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 the Los Angeles Dodgers
garika
07-10 12:00 AM
Don't know if anyone noticed but Mr. Emilio's statement nowhere indicates any acknowledgement of the hardships caused by the fiasco. If he (and USCIS) knows about "flowers", I am sure USCIS knows about the scramble, hardships and frustration caused by the fiasco. A simple acknowledgement through something like " ....while we regret unintended consequences of following our internal procedures, we have made arrangements to forward the flowers to ..." would have demonstrated leadership or honesty of intent which I guess is in short supply
I think he is trying to say if anybody needs flowers its our men in uniform and not us (USCIS). I hope I am wrong but thats my perspective. Have sent the flowers anyway ;)
I think he is trying to say if anybody needs flowers its our men in uniform and not us (USCIS). I hope I am wrong but thats my perspective. Have sent the flowers anyway ;)
logiclife
07-09 07:01 PM
Everyone, please use this thread for directions and SEND FLOWERS NOW (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6191)if you havent already done that.
The more the number, the more the media attention. Trust, me, the more media attention this gets, the more likely are chances of getting heard in congress.
The objective here was never to melt Gonzalez's heart with flowers. The media attention is precious and only YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE by sending flowers.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6191
The more the number, the more the media attention. Trust, me, the more media attention this gets, the more likely are chances of getting heard in congress.
The objective here was never to melt Gonzalez's heart with flowers. The media attention is precious and only YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE by sending flowers.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6191
2011 Los Angeles Dodgers Kirk
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
more...
letstalklc
09-04 02:49 PM
I hate to play "who winks first" game with teleblend. They told that they would come up with similar india plan but not providing any details.
May be now I should switch to vonage or Lingo. One factor in favor of vonage is: I get two months free with referral and one year contract rather than 2 years with Lingo.
As per one my close friend, lingo CS is not very good. Vonage is still better than Lingo.
However here is my question.
The acutal cost of Vonage with unlimited india calling is $31 - $32 per month due to taxes, misc charges etc.
WHAT would be ACTUAL COST OF LINGO per month? any approximation?
Any one who uses lingo? Please advice... How much money do Lingo charges over & above regular monthly charges?
I used to be a vonage user and Vonage was horrible as they were trying as much hard to charge the MAX to the customer in extra MISC charges.
So far they havent provided any link from LINGO.COM home page, even the link what I posted got it from my friend........we didnt know at this moment how much taxes gonna be...
It's 2 years agreement and it's killing part....
I have no idea about customer service or call quality....
If any body has exp...please share for other customers who are willing to sign will be healpfull...
May be now I should switch to vonage or Lingo. One factor in favor of vonage is: I get two months free with referral and one year contract rather than 2 years with Lingo.
As per one my close friend, lingo CS is not very good. Vonage is still better than Lingo.
However here is my question.
The acutal cost of Vonage with unlimited india calling is $31 - $32 per month due to taxes, misc charges etc.
WHAT would be ACTUAL COST OF LINGO per month? any approximation?
Any one who uses lingo? Please advice... How much money do Lingo charges over & above regular monthly charges?
I used to be a vonage user and Vonage was horrible as they were trying as much hard to charge the MAX to the customer in extra MISC charges.
So far they havent provided any link from LINGO.COM home page, even the link what I posted got it from my friend........we didnt know at this moment how much taxes gonna be...
It's 2 years agreement and it's killing part....
I have no idea about customer service or call quality....
If any body has exp...please share for other customers who are willing to sign will be healpfull...
bomber
06-29 06:12 PM
My $0.02. This could be a pre-emptive measure on the part of AILA. There must have been some talk at the state department of mid-month regression. This might be a strategy to scotch that. Raise a ruckus and send a message that we are prepared to file a law suit. Who knows? We are mere pawns in this grand game. Whatever happens, I hope people keep some perspective and not lose sleep over this.
- Sri
Good reasoning here. I truly hope it's true and USCIS realizes what they are planning to do..
- Sri
Good reasoning here. I truly hope it's true and USCIS realizes what they are planning to do..
more...
imneedy
05-16 02:33 PM
Now as per my lawyer's advice probably we will need to change her status back to H4.
