kumhyd2
07-22 03:38 PM
joined the yahoo group.
Others may put a message about their joining here.
Others may put a message about their joining here.
wallpaper BLACK AND WHITE DARKRAI
axp817
07-18 09:28 PM
I started off with a one time contribution many months ago, and then signed up for $20 monthly contributions.
Today, when I saw the action item for the new funding drive and that the recurring contribution request had gone up to $50, I couldn't initially bring my stingy self to changing my contribution from $20 to $50.
Then I asked myself, If I were offered a green card today, at an additional 'premium' fee (Besides the filing, attorney fees), how much would I be willing to pay? probably, $2, 3, 4, 5, or even upto $10000. That being the case why was I being a miser about spending $50 a month supporting a great organization like IV.
With that thought, I immediately went ahead and signed up for the $50 a month contribution and cancelled my old $20 subscription on Paypal.
I am single and don't have a family to support like most of you do, but this $50 a month will go a long way. We have seen IV get results. From what has gone on in the last few months, up until last night, we know that IV is the only organization that really works for our interest. Oh, Shusterman, ILW, Murthy might all be good attorneys but they don't push our interests like IV does.
With that, I would request all of you to join hands and work with IV in bringing a revolutionary change to the employment immigration system.
Thank you all, in advance.
20,000 members of which at least 15,000 are real (not non-immigrant trolls).
If all sign up for $50 a month, IV would generate $750,000 a month. That kind of money = serious lobbying efforts = we get our green cards well before it is time to retire
Today, when I saw the action item for the new funding drive and that the recurring contribution request had gone up to $50, I couldn't initially bring my stingy self to changing my contribution from $20 to $50.
Then I asked myself, If I were offered a green card today, at an additional 'premium' fee (Besides the filing, attorney fees), how much would I be willing to pay? probably, $2, 3, 4, 5, or even upto $10000. That being the case why was I being a miser about spending $50 a month supporting a great organization like IV.
With that thought, I immediately went ahead and signed up for the $50 a month contribution and cancelled my old $20 subscription on Paypal.
I am single and don't have a family to support like most of you do, but this $50 a month will go a long way. We have seen IV get results. From what has gone on in the last few months, up until last night, we know that IV is the only organization that really works for our interest. Oh, Shusterman, ILW, Murthy might all be good attorneys but they don't push our interests like IV does.
With that, I would request all of you to join hands and work with IV in bringing a revolutionary change to the employment immigration system.
Thank you all, in advance.
20,000 members of which at least 15,000 are real (not non-immigrant trolls).
If all sign up for $50 a month, IV would generate $750,000 a month. That kind of money = serious lobbying efforts = we get our green cards well before it is time to retire
optimystic
09-10 09:36 PM
HR 5882 has the answer for the FIFO problem.
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
2011 Darkrai (021/L-P) Daisuki
yabadaba
08-10 01:09 PM
anyone living in lincoln can go to the service center and ask R williams where our apps arE??
this post was a just a joke in case someone actually thinks of doing it.
this post was a just a joke in case someone actually thinks of doing it.
more...
