Anders �stberg
March 15th, 2004, 04:30 AM
I'm a geek and like tech toys a lot, but when it comes to phones I just want it to be a good phone. I don't want it to include a poor PDA, or a lousy camera. I can see how it could be handy for some people and a fun toy for others, but personally I prefer to carry separate and fully functional phone, Palm Pilot and camera. It's great if they communicate though. I did get a new phone recently because I like the Bluetooth concept, for a wireless headset and for dial-up from my Palm or laptop. Other than that I don't like any of the new features yet. On top of being fiddly to use and low quality the prices here for using any picture or video based services are silly. It also often requires you to sign up for at least a year with a phone that's locked to a specific operator, even after the contract expires, a business model I really don't like.
wallpaper And the only seven stars Hotel
gbof
09-30 04:08 PM
I liked the tone and tenor of aila. What surprises me the most is there is NO work audit at uscis and they feel all powerful to scare/ trouble at their whim...
I got a RFE asking for I-612 approval from uscis. This was not at all required as the same was attached with I-485 filing. Moreover, without this approval H1B could not be filed and subsequently extended.
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihXxTTk5heq6Y9HKWlMaYqSLceYZ-i2u2q9ojsHc6hnS18p_N58mwTJ6j1o9IXYoTh6m6PgpxIN8zjfKoqLJdTOhL-7iQ8Ydu8EWc4QGds-KSUMbuUpDYxI1Z8SuwWJeKpX0A2ASw6QmA/s320/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihXxTTk5heq6Y9HKWlMaYqSLceYZ-i2u2q9ojsHc6hnS18p_N58mwTJ6j1o9IXYoTh6m6PgpxIN8zjfKoqLJdTOhL-7iQ8Ydu8EWc4QGds-KSUMbuUpDYxI1Z8SuwWJeKpX0A2ASw6QmA/s1600-h/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG)
Dear Director Mayorkas:
Last week in a speech you broached the subject of the possible need to increase filing fees because of a decrease in the number of applications received by USCIS this fiscal year. You also noted that there was over $100 million shortfall in your budget because of these decreased filings. I have some suggestions to meet your budget.
First, look at your budget projections from this last year. Last October, who didn't see the recession? Why weren't reductions in force made at that time? On April 1 when only 33% of the H-1B applications were filed as compared to the year before, why didn't USCIS staff get pared down? A monumental increase in naturalization applications occurred before the Presidential elections (as they do every 4 years), who did not not see a decrease in naturalization applications for 2009! My heck, every business in America was laying off employees, but not USCIS!
Second, have a heart to heart talk with anyone who issues an RFE that requires more than 5 pages to respond to. This last week we submitted a 3,000 page (30 lb.) response to an RFE (see the picture above), which alleged that an Accountant was not a professional position! Director, what is the deal with your Service Centers? Is there simply too little to do and too many employees? The "service" we are receiving as your customers is not doing the American Economy any good.
Third, why are the local adjudications officers interviewing non-current priority date visa applicants, including on Saturdays in September! You are paying OVERTIME to examiners to interview people who cannot be approved for their green cards. What sense does that make?
I have many other ideas as well if you would like to chat. The bottom line is this. The agency you have just taken over is in serious need of a top to bottom review. You have a monstrous challenge ahead of you to bring this agency in line with the priorities it should have. Priorities that not only include national security, but also ensuring our own economic well being and competitiveness by promoting job growth and allowing companies to hire qualified workers, keeping families together through reunification, and bringing new citizens into the fold.
You need to get control of service centers, where officers are issuing, at increasingly frequent rates, Requests for Evidence that are not only unnecessary, but which are onerous and burdensome, and appear to be designed to make the employer give up his request for the visa application. You have local offices finding marriage "fraud" where no such fraud exists. You have CIS doing 25,000 random walk ins of legitimate U.S. employers of H-1B workers, disrupting the workplace asking questions about the H-1B employer, without regard to a lawyers appearance in the case in clear violation of the 6th Amendment. The list could go on about what your agency is doing wrong. And, while there are things USCIS does right, the reality is that rather than serving immigrants and their employers, you are punishing them.
So, before you raise your fees, I think you MUST first get your own house in order. You should not and cannot honestly balance your budgetary disaster on the backs of the employers and immigrants you are committed to serving.
With all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck in your new position.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2662713464097056944?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/rfe-hell-and-increased-uscis-filing.html)
I got a RFE asking for I-612 approval from uscis. This was not at all required as the same was attached with I-485 filing. Moreover, without this approval H1B could not be filed and subsequently extended.
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihXxTTk5heq6Y9HKWlMaYqSLceYZ-i2u2q9ojsHc6hnS18p_N58mwTJ6j1o9IXYoTh6m6PgpxIN8zjfKoqLJdTOhL-7iQ8Ydu8EWc4QGds-KSUMbuUpDYxI1Z8SuwWJeKpX0A2ASw6QmA/s320/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihXxTTk5heq6Y9HKWlMaYqSLceYZ-i2u2q9ojsHc6hnS18p_N58mwTJ6j1o9IXYoTh6m6PgpxIN8zjfKoqLJdTOhL-7iQ8Ydu8EWc4QGds-KSUMbuUpDYxI1Z8SuwWJeKpX0A2ASw6QmA/s1600-h/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG)
Dear Director Mayorkas:
Last week in a speech you broached the subject of the possible need to increase filing fees because of a decrease in the number of applications received by USCIS this fiscal year. You also noted that there was over $100 million shortfall in your budget because of these decreased filings. I have some suggestions to meet your budget.
First, look at your budget projections from this last year. Last October, who didn't see the recession? Why weren't reductions in force made at that time? On April 1 when only 33% of the H-1B applications were filed as compared to the year before, why didn't USCIS staff get pared down? A monumental increase in naturalization applications occurred before the Presidential elections (as they do every 4 years), who did not not see a decrease in naturalization applications for 2009! My heck, every business in America was laying off employees, but not USCIS!
Second, have a heart to heart talk with anyone who issues an RFE that requires more than 5 pages to respond to. This last week we submitted a 3,000 page (30 lb.) response to an RFE (see the picture above), which alleged that an Accountant was not a professional position! Director, what is the deal with your Service Centers? Is there simply too little to do and too many employees? The "service" we are receiving as your customers is not doing the American Economy any good.
Third, why are the local adjudications officers interviewing non-current priority date visa applicants, including on Saturdays in September! You are paying OVERTIME to examiners to interview people who cannot be approved for their green cards. What sense does that make?
I have many other ideas as well if you would like to chat. The bottom line is this. The agency you have just taken over is in serious need of a top to bottom review. You have a monstrous challenge ahead of you to bring this agency in line with the priorities it should have. Priorities that not only include national security, but also ensuring our own economic well being and competitiveness by promoting job growth and allowing companies to hire qualified workers, keeping families together through reunification, and bringing new citizens into the fold.
You need to get control of service centers, where officers are issuing, at increasingly frequent rates, Requests for Evidence that are not only unnecessary, but which are onerous and burdensome, and appear to be designed to make the employer give up his request for the visa application. You have local offices finding marriage "fraud" where no such fraud exists. You have CIS doing 25,000 random walk ins of legitimate U.S. employers of H-1B workers, disrupting the workplace asking questions about the H-1B employer, without regard to a lawyers appearance in the case in clear violation of the 6th Amendment. The list could go on about what your agency is doing wrong. And, while there are things USCIS does right, the reality is that rather than serving immigrants and their employers, you are punishing them.
So, before you raise your fees, I think you MUST first get your own house in order. You should not and cannot honestly balance your budgetary disaster on the backs of the employers and immigrants you are committed to serving.
With all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck in your new position.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2662713464097056944?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/rfe-hell-and-increased-uscis-filing.html)
desigun
09-10 12:58 PM
I have a full time offer from a county school (non - profit), that is related to an institution of higher education. (submitted an agreement between the school and the univ)
got an RFE, asking for 'substantiating documentary evidence that the beneficiary is enrolled in the program with the univ' ; This exemption cannot be claimed for other employees of the nonprofit in or through this jointly managed program.
Is it necessary that the beneficiary should be enrolled in agreement or a mere relationship is not sufficient???
Any suggestions....
Thanks
got an RFE, asking for 'substantiating documentary evidence that the beneficiary is enrolled in the program with the univ' ; This exemption cannot be claimed for other employees of the nonprofit in or through this jointly managed program.