Do you know how much time it will take to get that status change? What if your PD is no longer current?
Do you know how much time it will take to get that status change? What if your PD is no longer current?
2010 Cheap Los Angeles Dodgers
gc_chahiye
06-29 04:36 PM
DOS has to be utterly dumb, insane and ludacris....
what makes you think they cant blame USCIS statistics for this? USCIS gave us wrong stats, we made it current, then they said that no, they have enough visa numbers.
If its written into law that DOS can only issue VB once per month, and cannot update it during the month, they cannot do a damn thing.
its not written into law that they cant update it mid-month. They are allowed by law to update it whenever they want.
what makes you think they cant blame USCIS statistics for this? USCIS gave us wrong stats, we made it current, then they said that no, they have enough visa numbers.
If its written into law that DOS can only issue VB once per month, and cannot update it during the month, they cannot do a damn thing.
its not written into law that they cant update it mid-month. They are allowed by law to update it whenever they want.
more...
saatiish
09-28 12:17 PM
I have taken an infopass tomorrow to get the I-551 stamp on my passport. Once that is done I will be mailing out the form I-90 for replacement.
What is this I-551 stamp ? Is stamping that mandatory ? What kind of documents do you need while you go for this stamping ?
If one does not plan on travelling until we receive the physical Green Card - would we still have to do this stamping ?
What is this I-551 stamp ? Is stamping that mandatory ? What kind of documents do you need while you go for this stamping ?
If one does not plan on travelling until we receive the physical Green Card - would we still have to do this stamping ?
hair San Diego Padres v Los Angeles
usertt123
02-15 12:08 PM
Hi abuddyz ,
I am also in the same boat.mine interview was also on 11th feb in mumbai and VO told me that she is not able to verify my data in the system.she told me I have to look for an email which I will receive in 5-7 days and she returned my pp, env, 221(g) letter and also wrote PIMS on my DS 156 form. she asked me now not to come again to consulate as everything is done once I receive that email just submit PP, envelope, 221(g) form , email to VFS and they will get my visa stamped in 2-3 business days.just keeping looking for the email she said two three times.Also "Not in" is written on my envlopes.
Let me know once you receive an email , i will also update once i receive the same.Good Luck!!!
I am also in the same boat.mine interview was also on 11th feb in mumbai and VO told me that she is not able to verify my data in the system.she told me I have to look for an email which I will receive in 5-7 days and she returned my pp, env, 221(g) letter and also wrote PIMS on my DS 156 form. she asked me now not to come again to consulate as everything is done once I receive that email just submit PP, envelope, 221(g) form , email to VFS and they will get my visa stamped in 2-3 business days.just keeping looking for the email she said two three times.Also "Not in" is written on my envlopes.
Let me know once you receive an email , i will also update once i receive the same.Good Luck!!!
more...
dontcareanymore
01-09 04:32 PM
Counting time after I140 approval towards citizenship proposal is already on our table for things to consider as a campaign. For Campaigns like this, we will need massive support than what we currently have. Even recent greencard holders can benefit from it.
So the first step before we undertake any big project is to get more membership base.
So let us first figure out ways in which we can get more people involved on IV. Without massive participation no campaign, letter/lobby/phonecall etc will work. We need to really go out of our way and spread the word around so that everyone that is stuck in this immigration mess can join this movement.
I know IV is just for employment based, but I believe other categories of people also are victims of "Adjustment Of Status" delays and they will and can benefit from this proposal. I guess a broad based coalition is possible. There are people with political muscle that benefit from this development (Latino Votes).
Is it a good idea to reach out to other immigrant groups ?
Just my 2 cents.
So the first step before we undertake any big project is to get more membership base.
So let us first figure out ways in which we can get more people involved on IV. Without massive participation no campaign, letter/lobby/phonecall etc will work. We need to really go out of our way and spread the word around so that everyone that is stuck in this immigration mess can join this movement.
I know IV is just for employment based, but I believe other categories of people also are victims of "Adjustment Of Status" delays and they will and can benefit from this proposal. I guess a broad based coalition is possible. There are people with political muscle that benefit from this development (Latino Votes).
Is it a good idea to reach out to other immigrant groups ?
Just my 2 cents.
hot Los Angeles Dodgers Stadium
STAmisha
06-29 03:47 PM
lOOKS LIKE IT. He tells something sensational and back tracks it
more...
house Free los angeles dodgers
deba
01-24 02:53 PM
Anyone in my situation? Thanks again.
Travelling via London Gatwick and Dubai to India and back. No airport change required during transit. Using AP, visa expired. I have a valid Canada PR card.
According to UK embassy US GC and Canada PR card holders do not need transit for direct airside transit. Does anyone have any experience in this situation? Please post.
Travelling via London Gatwick and Dubai to India and back. No airport change required during transit. Using AP, visa expired. I have a valid Canada PR card.
According to UK embassy US GC and Canada PR card holders do not need transit for direct airside transit. Does anyone have any experience in this situation? Please post.
tattoo Classic Los Angeles Dodgers
malibuguy007
09-09 05:33 PM
Only 6 pages so far - we should be at 60!!!
more...
pictures Crooks amp; Castles LA Dodgers T-
Libra
07-09 08:26 PM
How did he came to know about this, where as many big media heads are unaware of this........any idea?
dresses Los Angeles Dodgers
pappu
11-06 03:28 PM
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
more...
makeup Houston Astros v Los Angeles
little_willy
08-20 10:46 PM
With the earlier method or the current method, EB3-I will always end up last. Vertically EB3-ROW gets the excess visas (old method), horizontally EB2-I gets the excess visas (new method). So, either way EB3-I won't benefit, the only solace being that with the current system atleast our EB2-I friends are getting their freedom faster.
For us, visa recapture or other legislative changes are the only relief.
BTW, my PD is June 2003, EB3-I
For us, visa recapture or other legislative changes are the only relief.
BTW, my PD is June 2003, EB3-I
girlfriend MLB Los Angeles Dodgers #5
babu123
03-29 02:40 PM
My priority Date is EB2 May 2006. I will be current if the dates got moved.
I will be out of the country for the entire month of May.
Please let me know if it is acceptable to be out of the country during 485 approval.
Also please let me know what I need to do at the port of entry.
I will be out of the country for the entire month of May.
Please let me know if it is acceptable to be out of the country during 485 approval.
Also please let me know what I need to do at the port of entry.
hairstyles dresses Los Angeles Dodgers
H1B-GC
09-23 04:01 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/2nd%20Level%20%28Left%20Nav%20Parents%29/Green%20Card%20-%202nd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I-485%20Reports.pdf
FYI :Goto Page 5 for India
Some Greens Please !! :)
FYI :Goto Page 5 for India
Some Greens Please !! :)
gc28262
06-14 08:25 AM
I agree to what you say. The intend of this thred is not to support/oppose the outsourcing/offshoring the jobs. The intent of this thred is the fradulent use of L1s by the offshoring companies.
.................................................. ....................
rsharma, l1fraud,
There is nothing wrong in reporting fraud.
However your argument that you are reporting it since you cannot tolerate fraud isn't that convincing.
If you were always against injustice/lawlessness, you will see a lot of it in your daily life. Do you report or take action against each of those ? I don't think so.
After living in India for long and seeing people put up with all injustice and sometimes doing it themselves, it is hard to believe your argument that you are doing it just for the sake of law.
.................................................. ....................
rsharma, l1fraud,
There is nothing wrong in reporting fraud.
However your argument that you are reporting it since you cannot tolerate fraud isn't that convincing.
If you were always against injustice/lawlessness, you will see a lot of it in your daily life. Do you report or take action against each of those ? I don't think so.
After living in India for long and seeing people put up with all injustice and sometimes doing it themselves, it is hard to believe your argument that you are doing it just for the sake of law.
deba
06-16 12:38 PM
What is this 'Period of stay' form mentioned in the very first post of this thread? This is not the g-325a. What exactly is this form #? What is the url for downloading it? Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment