gc_dream07
10-01 02:55 PM
I think if you have I-551 stamped on your passport then you do not need any other document. i-551 is as good as physical green-card. You can carry the approval notice with you. This is my opinion, do no quote on me.
Our cases were approved on Sep 21, 2010. Received approval notices on Sep 25, 2010. But did not get the Cards yet. I am planing to travel next week. So I went to local USCIS office and got the I-551 stamp on my passport. Can you guys suggest me what other documents I need to take along with me if I don't receive the cards by the time I leave. Also pls let me how long will it takes to receive the cards.
Thank you,
Srini
Our cases were approved on Sep 21, 2010. Received approval notices on Sep 25, 2010. But did not get the Cards yet. I am planing to travel next week. So I went to local USCIS office and got the I-551 stamp on my passport. Can you guys suggest me what other documents I need to take along with me if I don't receive the cards by the time I leave. Also pls let me how long will it takes to receive the cards.
Thank you,
Srini
wallpaper kristen stewart bella hair.
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
inderman
10-12 04:55 PM
Is today a holiday for NSC / TSC?
Is that the reason why we cannot reach IO's?
I hope that is the reason...
Is that the reason why we cannot reach IO's?
I hope that is the reason...
2011 hair colour 2011. kristen
Madhuri
10-31 12:23 PM
Mailed all 4 letters.
more...
permfiling
12-15 04:43 PM
NSC sent me a response that my GC got lost in mail as I raised a SR for card. My wife got CPO but I got a letter from USCIS NSC that my card was sent on the same day my I-485 approval notice was sent which I think is some mix up on USCIS and to file I-90 . I got all letters from USCIS but not this one so I called customer service and talked to 2nd level IO who went through my case and said card was never created. She will raise a new SR for that which was on 10/12/2010
Do you guys recommend to send emails to NSC followup?
Do you guys recommend to send emails to NSC followup?
pappu
08-04 06:44 PM
How to Contact USCIS and FBI to Check Case Status
1. USCIS Online Status Check
With a case number, you will be able to see the current status and the last updated date (LUD).
You can set up a profile, including user name and password, and create a portfolio that includes all your immigration cases. Then log on and see the latest updates on all of them, such as I-485, I-140, AP, EAD, spouse’s cases, etc. Another useful feature for this option is that you can set up an email alert to receive automatic updates. Note that if there is a LUD change, but the message remains the same, you will not receive an alert.
2. Call National Customer Service at (800) 375 - 5283
Unfortunately, the customer service representatives don't know much more than what the online system shows. So it is not very helpful in most cases. However, on the phone you may place an inquiry with the service center that is processing your case.
3. Place a USCIS Inquiry
If your case is 30 days outside of the current processing dates, you can call customer service ( 800-375-5283) and place an inquiry. The representative will send an online message to the service center, which then mails you a letter in a few weeks to explain why your case hasn't been adjudicated. Recently, the answer is usually "your case is pending security check" or "your case is still within our processing dates."
4. Talk to a Service Center Representative Directly
Still by calling 800-375-5283, you will hear a long list of options. Choosing the right options will lead you to the service center that is processing your case. Because each case is unique, you need to listen to the options carefully and choose the ones that fit your case.
Even if you reach the center, you may be automatically transferred back to general customer service. But sometimes your call will be picked up at the service center. Explain your situation briefly, be polite but persistent, and ask about your case status. They do know a lot more details about your case, but have been instructed not to reveal much information, especially regarding background checks and FBI name checks.
5. Set up an Infopass Appointment
An infopass allows you to talk to an immigration officer directly, who has access to more information than the online system. So this is a better option to check on case status. An officer would be able to tell you whether your FBI name check has been cleared. This information alone is worth a trip for many.
6. Place a Congressional Inquiry
Writing to your senators and/or house representatives is another good option for people whose cases have been pending for a long time. Go to these websites:
and find the congressional representatives for your region. Write a personalized letter to briefly explain your case details (a copy of your i485 receipt notice would help), mention how long it has been pending, and ask for his or her help to inquire about your case status. If you are stuck in FBI name check, and have completed an FOIPA request, send in the response as well which might help.
Some congressional offices are not willing to contact the FBI directly, some will but only if your case is pending for more than one year, yet some will not even respond to your letter. So your mileage may vary. Also you may have to wait several months to receive a response in the mail, possibly due to the increasing number of letters asking for help.
The FBI has clearly stated that congressional inquiry will not help expedite the name check process. However, due to the lack of communication channels with the FBI, even a confirmation that name check is pending is worth the effort for many people anxiously waiting. Sad, but true.
7. FBI Name Check
The FBI is no longer responding to emails sent to FBINNCP@ic.fbi.gov, so a congressional inquiry or infopass with the USCIS may be the only options.
8. FBI Fingerprint Check
Call the FBI at 304-625-5590, and a representative may be able to tell you when the result was sent back to the USCIS. Since it is usually within 24 - 48 hours, this is only useful to confirm that FP was actually processed.
1. USCIS Online Status Check
With a case number, you will be able to see the current status and the last updated date (LUD).
You can set up a profile, including user name and password, and create a portfolio that includes all your immigration cases. Then log on and see the latest updates on all of them, such as I-485, I-140, AP, EAD, spouse’s cases, etc. Another useful feature for this option is that you can set up an email alert to receive automatic updates. Note that if there is a LUD change, but the message remains the same, you will not receive an alert.
2. Call National Customer Service at (800) 375 - 5283
Unfortunately, the customer service representatives don't know much more than what the online system shows. So it is not very helpful in most cases. However, on the phone you may place an inquiry with the service center that is processing your case.
3. Place a USCIS Inquiry
If your case is 30 days outside of the current processing dates, you can call customer service ( 800-375-5283) and place an inquiry. The representative will send an online message to the service center, which then mails you a letter in a few weeks to explain why your case hasn't been adjudicated. Recently, the answer is usually "your case is pending security check" or "your case is still within our processing dates."
4. Talk to a Service Center Representative Directly
Still by calling 800-375-5283, you will hear a long list of options. Choosing the right options will lead you to the service center that is processing your case. Because each case is unique, you need to listen to the options carefully and choose the ones that fit your case.
Even if you reach the center, you may be automatically transferred back to general customer service. But sometimes your call will be picked up at the service center. Explain your situation briefly, be polite but persistent, and ask about your case status. They do know a lot more details about your case, but have been instructed not to reveal much information, especially regarding background checks and FBI name checks.
5. Set up an Infopass Appointment
An infopass allows you to talk to an immigration officer directly, who has access to more information than the online system. So this is a better option to check on case status. An officer would be able to tell you whether your FBI name check has been cleared. This information alone is worth a trip for many.
6. Place a Congressional Inquiry
Writing to your senators and/or house representatives is another good option for people whose cases have been pending for a long time. Go to these websites:
and find the congressional representatives for your region. Write a personalized letter to briefly explain your case details (a copy of your i485 receipt notice would help), mention how long it has been pending, and ask for his or her help to inquire about your case status. If you are stuck in FBI name check, and have completed an FOIPA request, send in the response as well which might help.
Some congressional offices are not willing to contact the FBI directly, some will but only if your case is pending for more than one year, yet some will not even respond to your letter. So your mileage may vary. Also you may have to wait several months to receive a response in the mail, possibly due to the increasing number of letters asking for help.
The FBI has clearly stated that congressional inquiry will not help expedite the name check process. However, due to the lack of communication channels with the FBI, even a confirmation that name check is pending is worth the effort for many people anxiously waiting. Sad, but true.
7. FBI Name Check
The FBI is no longer responding to emails sent to FBINNCP@ic.fbi.gov, so a congressional inquiry or infopass with the USCIS may be the only options.
8. FBI Fingerprint Check
Call the FBI at 304-625-5590, and a representative may be able to tell you when the result was sent back to the USCIS. Since it is usually within 24 - 48 hours, this is only useful to confirm that FP was actually processed.
more...
trueguy
08-21 12:23 AM
Thanks trueguy!. It took me a while to realize that some people here are trying to misguide and misrepresent. Wish I had not spent so much of my time replying to those inane posts.
There is no basis for Oct PD to be at or near Jun 2007 PD levels, it is only to lull us into inaction. And I would be more than happy to be wrong about this :o
And it looks like some one was asked by their teacher to write imposition... and therefore we are seeing repeat dribble of the same post.
Absolutely, I have seen misleading comments especially from EB2 guys. EB3 have to do something otherwise there is no future for us here. Now EB2 line will never end bcoz all new applications will come as EB2. Hoping for spillover after EB2-I becomes current is just a dream now that never comes true.
There is no basis for Oct PD to be at or near Jun 2007 PD levels, it is only to lull us into inaction. And I would be more than happy to be wrong about this :o
And it looks like some one was asked by their teacher to write imposition... and therefore we are seeing repeat dribble of the same post.
Absolutely, I have seen misleading comments especially from EB2 guys. EB3 have to do something otherwise there is no future for us here. Now EB2 line will never end bcoz all new applications will come as EB2. Hoping for spillover after EB2-I becomes current is just a dream now that never comes true.
2010 images kristen stewart hair
Humhongekamyab
08-25 02:48 PM
Let it be 5000 min/pm. Still, 5000 min/month give about 2.7 hours per day. Talking 2.7 hours to India per 24 hours is unusual for many. I don't even get 30 minutes to talk. Even if we want to talk 2.7 hours you will be distrbing people in India, as they may be watching cricket or Tv serials.:)
Any way, this pan is simply superb compare to the situation before 10 years. Compare to many phone providers/cable compaines, vonage customer service is simply great, at least in my experience.
Ok...the way I see this is 5000min/month at $25 (not adding taxes) is 5 cents a minutes...that is more than what I pay for my calling cards....bottom line....if your monthly calling bill is less than $ 25 there is no reason why you should get Vonage.
Any way, this pan is simply superb compare to the situation before 10 years. Compare to many phone providers/cable compaines, vonage customer service is simply great, at least in my experience.
Ok...the way I see this is 5000min/month at $25 (not adding taxes) is 5 cents a minutes...that is more than what I pay for my calling cards....bottom line....if your monthly calling bill is less than $ 25 there is no reason why you should get Vonage.
more...
willwin
09-16 10:15 AM
PLEASE CALL NOW!!!!
hair kristen stewart hair 2011.
GCVictim
08-24 01:50 PM
I think you need to send an email via vonage account to refer someone and the system automatically gives your account a credit when the other person signs up. Dont know if you can give a phone # and say that MR ABC should get the benefit of 'refer a friend'
You will. Agent will get info. I did last time over the phone and gave my friend reference. then we both got 2 months free.
You will. Agent will get info. I did last time over the phone and gave my friend reference. then we both got 2 months free.
more...
funny
09-15 04:20 PM
having efax will increase the participation for sure..
hot hair Kristen Stewart
sravani
05-17 03:15 PM
I got an RFE asking for my "Education Board Certificate". I was told that it is 10th or 12th pass certificate. Its been a long long time since i passed. Does anyone know or has any experience on getting a duplicate from CBSE Delhi?
Is there any workaround, i have US masters and they still need a 10/12th pass certificate.
I didn't experience getting a duplicate certificate, but I think you can try the following service to get such certificate.
http://yourmaninindia.com/cgi-bin/taskdisplay.cgi?catid=1&subid=4
Is there any workaround, i have US masters and they still need a 10/12th pass certificate.
I didn't experience getting a duplicate certificate, but I think you can try the following service to get such certificate.
http://yourmaninindia.com/cgi-bin/taskdisplay.cgi?catid=1&subid=4
more...
house Kristen Stewart#39;s Hair at
rcr_bulk
08-25 05:29 PM
This is true. Lingo customer service is bad. Now I am stuck with them for 2 years. Rep was rude. Talked to the supervisor. Even he was rude. Asked him to pass me on to his manager. He refused to directly transfer to his manager.
I am even thinking of paying $100 cancellation fee and get off their service.
I am happy that Vonage came up with a good plan.
I don;t mind paying some bucks more for quality service.
I am even thinking of paying $100 cancellation fee and get off their service.
I am happy that Vonage came up with a good plan.
I don;t mind paying some bucks more for quality service.
tattoo images Kristen Stewart Hair
Bpositive
01-26 04:23 PM
Emirates through Dubai.....great food. great entertainment. good price. no transit hassles..
Lufthansa...direct flights. shoddy entertainment. ok food. relaxed on transit visas...
Jet. Have heard great things about it...no direct flights to indian cities..
British airways...rude, obnoxious. please boycott
Lufthansa...direct flights. shoddy entertainment. ok food. relaxed on transit visas...
Jet. Have heard great things about it...no direct flights to indian cities..
British airways...rude, obnoxious. please boycott
more...
pictures Kristen Stewart#39;s French Twist
doshhar
09-24 11:30 PM
add me to the R.Williams list
buckeye98 - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
I am really frustrated now. Whats the use of my doing every effort to make sure my application reaches the first day. Why is USCIS receipting cases from August when so many july 2 filers are still waiting? Should we all send some inquiry into our cases together?
We should start contacting congress man/woman in our area and need to start escalating it. Do we have any other options?
buckeye98 - 2nd July/7:55am/ R.Williams /I140 -NCS/ NO RN NO CC, NO DATA IN SYSTEM
I am really frustrated now. Whats the use of my doing every effort to make sure my application reaches the first day. Why is USCIS receipting cases from August when so many july 2 filers are still waiting? Should we all send some inquiry into our cases together?
We should start contacting congress man/woman in our area and need to start escalating it. Do we have any other options?
dresses 2010 Kristen Stewart Hair 2011
new_horizon
09-09 01:05 PM
I spoke all the the reps that someone posted not on this list.
To add to the list of sponsors/co-sponsors, Congress Debbie Schultz is a co-sponsor for the bill (so don't call asking for support, but you can call to appreciate their efforts).
I think it would be better to keep it brief. They don't have time, and we can't spend lot of time, or else we won't be able to call all of them. It took me 30 minutes to call all of them.
I read somewhere that Steve King is not supportive, infact he's opposed to this bill. So it would be wise not to call his office. I don't he'll change his stance 'coz he's part of numbersusa/other nut cases.
Also note the phone number of Robert Scott is wrong, it shows the phone number of Adam Schiff. I realized only after I called twice. but luckily I realised before I could go through the whole talking points.
Pls everyone call before its too late. we need to get this passed as this is our only hope. PLS CALLLLLLL!!!
To add to the list of sponsors/co-sponsors, Congress Debbie Schultz is a co-sponsor for the bill (so don't call asking for support, but you can call to appreciate their efforts).
I think it would be better to keep it brief. They don't have time, and we can't spend lot of time, or else we won't be able to call all of them. It took me 30 minutes to call all of them.
I read somewhere that Steve King is not supportive, infact he's opposed to this bill. So it would be wise not to call his office. I don't he'll change his stance 'coz he's part of numbersusa/other nut cases.
Also note the phone number of Robert Scott is wrong, it shows the phone number of Adam Schiff. I realized only after I called twice. but luckily I realised before I could go through the whole talking points.
Pls everyone call before its too late. we need to get this passed as this is our only hope. PLS CALLLLLLL!!!
more...
makeup Kristen Stewart Hairstyles
vinicola78
11-06 02:58 PM
I sure hope that it is not a denial. In any case, I am preparing for the worst and trying to save some money to pay the lawyers for an MTR...
girlfriend hair MTV#39;s #39;2011 MTV Movie Awards#39; kristen stewart mtv movie awards
getgreensoon1
03-29 01:00 PM
What are you talking about? this is not a good news, we will decide that after May Visa Bulletin. For now just read that as a publicity stunt from lawyers and forget about it.
MC
Most of these immigration lawyers are having hard time these days and are not making as much money as they once used to. This could very well be a publicity stunt for creating a scene that eb2 is going to move very fast so that more eb3 will work on porting, thereby making big bucks for lawyers. Wait until you get your greencard in hand.
MC
Most of these immigration lawyers are having hard time these days and are not making as much money as they once used to. This could very well be a publicity stunt for creating a scene that eb2 is going to move very fast so that more eb3 will work on porting, thereby making big bucks for lawyers. Wait until you get your greencard in hand.
hairstyles house pictures nicki minaj 2011 mtv kristen stewart mtv movie awards 2011
puddonhead
06-18 11:49 AM
>> Your reasoning is weak. If the same Goldman manager wants to screw you - he won't see if it is recession or not - he will screw you - period.
Well - I am not assuming that the Goldman manager "wants" to screw me/you/anybody.
I am assuming that he is there to do his job at the least cost possible. By introducing costly disruptions - we tilt the balance in favor of porting the entire division out (thereby indirectly screwing ourselves. Note: the Goldman manager is not screwing us - we are indirectly screwing ourselves by bidding up - aka UAW of GM). Since the threshold for outsourcing is quite a bit lower in a recession - I am suggesting that we don't pick this fight right now and wait for a little while.
Well - I am not assuming that the Goldman manager "wants" to screw me/you/anybody.
I am assuming that he is there to do his job at the least cost possible. By introducing costly disruptions - we tilt the balance in favor of porting the entire division out (thereby indirectly screwing ourselves. Note: the Goldman manager is not screwing us - we are indirectly screwing ourselves by bidding up - aka UAW of GM). Since the threshold for outsourcing is quite a bit lower in a recession - I am suggesting that we don't pick this fight right now and wait for a little while.
nousername
03-29 04:53 PM
My attorney originally applied for my labor (regular process) in late spring 2006 but due to another issue we decided to expedite (premium process) in early winter 2006. Question is, is early spring my PD or early winter of 2066? (Sorry don't have the exact dates in front of me).
Thanks.
Thanks.
ItIsNotFunny
11-10 09:40 AM
Bump ^^^^
No comments:
Post a Comment