate if anyone could throw light on this.
thanks
Guys,
My current situation is that my wife and I applied for 485 separately.
my wife's PD is 2007 ( 485 applied in Aug 2007 )
I applied for 485 in Oct 2007, Since my PD is 2003 and is current as of now ( my 140 is pending ), I talked with our companys lawyer on what options do I have with regards to my wife's 485.
My lawyer suggested 2 options.
1. File 485 again for my wife as a spouse derivative. As per lawyer, this is very common and has experienced with these kind of situations.
2. Instead of filing a second 485 for my wife, just write a request letter to move her pending 485 to my 485 as a derivative. If this porting is successful, she cannot move back to her own 485.
I know some of us have gone with option#(1), but since option(2) involves very less paper work, did any of you have used this option so far?
I am confused as to which one to choose. My lawyer spelled diplomatic when asked about which option is better/safer:-)
Thanks
mdy_tvr
I would appreciate if anyone could throw light on this.
thanks
Guys,
My current situation is that my wife and I applied for 485 separately.
my wife's PD is 2007 ( 485 applied in Aug 2007 )
I applied for 485 in Oct 2007, Since my PD is 2003 and is current as of now ( my 140 is pending ), I talked with our companys lawyer on what options do I have with regards to my wife's 485.
My lawyer suggested 2 options.
1. File 485 again for my wife as a spouse derivative. As per lawyer, this is very common and has experienced with these kind of situations.
2. Instead of filing a second 485 for my wife, just write a request letter to move her pending 485 to my 485 as a derivative. If this porting is successful, she cannot move back to her own 485.
I know some of us have gone with option#(1), but since option(2) involves very less paper work, did any of you have used this option so far?
I am confused as to which one to choose. My lawyer spelled diplomatic when asked about which option is better/safer:-)
Thanks
mdy_tvr
more...
makeup lady gaga no makeup on.
eb_retrogession
01-07 05:12 PM
Added to the above Senator Arlen Specter's bill is a good bill:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Introduces Largest Immigration Increase in U.S. History
Printer-Friendly Version
Send this article to a friend!
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) needed the assistance of the White House in early 2005 to overcome opposition within his own party to his chairmanship. In late November, Specter repaid the Bush Administration by unveiling draft legislation that would bring about a massive increase in government- mandated immigration to the U.S.
President Bush, in his immigration address on November 28, pledged to work for an increase in the number of green cards issued each year and stated his intent to work with Sen. Specter to bring it about. Specter�s draft legislation would send government mandated immigration levels into the 2 million-a-year range.
Under Specter�s draft legislation, the cap on family-preference immigration would be increased by 254,000 visas annually and hundreds of thousands of additional relatives would be exempted from annual limits. In addition, Specter proposes raising the cap on employment-based immigration by 150,000 a year, and allocating any unused visas to other preference categories.
If enacted, Specter�s legislation would mandate the largest increase in immigration in this nation�s history. Moreover, according to FAIR�s analysis, such legislation would fuel the demand for still higher levels of immigration as more extended family members line up to follow an ever-growing number of immigrants streaming into our country.
1/06
Do you know if there is a bill number and a section associated with Specter's proposal?
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Introduces Largest Immigration Increase in U.S. History
Printer-Friendly Version
Send this article to a friend!
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) needed the assistance of the White House in early 2005 to overcome opposition within his own party to his chairmanship. In late November, Specter repaid the Bush Administration by unveiling draft legislation that would bring about a massive increase in government- mandated immigration to the U.S.
President Bush, in his immigration address on November 28, pledged to work for an increase in the number of green cards issued each year and stated his intent to work with Sen. Specter to bring it about. Specter�s draft legislation would send government mandated immigration levels into the 2 million-a-year range.
Under Specter�s draft legislation, the cap on family-preference immigration would be increased by 254,000 visas annually and hundreds of thousands of additional relatives would be exempted from annual limits. In addition, Specter proposes raising the cap on employment-based immigration by 150,000 a year, and allocating any unused visas to other preference categories.
If enacted, Specter�s legislation would mandate the largest increase in immigration in this nation�s history. Moreover, according to FAIR�s analysis, such legislation would fuel the demand for still higher levels of immigration as more extended family members line up to follow an ever-growing number of immigrants streaming into our country.
1/06
Do you know if there is a bill number and a section associated with Specter's proposal?
girlfriend girlfriend Hot Lady GaGa Vogue
SunnySurya
08-07 04:12 PM
Who said that those 10 guys are committing fraud. They are going by the books, which allow them to file GC for future employment. Even from the employer standpoint, you cannot prove that any fraud has been committed.
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.
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.
hairstyles house hairstyles love game,
vine93
09-09 04:59 PM
I started from below and tried twice which went to VM . All of them took message and Thanks. Since they are getting many calles, Most of them not transferring to other person, Front desk person itself taking message.
Took 45 minutes to cover all of them but time well spent. GO IV GO...
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
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 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
Took 45 minutes to cover all of them but time well spent. GO IV GO...
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
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 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
uumapathi
01-25 11:04 AM
I recently had to apply for a UK transit visa and the process went smooth as ever. I had to answer a lot of questions for both my wife and myself but after I have done that the process was easy. We just had to show up for finger printing just like for our 485s, send all the necessary documents to the correct address by (reliable) mail and just got emails that our visas have been approved. I have flown with BA before and their service is far better than any other airlines I have flown with before.
jcrajput
09-25 12:25 PM
You don't need A# number from I140.
When you give First name, last name and birth date. They can pull all your immigration applications submitted previously. If you have I140 approved that will show them in database.
When you give First name, last name and birth date. They can pull all your immigration applications submitted previously. If you have I140 approved that will show them in database.
No comments:
Post a Comment