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:03 PM
Los Angeles - District 36 100.0% of 399 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jane Harman (I)
Dem 92,222 63.5%
Brian Gibson
GOP 46,312 31.9%
James Smith PFP 3,979 2.7%
Mike Binkley Lib 2,757 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 37 100.0% of 333 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Juanita Millender-McDonald (I)
Dem 69,901 82.4%
Herb Peters Lib 14,925 17.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 38 100.0% of 294 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Grace Napolitano (I)
Dem 66,442 75.5%
Sidney Street
GOP 21,606 24.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 39 100.0% of 305 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Linda Sanchez (I)
Dem 64,274 66.0%
James Andion
GOP 33,138 34.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 46 100.0% of 147 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 30,319 54.1%
Jim Brandt
Dem 23,743 42.3%
Dennis Chang Lib 2,007 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 190 62.3%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 115 37.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 19 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 16,049 64.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 8,739 35.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Marin - District 6 100.0% of 210 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 52,217 71.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 18,872 25.7%
Richard Friesen Lib 2,423 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mariposa - District 19 100.0% of 21 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 4,185 59.1%
TJ Cox
Dem 2,901 40.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mendocino - District 1 100.0% of 208 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 12,185 68.1%
John Jones
GOP 4,653 26.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 688 3.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 364 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Merced - District 18 100.0% of 114 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 23,752 64.5%
John Kanno
GOP 13,078 35.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Modoc - District 4 100.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 2,174 59.3%
Charlie Brown
Dem 1,230 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 262 7.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mono - District 25 100.0% of 13 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 1,935 52.6%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,600 43.5%
David Erickson Lib 147 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Monterey - District 17 100.0% of 184 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 40,157 72.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 15,612 28.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Napa - District 1 100.0% of 115 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 20,225 68.4%
John Jones
GOP 8,280 28.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 661 2.2%
Timothy Stock PFP 403 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Nevada - District 4 100.0% of 101 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Charlie Brown
Dem 17,026 54.0%
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 12,840 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 1,649 5.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 40 100.0% of 443 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ed Royce (I)
GOP 76,250 66.3%
Florice Hoffman
Dem 35,744 31.1%
Philip Inman Lib 2,993 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 44 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 17,129 67.8%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 7,510 29.7%
Kevin Akin PFP 632 2.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 46 100.0% of 390 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 60,490 61.7%
Jim Brandt
Dem 33,907 34.6%
Dennis Chang Lib 3,693 3.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 47 100.0% of 256 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Loretta Sanchez (I)
Dem 31,656 61.9%
Tan Nguyen
GOP 19,525 38.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 48 100.0% of 575 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Campbell (I)
GOP 86,479 59.0%
Steve Young
Dem 55,839 38.1%
Bruce Cohen Lib 4,264 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Placer - District 4 100.0% of 365 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 44,469 48.9%
Charlie Brown
Dem 42,387 46.6%
Dan Warren Lib 4,153 4.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Plumas - District 4 100.0% of 29 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,161 50.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,645 44.5%
Dan Warren Lib 393 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 41 100.0% of 188 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 11,802 61.3%
Louie Contreras
Dem 7,445 38.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 44 100.0% of 329 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 46,465 56.0%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 33,849 40.8%
Kevin Akin PFP 2,664 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 45 100.0% of 559 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mary Bono (I)
GOP 62,007 59.4%
David Roth
Dem 42,384 40.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 49 100.0% of 206 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 24,100 61.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 13,624 34.8%
Lars Grossmith Lib 1,389 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 3 100.0% of 522 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 75,352 58.8%
Bill Durston
Dem 49,473 38.6%
Douglas Tuma Lib 2,013 1.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 1,330 1.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 4 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,255 54.6%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,174 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 371 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 5 100.0% of 410 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Doris Matsui (I)
Dem 76,013 70.9%
Claire Yan
GOP 25,028 23.3%
Jeff Kravitz Grn 4,728 4.4%
John Reiger PFP 1,483 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 10 100.0% of 11 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 275 58.1%
Darcy Linn
GOP 198 41.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Benito - District 17 100.0% of 57 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 6,506 69.9%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 2,808 30.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 25 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 12,506 53.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 9,692 41.4%
David Erickson Lib 1,189 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 26 100.0% of 148 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 27,333 56.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 18,452 37.8%
Ted Brown Lib 1,803 3.7%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,185 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 41 100.0% of 372 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 70,209 67.8%
Louie Contreras
Dem 33,332 32.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 43 100.0% of 287 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Joe Baca (I)
Dem 43,571 65.0%
Scott Folkens
GOP 23,432 35.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jane Harman (I)
