24fps
02-19 07:42 AM
this bill will never pass at-least in the next 2 years! i can give you a guarantee on that!
these are just bills that the politicians introduce to showcase their views , there are already a few bills in the house that would eliminate extended family immigration etc, never gonna happen
no immigration bill is going to pass before 2010 ,and even after that it'll fall into election time
and become a political issue like in 2007
if there was no recession there would surely have been a serious immigration bill doing the rounds and would have pretty much cleared through ( after GOP figuring out that their screw up on CIR 2007 cost them the elections) but now with the F**K**D Recession everythings gone down the drain
Bad luck Bad timing
these are just bills that the politicians introduce to showcase their views , there are already a few bills in the house that would eliminate extended family immigration etc, never gonna happen
no immigration bill is going to pass before 2010 ,and even after that it'll fall into election time
and become a political issue like in 2007
if there was no recession there would surely have been a serious immigration bill doing the rounds and would have pretty much cleared through ( after GOP figuring out that their screw up on CIR 2007 cost them the elections) but now with the F**K**D Recession everythings gone down the drain
Bad luck Bad timing
wallpaper of England#39;s Prince Harry
centaur
08-15 05:34 PM
I think its not going to budge after this for 3 months or so, till they calculate all the applications received and do the math. Hopefully it will move forwards then, however (less likely) it can move backwards too ( I have seen strangest patterns with the bulletins)
grinch
02-27 08:59 PM
ahha don't worry about it soulty, i appreciate the effort.
I actually got a bit of help from my dad and some of my edu maya books.
Thanks guys, if i need more help, I'll ask!
I actually got a bit of help from my dad and some of my edu maya books.
Thanks guys, if i need more help, I'll ask!
2011 Prince Harry, фото M. Sharkey
danila
07-10 09:09 AM
Certainty is releated to belief not reality. It still means the name check was not completed. The law does not say they "when you are certain that the FBI name check can be cleared..please allot a visa."
Nowhere in that statement he says anything about the name check. It might be just the expired biometrics. And coming from some anonymous immigration officials how can you be sure that the information is absolutely credible or represents the facts and not their speculations? Were those applications really approved or they've just requested the visa numbers for them?
Nowhere in that statement he says anything about the name check. It might be just the expired biometrics. And coming from some anonymous immigration officials how can you be sure that the information is absolutely credible or represents the facts and not their speculations? Were those applications really approved or they've just requested the visa numbers for them?
more...
eilsoe
02-27 07:47 AM
Sorry if it looks kind of blurry, but it�s just a preview render :) I would love to see how every body else is doing........... well, great I guess, but I�m just so curious! :D
sure...
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station1.jpg
still just a WIP :)
sure...
http://www.avalon-rev.dk/junk/station1.jpg
still just a WIP :)
Ramba
07-04 09:15 PM
Rambha:
First hats off to you to source information and then put it on this forum.
However, how will this mistake be rectified?
What happens to us who have spend so much money on preparations?
Among these 700K or so applicants, iam not sure how many have to leave the country because of various reasons before there PDs become current again in near future.
In that case, who should reimburse the costs? If this was a case of poor customer service, then they should also follow this age old saying in business community "Customer is always right" and promptly refund the expenses incurred.
I am for requesting the congress for a special vehicle for july filers. There should be a way out for all the affected applicants no matter what their PD was.
In matter of 2 weeks, the billion dollar mistake have costed us dearly in lot many other ways.
It is a really a good question. Unfortualtly no one going to pay back money, time. It is just a poor customer service. These are all the burdens we need to go thro, as a immigrants. We do not have much rights in a foreign land. I know, some guys sued INS for delaying 485 approval in early 2000. INS took more than 2 years to process 485 even it was not affercted by etrogression (entire 2 year PD was current). The law suit is not favorable to us.
First hats off to you to source information and then put it on this forum.
However, how will this mistake be rectified?
What happens to us who have spend so much money on preparations?
Among these 700K or so applicants, iam not sure how many have to leave the country because of various reasons before there PDs become current again in near future.
In that case, who should reimburse the costs? If this was a case of poor customer service, then they should also follow this age old saying in business community "Customer is always right" and promptly refund the expenses incurred.
I am for requesting the congress for a special vehicle for july filers. There should be a way out for all the affected applicants no matter what their PD was.
In matter of 2 weeks, the billion dollar mistake have costed us dearly in lot many other ways.
It is a really a good question. Unfortualtly no one going to pay back money, time. It is just a poor customer service. These are all the burdens we need to go thro, as a immigrants. We do not have much rights in a foreign land. I know, some guys sued INS for delaying 485 approval in early 2000. INS took more than 2 years to process 485 even it was not affercted by etrogression (entire 2 year PD was current). The law suit is not favorable to us.
more...
gc_peshwa
06-13 12:49 AM
done...and recommended to friends already.
2010 Corps from Prince Harry#39;s
friend_in_NC
07-03 04:23 PM
Contributed $100 for the lawsuit.
Confirmation Number: 40W931175C853351T.
Confirmation Number: 40W931175C853351T.
more...
ashkam
07-24 06:54 PM
Only the ones who were on OPT.
I was on OPT but my I140 has a different number than the one on my OPT.
I was on OPT but my I140 has a different number than the one on my OPT.
hair like Prince Harry#39;s trashy
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
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.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
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.
more...
ashatara78
03-10 04:38 PM
The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
I have no comments about comparison of family vs EB but the EB immigration system was not find before then. I have friends who were in this system in the late 1980s, early 1990s and had huge problems - had to wait a long time, could not switch jobs, could not visit back home for sibling's weddings etc.
It was probably fine during the Clinton administration for a few years 1996-1999 but I only know of a few cases, not many.
hot Radar Staff Writer. Prince
hpandey
04-24 10:57 AM
Wish you best of luck !!
more...
house RADAR : le Prince Harry en
suriajay12
02-19 06:56 AM
How exactly are illegals going to prove that they have been here for more than 5 years?
I think this is a good one. It supports legal immigrants.
I dont agreee with this dvb guy. 5 years legally is lots of time. And I now know people who are 10-15 years here. He will want to say the same tthing even in that case. Instead learn to rationalize and make sure if one thinks one is eligivle, then see how one can get included.crab behavior, the one at bottom pulls down the one thats climbing up. Finally both end at dinner table.
I think this is a good one. It supports legal immigrants.
I dont agreee with this dvb guy. 5 years legally is lots of time. And I now know people who are 10-15 years here. He will want to say the same tthing even in that case. Instead learn to rationalize and make sure if one thinks one is eligivle, then see how one can get included.crab behavior, the one at bottom pulls down the one thats climbing up. Finally both end at dinner table.
tattoo magnet royal Prince Harry
DarkChild
02-16 03:25 AM
@ thirdworldman: WOW!
more...
pictures magnet royal Prince Harry
conundrum
10-31 05:59 PM
Received letter from USCIS regarding the FOIA.
NRC2008063282
The request has been placed in the complex track!
NRC2008063282
The request has been placed in the complex track!
dresses Charles and Prince Harry.
grinch
03-11 03:21 PM
pretty cool grinch....gotta work on your lighting a bit...:beam:.
ahh man i know...
Maya lighting is so hard to get right, I need to learn mental ray though...
I only know the basics...
Anyone know any good tutorials on "light linking"
ahh man i know...
Maya lighting is so hard to get right, I need to learn mental ray though...
I only know the basics...
Anyone know any good tutorials on "light linking"
more...
makeup tattoo prince harry radar
desi3933
02-12 01:42 PM
....
The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
We still have 7 months left for FY2010, so only assertion that there will be EB visa unused is only a "theory" at best.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
I agree. He has not backed his claim on that thread as well. Someone has posted a question in that thread regarding source of the spillover. The author of the blog responded with legal statute that explains how unused numbers of FB & EB from previous years are used for next year. But no link to justify 13,000 number.
A fact in itself is nothing. It is valuable only for the idea attached to it, or for the proof which it furnishes. - Claude Bernard
I know you lawyers can, with ease, twist words and meanings as you please. - John Gay
_________________
Not a legal advice.
The things that do make some sense is wastage of visa numbers in 2010. We have some facts to support the "theory" but not enough.
We still have 7 months left for FY2010, so only assertion that there will be EB visa unused is only a "theory" at best.
What doesn't make sense is Ron's assertion that USCIS wasted 13K EB visas in 2009. Facts simply don't support that.
I agree. He has not backed his claim on that thread as well. Someone has posted a question in that thread regarding source of the spillover. The author of the blog responded with legal statute that explains how unused numbers of FB & EB from previous years are used for next year. But no link to justify 13,000 number.
A fact in itself is nothing. It is valuable only for the idea attached to it, or for the proof which it furnishes. - Claude Bernard
I know you lawyers can, with ease, twist words and meanings as you please. - John Gay
_________________
Not a legal advice.
girlfriend Prince Harry enjoys an
nojoke
09-19 04:55 PM
Never insisted you stop posting, was only hoping that you will post some sensible stuff
It’s my mistake, I always thought that Mr NoJoke will post something nice but you disappoint me all the time. Henceforth I will stick to your advice.
I am sticking to your advice, I am not reading that boring news.
You undertood what a forum is.
And again I don't need your certificate of approval.
It’s my mistake, I always thought that Mr NoJoke will post something nice but you disappoint me all the time. Henceforth I will stick to your advice.
I am sticking to your advice, I am not reading that boring news.
You undertood what a forum is.
And again I don't need your certificate of approval.
hairstyles Did You Know Prince Harry Went
ivuser
01-30 02:25 PM
Hi,
I know a good desi firm. The firm takes just $2/hr for the operational expense. If you need more info please send a private message.
Thanks
I know a good desi firm. The firm takes just $2/hr for the operational expense. If you need more info please send a private message.
Thanks
loti_GC
06-11 06:48 AM
Our I-485 was approved on May 30th. Got cards and I-485 notice on Friday.
prioritydate
09-20 10:08 AM
These stories are scary
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_bi_ge/ny_economy_4
By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 18, 1:03 PM ET
ALBANY, N.Y. - A new projection shows Wall Street's meltdown will likely cost New York state up to 40,000 private sector jobs and $3 billion in tax revenues over the next two years, two state officials said Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The revised numbers in the snapshot of worst case estimates was done Wednesday at the highest levels of New York's state government.
The projection is worse than Gov. David Paterson predicted just Tuesday when he said the state could lose some $1 billion in revenue because of upheaval in the financial sector.
Wall Street is a major economic force in New York state, generating one-fifth of the state's revenues each year.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to comment on the fiscal analysis.
Both hits would be substantial. The total New York state budget including federal funds is about $120 billion, and the state has about 7.25 million private-sector jobs.
State officials used the model of the fiscal damage to New York after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then, Gov. George Pataki said it was the worst financial hit to New York since the Great Depression 70 years earlier.
The new analysis includes the stock market drop, lost revenue from transactions and projected lost income tax revenue from Wall Street jobs.
Three of the five major U.S. investment banks � Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch � have either gone out of business or been driven into the arms of another bank. The two remaining banks, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, are under siege.
Oh man! that is really scary.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_bi_ge/ny_economy_4
By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 18, 1:03 PM ET
ALBANY, N.Y. - A new projection shows Wall Street's meltdown will likely cost New York state up to 40,000 private sector jobs and $3 billion in tax revenues over the next two years, two state officials said Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The revised numbers in the snapshot of worst case estimates was done Wednesday at the highest levels of New York's state government.
The projection is worse than Gov. David Paterson predicted just Tuesday when he said the state could lose some $1 billion in revenue because of upheaval in the financial sector.
Wall Street is a major economic force in New York state, generating one-fifth of the state's revenues each year.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to comment on the fiscal analysis.
Both hits would be substantial. The total New York state budget including federal funds is about $120 billion, and the state has about 7.25 million private-sector jobs.
State officials used the model of the fiscal damage to New York after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then, Gov. George Pataki said it was the worst financial hit to New York since the Great Depression 70 years earlier.
The new analysis includes the stock market drop, lost revenue from transactions and projected lost income tax revenue from Wall Street jobs.
Three of the five major U.S. investment banks � Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch � have either gone out of business or been driven into the arms of another bank. The two remaining banks, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, are under siege.
Oh man! that is really scary.
No comments:
Post a Comment