longq
02-13 02:59 PM
I don't think so. 7% limit has been there for a very long time. Unused visas from prior years for ac21 purposes were still subject to 7% in current year. The 7% rule was unchanged.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
I am not saying 7% is not applicable for recaptured numbers. EB3-ROW was current while EB3-IN,Ch retrogressed in 2005.
Again 7% is not a quota or minimum or maximum. It is a guiding tool to avoid monopoly (not to prevent) for fist two months in a quarter and gave the remaining number to third month. It is not meant for reservation.
As you said Bangaldeshies can not raise flag they as have not consumed 7% quota. Therefore one can not argue that Bangladesh-EB3 should be "current".
At the end, first-come first served should prevails.
It seems that you think that the unused visas from prior year were not subject to 7%. There is nothing of the sort that allows this.
I am not saying 7% is not applicable for recaptured numbers. EB3-ROW was current while EB3-IN,Ch retrogressed in 2005.
Again 7% is not a quota or minimum or maximum. It is a guiding tool to avoid monopoly (not to prevent) for fist two months in a quarter and gave the remaining number to third month. It is not meant for reservation.
As you said Bangaldeshies can not raise flag they as have not consumed 7% quota. Therefore one can not argue that Bangladesh-EB3 should be "current".
At the end, first-come first served should prevails.
wallpaper the 2011 Nissan Rogue
harikris
05-31 01:40 AM
[Hiralal] ... and hence a better bet would be recapture ..
That's a much better suggestion than playing carrot-and-stick on real-estate bargains Mr. Hiralal.
Now, what would really be effective is for our own people that are already naturalized and integrated and assimilated and digested in the US system to stand up for our cause.
Please, do this for us seniors. As citizens and permanent residents, your voice will be effectively heard. Case in point - legislation on re-uniting families. To begin with, family based has nearly 60% more visas than employment based and nearly 80% of the visas available are exempt from per-country limits. And yet, the politicians want to reform family based immigration process because the people at the receiving end are their citizens. There is nothing wrong with it because the wait-time for extended family members are really long too which is a shame. But you see, there are bills that are actively discussed and passed in that category i.e fundamental solutions are being explored.
Why is Mr. Bobby Jindal and likes of him not taking up our cause actively? People use their "humble-background" in campaign times. Why do they fail in holding out a helping hand to people that are stuck in such "humble-background"? Do you see such apathy in other minority communities?
Thanks.
That's a much better suggestion than playing carrot-and-stick on real-estate bargains Mr. Hiralal.
Now, what would really be effective is for our own people that are already naturalized and integrated and assimilated and digested in the US system to stand up for our cause.
Please, do this for us seniors. As citizens and permanent residents, your voice will be effectively heard. Case in point - legislation on re-uniting families. To begin with, family based has nearly 60% more visas than employment based and nearly 80% of the visas available are exempt from per-country limits. And yet, the politicians want to reform family based immigration process because the people at the receiving end are their citizens. There is nothing wrong with it because the wait-time for extended family members are really long too which is a shame. But you see, there are bills that are actively discussed and passed in that category i.e fundamental solutions are being explored.
Why is Mr. Bobby Jindal and likes of him not taking up our cause actively? People use their "humble-background" in campaign times. Why do they fail in holding out a helping hand to people that are stuck in such "humble-background"? Do you see such apathy in other minority communities?
Thanks.
praveenuppaluri
04-01 03:32 PM
Mirage, thanks for the correction..
wondering what he is going to promise to people of Moradabad !?!
Litte correction dude, Hyderabad people know this man from top to bottom, so he's contesting from Moradabad.
wondering what he is going to promise to people of Moradabad !?!
Litte correction dude, Hyderabad people know this man from top to bottom, so he's contesting from Moradabad.
2011 Nissan Rogue 2011 1024x768
nc14
07-03 10:44 PM
GO IV GO!!
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
please DIGG
Thank you
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
please DIGG
Thank you
more...
CADude
04-18 02:49 PM
immigration-law.com
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
sath2000
07-17 04:33 PM
Hi,
Here is my issue regarding the PD.
