naushit
02-12 08:36 AM
Chris,
My case was very similar in last November, I did call them many times...but same old answer. but in last month they told me they did not work on my case because my fiinger prints were expired. they expire every 15 months, and without valid FP , case even will not pass standard "filter" criteria, and they don't consider it "ready to approve"
Looks like you sent your 485 on Jul 2007, assume your first FP was done before Aug 2007? if yes, it's expired. By any chance, did you do your 2nd FP?
Just my 2 cents.!
Regards,
-N
Our cases are assigned to IO more that 60 days ago. No LUD's sofar.
Called VSC, One officer told me that they have thousands of cases pending. :confused:
Any one got GC recently and pending with IO more that 60 days ?
Appricaite comments and advice.
My case was very similar in last November, I did call them many times...but same old answer. but in last month they told me they did not work on my case because my fiinger prints were expired. they expire every 15 months, and without valid FP , case even will not pass standard "filter" criteria, and they don't consider it "ready to approve"
Looks like you sent your 485 on Jul 2007, assume your first FP was done before Aug 2007? if yes, it's expired. By any chance, did you do your 2nd FP?
Just my 2 cents.!
Regards,
-N
Our cases are assigned to IO more that 60 days ago. No LUD's sofar.
Called VSC, One officer told me that they have thousands of cases pending. :confused:
Any one got GC recently and pending with IO more that 60 days ?
Appricaite comments and advice.
wallpaper gif. alison brie community
sanju_dba
09-14 03:47 PM
You started working for Company B before or after the H1 transfer receipt notice ?
is LCA for H1 filed after you joined company B - is it legal ?
Its likely possible you may have signed some contract with them in the offer letter, you can keep the communication only thru emails. And ask them for a copy for the basis for their standing.
is LCA for H1 filed after you joined company B - is it legal ?
Its likely possible you may have signed some contract with them in the offer letter, you can keep the communication only thru emails. And ask them for a copy for the basis for their standing.
larryking
10-22 06:55 PM
485Mbe4001 thanks for your reply. If you look at visa bulletin - Priority date for EB 3 is 1 Aug 2002. So from your reply, I gather, that they would look at processing all the applications they have on file from 2002 upto 2007 for "Latvia". And only if they end up with some visa numbers remaining due to lack of applicants, will those number be transferred to other countries.... Right??
2011 alison brie community gif.
Mahatma
08-15 09:56 AM
Welcome VDL Rao and continue to bless us through your wisdom.
Sorry if somebody offended you knowingly or unknowingly.
The best parameter of your recognition is: so many people wait to hear your words.
Please make it a routene to enlighten us at leat every 15 days about your take on USCIS affairs.
I am pledging to double my recurring contribution for next 3 years.
Regards.
Sorry if somebody offended you knowingly or unknowingly.
The best parameter of your recognition is: so many people wait to hear your words.
Please make it a routene to enlighten us at leat every 15 days about your take on USCIS affairs.
I am pledging to double my recurring contribution for next 3 years.
Regards.
more...
IndianIII
10-26 10:47 PM
Me and my wife too got a letter from Kennedy, came to us by US postal mail few days ago. I think we got this mail because of the emails we send to support the comprehensive immigration reform bill.
flexi
04-03 02:41 PM
Hi there,
this is going to be a bit complicated but I'd appreciate any thoughts (or even just the advice to go get a/which lawyer for this one)....
Anyway, I am on an H1B right now but am going to switch jobs. My understanding is that once the new petition is filed I can start working for the second employer. I also would like to travel home during this time... So, here are my questions:
- Can you work for 2 employers at the same time while making the switch?
- How long does it take to file a petition (can i/my new employer do that myself)? If no, any advice on which lawyer to pick??? Anybody heard of Visa PRO?
- Is traveling to my home country OK while filing the petition or is it better to wait until I come back?
Thanks a lot!
this is going to be a bit complicated but I'd appreciate any thoughts (or even just the advice to go get a/which lawyer for this one)....
Anyway, I am on an H1B right now but am going to switch jobs. My understanding is that once the new petition is filed I can start working for the second employer. I also would like to travel home during this time... So, here are my questions:
- Can you work for 2 employers at the same time while making the switch?
- How long does it take to file a petition (can i/my new employer do that myself)? If no, any advice on which lawyer to pick??? Anybody heard of Visa PRO?
- Is traveling to my home country OK while filing the petition or is it better to wait until I come back?
Thanks a lot!
more...
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
2010 alison brie community gif.
snathan
04-15 06:32 PM
Hello,
You have no idea how I am desperate and will appreciate your help.
I basically get a 0 1 visa to work for a first employer. Then I get another job offer and leaved the first employer who revoked my initial visa.
The new employer was supposed to apply for a new visa for me but he never did it. He get debts problems and laid off half of the company including me.
My only visa has really been revoked so I really overstayed 7 months.
Today I got another job offer with a new sponsorship so I saw several attorneys and some of them said nothing was possible to do and some said it was maybe possible to fix the overstay.
Today I have to take a decision, go thought this new job offer and take the risk to never get the visa and then the job - or forget about it, leave the US right now and think about the USA in 3 years.
Please help me - what do you think I should do? Is it really impossible to get an overstay waiver with a new petitioner?
Thanks a lot for your advises
As you overstayed more than 180 days...you might be barred entering the US for 3-10 years. But there is no other option for you..
Good luck
You have no idea how I am desperate and will appreciate your help.
I basically get a 0 1 visa to work for a first employer. Then I get another job offer and leaved the first employer who revoked my initial visa.
The new employer was supposed to apply for a new visa for me but he never did it. He get debts problems and laid off half of the company including me.
My only visa has really been revoked so I really overstayed 7 months.
Today I got another job offer with a new sponsorship so I saw several attorneys and some of them said nothing was possible to do and some said it was maybe possible to fix the overstay.
Today I have to take a decision, go thought this new job offer and take the risk to never get the visa and then the job - or forget about it, leave the US right now and think about the USA in 3 years.
Please help me - what do you think I should do? Is it really impossible to get an overstay waiver with a new petitioner?
Thanks a lot for your advises
As you overstayed more than 180 days...you might be barred entering the US for 3-10 years. But there is no other option for you..
Good luck
more...
kishdam
03-20 12:39 PM
And law firm is right, they protect their clients. Search this forum for I-140 revocation by USCIS. I-140 was approved and then revoked by USCIS itself. In that case AC21 does not help, 485 will be denied.
I didnt understand your point: Is revoking an approved I140 is mandotary for the employer when an employee leaves? Per most lawyers it is not mandotory. Yes ofcourse employers "can" revoke but the question is it necessary for their interests and how?
Revocation of an approved I140 by USCIS is may be for other reasons like incorrect info when its applied or something like that.
I didnt understand your point: Is revoking an approved I140 is mandotary for the employer when an employee leaves? Per most lawyers it is not mandotory. Yes ofcourse employers "can" revoke but the question is it necessary for their interests and how?
Revocation of an approved I140 by USCIS is may be for other reasons like incorrect info when its applied or something like that.
hair alison brie gif. alison brie
sledge_hammer
05-14 04:35 PM
Only 215 votes for EB2 India?
Assuming an equal number for EB3 India, EB2 China, and EB3 China, we have a total of 856 people who have applied for PD?
We have more than 8000 members, so are we to assume the 7000 and odd members are ROW?
Something doesn't add up.
Can ROW people please have a poll for yourselves?
Assuming an equal number for EB3 India, EB2 China, and EB3 China, we have a total of 856 people who have applied for PD?
We have more than 8000 members, so are we to assume the 7000 and odd members are ROW?
Something doesn't add up.
Can ROW people please have a poll for yourselves?
more...
iviviv
11-01 09:34 PM
refile labor.
hot alison brie community gif.
unchew
06-06 05:20 PM
aaawww... none of mine :( I guess I'll have to support other fellows!
more...
house alison brie gif. alison brie
vik352
12-03 01:21 PM
My wife is not H4, she is working on EAD and we applied her I-485 last July. She has to travel to India for an emegency. We applied for AP last month, have the receipt but it is not approved. Is it okay if she travels to India without AP approval? I will be here and I can take her approved AP when I go there after two months.
I heard that if she travels without AP, her I-485 is considered abonded. Is this true? Can we apply for her H4 (as I am still on H1). Any advice on how to get her back?
Thanks!
I heard that if she travels without AP, her I-485 is considered abonded. Is this true? Can we apply for her H4 (as I am still on H1). Any advice on how to get her back?
Thanks!
tattoo alison brie gif community.
Harivinder
11-20 12:08 PM
I think the Core team should try to contact her ASAP to make her aware of your situation. Her schedule will me more tight after January, and it might we very very difficult to get her attention for few months after that.
more...
pictures annie edison alison brie gif.
immi_seeker
10-02 10:10 AM
you could try getting a letter from university that you had completed all the requirements for your degree in 2000 but your degree was formally awarded in 2002
dresses alison brie community zombie gif. alison brie community zombie
snathan
04-22 08:24 PM
I am employeed in IT consultancy, and wants to change my employement as a permenent employee of the client.
When i told this to my employeer he is telling me that he can file a lawsuite against my Client(New Employeer) on the bases of Small Business Administantion laws, stated below
Although the contract does not specifically state that the client cannot hire the contractor (you) on a permanent job, it also does not state that the client can. Current Employeer comes under the category of the 'Small Business Administration' under the State and the Federal Governments. Both governments fully support the growth and looks after the interests of small businesses in the country. They have always done it and are even more supportive lately as a result of the struggle small businesses are undergoing in these bad economic times. I have been advised by the company attorney that I contracted you to the client purely on professional and ethical grounds for the benefit of Current Employeer business. If a giant company like Client just takes you away to their advantage, it may not be looked upon favorably by a small business court.
Below is what is in the contract between my Employeer and Client.
1. This agreement is for the sole purposes of providing the services of the Contractor�s employee XXX to (Client).
2. Contractor will be an independent contractor of Company and will work on a Client assignment.
3. Company will pay $XX.00 per hour to Contractor for all the hours of work and expenses approved by Client.
4. All time and expenses should be entered into client�s system and should be approved by the concerned manager or project manager.
