Legal
05-24 01:57 PM
The way things are, this does not look like the glorious country I dreamed of.
Agree. You are not exaggerating or imagining anything. Rule of law no more , mertocracy no more....
Agree. You are not exaggerating or imagining anything. Rule of law no more , mertocracy no more....
wallpaper Philip#39;s Perodua Kancil
psczd4
12-17 01:52 AM
Thanks pshaikh for your feedbac and ur efforts on creating a thread for tracking..
vsrinir
09-17 01:19 PM
OUR BILL H.R.5882 HAS GOT TO BE APPROVED BY BOTH CONGRESS (HOUSE AND SENATE) BEFORE SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2008 ie., COMING FRIDAY.
THERE WILL BE NO CONGRESS AFTER SEPTEMBER 26TH.
THERE WILL BE NO CONGRESS AFTER SEPTEMBER 26TH.
2011 Perodua Kancil Baru.
manderson
09-14 03:29 PM
I think the best way to approach this thing is to increase visibility of the "American competitiveness challenged" idea. Which is basically - globalization has made it easier for foreign students and high skilled professionals to go to other places, besides the US. This is a long term problem for American competitiveness and immigration laws must be adjusted to solve this� (you see where I am going with this).
Recently a group of influential CEOs pressed lawmakers and the Bush administration on the idea and subsequently several studies/ reports were released (I have attached one such report). Let�s build our case and momentum on this for next year (let�s face it: immigration reforms are dead for the year). I think the IV leadership has a huge opportunity in guiding/ co-ordinating such an effort.
Recently a group of influential CEOs pressed lawmakers and the Bush administration on the idea and subsequently several studies/ reports were released (I have attached one such report). Let�s build our case and momentum on this for next year (let�s face it: immigration reforms are dead for the year). I think the IV leadership has a huge opportunity in guiding/ co-ordinating such an effort.
more...
arunmohan
06-12 03:13 PM
At least we should know that what is cooking inside. Because people are hanging here from 2001, USCIS should let us know how many GC(s) assigned to EB-3 India/ROW in 2008.
I would like to add one more item here but I don't know how many know this fact. I have seen and know that when someone wins a green card from Lottery, USCIS gives GC to all dependent family members of that person and they count one GC but in EB base they count GC for all family member(Primary applicant plus all his/her dependents). I think this is an Unjustice with us. We should raise this issue too.
I would like to add one more item here but I don't know how many know this fact. I have seen and know that when someone wins a green card from Lottery, USCIS gives GC to all dependent family members of that person and they count one GC but in EB base they count GC for all family member(Primary applicant plus all his/her dependents). I think this is an Unjustice with us. We should raise this issue too.
gagbag
07-11 12:53 PM
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0710-lee.shtm
Is Money Behind USCIS Move To Have Department Of State Take Unprecedented Action To "Update" July Visa Chart?
by Alan Lee, Esq.
Was the Department of State's unprecedented action on July 2, 2007, issuing an "Update on July Visa Availability" closing off visa availability for the rest of the fiscal year for employment based cases and essentially gutting its July visa bulletin (which opened the employment based categories EB-1 through EB-3 for adjustment of status applications) all about the money with U.S.C.I.S. in the role of culprit? We believe the answer unfortunately is "yes" and reflects U.S.C.I.S.'s desperate desire to grab its huge future fee increase from individuals that it saw slipping through its fingers. U.S.C.I.S. undoubtedly perceived its expected windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars through its outlandish July 30th increase in fees for petitions and applications (average increase 66%) threatened by the July visa chart which would allow many employment based individuals and their families to beat the fee increases. A typical family of four (husband, wife, child aged 16 and the other 12) applying for adjustment of status currently pays $1,605 to U.S.C.I.S. (including I-140 charge). That same family on and after July 30th would pay $4,105, an increase of $2,500, or 255%. If one multiplies those figures by at least 100,000 ( $250 million difference),[1] one can imagine the explosive temper of top U.S.C.I.S. officials when they saw the Visa Office July chart. U.S.C.I.S. has made no bones that it is depending upon the fee increases to fund its proposed systems and structures for the 21st century.
The Visa Office made it clear through the updating of the visa bulletin that its update was only because of U.S.C.I.S. action using the phrases "The sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month....", and "As a result of this unexpected action....." The Visa Office cited these efforts as resulting in the use of almost 60,000 employment numbers. It is also clear that the Visa Office had no wish to defend U.S.C.I.S. when it issued its update on July 2nd. Whether it retains its stance in the future of washing its hands and pointing the finger at U.S.C.I.S. remains to be seen in light of probable Administration pressure to spin the story in a more positive light to the government as this Administration has exhibited a continual attitude of "soaking" immigrants, legal or otherwise ( $25,000+ for a family of four to immigrate under the recent fallen Senate bill ( See our article, "$10,000 Required For Earned Legalization and Adjustment Under the Secure Borders, Employment Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act", http://www.alanleelaw.com/english/articles/a2007-05-26.htm), which figure was modified from the earlier Administration proposal of $82,000+ ( See our article, "Mr. Lee's Comment to March 28, 2007 White House Immigration Reform Proposal - Z Visas", http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2007,0403.shtm in "LETTERS" section), the passed amendment to S. 1639 raising H-1B surcharge fees to $5,000 on top of the fraud ($500) and filing ($190) fees, and the rapacious July 30th U.S.C.I.S. fee increase). The author recalls his telephone conversation with Charlie Oppenheim, the chief of immigrant visa control and reporting, Visa Office, in December 2004 concerning the 101,000 "pool numbers", in which Mr. Oppenheim gave no credence to U.S.C.I.S. figures that the agency had cleared over 100,000 cases (including dependents) between April and November. (The exact differential was 115,000 cases, a rate of about 16,400 per month). The author has no knowledge of the exact number of cases that U.S.C.I.S. claimed to close in June for the State Department to announce that almost 60,000 employment numbers were used (employment based immigrant visa numbers are also requested by U.S. consulates and embassies), but notes that the vast majority of employment based cases are with aliens in the States who adjust status here rather than consular processing their cases. If U.S.C.I.S. claimed to clear anywhere in the area of 40,000-50,000 cases last month, that number for one month is difficult if not incredulous to believe, and if true would have involved massive shifts of U.S.C.I.S. personnel from other responsibilities to comb through and adjudicate all files of persons eligible to immigrate through employment, or less than careful consideration of the cases. Hopefully the agency was not in such a desperate state as to cut corners to endanger our national security if it was the latter case.
The facts and the legality of U.S.C.I.S.'s actions will undoubtedly be the subject of multiple lawsuits. However this turns out, the agency and the Administration will wind up with less respect than before. This Administration needs all the good publicity that it can muster in light of its unpopular Iraq war and recent actions freeing Scooter Libby (not even Paris Hilton avoided imprisonment) and supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and creating further public mistrust of the justice system even after confirmation that he and other White House aides politicized the selection of United States Attorneys. Unless U.S.C.I.S. and the Visa Office can change course, this episode will unfortunately become a black eye to all parties as further facts emerge in the coming days.
Is Money Behind USCIS Move To Have Department Of State Take Unprecedented Action To "Update" July Visa Chart?
by Alan Lee, Esq.
Was the Department of State's unprecedented action on July 2, 2007, issuing an "Update on July Visa Availability" closing off visa availability for the rest of the fiscal year for employment based cases and essentially gutting its July visa bulletin (which opened the employment based categories EB-1 through EB-3 for adjustment of status applications) all about the money with U.S.C.I.S. in the role of culprit? We believe the answer unfortunately is "yes" and reflects U.S.C.I.S.'s desperate desire to grab its huge future fee increase from individuals that it saw slipping through its fingers. U.S.C.I.S. undoubtedly perceived its expected windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars through its outlandish July 30th increase in fees for petitions and applications (average increase 66%) threatened by the July visa chart which would allow many employment based individuals and their families to beat the fee increases. A typical family of four (husband, wife, child aged 16 and the other 12) applying for adjustment of status currently pays $1,605 to U.S.C.I.S. (including I-140 charge). That same family on and after July 30th would pay $4,105, an increase of $2,500, or 255%. If one multiplies those figures by at least 100,000 ( $250 million difference),[1] one can imagine the explosive temper of top U.S.C.I.S. officials when they saw the Visa Office July chart. U.S.C.I.S. has made no bones that it is depending upon the fee increases to fund its proposed systems and structures for the 21st century.
The Visa Office made it clear through the updating of the visa bulletin that its update was only because of U.S.C.I.S. action using the phrases "The sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month....", and "As a result of this unexpected action....." The Visa Office cited these efforts as resulting in the use of almost 60,000 employment numbers. It is also clear that the Visa Office had no wish to defend U.S.C.I.S. when it issued its update on July 2nd. Whether it retains its stance in the future of washing its hands and pointing the finger at U.S.C.I.S. remains to be seen in light of probable Administration pressure to spin the story in a more positive light to the government as this Administration has exhibited a continual attitude of "soaking" immigrants, legal or otherwise ( $25,000+ for a family of four to immigrate under the recent fallen Senate bill ( See our article, "$10,000 Required For Earned Legalization and Adjustment Under the Secure Borders, Employment Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act", http://www.alanleelaw.com/english/articles/a2007-05-26.htm), which figure was modified from the earlier Administration proposal of $82,000+ ( See our article, "Mr. Lee's Comment to March 28, 2007 White House Immigration Reform Proposal - Z Visas", http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2007,0403.shtm in "LETTERS" section), the passed amendment to S. 1639 raising H-1B surcharge fees to $5,000 on top of the fraud ($500) and filing ($190) fees, and the rapacious July 30th U.S.C.I.S. fee increase). The author recalls his telephone conversation with Charlie Oppenheim, the chief of immigrant visa control and reporting, Visa Office, in December 2004 concerning the 101,000 "pool numbers", in which Mr. Oppenheim gave no credence to U.S.C.I.S. figures that the agency had cleared over 100,000 cases (including dependents) between April and November. (The exact differential was 115,000 cases, a rate of about 16,400 per month). The author has no knowledge of the exact number of cases that U.S.C.I.S. claimed to close in June for the State Department to announce that almost 60,000 employment numbers were used (employment based immigrant visa numbers are also requested by U.S. consulates and embassies), but notes that the vast majority of employment based cases are with aliens in the States who adjust status here rather than consular processing their cases. If U.S.C.I.S. claimed to clear anywhere in the area of 40,000-50,000 cases last month, that number for one month is difficult if not incredulous to believe, and if true would have involved massive shifts of U.S.C.I.S. personnel from other responsibilities to comb through and adjudicate all files of persons eligible to immigrate through employment, or less than careful consideration of the cases. Hopefully the agency was not in such a desperate state as to cut corners to endanger our national security if it was the latter case.
The facts and the legality of U.S.C.I.S.'s actions will undoubtedly be the subject of multiple lawsuits. However this turns out, the agency and the Administration will wind up with less respect than before. This Administration needs all the good publicity that it can muster in light of its unpopular Iraq war and recent actions freeing Scooter Libby (not even Paris Hilton avoided imprisonment) and supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and creating further public mistrust of the justice system even after confirmation that he and other White House aides politicized the selection of United States Attorneys. Unless U.S.C.I.S. and the Visa Office can change course, this episode will unfortunately become a black eye to all parties as further facts emerge in the coming days.
more...
coopheal
08-13 10:48 AM
Guys,
Now we have poll results. What does these number mean to us? Any action item?
All this poll proves is that new EB3 folks are more vocal. If we really need an action item then start supporting IV with money. Take part in IV action items to call reps.
Face it other option of crying its not fare will not help us.
Now we have poll results. What does these number mean to us? Any action item?
All this poll proves is that new EB3 folks are more vocal. If we really need an action item then start supporting IV with money. Take part in IV action items to call reps.
Face it other option of crying its not fare will not help us.
2010 Update Sticker Baru
PlainSpeak
04-20 02:09 PM
plainspeak saying this.....
Well some one had to corner you when you go rabid.
Some one else in EB2 went the same way a few days back and look how he is now. I am sure you wil go the same route
Well some one had to corner you when you go rabid.
Some one else in EB2 went the same way a few days back and look how he is now. I am sure you wil go the same route
more...
aruny5
06-14 08:17 PM
I called all representative's office. Called all Hispanic causas Representative too. I called Alabama Congressman Jo Bonner's office...........Also called Alabama Senator Jeff Session's and Senator Richard Shelby's office. My wife will call them from different phone.
hair Make: Perodua Model: Kancil
gccovet
06-06 03:10 PM
^
Just finished calling all of them. Was very easy. 9-11 minutes top.
GCCovet
Just finished calling all of them. Was very easy. 9-11 minutes top.
GCCovet
more...
polapragada
04-26 07:24 PM
Thats exactly why we need to be against L1s. There is no numerical limit on them. Companies can pay peanuts as you just wrote.They work here for 1 year and take the job permenantly. They screw the work culture here
What work culture you are talking about.. LOL!!
Its besiness man... you are in a captlist country...
And we are here because of GLOBALIZATION...
Don't be too selfish
What work culture you are talking about.. LOL!!
Its besiness man... you are in a captlist country...
And we are here because of GLOBALIZATION...
Don't be too selfish
hot Perodua Kancil Special Edition
a1b2c3
04-28 04:07 AM
is 2, 3, 4, 5 important for citizenship?
more...
house kancil re Aminar Bos Baru
SGP
04-22 12:10 PM
This is truly unfair where country of birth determined who gets an 'Employment' based greencard before someone else. It can only be fixed by eliminating per-country limits.
Can't agree less with you pappu:)
Can't agree less with you pappu:)
tattoo Item: Perodua Kancil
ps57002
01-30 04:50 PM
done
more...
pictures Perodua Kancil 660 (M) 2006
yabadaba
01-30 04:30 PM
good find..plz vote!!!
dresses Perodua Kancil 660 (M) 2004
naradmuni
09-17 10:41 AM
As Last time they did ...will there be lunch recess around 11:30am?????
They need to eat
They need to eat
more...
makeup Kancil baru convert turbo
GCwaitforever
03-13 09:59 AM
Defintely good news. Now that namecheck problem is gone, we see bit of movement.
girlfriend The Perodua Kancil (also known
seekerofpeace
09-15 09:14 PM
What works for someone may not work for us. VXG and others were lucky we are not as simple as that which does not mean that we left any stone unturned...it just doesn't work that way.....but again will keep on trying...
has anybody tried calling USCIS as the proxy applicant..I mean has anyone as a primary called USCIS for their dependent....the reason I am asking is I need to do that....I am sure there is no "sex" in the file and there is no way for them knowing that I am the primary applicant or not.
SoP
has anybody tried calling USCIS as the proxy applicant..I mean has anyone as a primary called USCIS for their dependent....the reason I am asking is I need to do that....I am sure there is no "sex" in the file and there is no way for them knowing that I am the primary applicant or not.
SoP
hairstyles PERODUA KANCIL EX 1.
mpadapa
05-23 03:45 PM
Well Rep Lofgren is one of the two lawmakers in the House who have background in immig. issues (she was an immig. attorney).
If she doesn't have an obligation to solve immig. issue who else will have? It is her expertise and she want to solve the problem. Give her a chance, by supporting her effort on the 3 bills.
WHY is she backing the bill..what is her motivation? or did she just decide to do a gandhi on us all?
> i am not berating anyone for that matter!
When lawmakers support certain bills..its because of the interst groups that back them..not their inner calling!
"If that is the logic then why do you think that lawmakers will work on "immigration" bills. After all the "immigration" bills only benefit folks who don't vote immediately. "
If she doesn't have an obligation to solve immig. issue who else will have? It is her expertise and she want to solve the problem. Give her a chance, by supporting her effort on the 3 bills.
WHY is she backing the bill..what is her motivation? or did she just decide to do a gandhi on us all?
> i am not berating anyone for that matter!
When lawmakers support certain bills..its because of the interst groups that back them..not their inner calling!
"If that is the logic then why do you think that lawmakers will work on "immigration" bills. After all the "immigration" bills only benefit folks who don't vote immediately. "
hpandey
06-12 10:25 AM
If I were in your place, I would not spend money to hire my own attorney- not yet. I would let the insurance attorney handle the initial few months, and only after things start happening, I'd think about paying an attorney myself. Meanwhile, use this interim period to look for a very good attorney- meet with a couple of them and decide which one would you choose, if you had to. Personal liability defense is handled best by firms specialized in tort defense (eg. who defend medical malpractise suits), and NOT by trial lawyers who are mostly experienced with plaintiff's cases.
Another thing, since YOU were the one who seems to have experienced most injuries in the accident, didn't you get letters from trial lawyers offering to sue the other folks and ask for damages (since THEY were at least 20% responsible for your injuries)? Such trial lawyers do not take any money from you upfront- they only take a % of the money recovered. This might make things too messy for you to handle- but give it a thought; sometimes offense is the best defence.
I agree.. you should be suing the other party in front of you for injuries since they were the ones who stopped and as the person said - offense is the best defense .
If I remember correctly the first car in front of you had already collided with the car number 2 and hence all the accidents. I don't know how they can put you at fault . So let the lawyers handle it and go all the way .
Best of luck.
Another thing, since YOU were the one who seems to have experienced most injuries in the accident, didn't you get letters from trial lawyers offering to sue the other folks and ask for damages (since THEY were at least 20% responsible for your injuries)? Such trial lawyers do not take any money from you upfront- they only take a % of the money recovered. This might make things too messy for you to handle- but give it a thought; sometimes offense is the best defence.
I agree.. you should be suing the other party in front of you for injuries since they were the ones who stopped and as the person said - offense is the best defense .
If I remember correctly the first car in front of you had already collided with the car number 2 and hence all the accidents. I don't know how they can put you at fault . So let the lawyers handle it and go all the way .
Best of luck.
natrajs
07-02 02:32 PM
I think we should also hear from people who have taken action and what their experience was. This may give ideas to others.
I have taken my Ex - employer to DOL and USCIS and I was successful getting my money back.
If you go with lawsuit then it becomes partially a Civil case rather than criminal offense.
If any one needs info how to proceed send me a PM
I have taken my Ex - employer to DOL and USCIS and I was successful getting my money back.
If you go with lawsuit then it becomes partially a Civil case rather than criminal offense.
If any one needs info how to proceed send me a PM