RNGC
02-10 09:57 AM
How can we help ourselves to get 2 year AP ? IV admins, can you kindly share with us any info regarding this ?
I know at this moment everyone is looking at the stimulus plan and economy, but , in the mean time we can prepare ourselves with some plan of action...
May be we should push for 3 year EAD/AP . Our argument should be, if we are 3 or more years away ( like EB3 India is currently 2001 or something ), we should get 3 year EAD/AP
Not meant to talk only for EB3 community, but in general as well.
Any thoughts IVians ?
I know at this moment everyone is looking at the stimulus plan and economy, but , in the mean time we can prepare ourselves with some plan of action...
May be we should push for 3 year EAD/AP . Our argument should be, if we are 3 or more years away ( like EB3 India is currently 2001 or something ), we should get 3 year EAD/AP
Not meant to talk only for EB3 community, but in general as well.
Any thoughts IVians ?
wallpaper Indie Style Hair Men.
reddysms
08-17 09:12 AM
One of my friend's I-485 with priority date of Jan 2006 got approved yesterday. They have posted the documents to USCIS for his wife early this month(as per his attorney) to link to his I-485, but the check was not cashed yet and receipt notice was not issued for his wife.
Will there be any issue in this regard? What will be the options for him just in case if the attorney has not sent the documents to USCIS for his wife or the documents get rejected for some reason? Any help/advice in this regard is really appreciated. Thanks.
Will there be any issue in this regard? What will be the options for him just in case if the attorney has not sent the documents to USCIS for his wife or the documents get rejected for some reason? Any help/advice in this regard is really appreciated. Thanks.
purgan
04-12 10:48 PM
good find. thanks.
Intresting to see skilled, legal, employment-based immigrants comprise only 15-20% of the total. Actual number of immigrants is probably less than half of this, as this figure includes dependents.
Need urgent reform!
Intresting to see skilled, legal, employment-based immigrants comprise only 15-20% of the total. Actual number of immigrants is probably less than half of this, as this figure includes dependents.
Need urgent reform!
2011 Isnt she in Mission Impossible
roseball
01-31 12:46 AM
Hello Seniors,
Can you please let me know what is the process to open an already approved case in USCIS? Is it possible ?
Your help really vital for me.
Thanks a lot
You can file a I-824 application.
Can you please let me know what is the process to open an already approved case in USCIS? Is it possible ?
Your help really vital for me.
Thanks a lot
You can file a I-824 application.
more...
minimalist
11-29 01:51 PM
Online EAD status says Card production ordered. Not received card yet. Is there any memo/ lawyer opinion that says it is OK to work that as a basis for employment eligibility?
Macaca
04-27 09:43 AM
Sen. Luddite Strikes Again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602257.html) -- Once more, a mystery Republican blocks electronic filing for Senate candidates, Friday, April 27, 2007
JUST AS she did on April 17, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent on a common-sense bill that would require candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. And just as he or she did on April 17, Sen. Ima Luddite (R-Who Knows Where) voiced opposition. This time the mouthpiece was Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). "On behalf of the Republican side," he said, "I object." We object to the obstruction.
Honestly, what is the big deal here? Filing campaign finance reports electronically has been standard operating procedure for candidates for the House of Representatives and the White House for years -- as it has been for political parties, political action committees and "527" groups. Yet Senate candidates are still trudging down to the Senate Office of Public Records with paper copies of their reports, which are then passed along to the Federal Election Commission, which sends them to a vendor that punches in the information and zaps it back to the FEC electronically. That finally makes them widely available, sometimes too late for voters to see who's donating to whom and how the money is being spent. With this seeming fear of modernity, it's a wonder the Senate isn't calculating budgets with an abacus. Or is it a fear of disclosure?
After the bill was blocked, Ms. Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said, "It is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be." It is very hard for us, too. Sen. Luddite -- whoever he or she may be -- should come out of the shadows and explain the irrational fear that is keeping the Senate from joining the rest of us in the 21st century. Senator anonymous -- Another Day, Another Hold On Finance Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602249.html) By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, April 27, 2007
Sen. Anonymous struck again yesterday.
The infamous unnamed senator (or senators) has for more than a week blocked passage of legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically.
Electronic filings would make the names of campaign donors readily available -- it's how members of the House and presidential candidates have been doing it for years. When Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) first brought the bill to the floor last week, though, he was told that an unnamed lawmaker objected.
Long-standing Senate custom allows the objection of a single senator to stop a bill in its tracks -- it's known as a secret hold. A measure that passed the Senate earlier this year, and awaits a House vote, would eliminate the practice.
The hold unleashed a torrent of activity on the Internet, as bloggers tried to flush out the identity of the senator responsible for the hold. But after an onslaught of phone calls to Senate offices, the bloggers have no answer. No one owned up to being the culprit.
Yesterday, the bill's sponsor tried again. And again, the Republican floor leader objected. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he is sure the name of the secret senator is known "in the cloakroom," but he said that misses the point.
"A hold can't stop something from coming to the floor," Don Stewart said. "It can only stop it from being pushed through without a full and open debate on the bill."
That's true -- sponsors had been trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which does not permit amendment or debate. But Feingold told the liberal blog Daily Kos that the path was typical for a bill with 35 bipartisan co-sponsors that did not elicit a single objection in committee.
Writing on the blog yesterday, Feingold said: "The fact is that someone anonymously blocked the bill, . . . that person has made no effort to resolve his or her concerns with us, and the Republican leadership won't even tell us who that person is."
JUST AS she did on April 17, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent on a common-sense bill that would require candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically. And just as he or she did on April 17, Sen. Ima Luddite (R-Who Knows Where) voiced opposition. This time the mouthpiece was Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). "On behalf of the Republican side," he said, "I object." We object to the obstruction.
Honestly, what is the big deal here? Filing campaign finance reports electronically has been standard operating procedure for candidates for the House of Representatives and the White House for years -- as it has been for political parties, political action committees and "527" groups. Yet Senate candidates are still trudging down to the Senate Office of Public Records with paper copies of their reports, which are then passed along to the Federal Election Commission, which sends them to a vendor that punches in the information and zaps it back to the FEC electronically. That finally makes them widely available, sometimes too late for voters to see who's donating to whom and how the money is being spent. With this seeming fear of modernity, it's a wonder the Senate isn't calculating budgets with an abacus. Or is it a fear of disclosure?
After the bill was blocked, Ms. Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said, "It is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be." It is very hard for us, too. Sen. Luddite -- whoever he or she may be -- should come out of the shadows and explain the irrational fear that is keeping the Senate from joining the rest of us in the 21st century. Senator anonymous -- Another Day, Another Hold On Finance Bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602249.html) By Matthew Mosk (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/matthew+mosk/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, April 27, 2007
Sen. Anonymous struck again yesterday.
The infamous unnamed senator (or senators) has for more than a week blocked passage of legislation that would require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports electronically.
Electronic filings would make the names of campaign donors readily available -- it's how members of the House and presidential candidates have been doing it for years. When Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) first brought the bill to the floor last week, though, he was told that an unnamed lawmaker objected.
Long-standing Senate custom allows the objection of a single senator to stop a bill in its tracks -- it's known as a secret hold. A measure that passed the Senate earlier this year, and awaits a House vote, would eliminate the practice.
The hold unleashed a torrent of activity on the Internet, as bloggers tried to flush out the identity of the senator responsible for the hold. But after an onslaught of phone calls to Senate offices, the bloggers have no answer. No one owned up to being the culprit.
Yesterday, the bill's sponsor tried again. And again, the Republican floor leader objected. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he is sure the name of the secret senator is known "in the cloakroom," but he said that misses the point.
"A hold can't stop something from coming to the floor," Don Stewart said. "It can only stop it from being pushed through without a full and open debate on the bill."
That's true -- sponsors had been trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which does not permit amendment or debate. But Feingold told the liberal blog Daily Kos that the path was typical for a bill with 35 bipartisan co-sponsors that did not elicit a single objection in committee.
Writing on the blog yesterday, Feingold said: "The fact is that someone anonymously blocked the bill, . . . that person has made no effort to resolve his or her concerns with us, and the Republican leadership won't even tell us who that person is."
more...
lecter
May 15th, 2004, 12:02 PM
agree with fred 2000% (or so)