Is it necessary that the beneficiary should be enrolled in agreement or a mere relationship is not sufficient???
Any suggestions....
Thanks
2011 dubai-7-star-hotel-2.jpg
pappu
09-02 06:41 AM
Michael Cutler is a Fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies, a notoriously anti-immigrant organization.
It is part of the John Tanton network of anti-immigrant organizations (includes NumbersUSA, FAIR etc.). See here (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72)
He is not currently at CIS, he is an ex-employee of the INS, and given his sentiments I am glad he is an ex-employee.
Google the guy, you'll see his rage all over the web.
These hearings were organized by our best friend Sensenbrenner. Other policymakers by now ought to recognize FAIR, NumbersUSA and its ilk what what they are.
best,
Berkeleybee
A while back someone had pointed out this link
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/uscis.html
this shows what numbersusa has been upto. they are asking uscis employees to privately provide them with information that could help with their anti-immigrant cause.
It is part of the John Tanton network of anti-immigrant organizations (includes NumbersUSA, FAIR etc.). See here (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72)
He is not currently at CIS, he is an ex-employee of the INS, and given his sentiments I am glad he is an ex-employee.
Google the guy, you'll see his rage all over the web.
These hearings were organized by our best friend Sensenbrenner. Other policymakers by now ought to recognize FAIR, NumbersUSA and its ilk what what they are.
best,
Berkeleybee
A while back someone had pointed out this link
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/uscis.html
this shows what numbersusa has been upto. they are asking uscis employees to privately provide them with information that could help with their anti-immigrant cause.
more...
dreamworld
10-26 11:57 AM
Hi guys,
My 8th year extension was filed on June 14th. I have not heard from them since. Lawyer says he has contacted USCIS on Oct 3rd and has not heard back yet either. He has asked me to wait for one month before initiating any further communication with them. Does anyone know how long h1 processing is taking these days? I live in Texas. Now, if I want to transfer this to Premium processing:
a) is it possible to transfer now?
b) how long will the transfer take?
Thanks a lot for your advice/information :)
A) Yes, you can transfer the pending h1 extension to premium.
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
My 8th year extension was filed on June 14th. I have not heard from them since. Lawyer says he has contacted USCIS on Oct 3rd and has not heard back yet either. He has asked me to wait for one month before initiating any further communication with them. Does anyone know how long h1 processing is taking these days? I live in Texas. Now, if I want to transfer this to Premium processing:
a) is it possible to transfer now?
b) how long will the transfer take?
Thanks a lot for your advice/information :)
A) Yes, you can transfer the pending h1 extension to premium.
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
ujjvalkoul
01-18 01:24 PM
Just got email from Buffalo Can Immi Office - Just the Principle applicant needs to take the IELTS test.
more...
saileshdude
06-25 12:55 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
2010 7 Star Hotel Pictures
Chiwere
07-29 08:07 PM
Conchshell raised a valid point, but instead of seeking cooperation we should try to neutralize CHC - oppose any potential relief to illegals. It is about time we paid them back in the same coin.
more...
Beta_mle
02-21 09:23 AM
And, my last point, out of status rule applies ONLY to applicants 17 years or older. so your son is ok.
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Thanks Desi. That helps peace of mind. Do you have a link to the regulation concerning out of status applying only to applicants 17 and older?
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Thanks Desi. That helps peace of mind. Do you have a link to the regulation concerning out of status applying only to applicants 17 and older?
hair THE ONLY SEVEN STAR HOTEL IN
santb1975
02-15 01:38 PM
We have two more weeks for this campaign.
BUMP for our Dear friends and wishing for more participation
4 people confirmed for this event so far
BUMP for our Dear friends and wishing for more participation
4 people confirmed for this event so far
more...
mps
04-26 11:02 PM
Normally there should be a LUD on 485 after FP is done (same day/next)..
Gurus:
I don't see any LUD after my FP in November. My RD for 485 is July 02 1007.
However there was LUD on my approved I-40 in December 2007 (140 was approved in September 2006).
What could it mean possibly?
Reagrds,
Gurus:
I don't see any LUD after my FP in November. My RD for 485 is July 02 1007.
