ena23
04-07 11:41 AM
May 2011 Visa Bulletin Predictions - EB Category US Non-Immigrants: Home to All Non Immigrants (http:///2011/03/may-2011-visa-bulletin-predictions-eb.html)
date will move
EB2-India would see movement till 15 December 2006 (based on EB1 spillover of 12000, half yearly EB2-demand and half-yearly unused EB4 and EB5 numbers).
EB2-China could advance to 15 December 2006.
any comments?
date will move
EB2-India would see movement till 15 December 2006 (based on EB1 spillover of 12000, half yearly EB2-demand and half-yearly unused EB4 and EB5 numbers).
EB2-China could advance to 15 December 2006.
any comments?
wallpaper hot jerry seinfeld children
grupak
08-20 08:42 PM
What are u guys trying to acheive and how will this help EB3 India?
Also, how is the spillover going to be distributed among EB3? First EB3 ROW and then EB3 C/I as in the old system?
Personally, I think the visa recapture bill would help things quite a bit.
Also, how is the spillover going to be distributed among EB3? First EB3 ROW and then EB3 C/I as in the old system?
Personally, I think the visa recapture bill would help things quite a bit.
addsf345
12-01 10:58 AM
Hi all ,
Whoever is using Vonage unlimited $24.99 or $32.XX world plan; Today I received a mail from Vonage .
"Dear XXXXXX XXXXXXX,
>
> Thank you for using Vonage as your Internet telephony provider.
>
> In the course of Vonageb
>
> Please reply this email or call 1-(866)-254-3704 (Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm EST) so that we may discuss your rate plan. If no response is received within 72 business hours, I will need to change your account to the Small Business Premium Unlimited Plan at $49.99 per month plus tax. Your international calls will be billed at the corresponding per minute rate for the destination you are calling. You may view these rates by visiting:
>
> Vonage - International Per-Minute Rates (http://www.vonage.com/international_per-minute_rates/?lid=sub_nav_international_rates&refer_id=WEBFT0706010001W1)
>
> Please be advised that if no response is received by December 7th, your account may face suspension or an immediate change in rate plan.
>
> Please review the Vonage Residential Terms of Service section 5.4 below.
>
> 5.4 Inconsistent with Normal Use.
> If you use the service or the device in a way that is inconsistent with the normal use for your service or plan, you will be required, at Vonage's sole discretion, to pay the rates for the service or plan that would apply to the way you used the service or device, or terminate the plan. For example, if you subscribe to one of our residential service plans, and your usage is inconsistent with normal residential use, you may thereafter be required to pay our applicable, higher rates for commercial service for all periods in which your use of our service or the device was inconsistent with normal residential use. Unlimited voice services are provided primarily for continuous live dialog between two individuals. Lack of continuous dialog activity, unusual call patterns, excessive numbers and/or consistent excessive usage (i.e., More than 5,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited residential calling and/or more than 10,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited small busine
> ss calling), will be considered indicators that use may be inconsistent with normal use, or that impermissible use may be occurring and may trigger an account review by us. The creation or use of related multiple accounts or excessive residential lines to circumvent these levels shall also be considered indicators that use of the service may be inconsistent with normal use for the subscribed monthly plan(s) and may trigger an account review by Vonage. Failure to contact Vonage in response to its notifications and/or failure to promptly correct usage activity to conform to normal use will result, in Vonage's sole discretion, in immediate mandatory transfer to another appropriate plan, suspension or termination of service. You acknowledge that if your service is terminated under this provision, you are subject to all applicable disconnection and device or other rebate recovery charges. Vonage's right to terminate your account under Section 6.5(b) (with or no reason) is not lim
> ited by this provision. For a non-exhaustive list of example!
> s of use
> s of our service inconsistent with normal residential use, see below.
> b
> b
> b
>
>
> If you have any questions, please reply to this email or contact me at 1-(866)-254-3704.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> XXXXXXX
> Vonage Usage Department
> Revenue Operations
> 1-(866)-254-3704
"
just wondering if you have exceeded 5K limit few times? I was told that if some one consistently do this, vonage may review their account. Though they advertise that as UNLIMITED mintues, its in fact not.
Whoever is using Vonage unlimited $24.99 or $32.XX world plan; Today I received a mail from Vonage .
"Dear XXXXXX XXXXXXX,
>
> Thank you for using Vonage as your Internet telephony provider.
>
> In the course of Vonageb
>
> Please reply this email or call 1-(866)-254-3704 (Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm EST) so that we may discuss your rate plan. If no response is received within 72 business hours, I will need to change your account to the Small Business Premium Unlimited Plan at $49.99 per month plus tax. Your international calls will be billed at the corresponding per minute rate for the destination you are calling. You may view these rates by visiting:
>
> Vonage - International Per-Minute Rates (http://www.vonage.com/international_per-minute_rates/?lid=sub_nav_international_rates&refer_id=WEBFT0706010001W1)
>
> Please be advised that if no response is received by December 7th, your account may face suspension or an immediate change in rate plan.
>
> Please review the Vonage Residential Terms of Service section 5.4 below.
>
> 5.4 Inconsistent with Normal Use.
