Friday, June 17, 2011

referendum 1967

images YES! the 1967 Referendum referendum 1967. the 1967 Referendum, 2007
  • the 1967 Referendum, 2007



  • jonty_11
    06-13 01:37 PM
    Can Bush really do it?

    Source - www.immigration-law.com

    06/12/2007: How Successful Was Bush in Today's Lunch with GOP Leaders in the Hill?

    * Senator Sessions reportedly said "Bush Should Back-Off." Additionally, the up-beat statement of the President on the plane to the U.S. from the trip in Europe yesterday and today's speech for the press after the lunch very much speak for itself that he has failed to twist arms of his party leaders to support and move ahead with the dormant compromise CIR bill in the Senate. Report also indicates that the Senate Majority Leader is not ready to change his mind unless Bush assures support from the Respublican Senators and Madam Pelosi, the House Speaker, maintains a position that unless the Senate passes the bill, she would not pick up CIR in the House. The news on Bush's plan to visit the Capitol building today raised hopes high in the CIR support communities and today's news should be certainly a disappointment. Read on.





    wallpaper the 1967 Referendum, 2007 referendum 1967. Gibraltar Referendum 1967
  • Gibraltar Referendum 1967



  • anu007us
    07-28 04:09 PM
    Never join Alphanet Corp (Alpha Net Consulting LLC (http://www.anetcorp.com))... Stay away from this fraud company... Immigration fraud..





    referendum 1967. Referendum A - QwickStep
  • Referendum A - QwickStep



  • Jaime
    09-14 01:06 PM
    We mean EVERYONE!!! DC is not far!!! Let's all go!!!

    What will it take to change your mind????

    If you are within 4-5 hour drive of Washington you shouldn't even be debating whether to go or not. The decision is: YES!!!!!





    2011 Gibraltar Referendum 1967 referendum 1967. at the 1967 Referendum
  • at the 1967 Referendum



  • GCanyMinute
    08-02 01:56 PM
    Hi Guys I'm pretty new in all this and i've been following this discussion and perhaps someone can help me.... here is the question.... Do I have a visa number available ?? If so why am I waiting that long??

    here is my story:
    i'm EB3 world - got my labor pd is 05/2002, and I concurrent filled I-485/I-140 on 05/2003.... already made 2 fingerprints..... I-140 was approved on 12/2005 (TSC).... i renew my EAD every year since I filled.

    if what you guys are saying is correct that in order to accept the I-485 to be filled USCIS need to have a visa number available to the applicant.... y am I still waiting?? :confused:

    thanks for the help and i'm sorry in advance for my lack of knowledge :)



    more...


    referendum 1967. in the 1967 referendum
  • in the 1967 referendum



  • vghc
    07-03 12:51 PM
    I remember there was a proposal to give one Green Card per family to eliminate the retrogression for EB categories. I don't know what happen to that. It was like one year ago or so.

    Yes, i recall seeing that too.
    I don't like seeing families being torn apart......the best solution is to increase the number of GC for all of us. But that won't happen. :(
    So the next best thing in my opinion, is to give GC's to principle applicant. That would benefit the country as a whole and all those who are working in this country.





    referendum 1967. Referendum, 1967, 1967
  • Referendum, 1967, 1967



  • pappu
    02-01 10:17 AM
    Immigration Voice is making every effort to allow for members to be part of this advocacy effort (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1901186-action-item-advocacy-days-in-washington-dc-in-april-2011-a.html). IV team requests that many members plan to come to DC in April. This thread is started for members who wish to carpool or donate air miles or for DC/MD members to host others. Please use this thread to connect with each other.

    However, for reasons beyond our control if members cannot do so, please contribute monetarily (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum85-action-items-for-everyone/1904554-action-item-advocacy-day-contributions.html#post2305081).

    Sukhwinder is coordinating the efforts on carpool and hosting options.
    Members who wish to carpool please post on the thread as well as send an email to Sukhwinder - 2011carpool@gmail.com

    Vinay is coordinating the efforts on airmiles, people wishing to donate air miles or request help for using the air miles, please PM vin13.


    Poster to spread the word.. (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/images/a/a7/Myposter.pdf)

    Thank you.



    more...


    referendum 1967. Gibraltar Referendum 1967
  • Gibraltar Referendum 1967



  • clif
    03-07 09:23 AM
    What if my employer is definitely going to revoke my approved I-140 upon my resignation (past 180 days)? Do I need to file "Notice of I-140 Portability"?