My Employer applied for labor through RIR under EB2 March6th 2004 which was then transffered to Philadelphia Backlog Center. Our Attorney suggested that we Apply through PERM process and Retain PD from the old case. Converted to PERM and applied on 09/26/2006 which was approved on 12/29/2006 but the letter said that they are not retaining PD from the old application as address is changed. Our employer moved 1 street accross in between these to application in Feb 2006. only street address changed everything including phone number remained same. My attorney said that he talked to the labor department in Chicago telling them that phone number didn't change. They said they will consider it and asked him to send a letter. It has been over 15 months he send the first letter. He said last month he also received a call from chicago office saying that they will take a look at the files.
In the meantime applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in July/Aug 2007. I-140 got approved on 05/28/2008 and got RFE for I-485 on 06/13/2008. responded to RFE and now case process resumed.
At this point I am trying to see if anyone have this kinda of issue and got resolved or there is away to get this resolved.
thank you
Here is my issue regarding the PD.
My Employer applied for labor through RIR under EB2 March6th 2004 which was then transffered to Philadelphia Backlog Center. Our Attorney suggested that we Apply through PERM process and Retain PD from the old case. Converted to PERM and applied on 09/26/2006 which was approved on 12/29/2006 but the letter said that they are not retaining PD from the old application as address is changed. Our employer moved 1 street accross in between these to application in Feb 2006. only street address changed everything including phone number remained same. My attorney said that he talked to the labor department in Chicago telling them that phone number didn't change. They said they will consider it and asked him to send a letter. It has been over 15 months he send the first letter. He said last month he also received a call from chicago office saying that they will take a look at the files.
In the meantime applied for I-140 and I-485 concurrently in July/Aug 2007. I-140 got approved on 05/28/2008 and got RFE for I-485 on 06/13/2008. responded to RFE and now case process resumed.
At this point I am trying to see if anyone have this kinda of issue and got resolved or there is away to get this resolved.
thank you
more...
visves
02-14 07:23 PM
If we increase the number of links from other web-sites, blogs etc to immigrationvoice.com, then immigrationvoice should show up earlier.
If you google retrogression, IV doesn't show up until page 2.
Is there anyway we can change this? So that IV is the first link that shows up? Anyway know about this.
If you google retrogression, IV doesn't show up until page 2.
Is there anyway we can change this? So that IV is the first link that shows up? Anyway know about this.
2010 The new 2011 Nissan Rogue
thecipher5
04-23 12:59 PM
priderock,
There is definately an element of risk and it is high in case of LC substitution. In my case, the LC said that the candidate should have MS and few years of experience and I didn't satisfy all the requirements and eventually got a query from USCIS and rejected the application.
If you can get it approved through a good lawyer like Sheela Murthy or Rajiv Khanna, then you can make a decision.
At times, USCIS doesn't allow to substitute MS degree with experience and it depends on the wording of the LC.
I'd read about this in different forums, talked to lawyers and friends.
Still, you can talk to others who've done it and then make your decision.
-- thecipher5
There is definately an element of risk and it is high in case of LC substitution. In my case, the LC said that the candidate should have MS and few years of experience and I didn't satisfy all the requirements and eventually got a query from USCIS and rejected the application.
If you can get it approved through a good lawyer like Sheela Murthy or Rajiv Khanna, then you can make a decision.
At times, USCIS doesn't allow to substitute MS degree with experience and it depends on the wording of the LC.
I'd read about this in different forums, talked to lawyers and friends.
Still, you can talk to others who've done it and then make your decision.
-- thecipher5
more...
colors
09-06 04:16 PM
Immigrstion attorney,
What is the procedure to update USCIS on any missing documents once we filed our I-485 instead of getting RFE.
Thanks
What is the procedure to update USCIS on any missing documents once we filed our I-485 instead of getting RFE.
Thanks
hair 2011 Nissan Rogue 3 580x385
waiting4gc
02-13 02:12 PM
Again, there are no guarantees which of the 3 will get passed or accepted. 1 & 2 benefit you more than 3. Will be combined effect of those be more than enough to offset 3 (which I doubt will ever happen since that will require a change in law) is up to anyone's imagination.
Will you stop supporting IV which is trying to improve ALL legal immigrants prospects of getting a green card because one item on their agenda MAY DO more harm to you than good is your prerogative.
However, IMHO saying that 3 hurts you and hence you will not support IV is the same as those people who in July were crying because everyone was getting to file 485s and hence would lengthen the GC processing queue. I was in fact not benefiting too much from that but I supported it since having been in the queue for long enough I know how painful it is.
Like lot of other people on this forum said, try to rise above what is GOOD FOR ME and I will only support IV if it does ONLY that. Someday there might be a law that affects you more than the majority and you will need the all legal immigrants voice to help you out.
Is the cumulative effect of all three measures good for me (reduced wait time, or no change in wait time), or bad for me (increased wait time.)?
I read this, and I was referring to this:
So, does recapture and the increase in quota and the removal of the country limits, result in a greater wait time for me, as the comment above seems to imply. It would, if the recapture and the increase are not large enough to offset the effects of the removal of the per-country limit on ROW.
Coz if it does, then I don't have an incentive to support your goals, do I?
Will you stop supporting IV which is trying to improve ALL legal immigrants prospects of getting a green card because one item on their agenda MAY DO more harm to you than good is your prerogative.
However, IMHO saying that 3 hurts you and hence you will not support IV is the same as those people who in July were crying because everyone was getting to file 485s and hence would lengthen the GC processing queue. I was in fact not benefiting too much from that but I supported it since having been in the queue for long enough I know how painful it is.
Like lot of other people on this forum said, try to rise above what is GOOD FOR ME and I will only support IV if it does ONLY that. Someday there might be a law that affects you more than the majority and you will need the all legal immigrants voice to help you out.
Is the cumulative effect of all three measures good for me (reduced wait time, or no change in wait time), or bad for me (increased wait time.)?
I read this, and I was referring to this:
So, does recapture and the increase in quota and the removal of the country limits, result in a greater wait time for me, as the comment above seems to imply. It would, if the recapture and the increase are not large enough to offset the effects of the removal of the per-country limit on ROW.
Coz if it does, then I don't have an incentive to support your goals, do I?
more...
sroyc
02-14 11:59 AM
I was watching an episode of the BBC series - Planet Earth where people involved in the conservation and protection of the tiger and other endangered animals were lamenting about how difficult it is for the intellectuals to convince those living close to these animal habitats to help in conservation when they are not able to feed their children and are affected by the tiger killing farm animals.
This is not exactly similar to the ROW Vs India/China debate. I'm definitely not implying that ROW applicants are not intellectuals. The gist of what I've learnt from that episode was that we cannot push for removal of per country quotas without significantly speeding the processing times for everyone. I have no doubt that the per country quota is unfair to people from countries with large populations simply because we are representing ourselves and not our countries here. (We have been bracketed according to the country of birth in order for USCIS to enforce the current immigration laws.) But at the same time, we'll lose the much required support of ROW members if our approach is to unload a few years of our misery on them.
With so many people stuck in the backlog, we definitely need a one-time fix to flush the queue before we can lobby for removal of per country quotas.
This is not exactly similar to the ROW Vs India/China debate. I'm definitely not implying that ROW applicants are not intellectuals. The gist of what I've learnt from that episode was that we cannot push for removal of per country quotas without significantly speeding the processing times for everyone. I have no doubt that the per country quota is unfair to people from countries with large populations simply because we are representing ourselves and not our countries here. (We have been bracketed according to the country of birth in order for USCIS to enforce the current immigration laws.) But at the same time, we'll lose the much required support of ROW members if our approach is to unload a few years of our misery on them.