Dem 92,222 63.5%
Brian Gibson
GOP 46,312 31.9%
James Smith PFP 3,979 2.7%
Mike Binkley Lib 2,757 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 37 100.0% of 333 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Juanita Millender-McDonald (I)
Dem 69,901 82.4%
Herb Peters Lib 14,925 17.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 38 100.0% of 294 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Grace Napolitano (I)
Dem 66,442 75.5%
Sidney Street
GOP 21,606 24.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 39 100.0% of 305 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Linda Sanchez (I)
Dem 64,274 66.0%
James Andion
GOP 33,138 34.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 46 100.0% of 147 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 30,319 54.1%
Jim Brandt
Dem 23,743 42.3%
Dennis Chang Lib 2,007 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 190 62.3%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 115 37.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 19 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 16,049 64.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 8,739 35.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Marin - District 6 100.0% of 210 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 52,217 71.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 18,872 25.7%
Richard Friesen Lib 2,423 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mariposa - District 19 100.0% of 21 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 4,185 59.1%
TJ Cox
Dem 2,901 40.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mendocino - District 1 100.0% of 208 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 12,185 68.1%
John Jones
GOP 4,653 26.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 688 3.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 364 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Merced - District 18 100.0% of 114 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 23,752 64.5%
John Kanno
GOP 13,078 35.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Modoc - District 4 100.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 2,174 59.3%
Charlie Brown
Dem 1,230 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 262 7.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mono - District 25 100.0% of 13 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 1,935 52.6%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,600 43.5%
David Erickson Lib 147 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Monterey - District 17 100.0% of 184 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 40,157 72.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 15,612 28.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Napa - District 1 100.0% of 115 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 20,225 68.4%
John Jones
GOP 8,280 28.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 661 2.2%
Timothy Stock PFP 403 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Nevada - District 4 100.0% of 101 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Charlie Brown
Dem 17,026 54.0%
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 12,840 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 1,649 5.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 40 100.0% of 443 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ed Royce (I)
GOP 76,250 66.3%
Florice Hoffman
Dem 35,744 31.1%
Philip Inman Lib 2,993 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 44 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 17,129 67.8%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 7,510 29.7%
Kevin Akin PFP 632 2.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 46 100.0% of 390 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 60,490 61.7%
Jim Brandt
Dem 33,907 34.6%
Dennis Chang Lib 3,693 3.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 47 100.0% of 256 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Loretta Sanchez (I)
Dem 31,656 61.9%
Tan Nguyen
GOP 19,525 38.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 48 100.0% of 575 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Campbell (I)
GOP 86,479 59.0%
Steve Young
Dem 55,839 38.1%
Bruce Cohen Lib 4,264 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Placer - District 4 100.0% of 365 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 44,469 48.9%
Charlie Brown
Dem 42,387 46.6%
Dan Warren Lib 4,153 4.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Plumas - District 4 100.0% of 29 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,161 50.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,645 44.5%
Dan Warren Lib 393 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 41 100.0% of 188 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 11,802 61.3%
Louie Contreras
Dem 7,445 38.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 44 100.0% of 329 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 46,465 56.0%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 33,849 40.8%
Kevin Akin PFP 2,664 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 45 100.0% of 559 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mary Bono (I)
GOP 62,007 59.4%
David Roth
Dem 42,384 40.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 49 100.0% of 206 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 24,100 61.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 13,624 34.8%
Lars Grossmith Lib 1,389 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 3 100.0% of 522 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 75,352 58.8%
Bill Durston
Dem 49,473 38.6%
Douglas Tuma Lib 2,013 1.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 1,330 1.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 4 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,255 54.6%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,174 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 371 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 5 100.0% of 410 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Doris Matsui (I)
Dem 76,013 70.9%
Claire Yan
GOP 25,028 23.3%
Jeff Kravitz Grn 4,728 4.4%
John Reiger PFP 1,483 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 10 100.0% of 11 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 275 58.1%
Darcy Linn
GOP 198 41.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Benito - District 17 100.0% of 57 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 6,506 69.9%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 2,808 30.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 25 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 12,506 53.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 9,692 41.4%
David Erickson Lib 1,189 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 26 100.0% of 148 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 27,333 56.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 18,452 37.8%
Ted Brown Lib 1,803 3.7%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,185 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 41 100.0% of 372 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 70,209 67.8%
Louie Contreras
Dem 33,332 32.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 43 100.0% of 287 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Joe Baca (I)
Dem 43,571 65.0%
Scott Folkens
GOP 23,432 35.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
sheela
10-25 09:13 PM
NK2000:
Thanks a ton for this great job. I will mail out today
Some crazy fellow gave me RED for my above posting and joining this compaign.
I will still urge people to join this to the benefit of all those on /planning to use AC21.
Thanks a ton for this great job. I will mail out today
Some crazy fellow gave me RED for my above posting and joining this compaign.
I will still urge people to join this to the benefit of all those on /planning to use AC21.
more...
pappu
09-13 08:03 PM
here is the java code in case anyone wants to generate for different states..
each URL gets 100 mediaids..
i tried creating the file and attaching it but for some reason upload failed everytime. not sure why. So here you go...
public class GenerateClass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int j = 0; j < 65; j++) {
int startNum = j * 100;
StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
for (int i = startNum; i < startNum + 100 ; i++) {
sb.append("&mediaid=").append(i);
}
System.out.println("http://capwiz.com/aila2/mail/compose/?type=ME&alertid=" + sb.toString());
System.out.println("\n\n");
}
}
}
please email the file to media at immigrationvoice.org with instructions how to implement/use it. This will be very useful.
each URL gets 100 mediaids..
i tried creating the file and attaching it but for some reason upload failed everytime. not sure why. So here you go...
public class GenerateClass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int j = 0; j < 65; j++) {
int startNum = j * 100;
StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
for (int i = startNum; i < startNum + 100 ; i++) {
sb.append("&mediaid=").append(i);
}
System.out.println("http://capwiz.com/aila2/mail/compose/?type=ME&alertid=" + sb.toString());
System.out.println("\n\n");
}
}
}
please email the file to media at immigrationvoice.org with instructions how to implement/use it. This will be very useful.
2010 -wallpaper-darkrai.html
jungalee43
03-05 08:31 PM
My adjustment application is pending for almost five years now. I was not in the habit of tracking LUDs but of late I was tracking and concluded that most of the time it means nothing.
Here is what happened today. My attorney had applied for my travel document on Jan 28. I got three soft LUDs between Feb 8 to 10. Status remaing same "Case received and pending". To my surprise today I received my travel documents from my attorney. The issue date on the document is March 5. My attorney mailed it to me on March 3, I believe as soon as he received it.
The last LUD on my case is still Feb 10 and the status still says "Received and Pending".
I think we should not go too much by the LUDs.
Here is what happened today. My attorney had applied for my travel document on Jan 28. I got three soft LUDs between Feb 8 to 10. Status remaing same "Case received and pending". To my surprise today I received my travel documents from my attorney. The issue date on the document is March 5. My attorney mailed it to me on March 3, I believe as soon as he received it.
The last LUD on my case is still Feb 10 and the status still says "Received and Pending".
I think we should not go too much by the LUDs.
more...
sundarraj_us
06-10 01:49 PM
USCIS to Issue Two-Year EAD for I-485 Waiters at End of June 2008
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security announced on 06/09/2008 that the DHS would start issuing two-year EAD beginning from end of June 2008 for the I-485 filers. Hooray!
Announcement: "I'm also pleased to announce that we will be extending the validity period of the employment authorization documents that we issue to individuals who are waiting adjustment of status to lawful permit residenture or in colloquial phrase, the green card. Currently, adjustment applications are granted employment authorization documents with only a one year maximum validity. Beginning later this month, we'll start issuing these documents with a two-year validity period for aliens who are waiting adjustment of status if their application is expected to be pending for more than a year. This, again, is eliminating a persistent source of frustration for workers who are here, who have a pending adjustment application but have to go and renew their employment documents every single year. It's going to cut the paperwork there."
Can you post the link of the official announcement, thanks in advance
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security announced on 06/09/2008 that the DHS would start issuing two-year EAD beginning from end of June 2008 for the I-485 filers. Hooray!
Announcement: "I'm also pleased to announce that we will be extending the validity period of the employment authorization documents that we issue to individuals who are waiting adjustment of status to lawful permit residenture or in colloquial phrase, the green card. Currently, adjustment applications are granted employment authorization documents with only a one year maximum validity. Beginning later this month, we'll start issuing these documents with a two-year validity period for aliens who are waiting adjustment of status if their application is expected to be pending for more than a year. This, again, is eliminating a persistent source of frustration for workers who are here, who have a pending adjustment application but have to go and renew their employment documents every single year. It's going to cut the paperwork there."
Can you post the link of the official announcement, thanks in advance
hair dresses Darkrai vs Lucario by
desi3933
08-04 11:49 AM
There's no law that employer should borne the cost of GC.
I suggest you talk to your lawyer first. The cost of Labor and I-140 should be borne by the employer as they are employer's petitions.
I have spent almost 10K in my GC process until last year and 2K this year for EADs and APs.
2K for EAD and AP this year alone! Let us see how many people on this forum has spend that much on EAD and AP. Paying high legal fees is NOT a basis to seek remedy.
I spend about 3 K in one more GC process I started several years back which I abandoned because I changed the emloyer.
That was your choice.
I Spent 1000s of dollars in Visa stamping, H4 renewals. And yes I'm stuck for almost a decade.
H1/H4 and Green Card processing are not related to each other. H1 is for current job and GC is for the future job.
There are at least 10 people I know who are in similar situations, so I'm guessing there'll be thousands in USA. These are facts it may not apply to you but does apply to lot of people here...
One hand, you are saying guessing and still insist that it is based on facts.
I suggest you talk to your lawyer first. The cost of Labor and I-140 should be borne by the employer as they are employer's petitions.
I have spent almost 10K in my GC process until last year and 2K this year for EADs and APs.
2K for EAD and AP this year alone! Let us see how many people on this forum has spend that much on EAD and AP. Paying high legal fees is NOT a basis to seek remedy.
I spend about 3 K in one more GC process I started several years back which I abandoned because I changed the emloyer.
That was your choice.
I Spent 1000s of dollars in Visa stamping, H4 renewals. And yes I'm stuck for almost a decade.
H1/H4 and Green Card processing are not related to each other. H1 is for current job and GC is for the future job.
There are at least 10 people I know who are in similar situations, so I'm guessing there'll be thousands in USA. These are facts it may not apply to you but does apply to lot of people here...
One hand, you are saying guessing and still insist that it is based on facts.
more...
coopheal
08-13 03:55 PM
IV Core any ideas. Will this work.
.....
some 50-100 EB3 I applicants should go to DC and meet high officials, CHC folks and every department that is influential to EB immigrant VISA and make them understand our plight. No guarantee that this would work. But, we will get a first hand response that may help atleast help us to chose from one of 3 options listed above.
.....
some 50-100 EB3 I applicants should go to DC and meet high officials, CHC folks and every department that is influential to EB immigrant VISA and make them understand our plight. No guarantee that this would work. But, we will get a first hand response that may help atleast help us to chose from one of 3 options listed above.
hot pokemon wallpaper darkrai.
add78
05-22 04:03 PM
You are right, Ramesh, sadly people have time to check for Bill updates and get their spirits down with amendment removal news but no time to get more friends to join or contribute. Please wake up people and contribute, and persuade your friends / colleagues at work you know to join IV. I got a weird response (chat) from a close friend saying she would rather donate to Myanmar/ China victim that her own Immigration cause, but I haven't given up, I will try to persuade such friends even though that raised my B.P. Please, people who seek advice and answers, consider contributing first. Bump.
more...
house drifting wallpaper. drifting
JunRN
05-15 11:39 PM
He got info from USCIS through congressional liason that his 140 was indeed approved on the date when the IO claimed it was denied and it was indeed revoked when he got a denial. The revoke was initiated by his employer.
They seem to have all info proper. There is no faulty system. If there is faulty system, probably we have known by now with things never happening right
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding faulty system, if it's not the database, it must be the practice. We have heard not few cases of AC21 cases being improperly denied.
My take is that the system used by USCIS is not designed to check for AC21 cases and so rightfully, when IO sees denied I-140, they deny the I-485. I think their Manual is also not updated to reflect AC21. AC21 is still a memo and not in their Manual.
They seem to have all info proper. There is no faulty system. If there is faulty system, probably we have known by now with things never happening right
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding faulty system, if it's not the database, it must be the practice. We have heard not few cases of AC21 cases being improperly denied.