    Also, in the above posts when people are saying that almost no support is needed from the new employer to keep 485 process going smoothly, is it safe to assume they are changing jobs using EAD and not doing H1B transfer?

    One more question, my employer will revoke my I-140 and my H1B. How long can I be without a job after they do that? Are the above actions of my employer very likely to result in a RFE from USCIS? If so, what will USCIS ask for in RFE?

    Thank for all the advise.

    ---------------------------------
    Contributed $100.





    2010 Referendum A - QwickStep referendum 1967. YES! the 1967 Referendum
  • YES! the 1967 Referendum



  • gc_aspirant_prasad
    06-22 04:46 PM
    My attorney didnt ask for DL copies, but did require color copies of passport.
    Guess, its different with each lawyer based on their experience.



    more...


    referendum 1967. referendum of 1967.
  • referendum of 1967.



  • rajkr
    06-10 07:49 PM
    First of all there is no mention of EADs in the Bill. So I do not understand why Pappu is highlighting this issue so much.

    Grassley continues his war on H1B visas. When I see this Forum, I see a high degree of panic among the members here. Please UNDERSTAND VERY CLEARLY that this is only a proposal, not a law. To become a law it has to go through both the house and the senate.

    Grassley and Saunders have both tried to do everything possible to eliminate the H1B program over the years. They haven't had much success. I don't see them having any success with this bill either. There are very powerful interests that will step up to oppose this legislation when and IF it is ever considered. Personally, I just don't see it ever getting serious consideration.

    Saunders, while listed as an "independent", was nominated and elected as a Socialist. He simply doesn't like business.

    Please also understand that when you say that if this Bill is passed then H1b, L1, EAD can not be renewed. Many seems to forget that GC is also subject to renewal process. So why do not you include GC also in the list. Please do not waste your times on ifs and buts type of things. Focus on what is happening and what is realistic. Support CIR and how it can be approved, but do not run after something that can never ever happen.





    hair at the 1967 Referendum referendum 1967. In 1967 a referendum was held
  • In 1967 a referendum was held



  • StarSun
    02-08 09:09 AM
    Thank you actaccord, shyamkishore, sukwinderd, reachinus for your contributions.

    I request other members to come forward to donate air miles or plan on carpool options NOW, as this will allow for people to decide on their commitment to travel to DC. Please do not wait until the last week or so to offer air miles....

    I also need a volunteer who can coordinate the airline donations, interested members, please contact me.

    Few members have submitted their wish to contribute air miles and hotel stay in the registration form. Please come forward on this thread.

    Thank you.



    more...


    referendum 1967. referendum, 1967 passes
  • referendum, 1967 passes



  • paskal
    07-03 03:51 PM
    I did not read in detail this debate ..but I can say that many qualified and experienced people will not agree for the above ..esp if they have kids who go to school. for e.g. ..for me to do the above is not possible at all.
    at the maximum, youngsters will do this once ..to get some American experience.
    just imagine what the kid has to go through for such cases ..do schooling here for 4 years ..do schooling in India (find a school )..then the kid has to learn several languages, new system etc etc ..then comeback here and start school..almost impossible
    and I think many sensible people will not do the above ..relocating to their own country or to go to a country (like canada) is much much better in these cases.



    nixstor,

    they have considerably raised the bar for EB1 A and EB1 b to discourage people applying, but I suspect that if you run a trend, EB1C is on the rise. I think you might be surprised about how often it does actually happen.
    I half expect EB1 to be retrogressed at some point. There is a big backlog of pending !40's in EB1- NSC is running over a year behind.

    albertpinto:
    it's a whole of 365 days. people do it, i have seen it happen. what makes you think a big multinational has to send you to india? you could go to a european office, your family could stay behind, you could be sent to an english speaking country, kids could be young enough...there are a million ways to deal with this inconveneience when the rewards are clear. even now, people in consulting travel all the time, they are hardly home, so what's the huge difference in being across the pond (you get to travel back, your family gets to travel there)? sure, not for everyone, but when possible, this loophole is very much in use.





    hot in the 1967 referendum referendum 1967. the 1967 Referendum, 2007
  • the 1967 Referendum, 2007



  • eilsoe
    02-16 06:52 PM
    I'll have a WIP screen up in a few minutes.. and then it's off to bed :sleep:



    more...


    house Gibraltar_referendum_Nov_1967. referendum 1967. in the 1967 Referendum.
  • in the 1967 Referendum.



  • DesiGuy
    09-13 10:59 AM
    YES...good idea, we need it (gave u a green).

    but (there's always one;)) at the moment, since time is short,

    lets be FOCUSsed on calling the REPs.


    Energy flows where Focus goes





    tattoo Referendum, 1967, 1967 referendum 1967. The 1967 Referendum
  • The 1967 Referendum



  • ajthakur
    07-14 06:44 PM
    I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.

    Do you see any LUD change on your I-140 after you changed employers?



    more...


    pictures Gibraltar Referendum 1967 referendum 1967. 1967 Referendum Dinner,
  • 1967 Referendum Dinner,



  • kumarc123
    07-18 03:48 PM
    I complied the list from visa stastistics website
    http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html

    example 2007 numbers from
    http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY07AnnualReportTableVp2.pdf

    2006 numbers from
    http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableV-Part2.pdf

    Hey Man,
    This was quiet good information, thanks for all your efforts in finding and compiling them together.

    Take Care





    dresses the 1967 Referendum, 2007 referendum 1967. on the 1967 Referendum.
  • on the 1967 Referendum.



  • vin13
    11-12 03:32 PM
    Isn't there a limit of 27% of visas per quarter per country per calendar year ? If that limit is there then who will take precedence ? Quarterly Spill over or that limit ?


    To me I think DOS is doing 27% quota limit for first 3 quarters then they are doing spill over so there is no quarterly spill. What if they will show us that there is a limit per quarter in law and they have to follow it. Is it something like deadlock. that trying to follow one law breaks another one.

    What if we end up getting response that there is some action needed from Lawmakers to correct law..

    just random thoughts.

    In simple math, spillover happens only when there are left overs. If they were able to allocate visas to fill the quarterly limit(say 27%) then there is no spillovers. But we know that there are leftover visa that can be allocated quarterly not annually.

    We are not 100% sure of exactly how they are allocating. At the least, this effort will help us understand the current process.



    more...


    makeup referendum of 1967. referendum 1967. Gibraltar_referendum_Nov_1967.
  • Gibraltar_referendum_Nov_1967.



  • coopheal
    04-10 04:56 AM
    Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)

    The biggest surprise is EB3 Mexico. It just turned to U. How is that possible??
    Can this happen to EB3-I India as well??





    girlfriend The 1967 Referendum referendum 1967. quot;Although the 1967 referendum
  • quot;Although the 1967 referendum



  • McLuvin
    03-12 01:55 PM
    finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...

    Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)

    They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"

    Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.

    Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.

    Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.

    Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)

    Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.

    Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:

    If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
    Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
    If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.





    hairstyles referendum, 1967 passes referendum 1967. 1967 Referendum
  • 1967 Referendum



  • shantanup
    03-16 05:44 PM
    Infinite_Patience_GC,

    Though I don't like your language and attitude, you have a valid point. I honestly feel that those who have used labor substitution should not get their green cards earlier than me.





    sri1309
    03-09 10:17 PM
    Both 1A and 2A category for Family Based (sons, daughters, spouse - of citizens and green card holders) has better dates (15th Aug 02, 15th Aug 2004) than EB-2 India, and EB-3 India.

    This is so preposterous, words cannot even begin to describe this absurdity.

    So those of us who have been in U.S. for almost a decade, have been contributing to this society, and have held our life in constant limbo, are being given a lower priority than those who are still back in their own country and living a happy life and who can now immigrate to U.S. based on family immigration.

    Do the lawmakers have no common sense left atall??

    You have a good point, but did you write this to atleast one lawmaker. Everybody here has very good ideas, but there seems to be something missing. We need to act. This is the time to write again.





    dixie
    08-03 01:25 PM
    if there is diff emails with diff content it will be better. it will show diversity. even though we all will say the same thing.

    on second thoughts i feel lou dobbs is unlikely to change his opinion even if 1K people send him mails. send it anyways to all other cnn anchors so that IV can get some coverage on cnn.

    I feel sending anything to Lou Dobbs will only be counter-productive. We dont know for sure where he stands on EB visas, but the H1-B increase component in the SKIL bill is gauranteed to make him growl like a rabid dog. He is sure to paint it as an american-worker replacement bill.No coverage is better than coverage for numbersusa's point of view.



    No comments:

    Post a Comment