With so many people stuck in the backlog, we definitely need a one-time fix to flush the queue before we can lobby for removal of per country quotas.
hot 2011-Nissan-Rogue-backseats
watzgc
07-28 08:45 PM
Dear Sir,
This is my situation
1. Applied for H1B Extension on Jul-10-2007
2. Got RFE on Mar-2008 and replied to RFE on Apr-2008
RFE: 1. client contract 2. last 2 yrs my tax return
3. After Reply to RFE no news from USCIS
4. Applied for Premium processing on Jul-14-2008
5. I485 Pending and having EAD/AP for my family and Jul-09-2008 applied for EAD Renewal
My Questions:
1. Since my H1B expired on Jul-14 What is my status? Can I work till I get my H1B approval?.
2. How can I expedite the H1B Process ? (already upgraded to PP)
3. If I get approval , do I need to go back to home country to get stamping?
Thanks for your time and help.
Regards,
watgc
This is my situation
1. Applied for H1B Extension on Jul-10-2007
2. Got RFE on Mar-2008 and replied to RFE on Apr-2008
RFE: 1. client contract 2. last 2 yrs my tax return
3. After Reply to RFE no news from USCIS
4. Applied for Premium processing on Jul-14-2008
5. I485 Pending and having EAD/AP for my family and Jul-09-2008 applied for EAD Renewal
My Questions:
1. Since my H1B expired on Jul-14 What is my status? Can I work till I get my H1B approval?.
2. How can I expedite the H1B Process ? (already upgraded to PP)
3. If I get approval , do I need to go back to home country to get stamping?
Thanks for your time and help.
Regards,
watgc
more...
house 2011 Nissan Rogue S
garybanz
12-14 02:25 PM
Could you please tell us the problem on this law that can be changed to help us.
Villamonte,
Just so that we can understand the background of your continues opposition to this idea, could you please let us know your country of origin? Also some information about which state chapter you belong to will be great if you don't mind. :)
Thanks.
Villamonte,
Just so that we can understand the background of your continues opposition to this idea, could you please let us know your country of origin? Also some information about which state chapter you belong to will be great if you don't mind. :)
Thanks.
tattoo 2011 Nissan Rogue Crossover
grupak
12-13 03:45 PM
Then fight for changing that constitutinality. Who made it? Why did they make it the way the made it? Slavery was supported legally way back.. If black community might have thought " They do not have a case" as somebody has created the constitution to suit their own need and "within the framework of that legality" "they do not have a case"... then still we may be seeing slaves around.
I understand your point that we are not yet "citizens"... but for many fair practices society must not differentiate.
BharatPremi, as I explained to at0474, I don't see how we can fight a law in a court (maybe we can). If a law is not implemented then we can get justice from the courts.
For changing the law, we as IV lobby congress and meet lawmakers. This is a different issue from the intent of the OP which was to challenge the legality of country quota. Seems like country quota is within the law.
I think even as non-citizens we can meet lawmakers and past experience (not IV related) suggest they will listen.
I understand your point that we are not yet "citizens"... but for many fair practices society must not differentiate.
BharatPremi, as I explained to at0474, I don't see how we can fight a law in a court (maybe we can). If a law is not implemented then we can get justice from the courts.
For changing the law, we as IV lobby congress and meet lawmakers. This is a different issue from the intent of the OP which was to challenge the legality of country quota. Seems like country quota is within the law.
I think even as non-citizens we can meet lawmakers and past experience (not IV related) suggest they will listen.
more...
pictures New Car Release 2011 Nissan
smuggymba
01-14 12:47 PM
First, please stop comparing companies in this thread at least because we are diverting from topic.
I am totally convinced with users like jetflyer, kondur_007 and others that �if it goes smooth then next will be EAD, then I-485 approvals�.
At least this is the time to think beyond boundaries (like EB-3, EB-2, working as FT, working with consulting company, states and countries), if not then don�t distract the efforts.
I agree. This is a bad step by USCIS but as someone mentioned AC21 was also a memo and was put into effect so I'm guessing this memo will do what it's meant to do - bad stuff:( for H1-Bs.
I am totally convinced with users like jetflyer, kondur_007 and others that �if it goes smooth then next will be EAD, then I-485 approvals�.
At least this is the time to think beyond boundaries (like EB-3, EB-2, working as FT, working with consulting company, states and countries), if not then don�t distract the efforts.
I agree. This is a bad step by USCIS but as someone mentioned AC21 was also a memo and was put into effect so I'm guessing this memo will do what it's meant to do - bad stuff:( for H1-Bs.
dresses 2011 Nissan Rogue – Front View
dilipcr
06-11 07:49 PM
"Now with this huge deluge of immigrants, especially from the desi consulting companies, I feel that my quality of life is getting adversely impacted. Do not rush to conclusions that I am anti Indian or anti immigrant. 12 years back when I first got my H1 visa, the requirements to qualify were strict. "
i am not interested in giving red or blue dots but i do hope your citizenship application gets stuck in a processing delay, you too will then realize the implication of your so called Darwinian flush :rolleyes: As they say...when it happens to others its a recession, when it happens to you it turns into a depression...good luck..
I hope your post did not imply that the ones who got GC's were the 'brightest and the best'.
My intention was not to devalue the merits of the incoming batch of immigrants. As I said, around 20% of the group are truly the best and the brightest. This was the case after the dotcom crash and will most likely be the case going forward. We had the same delays, retrogressions , guaranteed employment verification RFEs etc. Immigrationportal.com used to be the immigrationvoice of the times. I do not see much difference for the techies between what was then and what is going on now in terms of delays. I see 2 dramatic changes though
1. People arent patient enough during these times. You would agree to the amount of venting going on in this site.
2. The incessant dumping of low cost of L1s by the outsourcing companies.
If you think through deeply, the second point is what is causing all the heartburn among the people waiting for their GCs. Believe me. All these extrapolated timelines that scream that getting GC today would take 10 years are all bogus. These headlines were the same then too. I can confidently say that the GC process will move fast within a year's time once the layoffs stop. It is just that can you survive till the govt policies become more rational ? That is where the argument about the best and the brightest come into place. If you are one, you would survive this and you will get your GC within 3 years. Honestly, my ntention was to calm the nerves of those people genuinely talented and waiting for their GCs. If I had missed out on that count, I think I should improve my communication. The arwinian flush was just to highlight that fact.
i am not interested in giving red or blue dots but i do hope your citizenship application gets stuck in a processing delay, you too will then realize the implication of your so called Darwinian flush :rolleyes: As they say...when it happens to others its a recession, when it happens to you it turns into a depression...good luck..
I hope your post did not imply that the ones who got GC's were the 'brightest and the best'.
My intention was not to devalue the merits of the incoming batch of immigrants. As I said, around 20% of the group are truly the best and the brightest. This was the case after the dotcom crash and will most likely be the case going forward. We had the same delays, retrogressions , guaranteed employment verification RFEs etc. Immigrationportal.com used to be the immigrationvoice of the times. I do not see much difference for the techies between what was then and what is going on now in terms of delays. I see 2 dramatic changes though
1. People arent patient enough during these times. You would agree to the amount of venting going on in this site.
2. The incessant dumping of low cost of L1s by the outsourcing companies.
If you think through deeply, the second point is what is causing all the heartburn among the people waiting for their GCs. Believe me. All these extrapolated timelines that scream that getting GC today would take 10 years are all bogus. These headlines were the same then too. I can confidently say that the GC process will move fast within a year's time once the layoffs stop. It is just that can you survive till the govt policies become more rational ? That is where the argument about the best and the brightest come into place. If you are one, you would survive this and you will get your GC within 3 years. Honestly, my ntention was to calm the nerves of those people genuinely talented and waiting for their GCs. If I had missed out on that count, I think I should improve my communication. The arwinian flush was just to highlight that fact.
more...
makeup 2011 Nissan Rogue Review and
ca_immigrant
10-15 03:35 PM
Bhagvan saab ka bhala kare...shuruvath mere se kare.... ;)
ie, May god bless all and may he start with me ;)
easy, do not yell, USCIS is not going to start with me cause of my petition with God.
ie, May god bless all and may he start with me ;)
easy, do not yell, USCIS is not going to start with me cause of my petition with God.
girlfriend 2011 Nissan Rogue – Cockpit
vamsi_poondla
02-14 12:06 PM
I do not support law suit for two reasons,
1) I do not believe that lawsuit will bring a positive decision that benefits the whole community.
2) I do not know any of those who tells that they support lawsuits, their level of commitment for becoming plaintiffs, commit the $s, time and energy
I dont care if USCIS scrutinizes those plaintiffs applications closely. They can and they should. Those who are in such a good strong GC cases alone can come forward and participate because if it is legal battle, every thing is fair on both parties to use all legal means to weaken other party.
You can stretch a government agency only to certain extent. No one can prove that USCIS intentionally took decisions so that they waste the visas. Just like my client cannot sue me for the bugs I introduced in my code.(in my good developer days). At the most court might ask agency to prove that they improved the process which USCIS can prove easily.
I urge all members to understand the reasons why we should not support lawsuit. It is not a true consumer rights issue. It is a government agency with limited resources, ideas and priorities.
Finally, what is it to the community on the whole - recapture of unused numbers. Then what whoever gets GC will be happy with their life and what about other deserving GC aspirants. As an organization, our objectives are very clear - we are pro-legal immigration, grass-roots organization for GC Reforms. We believe in lobbying. We believe in making the agencies improve the process, work with congress to increase numbers/ remove country caps, believe in the benefits of legal highly skilled immigration. If the idea is to benefit those 20% before 2004/2005 and not the whole community, I think it is selfish.
I believe in IV strength, IV core principles, IV approach and IV leadership maturity. Every scenario is carefully thought, researched and evaluated even before turning down that idea.
Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. IV is the kind of organization which keeps the failure attempts also transparent and keeps the members in loop. It also introspects what went wrong and changes the course in next step. Admin relief is the first and foremost priority for us. next is increased lobbying with lawmakers.
1) I do not believe that lawsuit will bring a positive decision that benefits the whole community.
2) I do not know any of those who tells that they support lawsuits, their level of commitment for becoming plaintiffs, commit the $s, time and energy
I dont care if USCIS scrutinizes those plaintiffs applications closely. They can and they should. Those who are in such a good strong GC cases alone can come forward and participate because if it is legal battle, every thing is fair on both parties to use all legal means to weaken other party.
You can stretch a government agency only to certain extent. No one can prove that USCIS intentionally took decisions so that they waste the visas. Just like my client cannot sue me for the bugs I introduced in my code.(in my good developer days). At the most court might ask agency to prove that they improved the process which USCIS can prove easily.
I urge all members to understand the reasons why we should not support lawsuit. It is not a true consumer rights issue. It is a government agency with limited resources, ideas and priorities.
Finally, what is it to the community on the whole - recapture of unused numbers. Then what whoever gets GC will be happy with their life and what about other deserving GC aspirants. As an organization, our objectives are very clear - we are pro-legal immigration, grass-roots organization for GC Reforms. We believe in lobbying. We believe in making the agencies improve the process, work with congress to increase numbers/ remove country caps, believe in the benefits of legal highly skilled immigration. If the idea is to benefit those 20% before 2004/2005 and not the whole community, I think it is selfish.
I believe in IV strength, IV core principles, IV approach and IV leadership maturity. Every scenario is carefully thought, researched and evaluated even before turning down that idea.
Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. IV is the kind of organization which keeps the failure attempts also transparent and keeps the members in loop. It also introspects what went wrong and changes the course in next step. Admin relief is the first and foremost priority for us. next is increased lobbying with lawmakers.
hairstyles 2011 Nissan Rogue Review and
ujjvalkoul
08-30 11:14 AM
Once you get ur Canadian PR, how long can we "not go" to canada. Will the PR expire if we do not land in canada??
chanduv23
07-04 08:50 AM
Chanduv thanks for your efforts. A correction: retrogression started in fall of 2004
I picked this from another post here in IV. Maybe we must have a sticky template so that everyone uses that template.
I picked this from another post here in IV. Maybe we must have a sticky template so that everyone uses that template.
ItIsNotFunny
04-01 02:19 PM
I think Azhar is the best candidate. He has a long experience of bribing, corruption, managing team of corrups and deceiving the country :).
Nice one!
Nice one!
No comments:
Post a Comment