5 Company will not pay contractor for any time and expenses not authorized and not approved by Client.
6. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the quality of work performed.
7. Payment terms shall be XX days net and will be made on a bi-weekly basis.
8. The start date and the length of assignment will be determined by Client, and Company shall let the Contractor know in writing before the date on which the consultant starts working for the Client.
9. Contractor reserves the right to offer consultant�s services to other clients until such time the Company and the Contractor executes this agreement as well as a project work order.
10. This is the only agreement between the Contractor and the Company. Changes can be made in writing only and have to be signed by both parties to be effective.
11. This agreement is subject to the laws of the State of Texas.
12. Either party can terminate this contract by giving 2 week�s written notice, via email or physical mail. The notifying party must obtain proof of delivery of such notification to the other party.
Can any one tell if there is any possibility of that
It seems he is trying to scare you...pay few hundered dollars to an attorney and check.
When i told this to my employeer he is telling me that he can file a lawsuite against my Client(New Employeer) on the bases of Small Business Administantion laws, stated below
Although the contract does not specifically state that the client cannot hire the contractor (you) on a permanent job, it also does not state that the client can. Current Employeer comes under the category of the 'Small Business Administration' under the State and the Federal Governments. Both governments fully support the growth and looks after the interests of small businesses in the country. They have always done it and are even more supportive lately as a result of the struggle small businesses are undergoing in these bad economic times. I have been advised by the company attorney that I contracted you to the client purely on professional and ethical grounds for the benefit of Current Employeer business. If a giant company like Client just takes you away to their advantage, it may not be looked upon favorably by a small business court.
Below is what is in the contract between my Employeer and Client.
1. This agreement is for the sole purposes of providing the services of the Contractor�s employee XXX to (Client).
2. Contractor will be an independent contractor of Company and will work on a Client assignment.
3. Company will pay $XX.00 per hour to Contractor for all the hours of work and expenses approved by Client.
4. All time and expenses should be entered into client�s system and should be approved by the concerned manager or project manager.
5 Company will not pay contractor for any time and expenses not authorized and not approved by Client.
6. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the quality of work performed.
7. Payment terms shall be XX days net and will be made on a bi-weekly basis.
8. The start date and the length of assignment will be determined by Client, and Company shall let the Contractor know in writing before the date on which the consultant starts working for the Client.
9. Contractor reserves the right to offer consultant�s services to other clients until such time the Company and the Contractor executes this agreement as well as a project work order.
10. This is the only agreement between the Contractor and the Company. Changes can be made in writing only and have to be signed by both parties to be effective.
11. This agreement is subject to the laws of the State of Texas.
12. Either party can terminate this contract by giving 2 week�s written notice, via email or physical mail. The notifying party must obtain proof of delivery of such notification to the other party.
Can any one tell if there is any possibility of that
It seems he is trying to scare you...pay few hundered dollars to an attorney and check.
more...
makeup makeup alison brie community
hemanth22
07-21 09:24 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
girlfriend Alison Brie stars in NBC#39;s
eb3retro
06-17 04:33 PM
u r right, green for you...
Let's say there is a problem. What can you do to fix it? You want to start GC fresh?
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
Let's say there is a problem. What can you do to fix it? You want to start GC fresh?
Relax... I have seen many people who bought PDs from consultants paying 10k and got GCs too. Don't worry. If you post these kind of threads, it make people waiting for years more frustrating. Be happy for your luck. Go chill. Don't keep saying you are afraid and all.
hairstyles hair alison brie gif. alison
GCBy3000
07-08 03:58 PM
Again he wants his message to be clear. Here in US, Indians means Native Indians. Everyone till now whom I have come across refer to Indain while they speak and that is for Native Indians and not us. Also our motherland INDIA is in south east asia which is why he clearly said EAST INDIANS. So take a dip in cold water and move on.
Can't you see the Gandhi link? Gandhi is East Indian and thats why he might have associated it with East Indian community. Dont harp too much on What Mr Oh wants/thinks.
Can't you see the Gandhi link? Gandhi is East Indian and thats why he might have associated it with East Indian community. Dont harp too much on What Mr Oh wants/thinks.
rimzhim
02-09 04:02 PM
Please keep this thread alive ...
sledge hammer:
can you explain if the new labors being cleared in the BEC centers (approximately 150K are still pending) are from 2001-2003?
In 2003, there should be a demand of 23% of 300K (couting spouses)=69K. Total visas are about 140K per annum. So there should be some movement. i dont understand why there will be no movement.
sledge hammer:
can you explain if the new labors being cleared in the BEC centers (approximately 150K are still pending) are from 2001-2003?
In 2003, there should be a demand of 23% of 300K (couting spouses)=69K. Total visas are about 140K per annum. So there should be some movement. i dont understand why there will be no movement.
sandy_anand
10-25 10:56 PM
Will USCIS release updated Pending I-485 numbers as published that they will do every quarter....
To whom is the question directed? :confused:
To whom is the question directed? :confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment