san3297
11-09 08:05 PM
I filled for H1 for my wife through a company. We received an RFE requesting for original degree certificates along with some other docs. My concern is do i need to send all the orginal certificates of her or just transcripts attested by registrar is fine. If i send originals how are they going to send me back. Please let me if anyone was in this scenario before. This is first time filling of the H1 Petition. I am including the original rfe text related to the certificates.
College/University Transcripts: Submit an original of the beneficiary's college/ university transcripts. Include all courses taken toward the degree.The transcripts must be signed and dated by the person in charge of the records. Additionally both sides of the sealed flap on the outside of the college of universitys envelope must be signed and dated by the person incharge of the records.
Original Documents: Provide the original degree and transcripts the beneficiary receive from Jawarlal Nehru Technological University. Do not send additional photocopies. Do not send an origianl document different than the one from which the photocopies were obtained.
College/University Transcripts: Submit an original of the beneficiary's college/ university transcripts. Include all courses taken toward the degree.The transcripts must be signed and dated by the person in charge of the records. Additionally both sides of the sealed flap on the outside of the college of universitys envelope must be signed and dated by the person incharge of the records.
Original Documents: Provide the original degree and transcripts the beneficiary receive from Jawarlal Nehru Technological University. Do not send additional photocopies. Do not send an origianl document different than the one from which the photocopies were obtained.
wallpaper call of duty black ops emblems
jonty_11
07-16 07:11 PM
Bluez,
How are you planning to get PCC from consulate. I live in colorado and going to SFO would be very expensive as well as time consuming. Do you know how much time consulate would take through mail? I am skeptical whether they would send my passport back by Aug 15 or not as I am planing to leave on Aug 15.
seee SFO website...they issue PCC is upto 45 days, I think...
cgisf.org - even better call them
How are you planning to get PCC from consulate. I live in colorado and going to SFO would be very expensive as well as time consuming. Do you know how much time consulate would take through mail? I am skeptical whether they would send my passport back by Aug 15 or not as I am planing to leave on Aug 15.
seee SFO website...they issue PCC is upto 45 days, I think...
cgisf.org - even better call them
otovarm@hotmail.com
03-03 12:29 PM
Hi everyone, I am seeking some help:
-My wife's Labor Certification was approved on Oct-09-2006
-Priority Date: April-30-2001
We did stay on H1B (wife) and H4 (me) in the US for about 9 years total, we did extend the H1B year by year once the initial 6year period ended (labor was still pending). We left the US on Dec-27-2007 and have been outside the US since. Now we have our new 5year Turist Visa B1/B2.
1st Question:
Can we still apply for next steps towards the GC based on that approved labor cert, even though more than 2 years have passed since it was approved? (I believe next steps are I-140 and 485, right?
If answer is YES, can we go premium processing?
IMPORTANT: One of the partners in the company which filed the labor for her did die about 3 years ago. It seems like a new partner came in but still one of the original partners and the one who was my wife's boss when she was working for the company is still there. We are a little concerned because when we first approached the guy at the company about 2 years ago (when we got the LC approval notice) he told us that they had to restructure the company because of the other partner's death and they decided to change the company's name (slightly) and start all over again. At that time he told us that original company didn't have strong balance sheets, bank balances or tax docs to support the I-140 and that he wasn't sure if the new partner would agreed to sign the petition. He told us to wait 1-2 years and see if he could do it.
When we got that response we decided to leave the country (didn't have other option) and stay outside the country for at least a year to have the option to come again thru H1B with another company. (We also had twin boys - americans - and it has helped us to be in our home country while they were small babies).
Now we want to return to the US but we would like to know if we still have a chance to apply for the I-140 with that company. Anybody has any insights about this? Does it matter that the company changed its original name, even though the person who signed the LC petition would be the same person who signs the I-140 petition?
In the worst case scenario that this guy won't help us signing the I-140, can we apply thru another company under the original approved LC? I guess that if it is possible, then it should be thru a company under similar industry, or located in same region and Job description should match the one in the LC.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and any insights would be greatly appreciated.
-My wife's Labor Certification was approved on Oct-09-2006
-Priority Date: April-30-2001
We did stay on H1B (wife) and H4 (me) in the US for about 9 years total, we did extend the H1B year by year once the initial 6year period ended (labor was still pending). We left the US on Dec-27-2007 and have been outside the US since. Now we have our new 5year Turist Visa B1/B2.
1st Question:
Can we still apply for next steps towards the GC based on that approved labor cert, even though more than 2 years have passed since it was approved? (I believe next steps are I-140 and 485, right?
If answer is YES, can we go premium processing?
IMPORTANT: One of the partners in the company which filed the labor for her did die about 3 years ago. It seems like a new partner came in but still one of the original partners and the one who was my wife's boss when she was working for the company is still there. We are a little concerned because when we first approached the guy at the company about 2 years ago (when we got the LC approval notice) he told us that they had to restructure the company because of the other partner's death and they decided to change the company's name (slightly) and start all over again. At that time he told us that original company didn't have strong balance sheets, bank balances or tax docs to support the I-140 and that he wasn't sure if the new partner would agreed to sign the petition. He told us to wait 1-2 years and see if he could do it.
When we got that response we decided to leave the country (didn't have other option) and stay outside the country for at least a year to have the option to come again thru H1B with another company. (We also had twin boys - americans - and it has helped us to be in our home country while they were small babies).
Now we want to return to the US but we would like to know if we still have a chance to apply for the I-140 with that company. Anybody has any insights about this? Does it matter that the company changed its original name, even though the person who signed the LC petition would be the same person who signs the I-140 petition?
In the worst case scenario that this guy won't help us signing the I-140, can we apply thru another company under the original approved LC? I guess that if it is possible, then it should be thru a company under similar industry, or located in same region and Job description should match the one in the LC.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and any insights would be greatly appreciated.
2011 call of duty black ops
sanjeev.mehra@gmail.com
08-15 08:25 AM
Hi,
If I am working with X company & Y company is ready to file GC.
(Assuming Y has no objections even if I do not join the company at all)
Is it mandatory for the candidate to join company Y at certain stage which has file GC?
I would appreciate your comments.
Regards,
Sanjeev.
If I am working with X company & Y company is ready to file GC.
(Assuming Y has no objections even if I do not join the company at all)
Is it mandatory for the candidate to join company Y at certain stage which has file GC?
I would appreciate your comments.
Regards,
Sanjeev.
more...
harivenkat
05-11 01:06 PM
This is happening right now
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on U.S. citizenship and immigration services. Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services testified before the committee.
C-SPAN Video Player - Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/11/HP/A/32807/Senate+Judiciary+Cmte+Hearing+on+US+Citizenship+an d+Immigration+Services.aspx)
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on U.S. citizenship and immigration services. Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services testified before the committee.
C-SPAN Video Player - Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/11/HP/A/32807/Senate+Judiciary+Cmte+Hearing+on+US+Citizenship+an d+Immigration+Services.aspx)
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
pool_abab
06-16 06:07 PM
Receipt date 5/13 WAC receipt
Card production ordered : 6/16
Card production ordered : 6/16
2010 house Call of Duty Black Ops
gcformeornot
12-14 10:13 AM
RFEs these days? Especialy for I140s?
more...
xela
06-18 07:55 AM
I never saw a change from the April 30th LUD and got the CPO yesterday.
So dont get too concerend if after the receipt notice LUDs you do not see any movement, seems like it goes straight from that to CPO!
Good luck for everyone who is still waiting! :)
So dont get too concerend if after the receipt notice LUDs you do not see any movement, seems like it goes straight from that to CPO!
Good luck for everyone who is still waiting! :)
hair on Call of Duty Black Ops#39;
sheela
08-15 05:51 PM
Couldn't resist opening a new thread and sharing this with fellow IVians.
We got our green cards today. It is actually green (in the back).
Another announcement is that I recently relocated to northern Mississippi. Would like to join up with other state chapter members. I am willing to coordinate with the group in Memphis TN.
Thanks IV. I and my spouse benefited a lot from the July 2007VB and the work IV did concerning it. So, I will do more than just stick around but continue to be active as usual. The system is still broken and we will have to work to fix it.
Congratulation,
You said relocated- Did you invoke AC21 and if so, did you inform
USCIS about your new employer/job? Please, let us know on this
We got our green cards today. It is actually green (in the back).
Another announcement is that I recently relocated to northern Mississippi. Would like to join up with other state chapter members. I am willing to coordinate with the group in Memphis TN.
Thanks IV. I and my spouse benefited a lot from the July 2007VB and the work IV did concerning it. So, I will do more than just stick around but continue to be active as usual. The system is still broken and we will have to work to fix it.
Congratulation,
You said relocated- Did you invoke AC21 and if so, did you inform
USCIS about your new employer/job? Please, let us know on this
more...
sanju
11-25 10:03 PM
i doubt they'll take it on in Spring, with little to no chance of economy recovering by that time (or that whole year) passing an immigration bill will see a major backlash from everyone.
Good intentions but doubt if it will happen
Is it not possible that Immigration reform is part of the economic reform. Say there are 15 million undocumented workers in US. Because they are undocumented over 99% don't pay taxes. On average if each undocumented pays $10,000/year taxes, it comes to additional revenue of $150 billion every year. This may not be enough to cover the cost of economic recovery, but it is still a substantial amount. Likewise, EB green cards could potentially bring in potential real estate buyers, which would help to bring back the economy.
The point is, immigration bill could be part of the economic agenda to revive the economy.
.
Good intentions but doubt if it will happen
Is it not possible that Immigration reform is part of the economic reform. Say there are 15 million undocumented workers in US. Because they are undocumented over 99% don't pay taxes. On average if each undocumented pays $10,000/year taxes, it comes to additional revenue of $150 billion every year. This may not be enough to cover the cost of economic recovery, but it is still a substantial amount. Likewise, EB green cards could potentially bring in potential real estate buyers, which would help to bring back the economy.
The point is, immigration bill could be part of the economic agenda to revive the economy.
.
hot call of duty black ops
ragz4u
02-19 08:12 PM
I want to Thank everyone for turning up for today's meeting, it was a good discussion and I am glad that we got to know each other better.
I am summarizing the things that we discussed and the "Next Steps" that we agreed upon.
These ideas can be applied to any region so any of you guys reading this, feel free to implement them for your region.
This is what we are planning to do in the next few days:
Publicize ImmigrationVoice.org in any/all manner possible within the community to raise awareness about our problems and to persuade more people to join. i.e. place materials in grocery stores, temples, or in other high traffic areas
Always monitor the media for any shred of positive stories about legal immigrants and as we find them, send materials from IV.org to the specific reporter highlighting the problems that we are currenty facing.
Contact all of your respective Congressional representatives and request an In-person meeting in order for us to present our case. If meeting reqeust is denied take names of senior aides and send relevant materials and then follow up to check on progress as to what they are doing about it. Keep bugging them, that is the only way they will respond.
Spread the word to your friends who are still waiting to join us, ask them to contribute to the site or devote their time to this cause. I suggest each of us make a goal of sending an email to atleast 10 people in the next week.
Meet with other resources and networking groups that are sympathetic to our plight (i.e. Indian CEO's council, www.usinpac.com, Indian ambassadaor in DC etc.... ) and ask for their support.
One of the strategic point that was discussed was about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill and I along with some of the other members am of the opinion that this bill is such a behemoth and contains some radical; provisions on illegal immigration which may eventually hurt it and it may even die.
Since some of the relief measure that we are seeking are part of this bill, if it dies we will be hurt as well. We think we need to work with Quinn-Gillespie to strategize about how we can insert (if possible) provisions related to legal immigration to a bill that has a very good chance of passing. i.e. the PACE bill by Senator Pete Domenici - we need to put pressure on him, flood his office with our emails/faxes and also at the same time talk to our lobbyists to insert our provisions in his bill as it is almost guaranteed to pass.
That is all from me for now. We plan to take action and meet again soon.
Anyone with other ideas, suggestions is welcome to post them and we can incorporate them as well.
Thanks Everybody for your support and time.
It is really encouraging to see regional teams take the initiative and continue the good work locally. Cataphract, thanks for updating us on the progress you guys have made. Feel free to email at info@immigrationvoice.org with any concerns you might have/support you need and we'll be glad to help you in any way possible.
Hopefully other teams will take a cue from this and get together for achieving our target.
I am summarizing the things that we discussed and the "Next Steps" that we agreed upon.
These ideas can be applied to any region so any of you guys reading this, feel free to implement them for your region.
This is what we are planning to do in the next few days:
Publicize ImmigrationVoice.org in any/all manner possible within the community to raise awareness about our problems and to persuade more people to join. i.e. place materials in grocery stores, temples, or in other high traffic areas
Always monitor the media for any shred of positive stories about legal immigrants and as we find them, send materials from IV.org to the specific reporter highlighting the problems that we are currenty facing.
Contact all of your respective Congressional representatives and request an In-person meeting in order for us to present our case. If meeting reqeust is denied take names of senior aides and send relevant materials and then follow up to check on progress as to what they are doing about it. Keep bugging them, that is the only way they will respond.
Spread the word to your friends who are still waiting to join us, ask them to contribute to the site or devote their time to this cause. I suggest each of us make a goal of sending an email to atleast 10 people in the next week.
Meet with other resources and networking groups that are sympathetic to our plight (i.e. Indian CEO's council, www.usinpac.com, Indian ambassadaor in DC etc.... ) and ask for their support.
One of the strategic point that was discussed was about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill and I along with some of the other members am of the opinion that this bill is such a behemoth and contains some radical; provisions on illegal immigration which may eventually hurt it and it may even die.
Since some of the relief measure that we are seeking are part of this bill, if it dies we will be hurt as well. We think we need to work with Quinn-Gillespie to strategize about how we can insert (if possible) provisions related to legal immigration to a bill that has a very good chance of passing. i.e. the PACE bill by Senator Pete Domenici - we need to put pressure on him, flood his office with our emails/faxes and also at the same time talk to our lobbyists to insert our provisions in his bill as it is almost guaranteed to pass.
That is all from me for now. We plan to take action and meet again soon.
Anyone with other ideas, suggestions is welcome to post them and we can incorporate them as well.
Thanks Everybody for your support and time.
It is really encouraging to see regional teams take the initiative and continue the good work locally. Cataphract, thanks for updating us on the progress you guys have made. Feel free to email at info@immigrationvoice.org with any concerns you might have/support you need and we'll be glad to help you in any way possible.
Hopefully other teams will take a cue from this and get together for achieving our target.
more...
house call of duty black ops emblems
thomachan72
01-04 12:38 PM
Will take a look once I get home today:):)
tattoo call of duty black ops emblems
lazycis
06-05 10:11 PM
Hello,
I live in Massachusetts, Where should I send my EAD application ( Initial EAD, not renewal). My I-485 is pending with Texas Service Center.
Should I mail the EAD application to the following address:
Texas Service Center
P.O Box 851041
Mesquite, TX
Thank you for letting me know.
USCIS Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
see page 10
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
I live in Massachusetts, Where should I send my EAD application ( Initial EAD, not renewal). My I-485 is pending with Texas Service Center.
Should I mail the EAD application to the following address:
Texas Service Center
P.O Box 851041
Mesquite, TX
Thank you for letting me know.
USCIS Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
see page 10
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
more...
pictures lack ops emblems girl. lack
rongha_2000
07-17 03:55 PM
I am ashamed to read these comments coming from "highly skilled" people. Administrators please take preventive steps. We dont want some sickos malign IV. :mad: :mad:
Murthy is a she...and I would but I'm not single. ;)
Murthy is a she...and I would but I'm not single. ;)
dresses call of duty black ops emblems
RLNY122004
06-15 03:56 PM
Our I485 approved today and officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks. Thanks
more...
makeup call of duty black ops emblems for girls. Call-Of-Duty-Black
Pankaj
04-17 11:04 AM
I would suggest send an email, fax and certified mail asking your salary and give a time of a week.
Fill WH4 form along with copy of H1 approval and submit to the office of DOL where you worked for that period.
Fill WH4 form along with copy of H1 approval and submit to the office of DOL where you worked for that period.
girlfriend house london underground, Call black ops emblems pics. 2011 lack ops emblems
delax
08-06 11:59 AM
It is EB2, labor approval date is my PD - No idea, why profile does not show up.
Wow! Another 2006 approval. Congrats!
Wow! Another 2006 approval. Congrats!
hairstyles call of duty black ops emblems
kisana
04-11 04:27 PM
Can any one who has used e-file , please advice for my last two questions.
GCBALAK
03-18 12:57 AM
I am on an EAD (dependent), as my husband was the primary applicant. He has got his GC and mine got stuck after the July - Aug 2007 fiasco :(.
I want to start a IT company with my friend who is a US Citizen. I know my husband is a sure shot to have the company in his name however, he is in a full-time job.
My questions:
1) Can I start / partner with a friend who is a US Citizen?
2) I am thinking of an LLC. Is that ok? or should it be S-Corp? More reading of S-corp says to be US Citizen or US Permanent Resident so I am more leaning towards LLC. Also there is a provision that we could change LLC to S-corp at a later date (if needed).
3) What should I make sure if I go through the LLC route? - like Designation, Salary that I can take, work for the same company etc
4) Does state make any difference? If so how? I am a PA resident and my friend is from Texas. We are thinking of registering the company in Texas.
5) I got my 2 yr EAD valid till Sep 2010. Is there any special procedure that I need to do or just extend it before it expires.
Any tips / advice from the experts will be highly appreciated.
I want to start a IT company with my friend who is a US Citizen. I know my husband is a sure shot to have the company in his name however, he is in a full-time job.
My questions:
1) Can I start / partner with a friend who is a US Citizen?
2) I am thinking of an LLC. Is that ok? or should it be S-Corp? More reading of S-corp says to be US Citizen or US Permanent Resident so I am more leaning towards LLC. Also there is a provision that we could change LLC to S-corp at a later date (if needed).
3) What should I make sure if I go through the LLC route? - like Designation, Salary that I can take, work for the same company etc
4) Does state make any difference? If so how? I am a PA resident and my friend is from Texas. We are thinking of registering the company in Texas.
5) I got my 2 yr EAD valid till Sep 2010. Is there any special procedure that I need to do or just extend it before it expires.
Any tips / advice from the experts will be highly appreciated.
sagar_nyc
02-10 05:31 PM
My I 140 got approved in 2006. And my lawyer got approval notice. He also gave me copy of it. I just registered my I 140 case number on USCIS site. I was stunned to find out the status that
Current Status: Notice Returned as Undeliverable.
On September 19, 2006, the post office returned the notice we last sent you on this case I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER as undeliverable. This may have serious effects on processing this case. Please call 1-800-375-5283 to update your mailing address for this notice to be re-sent.
I immediately contacted my lawyer. He said that Since He have original approved copy of I140 , I should not worry about it.
I tried even contacting IO. But IO told me that regarding I140 only employer or attorney can call to discuss further. She didn't give me any answers.
Gurus what you think?
Current Status: Notice Returned as Undeliverable.
On September 19, 2006, the post office returned the notice we last sent you on this case I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER as undeliverable. This may have serious effects on processing this case. Please call 1-800-375-5283 to update your mailing address for this notice to be re-sent.
I immediately contacted my lawyer. He said that Since He have original approved copy of I140 , I should not worry about it.
I tried even contacting IO. But IO told me that regarding I140 only employer or attorney can call to discuss further. She didn't give me any answers.
Gurus what you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment