nojoke
10-20 11:55 AM
He doesn't compare with Mccain on any of the issues except being able to talk. He spends more money running negative ads than Mccain. Then he says, john, 100% of your ads are negative where as only 50% of mine are negative. Which is true but if you dig further Mccain is spending 1bout 50Mil on negative ads where as Obama is spending 80Mil. Though he is correct in his percentages statement,is he really correct?
Any time any question is raised , call them slimy is another strategy of Obama. He did it with Clintons and he is doing with Mccain.
Give me an ad like "he is palling around with ...". Or "he is teaching sex for babies..." or..
I can go on. Obama has highlighted healthcare policy differences. That is not negative ad. The only negative ad I have seen is " he is erratic.."
Any time any question is raised , call them slimy is another strategy of Obama. He did it with Clintons and he is doing with Mccain.
Give me an ad like "he is palling around with ...". Or "he is teaching sex for babies..." or..
I can go on. Obama has highlighted healthcare policy differences. That is not negative ad. The only negative ad I have seen is " he is erratic.."
wallpaper heidi montag scars life and
Rajeev
12-14 01:59 PM
I am from Park Ridge NJ. I will join the conference today.
nixstor
07-04 09:25 PM
nixstor,
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
First, with out name check cleared by FBI, no 485 will be approved. Assiging visa number to a 485 appliction initally, nothing to do with name check. If the applicant is threat to the security of the country, his/her 485 will be denied and they will take back the already assigned number. Both are two different issues.
Another myth: USCIS processed 60,000 485 in June. It is wrong. They processed 60,000 485 over the period of 6 months to 5 years. And they just approved in June, based on earlier processing.
Well, Thats what I have said before as well. Its like setting the order card flag to "yes" on 60K cases with older PD's. I do not know from where Jay Solomon got the tip off about lapse of name checks, unless they are trying to make this a big issue through all possible means. There have been stories flying around that they by passed on security checks, which I thought your original post conveyed. Most of the 485's they approved have been the one's with PD's from 2003 and 2004 initially. If there are a few from the pile that were of later PD's, I don't think its a big issue. The lack of communication and implementation/interpretation at their whims and fancies has resulted in the situation at hand for every one involved in the chain. I am very very positive that the OB's office has nothing do with this and USCIS is not worried about the postmortem conducted by OB.
2011 No.6 Heidi Montag - Montag#39;s
joydiptac
02-19 02:22 PM
Guys, this looks good. It is NOT for illegal aliens. Paragraphs (c) and (d) state that the alien must be admissible as an immigrant (i.e. not have broken the law by being an illegal), read paragraph (d) here:
"(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status."
Read the "or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section"....so, anyone who broke the law by entering the country illegally would NOT be eligible.
So, stop sending those letters opposing this bill, and instead let's support it!!
Totally agree with you. All opposed are not getting the point that they do not stand to loose either way. Hope they come to their senses. Anyhow if nothing happens they will be waiting way more than 5 years. This can only reduce the backlogs. Think with a clear mind. You might have a fast car but you can't go fast if the freeway is clogged. THink!
"(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status."
Read the "or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section"....so, anyone who broke the law by entering the country illegally would NOT be eligible.
So, stop sending those letters opposing this bill, and instead let's support it!!
Totally agree with you. All opposed are not getting the point that they do not stand to loose either way. Hope they come to their senses. Anyhow if nothing happens they will be waiting way more than 5 years. This can only reduce the backlogs. Think with a clear mind. You might have a fast car but you can't go fast if the freeway is clogged. THink!
more...
desi3933
01-30 02:35 PM
I dont get it, u r a EB3- india (ur profile says that) with SEp 05 PD and you got an RFE on 485? Cos, i know uscis did not even touch eb3 india with any PD of even 2002. something is not right?
Incorrect! This is just a myth. I-485 RFE can be issued and it can be denied when PD is not current.
Read on my post on same thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=313977&postcount=14
Incorrect! This is just a myth. I-485 RFE can be issued and it can be denied when PD is not current.
Read on my post on same thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=313977&postcount=14
frostrated
09-10 02:54 PM
My PD is March 2010 EB2 so i'm not even in this race yet but help me in understanding one thing.
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
smuggymba
what happened to your earlier PD. I think it was in mid 2004 or so, correct?
Was EB3 current in July 2007? If yes, I'm assuming atleast 95% EB3 folks have EAD and their spouse can work. The really big problem in post 2007 EB3.
Since dates were current in July 2007, Eb2 and Eb3 can atleast enjoy EAD/spouse working benefits. Why do ppl complain when they have EAD etc whose PD is before 2007.
smuggymba
what happened to your earlier PD. I think it was in mid 2004 or so, correct?
more...
chintu25
09-10 11:01 AM
Recess till 1 . 00
2010 Heidi Montag on her 10
kph
07-17 09:56 AM
If they have the webfaxes ready, why can't we all open up a user there, write our own contents and send it to Senators, as if NumberUSA supports only legal immigration?
more...
kumar1
12-10 02:02 PM
There used to be a guy called VLDRAO.....self proclaimed DOS visa bulletin expert. Where is he these days? I would love to hear from him.
VLDRAO......save us!!!!!
VLDRAO......save us!!!!!
hair heidi montag heidi montag 2011
snakesrocks
09-10 06:16 PM
Hey Yall,
I just called the House Judiciary Committee to inquire about the webcast link not working and the reason sited was that "thats due to the hearing postponed until tomorrow".
So, no more hearing for the day and it resumes tomorrow. I did forget to ask for what time it starts, may be someone else can check on it.
The House Judiciary Committee today completed mark up of four immigration bills:
H.R. 6020 would provide immigration benefits for immigrant soldiers and their families; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. Mac Thornberry R-TX)
H.R. 5882 would recapture employment-based and family-sponsored immigrant visas lost to bureaucratic delays; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-WI)
H.R. 5924 would provide 20,000 employment-based visas per year for three years specifically for nurses; (Rep. Robert Wexler, D-FL and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-WI)
HR 5950 would ensure basic medical care for immigration detainees; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-FL)
These bills now must await determinations by the Rules Committee as to how much debate will be allowed and whether floor amendments will be allowed, and if so , how many.
There is no assurance that any of these bills will make it to the floor of the House for a vote. If one or more of them should pass, the Senate would have to act very quickly as there are no parallel Senate measures pending.
While this is a positive step forward, the odds remain heavily against passage of any of these as "stand alone" legislation this year.
__________________
I just called the House Judiciary Committee to inquire about the webcast link not working and the reason sited was that "thats due to the hearing postponed until tomorrow".
So, no more hearing for the day and it resumes tomorrow. I did forget to ask for what time it starts, may be someone else can check on it.
The House Judiciary Committee today completed mark up of four immigration bills:
H.R. 6020 would provide immigration benefits for immigrant soldiers and their families; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. Mac Thornberry R-TX)
H.R. 5882 would recapture employment-based and family-sponsored immigrant visas lost to bureaucratic delays; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-WI)
H.R. 5924 would provide 20,000 employment-based visas per year for three years specifically for nurses; (Rep. Robert Wexler, D-FL and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-WI)
HR 5950 would ensure basic medical care for immigration detainees; (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA and Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-FL)
These bills now must await determinations by the Rules Committee as to how much debate will be allowed and whether floor amendments will be allowed, and if so , how many.
There is no assurance that any of these bills will make it to the floor of the House for a vote. If one or more of them should pass, the Senate would have to act very quickly as there are no parallel Senate measures pending.
While this is a positive step forward, the odds remain heavily against passage of any of these as "stand alone" legislation this year.
__________________
more...
mpadapa
09-26 09:25 AM
This is CNN at its best.. Twist the facts to drum up their own agenda
IV needs to contact the editor and educate him on immigration issues..
Oh My God, CNN is screwing us in different way now. They are telling american people the Rally last week at SC was for increse in H1B and not for Incresed GCs.
I am getting freakled out by such American politics. I thought USA is different than INDIA atleast in this regard.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
IV needs to contact the editor and educate him on immigration issues..
Oh My God, CNN is screwing us in different way now. They are telling american people the Rally last week at SC was for increse in H1B and not for Incresed GCs.
I am getting freakled out by such American politics. I thought USA is different than INDIA atleast in this regard.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
hot Heidi Montag Plastic Surgery
desi3933
03-17 07:36 AM
Hello Desi,
.....
......
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
India 6672 10124 2306
China 4999 3046 1027
S Korea 2311 4991 4001
Philippines 524 1853 5540
Mexico 2010 922 3745
All visa numbers allocated to South Korea are against EB visa numbers.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
.....
......
This is from April Visa Bulletin , according to this S korea got 14,211 visas from FB ( spill over from FB - EB) then dont you think the total EB visas issued in 2009 should be around 150000 instead of 141000....
I am little confused...
your comment will be greatly appreciated ;)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
India 6672 10124 2306
China 4999 3046 1027
S Korea 2311 4991 4001
Philippines 524 1853 5540
Mexico 2010 922 3745
All visa numbers allocated to South Korea are against EB visa numbers.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
house heidi montag scars
CSPAvictim
07-09 07:17 PM
I'm not sure I totally understand what you said, but
a. The 27% limitation doesn't apply to the last quarter(July,August, Sept)
b. However, June falls in the third quarter for which the limitation DOES apply.
c.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
Like jonty_11 pointed out, Clause B states that numbers from previous months can be requested. Since it is a grey area, the USCIS may claim that in June (if they used up X number of visas) then (X-14,000) visas were balance numbers from previous months. And yet, it has to account for the 27% limitation for the third quarter.
It'll be interesting to see how USCIS explains itself in court.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
a. The 27% limitation doesn't apply to the last quarter(July,August, Sept)
b. However, June falls in the third quarter for which the limitation DOES apply.
c.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
Like jonty_11 pointed out, Clause B states that numbers from previous months can be requested. Since it is a grey area, the USCIS may claim that in June (if they used up X number of visas) then (X-14,000) visas were balance numbers from previous months. And yet, it has to account for the 27% limitation for the third quarter.
It'll be interesting to see how USCIS explains itself in court.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
tattoo heidi montag surgery scars
karanp25
07-14 06:28 PM
Sorry for asking too many questions. One more thing is when did you get this RFE? I am in similar situation---used AC-21 and applied for EAD back in first week of May 2008, but nothing yet from NSC. I was with my GC sponsoring employer for more than 6 months though and I-140 was approved back in 2005.
I filed EAD renewal on May 28 2008.
Service Center: Nebraska
I filed EAD renewal on May 28 2008.
Service Center: Nebraska
more...
pictures heidi montag plastic
sodh
07-24 10:44 PM
I was on OPT but my I140 has a different number than the one on my OPT.
They are talking about Allien#.
They are talking about Allien#.
dresses tattoo Heidi Montag Reveals
sk2006
05-26 11:39 PM
I am sure they will ask for passport if you only have the I-94. Now if I am required to carry my passport all the time that becomes a real pain particularly if we are on H1/L1 and present for quite a long time.
I 94 issued at POE must be attached to the passport all the times!
I 94 issued at POE must be attached to the passport all the times!
more...
makeup Montag famously underwent over
sheela
10-20 02:00 PM
Someone put red dot on this post saying" "some red for you, so you can get used to it :-)".
This kind of idiots are cowards and b*****ds. They don't have guts to come forward and post their opinions. I rather appreciate persons like BEC .... who came upfront saying they are not comfortable with idea and we could discuss more.
Someone gave me RED with comments " RED for you for giving GREEN" to someone in this thread.Man you are a gone case.... get a life and come-out-of-hiding
This kind of idiots are cowards and b*****ds. They don't have guts to come forward and post their opinions. I rather appreciate persons like BEC .... who came upfront saying they are not comfortable with idea and we could discuss more.
Someone gave me RED with comments " RED for you for giving GREEN" to someone in this thread.Man you are a gone case.... get a life and come-out-of-hiding
girlfriend IS SURGERY
acecupid
07-03 12:36 PM
Would you agree that wives and kids should not be included in the EB GC quota?
If you read my earlier response, you would not be asking me this question. Just to repeat myself, I completely agree with you that wives and kids should not be included to the EB GC quota!
If you read my earlier response, you would not be asking me this question. Just to repeat myself, I completely agree with you that wives and kids should not be included to the EB GC quota!
hairstyles dresses heidi montag 2011
![heidi montag scars pictures. [PHOTOS] Heidi Montag#39;s](http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/sam-lutfi-served.jpg "[PHOTOS] Heidi Montag#39;s")
delhirocks
07-02 10:35 PM
Signed up for $50 monthly contribution today. Contributed since June 1st = $120. Hope this small contribution will be helpful in this endeavor.
theperm
03-15 11:46 PM
instead write long letters to USCIS like IV suggested ! thats the place to vent.
conundrum
10-17 11:36 AM
Faxed and mailed!
0 comments:
Post a Comment