My take is that the system used by USCIS is not designed to check for AC21 cases and so rightfully, when IO sees denied I-140, they deny the I-485. I think their Manual is also not updated to reflect AC21. AC21 is still a memo and not in their Manual.
tattoo darkrai. Large Cargo 30
singhsa3
07-20 03:48 PM
Not sure what your concerns are my freind. My intentions were pure and as follows:
a) We have won a battle but war is far from over.
b) Whole point of being able to file 485 is to obtain interim benefits, if there are substantial delays then whats the point.
c) There are other priorities in the life and it will be unfortumate if those are hostages to EAD/GC/AP.
e) The reality of the situation might inspire people to make change happen.
Having said that, I would like to express my disappointment on your tone of the message. Unlike yours, my message was not personal in nature. Your comments made me feel bad. I urge you to please exercise restraint. We are a team here!
Preparing for future is one thing but if you think that this is a valuable thread then go with it and enjoy, i just find it disheartening that people are trying to undermine whatever has been achieved by such threads (Like i said, he might be completely right but is there a need to tell it this way) and what are you going to prepare for the future ;) Do you know it ? (If you do, please keep it to yourself and enjoy or cry about it). Right now, i want to be positive and enjoy the fruits of what IV has done to get some relief, why use negative logic to undermine it and that is what i am saying. Leave us alone, who like IV and who want to have a moment's respite. Chill out dude, no offence meant and this my only response, will not reply if you attack me, so cool off.
So what are trying to prove ? Generally i dont respond but this just shows that you have a lot of time. Why dampen people's spirits by such post or why try to say that whatever IV has done is a waste. That is what i get from what you have posted. If you are cynical, keep it to your own self, dont start such negative threads. Dont know you and this is not a personal attack but think twice before you create such posts, because they are disheartening for many (including me) who are so frustrated that they can believe any thing negative. Chill out and let us enjoy the moment why we have it, if things change over the period, we are fighters, we will survive but dont add to our problems by your predictions and logic (which might be right to start with but do we tell cancer patients that they are going to die on such and such date).
No offence intended but cool off.
a) We have won a battle but war is far from over.
b) Whole point of being able to file 485 is to obtain interim benefits, if there are substantial delays then whats the point.
c) There are other priorities in the life and it will be unfortumate if those are hostages to EAD/GC/AP.
e) The reality of the situation might inspire people to make change happen.
Having said that, I would like to express my disappointment on your tone of the message. Unlike yours, my message was not personal in nature. Your comments made me feel bad. I urge you to please exercise restraint. We are a team here!
Preparing for future is one thing but if you think that this is a valuable thread then go with it and enjoy, i just find it disheartening that people are trying to undermine whatever has been achieved by such threads (Like i said, he might be completely right but is there a need to tell it this way) and what are you going to prepare for the future ;) Do you know it ? (If you do, please keep it to yourself and enjoy or cry about it). Right now, i want to be positive and enjoy the fruits of what IV has done to get some relief, why use negative logic to undermine it and that is what i am saying. Leave us alone, who like IV and who want to have a moment's respite. Chill out dude, no offence meant and this my only response, will not reply if you attack me, so cool off.
So what are trying to prove ? Generally i dont respond but this just shows that you have a lot of time. Why dampen people's spirits by such post or why try to say that whatever IV has done is a waste. That is what i get from what you have posted. If you are cynical, keep it to your own self, dont start such negative threads. Dont know you and this is not a personal attack but think twice before you create such posts, because they are disheartening for many (including me) who are so frustrated that they can believe any thing negative. Chill out and let us enjoy the moment why we have it, if things change over the period, we are fighters, we will survive but dont add to our problems by your predictions and logic (which might be right to start with but do we tell cancer patients that they are going to die on such and such date).
No offence intended but cool off.
more...
pictures TopHat#39;s Wallpapers for #491 -
starscream
05-02 09:36 AM
Received a direct deposit from IRS today of $1200. I am on H1B and my wife on H4 and both of us have SSNs. We had filed jointly.
Also another friend of mine received his refud for a family of 4 - he is on H1B, wife on H4, both have SSNs, one daughter US citizen (has SSN) and another daughter Indian citizen (no SSN). He got 600 + 600 + 300= $ 1500.
It all adds up...
Also another friend of mine received his refud for a family of 4 - he is on H1B, wife on H4, both have SSNs, one daughter US citizen (has SSN) and another daughter Indian citizen (no SSN). He got 600 + 600 + 300= $ 1500.
It all adds up...
dresses movie rise of darkrai,
GotGC??
01-04 04:10 PM
Absolutely, and yours truly is also one of them ;)
But the point being, when IIT & IIM grads start staying back in the country, the culture will seep down eventually...a sign of things to come.
you are assuming that all Indians in the US are from IIT. there are lesser mortals too you know ......... :-))
But the point being, when IIT & IIM grads start staying back in the country, the culture will seep down eventually...a sign of things to come.
you are assuming that all Indians in the US are from IIT. there are lesser mortals too you know ......... :-))
more...
makeup Darkrai Poster
Alabaman
02-24 10:04 AM
Yes story is thesame. The US is unfair to high skilled immigrants. I lived in the US for 8 years. School, worked, volunteered, purchased a home, etc. When the down turn came, I was left high and dry. No unemployment benefits with all the taxes and social security that I have paid. To make matters worse, I was required to depart the same day. I had properties... been living here for 8 years!!
Even though I made this choice, it does not make it humane to have such a system. You ask, what does the US really gain by making people go through the stress, anxiety, sleepless nights? Nothing.
Even though I made this choice, it does not make it humane to have such a system. You ask, what does the US really gain by making people go through the stress, anxiety, sleepless nights? Nothing.
girlfriend 50 Pokemon HD Wallpapers
![darkrai wallpaper. Darkrai (small) Sprites [link]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sMpXAPxPE6cm8wc-NyIeQyOm1NRxxEh4Cd2hdmCsH-WgWPFLyJput_O_h-Tczn9TNvppOw7JaBzkw0Em-frMcF9MkMxDKT8lBBta8OjSfsBORdpFhOGkg3Bt9g2dCZ7s8=s0-d "Darkrai (small) Sprites [link]")
chanduv23
04-30 02:32 PM
No audio. Just deafening silence (deafening because of high level of background noise). I thought they aren't saying anything.
Same here, looks like a technical issue.
Same here, looks like a technical issue.
hairstyles of darkrai the journey#39;s
ca_immigrant
05-03 01:39 PM
Thanks, we expect some of the offices will say this. There can be lot of answers to this question. One way to respond is -
"For last 10 years there has been no High-skilled immigration bill passed by the Congress. The world has changed in last 10 years. I understand that the Senator is a champion for creating more jobs in America. Employment based green cards will create jobs in America. I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card.
I would sincerely request you to please convey to the Senator if he would consider supporting some version of the immigration bill
giving more weight to green cards and creating jobs in America, or maybe the Senator could lead the effort for improving the proposal"
Please always end the call on a cordial note thanking the Staff member.
Great initiative by IV !! Keep it up. I will call today.
One quick point if I may please on ... "I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card. "
Wonder if instead of this we should say "Many of us want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card. "
If everyone says "I want to start my own company...." not sure if that sounds true....neways...guess it is very minor a point ....
Once again !! Great initiative !!
"For last 10 years there has been no High-skilled immigration bill passed by the Congress. The world has changed in last 10 years. I understand that the Senator is a champion for creating more jobs in America. Employment based green cards will create jobs in America. I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card.
I would sincerely request you to please convey to the Senator if he would consider supporting some version of the immigration bill
giving more weight to green cards and creating jobs in America, or maybe the Senator could lead the effort for improving the proposal"
Please always end the call on a cordial note thanking the Staff member.
Great initiative by IV !! Keep it up. I will call today.
One quick point if I may please on ... "I want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card. "
Wonder if instead of this we should say "Many of us want to start my own company and hire people in America. But I cannot do that if I don't have a green card. "
If everyone says "I want to start my own company...." not sure if that sounds true....neways...guess it is very minor a point ....
Once again !! Great initiative !!
susie
07-15 12:12 PM
I thought about posting my case details and now the complaint has been filed feel it is only fair to share with others as my case could set a presidence for others
I will keep story as points for ease
1. Husband moved to the USA in 1998 on L 1 inter company transfer
2. In 2000 company applied for I 140 for husband and approved May 2001
3. Within one year of I 140 approval, husband submitted I 485 for himself and youngest son. At the same time filed I 824 for son who was living abroad and was to follow to join once degree was finished. per I 485 instructions which still state to follow this procedure if minor child abroad.
4. Son abroad became 21 years in April 2002 and also subject to patriot act.
His I 824 was pending at enactment of CSPA.
5. In Oct 2002 we received a denial letter for 1st I 824, this letter did not say "aged out" just said re submit new I 824 once husband received his green card (so no final determination )
6. May 2004 submitted new I 824 for son abroad, this was approved Aug 2004
7. As no news from consulate by Jan 2005, sought assistance from Congressman Weldon. Eventually in Oct 2005 (via e-mail) The American embassy in London advised congressman my son aged out
8. After many consultations with different attorneys, who all said son was protected under cspa, started to get file together to file complaint.
9. Had difficulty finding attorney who understood the cspa well enough or willing to challenge.
10, In early 2006 husband became unwell and passed within a matter of a few weeks
As husband (the petitioner ) passed away I thought all hope was lost. Thanks to reporters printing my story an attorney came forward and offered assistance. All assets were frozen but the attorney kindly took case on a pro- bono
The complaint was filed March 2007, on the basis the first I 824 was denied in error.
The cspa is not retroactive as a rule and son is covered under limited exception as I 824 was filed before he was 21 years and pending at enactment of cspa.
There has recently been a new cspa court case that has approved a retroactive case, so there is hope for us all
I will keep story as points for ease
1. Husband moved to the USA in 1998 on L 1 inter company transfer
2. In 2000 company applied for I 140 for husband and approved May 2001
3. Within one year of I 140 approval, husband submitted I 485 for himself and youngest son. At the same time filed I 824 for son who was living abroad and was to follow to join once degree was finished. per I 485 instructions which still state to follow this procedure if minor child abroad.
4. Son abroad became 21 years in April 2002 and also subject to patriot act.
His I 824 was pending at enactment of CSPA.
5. In Oct 2002 we received a denial letter for 1st I 824, this letter did not say "aged out" just said re submit new I 824 once husband received his green card (so no final determination )
6. May 2004 submitted new I 824 for son abroad, this was approved Aug 2004
7. As no news from consulate by Jan 2005, sought assistance from Congressman Weldon. Eventually in Oct 2005 (via e-mail) The American embassy in London advised congressman my son aged out
8. After many consultations with different attorneys, who all said son was protected under cspa, started to get file together to file complaint.
9. Had difficulty finding attorney who understood the cspa well enough or willing to challenge.
10, In early 2006 husband became unwell and passed within a matter of a few weeks
As husband (the petitioner ) passed away I thought all hope was lost. Thanks to reporters printing my story an attorney came forward and offered assistance. All assets were frozen but the attorney kindly took case on a pro- bono
The complaint was filed March 2007, on the basis the first I 824 was denied in error.
The cspa is not retroactive as a rule and son is covered under limited exception as I 824 was filed before he was 21 years and pending at enactment of cspa.
There has recently been a new cspa court case that has approved a retroactive case, so there is hope for us all
GCNirvana007
09-17 06:17 AM
Hi Friends, I went to DMV PA (Bridgevile) to renew my drivers license recently. They are not accepting original EAD/ AP, copy of 485 receipt plus employer letter. They are asking for original 485 receipt. Unfortunately my ex-employer did not give the original receipt.
Did any body renew the PA DL without original 485 receipt?
Did you ask them to show you the rule book where it says you need I-485 receipt?. If not, please do.
Did any body renew the PA DL without original 485 receipt?
Did you ask them to show you the rule book where it says you need I-485 receipt?. If not, please do.
No comments:
Post a Comment