gc_check
02-21 04:26 PM
Please sing this petition:
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8489276&type=TA (http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8489276&type=TA)
Senate Judiciary Committee to Debate Immigration Reform on March 2!
Urge Committee members to support a realistic, comprehensive solution
On March 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up an immigration reform bill. Enter your zip code in the box, and if your Senator is a member of the Committee, send a letter urging him or her to support a realistic, comprehensive solution that includes a path to permanent legal status for the current undocumented population. We need to let our Senators know that the enforcement-only approach endorsed by the House in December will hurt our communities and compromise our economy but will not fix our broken immigration system.
If your Senators are not members of the Judiciary Committee, you can still send a general letter urging them to support comprehensive immigration reform when the debate reaches the Senate floor. Enter your zip code to take action now!
just signed the document and sent.
Also the below link
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=5183421&type=CO
Admin, Is it possible to have a sepearet tab/page for Pettition and list all of these or similar links, so folks can find them easily and sign.
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8489276&type=TA (http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8489276&type=TA)
Senate Judiciary Committee to Debate Immigration Reform on March 2!
Urge Committee members to support a realistic, comprehensive solution
On March 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up an immigration reform bill. Enter your zip code in the box, and if your Senator is a member of the Committee, send a letter urging him or her to support a realistic, comprehensive solution that includes a path to permanent legal status for the current undocumented population. We need to let our Senators know that the enforcement-only approach endorsed by the House in December will hurt our communities and compromise our economy but will not fix our broken immigration system.
If your Senators are not members of the Judiciary Committee, you can still send a general letter urging them to support comprehensive immigration reform when the debate reaches the Senate floor. Enter your zip code to take action now!
just signed the document and sent.
Also the below link
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=5183421&type=CO
Admin, Is it possible to have a sepearet tab/page for Pettition and list all of these or similar links, so folks can find them easily and sign.
wallpaper Shia LaBeouf handcuffed by
axp817
09-20 04:28 PM
I am not sure what is happening. When I went to USCIS during Infopass, the officer at the time told me that my case will be looked upon when the notice date comes up.
MY priority date is april25 2006 and the notice date was 09/18/2007. I didn't believe him. Even I raised the question in one of the forums and other guys shot me down saying the notice date is not important. But now I got an LUD on 09/19/2007 and that was the reason why I raised this question to you as well as HIINVIN66. I am assuming that the applications are looked upon based on the notice dates. If they under EB2, pre adjudcated and visa numbers availaible, MAY BE MAYBE we get green cards. IF not, We have to keep our fingers crossed. Let see what happens.....
That's been my understanding all along. Applications are approved per the Notice Date, provided the applicant's PD is current. But I know, we've all seen exceptions to that rule. I guess this is more relevant in your case since you're current, but I'm not, so it doesn't really matter too much anyway. I just don't want any RFEs.
MY priority date is april25 2006 and the notice date was 09/18/2007. I didn't believe him. Even I raised the question in one of the forums and other guys shot me down saying the notice date is not important. But now I got an LUD on 09/19/2007 and that was the reason why I raised this question to you as well as HIINVIN66. I am assuming that the applications are looked upon based on the notice dates. If they under EB2, pre adjudcated and visa numbers availaible, MAY BE MAYBE we get green cards. IF not, We have to keep our fingers crossed. Let see what happens.....
That's been my understanding all along. Applications are approved per the Notice Date, provided the applicant's PD is current. But I know, we've all seen exceptions to that rule. I guess this is more relevant in your case since you're current, but I'm not, so it doesn't really matter too much anyway. I just don't want any RFEs.
Devils_Advocate
03-10 09:27 AM
I strongly support this thread and the message. Lets make an action plan how to pursue this.
Devils_Advocate: I know your type. But you must also understand that unless the line in front of you is cleared, you and I will go down the drain. You are talking about EAD. I dont even have that, yet I support this.
Your thinking appears narrow minded. Wake up.
Dont give me that BS ok, if you know my type then i know your "type" as well. FYI i dont have an EAD as yet either, and Mr YOU need to wake up, if you actually think US Govt will skip your full GC step and give you citizenship in this environment where they are deporting valid H1B holders from the POE then my friend you are nothing less than insane, nobody gives a sh*t about us right now, if you're so over your head and fail to realize that then go ahead i wish you all the best.
I sincerely request you to promise us that you will stand for public office when they give you your "expedited citizenship" and change some rules for the benefit of all of us.:)
Devils_Advocate: I know your type. But you must also understand that unless the line in front of you is cleared, you and I will go down the drain. You are talking about EAD. I dont even have that, yet I support this.
Your thinking appears narrow minded. Wake up.
Dont give me that BS ok, if you know my type then i know your "type" as well. FYI i dont have an EAD as yet either, and Mr YOU need to wake up, if you actually think US Govt will skip your full GC step and give you citizenship in this environment where they are deporting valid H1B holders from the POE then my friend you are nothing less than insane, nobody gives a sh*t about us right now, if you're so over your head and fail to realize that then go ahead i wish you all the best.
I sincerely request you to promise us that you will stand for public office when they give you your "expedited citizenship" and change some rules for the benefit of all of us.:)
2011 Shia LaBeouf: No more
gc_chahiye
06-20 09:30 PM
Thanks for posting this I was searching for some advise on this aspect ....
I have one questions based on this comment :
If a person uses one of his I-140s and the adjustment is for some
reason denied, it appears that there is no reason why they can not then
re-apply for adjustment using the other approved I-140 providing all the
requirements are met under the petition.
So lets say Husbands 485 gets deined for some reason and the wife has an approved I 140 but her PD is not current any more, can the substiution still happen or are the couple doomed?
Please respond.
AA
this is what I understand:
the wife can continue on her H1 extensions. The husband can stay until the current H1 expires. For future extensions he will need a fresh PERM/I-140 (since PD is not current).
Might be worth filing separately now, and joining the spouse's petition once its approved. From what I have read so far (CHECK WITH ATTORNEY) you can add your spouse to your I-485 within 180 days of approval, if you were married before it got approved.
I have one questions based on this comment :
If a person uses one of his I-140s and the adjustment is for some
reason denied, it appears that there is no reason why they can not then
re-apply for adjustment using the other approved I-140 providing all the
requirements are met under the petition.
So lets say Husbands 485 gets deined for some reason and the wife has an approved I 140 but her PD is not current any more, can the substiution still happen or are the couple doomed?
Please respond.
AA
this is what I understand:
the wife can continue on her H1 extensions. The husband can stay until the current H1 expires. For future extensions he will need a fresh PERM/I-140 (since PD is not current).
Might be worth filing separately now, and joining the spouse's petition once its approved. From what I have read so far (CHECK WITH ATTORNEY) you can add your spouse to your I-485 within 180 days of approval, if you were married before it got approved.
more...
Alabaman
01-05 10:20 AM
Hello every one,
1. If they are legally here for 10 years (With approved I-140 and waiting for Adjustment of Status without current date).
2. If they have earned full 40 points in Social Security
3. If they have paid the tax continuously for 10 years
4. If they own a house and paying Mortgage (adding weightage to the Economy boost)
and
5. If they do not have any criminal records in these 10 years.
You know some people meet all these conditions with the exception of approved i-40 and don't even have a pending Green Card application because their employers are just waiting for their H1 to be used up and then "kick them out".
I think if you meet all the conditions enumerated above, u should be automatically given a Green Card.
1. If they are legally here for 10 years (With approved I-140 and waiting for Adjustment of Status without current date).
2. If they have earned full 40 points in Social Security
3. If they have paid the tax continuously for 10 years
4. If they own a house and paying Mortgage (adding weightage to the Economy boost)
and
5. If they do not have any criminal records in these 10 years.
You know some people meet all these conditions with the exception of approved i-40 and don't even have a pending Green Card application because their employers are just waiting for their H1 to be used up and then "kick them out".
I think if you meet all the conditions enumerated above, u should be automatically given a Green Card.
amsgc
08-20 11:55 PM
You got it absolutely right.
The only way out is legislation. Even this eb2 trend of approvals will end come october.
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
The only way out is legislation. Even this eb2 trend of approvals will end come october.
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
more...
addsf345
08-27 03:56 PM
I called them. The rep was aware of the Vonage deal and offered only $ 4 rental and 2.9 cent per min to india. So I am also thinking to move to vonage.
I just talked to them. Rep said they can not match vonage offer.... I am already paying teleblend around $16 per month. I see no reason why I should not pay $9 more to Vonage in order to get Unlimited India Calling plan. (As I also spend atlest $20 - 25 on reliance india call additonally.)
any other person there who talked to teleblend?
I just talked to them. Rep said they can not match vonage offer.... I am already paying teleblend around $16 per month. I see no reason why I should not pay $9 more to Vonage in order to get Unlimited India Calling plan. (As I also spend atlest $20 - 25 on reliance india call additonally.)
any other person there who talked to teleblend?
2010 February 7, 2011 shia labeouf
kumar_77
06-29 04:02 PM
We are hearing from multiple sources that, on Monday or Tuesday of next week, State Department plans to issue a revised Visa Bulletin for July 2007. This revised Bulletin would retrogress some or all of the employment-based categories, very likely to the point of unavailable. Reports from AILA members about unusual levels and types of activities by USCIS indicate a particular push to adjudicate employment-based adjustments currently in the pipeline so as to exhaust visa numbers for fiscal year 2007.
This follows the actions of USCIS in June, when it began rejecting EB-3 "Other Worker" adjustment applications even though the Visa Bulletin showed an October 2001 cut-off date, on the basis that the "Other Worker" numbers for the year had been exhausted:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
This follows the actions of USCIS in June, when it began rejecting EB-3 "Other Worker" adjustment applications even though the Visa Bulletin showed an October 2001 cut-off date, on the basis that the "Other Worker" numbers for the year had been exhausted:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
more...
akhilmahajan
05-16 02:36 PM
Yes there is a clause. So i think that covers us consultants.
Thanks.
Thanks.
hair Shia LaBeouf handcuffed after
mail2me_Ds
10-01 01:37 PM
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
Thank you,
Srini
more...
Saralayar
01-06 11:56 AM
NKR .. you know what it is all about..
Looks like all these guys are newbies and do not know the process.
People who stayed long time or having awareness know the GC/citizenship
process.
I do not say we can not do anything. But has to be a bit practical & plausible.
Friend,
Do not under estimate others by your views. I am not a newbee to this forum. All others who are giving their valid comments are also not. If you do not like this, please stay away from this thread and concentrate on the threads which are interested to you.
Looks like all these guys are newbies and do not know the process.
People who stayed long time or having awareness know the GC/citizenship
process.
I do not say we can not do anything. But has to be a bit practical & plausible.
Friend,
Do not under estimate others by your views. I am not a newbee to this forum. All others who are giving their valid comments are also not. If you do not like this, please stay away from this thread and concentrate on the threads which are interested to you.
hot Shia LaBeouf Handcuffed After
arkrish68
09-20 09:59 PM
I did sent an email to NSC Follow and got the following message on last Thursday:
"Your case is currently with an officer. You may sign up to have case status updates emailed to you at USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov). Please note that it may take 2-3 days for your case status to be updated after a decision is made on your case."
Did anyone get similar response from NSC.
I am not sure when the officer will make the decision :confused: Still waiting for the magic approval email.
"Your case is currently with an officer. You may sign up to have case status updates emailed to you at USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov). Please note that it may take 2-3 days for your case status to be updated after a decision is made on your case."
Did anyone get similar response from NSC.
I am not sure when the officer will make the decision :confused: Still waiting for the magic approval email.
more...
house Shia LaBeouf
puddonhead
08-28 11:55 PM
My point is not everyone wud then leave Vonage and move to another service , thats how Vonage wud gain, again are u sure u read the complete fine print :P
Look up Bait and Switch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch). If vonage intends to suddenly switch their offerings after gaining customers through misleading ad - then it fits the definition of Bait and Switch - which is clearly illegal in US.
So even if you leave aside the bad reputation from such a maneuver (which, in itself would be huge since their target consumer base is clearly immigrants - most of whom are savvy consumers) - Vonage may stand to lose a lot from legal fees and penalties if they try to pull such a trick. Class actions are not fun in US.
Look up Bait and Switch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch). If vonage intends to suddenly switch their offerings after gaining customers through misleading ad - then it fits the definition of Bait and Switch - which is clearly illegal in US.
So even if you leave aside the bad reputation from such a maneuver (which, in itself would be huge since their target consumer base is clearly immigrants - most of whom are savvy consumers) - Vonage may stand to lose a lot from legal fees and penalties if they try to pull such a trick. Class actions are not fun in US.
tattoo Shia LaBeouf handcuffed by
DallasBlue
09-27 02:18 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_chrono.shtml
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/mandamus-jurisdiction9-24-07%20PA.pdf
1. What are the general arguments that the government makes to dismiss a mandamus/APA case for lack of jurisdiction?
The government�s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The government generally makes some combination of the following four arguments, all of which center on alleged agency discretion with respect to adjudication of adjustment applications:
� That USCIS does not have a duty to adjudicate an adjustment application and therefore an essential element of the mandamus claim is missing;
� That the pace of adjudication of an adjustment application is discretionary and therefore not subject to mandamus relief;
� That adjudication of adjustment applications is committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to APA relief; and
� That 8 U.S.C. � 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which limits judicial review over certain discretionary issues in immigration cases, bars review of these mandamus and APA cases.
2. In responding to a motion to dismiss, can I argue that at least some of the issues raised by the government are not jurisdictional?
Yes. An initial response to a government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is to question whether, in fact, the government has raised a jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court has distinguished between jurisdiction � which is the court�s power to hear the case � and the sufficiency of a valid cause of action. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1988); see also Ahmed v. DHS, 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing between the court�s power to adjudicate the case, which is jurisdictional, and the court�s power to grant relief, which is not jurisdictional).
The failure to state a valid cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). The Supreme Court has made clear that:
�jurisdiction � is not defeated � by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.� Rather, the district court has jurisdiction if �the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the [ ] laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another ��
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. at 89 (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682, 685). Thus, one court has held that in resolving whether mandamus jurisdiction is present in an immigration case, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true (unless patently frivolous) to avoid �tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.� Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-387.
Applying these principles, the Seventh Circuit held in Ahmed that the question of whether a statute imposed a �duty� on the government for purposes of mandamus relief was not a jurisdictional question. As the court explained:
[T]he district court has jurisdiction under � 1361 [the mandamus statute] to determine whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief have been satisfied: does the plaintiff have a clear right to the relief sought; does the defendant have a duty to perform the act in question; and is there no other adequate remedy available. � A conclusion that any one of those prerequisites is missing should lead the district court to deny the petition, not [for lack of jurisdiction], but because the plaintiff has not demonstrated an entitlement to this form of extraordinary relief.
Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386-87.
Thus, where the government claims that jurisdiction is lacking because a prerequisite to mandamus is missing, the plaintiff can respond by arguing that this is not a jurisdictional question and cannot lead to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Most likely, you also will want to address the substance of the challenge, also, as an alternative way to dispute the government�s motion. See, e.g., � 3, below.
more...
pictures Shia LaBeouf handcuffed by
punjabi77
11-20 10:31 PM
When you buy a home you sign a contract saying you will pay the loan amount at the end of the loan term with interest. There was a commitment made. And you are saying people who walk away without fulfilling their obligation are smart? Fool!
And who do you think is footing the bill for bailing out those banks? its you and me! You are not only not honest and ethical, you must be really dumb if you think you are not going to be paying for the mistakes of people like punjabi when they "walk away" from their homes!
I was asking for Ideas.. it is not just Kumar or some more people giving an idea that one should leave the house if the value of the house has gone down and now you have to move because of ur job and it is hard selling ur house where u may have to bear a loss ..
I already had conversation with american people ( not any desi's) in my office and they also had the same opinion as to leave a house if u have to leave because of job..
U tell me how wise it is to give a loan to a person without a down payment..The reason i said that other people are stupid is because.. i took an ARM loan of 5 years,, where i knew that i am not going to live in the house for more than 3 years and will later sell it..and there are people who knew that they are going to stay in the same house for more than their ARM period.. but didnt realize that they wont be able to make payment once the rate is re-adjusted.. i am calling those people's decision as stupid..
about me making a bad decision about buying a house.. well not 2 years ago..
i can sell the house for a loss of may be 20,000.. but why should i pay that money from my pocket.. i can keep that in my savings account and use it in my bad time..
And who do you think is footing the bill for bailing out those banks? its you and me! You are not only not honest and ethical, you must be really dumb if you think you are not going to be paying for the mistakes of people like punjabi when they "walk away" from their homes!
I was asking for Ideas.. it is not just Kumar or some more people giving an idea that one should leave the house if the value of the house has gone down and now you have to move because of ur job and it is hard selling ur house where u may have to bear a loss ..
I already had conversation with american people ( not any desi's) in my office and they also had the same opinion as to leave a house if u have to leave because of job..
U tell me how wise it is to give a loan to a person without a down payment..The reason i said that other people are stupid is because.. i took an ARM loan of 5 years,, where i knew that i am not going to live in the house for more than 3 years and will later sell it..and there are people who knew that they are going to stay in the same house for more than their ARM period.. but didnt realize that they wont be able to make payment once the rate is re-adjusted.. i am calling those people's decision as stupid..
about me making a bad decision about buying a house.. well not 2 years ago..
i can sell the house for a loss of may be 20,000.. but why should i pay that money from my pocket.. i can keep that in my savings account and use it in my bad time..
dresses 2010 Shia LaBeouf Rumored
sri1309
09-11 07:44 PM
How do I start a new thread,
Please help,
Thanks,
Sri.
Please help,
Thanks,
Sri.
more...
makeup 2010 hot Shia LaBeouf may love
snathan
04-01 03:51 PM
Wait a minute, how was this India EB2 case even allowed to file I-485 when that PD has never been current? The lawyer alleges that it has been pending for several years.
Does this "fee bill" have nothing to do with 485 filing? Is it just plain wrong or am I missing something obvious here?
Perhaps he meant September 2006.
This is not I-485 and its a CP case...
Does this "fee bill" have nothing to do with 485 filing? Is it just plain wrong or am I missing something obvious here?
Perhaps he meant September 2006.
This is not I-485 and its a CP case...
girlfriend 2010 images Shia LaBeouf and
amoljak
07-13 09:08 AM
How about we create a video. Take parts of this (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=89349) from the daily show. Take parts from the 60 minutes and read out from the NY Times article etc.
Then post it as a reply to every Lou Dobbs video posted on you-tube.
If somebody who has video editing/advertising/movie making skills is willing to take on this project I can definitely contribute with fact check and some money if needed.
Then post it as a reply to every Lou Dobbs video posted on you-tube.
If somebody who has video editing/advertising/movie making skills is willing to take on this project I can definitely contribute with fact check and some money if needed.
hairstyles Shia LaBeouf was handcuffed
pappu
08-19 03:11 PM
Here is some information nixstor dug up.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/fprequest.htm
One can get FBI Identification Record for $18. However some more research needs to be done about what is covered here. Obviously, one cannot get sensitive data analysis here that is done by name checks.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/fprequest.htm
One can get FBI Identification Record for $18. However some more research needs to be done about what is covered here. Obviously, one cannot get sensitive data analysis here that is done by name checks.
jsb
09-20 04:00 PM
USCIS has to work in FIFO process not RIRO(Random In Random Out)... So they can't send Receipt Notice to Aug 17th filer and then look for July 2nd filer. I sent my concern to congressmen?
:)
I fully agree that USCIS should work FIFO, but "should" does not make that happen. Clearly USCIS is not equipped for FIFI when truck loads of applications arrive. We may complain now, but I believe we should give them additional 10 days they need (to make it 90 days). I am equally worried about my July 2 filing. Nevertheless, I wish and hope the congressman's intervention helps.
:)
I fully agree that USCIS should work FIFO, but "should" does not make that happen. Clearly USCIS is not equipped for FIFI when truck loads of applications arrive. We may complain now, but I believe we should give them additional 10 days they need (to make it 90 days). I am equally worried about my July 2 filing. Nevertheless, I wish and hope the congressman's intervention helps.
seekerofpeace
10-06 04:34 PM
guys,
I replied to the PMs abd as req I sent the letter sample that I sent to Janet N. Kewlchap and fatjoe I didn't get ur email ids......
You can get my letter from caliguy or gbof I sent them my letter too.
YES I DID APPROACH CIS OMBUDSMan
Regards,
SoP
I replied to the PMs abd as req I sent the letter sample that I sent to Janet N. Kewlchap and fatjoe I didn't get ur email ids......
You can get my letter from caliguy or gbof I sent them my letter too.
YES I DID APPROACH CIS OMBUDSMan
Regards,
SoP
No comments:
Post a Comment