grinch
03-19 02:58 PM
Move this to Completed Battles?
wallpaper 3D Nature
desidude
09-26 11:47 AM
I just sent an email to the editor... hope these mails open their eyes and they repost the correct article... :D
chanduv23
09-28 09:59 AM
The topic is to discuss the pros and cons. Thanks for all your excellent perspectives. Lets keep this discussion going.
It is very obvious that America is still the best place in the world.
300k green card petitions in July itself says how much people want to be here.
But when it comes to supporting our cause, many people just back out.
I do not want to deviate from the topic, but it will be great if people put their prespectives. So lets keep the discussion going
It is very obvious that America is still the best place in the world.
300k green card petitions in July itself says how much people want to be here.
But when it comes to supporting our cause, many people just back out.
I do not want to deviate from the topic, but it will be great if people put their prespectives. So lets keep the discussion going
2011 wallpapers nature 3d.
srikondoji
09-19 09:10 AM
Forget about what the congressmen, congresswomen, staff members thought about legal immigration. After 4 successful meetings and one of them went way ahead of 30 minute meeting to 50 minutes, we made them understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration. They have given us the hope that something will come up in the defence bill and they are discussing this RIGHT NOW. They did mention this as a HOT BUTTON issue but most likely touch upon least controvercial issues. Also there are plans of breaking up CIR bill into several bills and get them passed.
Overall it was a wonderful experience and it was worth attending and taking that walk with placards.
I felt i was on vacation.:D
Overall it was a wonderful experience and it was worth attending and taking that walk with placards.
I felt i was on vacation.:D
more...
gc28262
06-10 11:06 PM
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
breddy2000
06-13 12:37 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/13/MNG88QE8HV1.DTL&type=politics
more...
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
2010 wallpapers for desktop nature
boreal
12-28 02:36 PM
Yes this is correct. If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 is pending for 180 days, the employer cannot revoke your I-140 unless there is fraud in getting the I-140. If you have done joint filing of the two, if you get your I-140 within 6 months of the joint filing, you can change employers immediately after that. Of course, you can't just go to any employer; it has a to be a similar job.
welcome back qplearn :-)
welcome back qplearn :-)
more...
yawl
07-16 05:13 PM
they are shameless liars and racists
hair Colors of nature - 3d, blue,
alex99
04-08 09:05 AM
Thanks for your response BharatPremi .
more...
justAnotherFile
12-30 05:25 PM
this is mostly a san-diego base community not sure how popular it is in other cities.
http://www.sasural.com/san_diego/classifieds/counseling/view/?10841
http://www.sasural.com/san_diego/classifieds/counseling/view/?10841
hot Nature 3D Wallpaper
GCAmigo
03-09 01:28 PM
9 years and counting.
Came here on H1 in early'99.. stopped counting and it doesn't hurt much now!
~GCA
Came here on H1 in early'99.. stopped counting and it doesn't hurt much now!
~GCA
more...
house Wallpaper image: Unspecified
xela
03-19 10:33 AM
I assume there are more people like me out there that originally filed in 2003 or 2002 for ROW EB3 and then there came Perm
Since nobody had touched my 2003 file (backlog), my lawyer advised me that PERM would be a good way to go, it also would give me a chance to file with a new job descroption that fit my by now different position.
Bad thing was that she did not advise me to recapture my 2003 date but rather kept both applications in the running saying that we could cancel the 2003 when they finally got to it, which was June 2007 and at that point I could file in July for 485 with the Perm. Now my 2003 case was a regular one so we would have had to redo the hiring we did already for the perm.
I have this feeling there were many older backlogged cases that people ended up cancelling last year since their PERM ones are further along and they did not want to go through any more hiring processes or lawyers payments. Or because they gave up?
Since nobody had touched my 2003 file (backlog), my lawyer advised me that PERM would be a good way to go, it also would give me a chance to file with a new job descroption that fit my by now different position.
Bad thing was that she did not advise me to recapture my 2003 date but rather kept both applications in the running saying that we could cancel the 2003 when they finally got to it, which was June 2007 and at that point I could file in July for 485 with the Perm. Now my 2003 case was a regular one so we would have had to redo the hiring we did already for the perm.
I have this feeling there were many older backlogged cases that people ended up cancelling last year since their PERM ones are further along and they did not want to go through any more hiring processes or lawyers payments. Or because they gave up?
tattoo 3D-Nature-Wallpapers-3
jayleno
10-15 03:31 PM
Buddy did you even read what I said???
Looks like you have a plan here. Yep.. lets go ahead and irritate the hell out of USCIS and every agency out there.
I'm out of here guys
All the best..
Looks like you have a plan here. Yep.. lets go ahead and irritate the hell out of USCIS and every agency out there.
I'm out of here guys
All the best..
more...
pictures Nature Art 3D
uma001
03-18 03:36 PM
Finally, labor filed on March 11.Unfortunately labor process stalled from March 1. Badluck still continues
dresses wallpapers of nature 3d.
rck4evr
09-10 02:25 PM
They just started talking about immigration. I can read the name clearly but I think its Zoe Lofgren. She is talking about a lady who was deported because of immigration issues.
more...
makeup desktop wallpaper nature 3d.
pappu
12-27 08:56 AM
Here is the link where I posted in Chinese
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Immigration&gid=14675155&ftype=0&dingflag=1e link where I posted in Chinese
Thank you very much. pls help us further by posting in various other chineese websites. We want this organization to have more members from other nationalities.
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Immigration&gid=14675155&ftype=0&dingflag=1e link where I posted in Chinese
Thank you very much. pls help us further by posting in various other chineese websites. We want this organization to have more members from other nationalities.
girlfriend wallpapers of nature 3d.
mahujam
10-15 05:09 PM
So if I need a copy of my LCA/I-140, and I file a FOIA request, does that go in a different queue ?
hairstyles Nature Planet Wallpaper
grinch
02-16 09:34 PM
I tend to sterr away from nurbs and use polygons exclusively...most 3d packages now (max, maya, xsi, lightwave, etc.) have really improved upon polygonal modeling, having added features such as subdivision surfaces (or sub'd's). This is great for any type of model, whether it be architectural or organic. Some people argue that Sub D's have rendered nurbs obsolete (no pun intended). I personally use XSI, but this is a new standard modeling method that can be applied to almost any program. Google the term, and see if there are any good tuts out there for your program.
In a nutshell, Sub D's allow you to work on a low density object, while in real-time, a virtual high resolution copy of that object is updated. The beauty of this lies in the ability to create organic nurbslike objects) with very little work, with even more accurate results than what can be achieved with nurbs. On the flipside, almost all architectural/structural modeling should be built with polys in the first place. I hope that helps, and if you need any more pointers about Sub D's, let me know.
Ah I understand. I mean, I try using polugons for more basic modeling, but you see, my father is product designer, (uses alias studio 9x) and uses only NURBS. So when he actually has time, he'll expplain nurbs and whatnot...
But I understand, and more tips would be Oh so great!
In a nutshell, Sub D's allow you to work on a low density object, while in real-time, a virtual high resolution copy of that object is updated. The beauty of this lies in the ability to create organic nurbslike objects) with very little work, with even more accurate results than what can be achieved with nurbs. On the flipside, almost all architectural/structural modeling should be built with polys in the first place. I hope that helps, and if you need any more pointers about Sub D's, let me know.
Ah I understand. I mean, I try using polugons for more basic modeling, but you see, my father is product designer, (uses alias studio 9x) and uses only NURBS. So when he actually has time, he'll expplain nurbs and whatnot...
But I understand, and more tips would be Oh so great!
jetflyer
08-10 12:28 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR07.shtm
see table 6 in that link
Thanks VDLRAO.
I looked at 2008 data from same source and surprised to see 70046 approvals for 2008-EB2.
Does that means there are not many old cases in line ahead of us?
Source link: DHS | Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2008 (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm)
check for table 6
see table 6 in that link
Thanks VDLRAO.
I looked at 2008 data from same source and surprised to see 70046 approvals for 2008-EB2.
Does that means there are not many old cases in line ahead of us?
Source link: DHS | Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2008 (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm)
check for table 6
chnaveen
01-16 03:32 PM
signed up for $20 per month though paypal.
No comments:
Post a Comment