However there was LUD on my approved I-40 in December 2007 (140 was approved in September 2006).
What could it mean possibly?
Reagrds,
hot most luxurious hotel.
LostInGCProcess
08-30 02:11 PM
Isnt recording conversations without the consent illegal? :confused:
Found on the net:
The U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. 38 states and the D.C. permit recording telephone conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.
12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
It is illegal under all jurisdictions to record calls in which one is not a party.
A complete state-by-state set of regulations regarding telephone call recording may be obtained in the following report published by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html
Found on the net:
The U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. 38 states and the D.C. permit recording telephone conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.
12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
It is illegal under all jurisdictions to record calls in which one is not a party.
A complete state-by-state set of regulations regarding telephone call recording may be obtained in the following report published by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html
more...
house to self-declare the 7-star
rocky74
07-19 10:39 PM
Applied for LCP in July 2007 and I am not sure if I can apply for I-140/485 if my labor is approved before 17 August 2007. My PD is July 2007 but my labor might get approved in August.
Any Guess????
Any Guess????
tattoo Guests at the 7-star
kapil_jn
09-07 11:26 AM
Have sent the details.
And forwarded the mail to FL yahoo group as well.
And forwarded the mail to FL yahoo group as well.
more...
pictures THE ONLY SEVEN STAR HOTEL IN
andycool
01-27 07:13 AM
Can he add an amendment to divide spillover equally between EB2 and EB3 India. This will help a lot.
Even if its only for Phd's ....40,000 More Visas will be available for EB2 and EB3
i think EB2 Back log will be wiped away just in 1 year and fall down will be there for EB3.
Even if its only for Phd's ....40,000 More Visas will be available for EB2 and EB3
i think EB2 Back log will be wiped away just in 1 year and fall down will be there for EB3.
dresses The 7 star Burj Al Arab Hotel
prioritydate
09-21 11:27 PM
What if the employer showed XXX amount on the Labor Certification, and in the offer letter, but send an offer letter to the employee for YYY, where YYY < XXX? Does the employee is still obliged to for with the employer?
more...
makeup The World#39;s Only 7-star Hotel!
john2255
07-21 08:31 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
girlfriend Incredible 7 Star Hotels
thepaew
02-08 10:35 AM
This shouldn't surprise you, should it? In the US too, some engineers make 50K and others make 200K. It depends both on prevailing standards and the individual's skills/luck/location. I do know people making ridiculous sums in India, but they are worth every cent to their employers.
It basically depends on how much value some people can add and how well they can negotiate.
I think the 3 to 4 lakh comment was meant for people "who could not get a job at Microsoft or IBM." I think that the author qualified his/her comments by stating "Not everyone gets into Microsoft or IBM india. You have to compete with MS/PhD in computer science for the same job that needs BS in big companies due to high rate of competition and unemployment."
Ok. So if I summarize, you guys are providing the following ranges:
22 Lakhs to 40 Lakhs
20 Lakhs to 35 Lakhs
12 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs
3 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs
That means, 3 Lakhs to 40 Lakhs. :)
Wow! what a huge difference
It basically depends on how much value some people can add and how well they can negotiate.
I think the 3 to 4 lakh comment was meant for people "who could not get a job at Microsoft or IBM." I think that the author qualified his/her comments by stating "Not everyone gets into Microsoft or IBM india. You have to compete with MS/PhD in computer science for the same job that needs BS in big companies due to high rate of competition and unemployment."
Ok. So if I summarize, you guys are providing the following ranges:
22 Lakhs to 40 Lakhs
20 Lakhs to 35 Lakhs
12 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs
3 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs
That means, 3 Lakhs to 40 Lakhs. :)
Wow! what a huge difference
hairstyles first seven-star hotel,
superdude
07-17 11:26 PM
Am I in the same situation? My spouse left US today to INDIA. However we filled the 485 on July 2nd. Will they consider that as abandonment of the application?
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
I think you are good.She needs to mention that she left to India after filing for 485 at the POE after returning.Talk to your attorney once.
SlowRoasted
06-13 01:18 PM
i dunno, its probably some crazy formula it goes by. Any math wizes here?
BhanuPriya
01-13 07:27 PM
Hi All,
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