> If you use the service or the device in a way that is inconsistent with the normal use for your service or plan, you will be required, at Vonage's sole discretion, to pay the rates for the service or plan that would apply to the way you used the service or device, or terminate the plan. For example, if you subscribe to one of our residential service plans, and your usage is inconsistent with normal residential use, you may thereafter be required to pay our applicable, higher rates for commercial service for all periods in which your use of our service or the device was inconsistent with normal residential use. Unlimited voice services are provided primarily for continuous live dialog between two individuals. Lack of continuous dialog activity, unusual call patterns, excessive numbers and/or consistent excessive usage (i.e., More than 5,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited residential calling and/or more than 10,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited small busine
> ss calling), will be considered indicators that use may be inconsistent with normal use, or that impermissible use may be occurring and may trigger an account review by us. The creation or use of related multiple accounts or excessive residential lines to circumvent these levels shall also be considered indicators that use of the service may be inconsistent with normal use for the subscribed monthly plan(s) and may trigger an account review by Vonage. Failure to contact Vonage in response to its notifications and/or failure to promptly correct usage activity to conform to normal use will result, in Vonage's sole discretion, in immediate mandatory transfer to another appropriate plan, suspension or termination of service. You acknowledge that if your service is terminated under this provision, you are subject to all applicable disconnection and device or other rebate recovery charges. Vonage's right to terminate your account under Section 6.5(b) (with or no reason) is not lim
> ited by this provision. For a non-exhaustive list of example!
> s of use
> s of our service inconsistent with normal residential use, see below.
> b
> b
> b
>
>
> If you have any questions, please reply to this email or contact me at 1-(866)-254-3704.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> XXXXXXX
> Vonage Usage Department
> Revenue Operations
> 1-(866)-254-3704
"
just wondering if you have exceeded 5K limit few times? I was told that if some one consistently do this, vonage may review their account. Though they advertise that as UNLIMITED mintues, its in fact not.
2011 jerry seinfeld kids. of Jerry
Milind123
01-27 09:48 PM
i'm as indian as you are and have been through LON more than once and it's more than obvious that it's staffed by recent immigrants- from their speech and from the casual use of native language all around. i think the point that was being made though was that any "racism" you perceive at LON is not from the maligned "white brit". hope you got that point...
now if this is going to be the tenor of this discussion i will be happy to close this thread. please keep this objective and free of finger pointing and prejudice. and please everyone...think before posting.
It was just an observation on the para that was quoted. I had no intention of labeling the poster as a racist "white brit".
When we meet/see a new face, we all have a tendency to put that person in a particular category/group and making assumptions about that person. It is a basic human nature and many times we find our initial observations to be totally incorrect after we get a chance to speak to that person.
now if this is going to be the tenor of this discussion i will be happy to close this thread. please keep this objective and free of finger pointing and prejudice. and please everyone...think before posting.
It was just an observation on the para that was quoted. I had no intention of labeling the poster as a racist "white brit".
When we meet/see a new face, we all have a tendency to put that person in a particular category/group and making assumptions about that person. It is a basic human nature and many times we find our initial observations to be totally incorrect after we get a chance to speak to that person.
more...
asharda
07-11 01:42 PM
I know it is hard to believe, but according to the tracking number below, Mr. Gonzalez signed for delivery of my flowers today.
See below:(click on view package progress)
http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processInputRequest?HTMLVersion=5.0&sort_by=status&tracknums_displayed=5&TypeOfInquiryNumber=T&loc=en_US&AgreeToTermsAndConditions=yes&InquiryNumber1=1ZE19A16P204195432
G
LOL :D :D :D
See below:(click on view package progress)
http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/processInputRequest?HTMLVersion=5.0&sort_by=status&tracknums_displayed=5&TypeOfInquiryNumber=T&loc=en_US&AgreeToTermsAndConditions=yes&InquiryNumber1=1ZE19A16P204195432
G
LOL :D :D :D
jcrajput
09-26 02:59 PM
here is the sample letter...
Regarding: Inquiry/status for I-485 AOS application sent to USCIS, Nebraska Service Center on July 2nd 2007
[FedEx Tracking No. xxxx
Recd. by Mr. R.WILLIAMS
NSC At Jul 2, 2007 7:55 AM]
My Adjustment of status application [I-485,I-765 and I-131] based on EB2 category, was delivered to Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE on July 2nd 2007. It was received in the mailroom at 7.55am (reference : FedEx tracking number xxxx).
USCIS website says NSC are working with August 2007 received AOS applications. However, I haven't heard any sort of communication pertaining to my pending application with USCIS. USCIS Customer Service would not pull up my application information in the system yet. Seems like USCIS is either not following the First in First out (FIFO) process for sure or the figures are misleading.
Details as provided below:
First Name of Applicant: xxx
Last Name of Applicant: xxx
Date of Birth: xxxx
FedEx Tracking No: xxxx
I would greatly appreciate if your office can help me to track and process my AOS application delivered to NSC on July 2nd 2007. Please feel free to contact me at xxxx for any additional information.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Regarding: Inquiry/status for I-485 AOS application sent to USCIS, Nebraska Service Center on July 2nd 2007
[FedEx Tracking No. xxxx
Recd. by Mr. R.WILLIAMS
NSC At Jul 2, 2007 7:55 AM]
My Adjustment of status application [I-485,I-765 and I-131] based on EB2 category, was delivered to Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE on July 2nd 2007. It was received in the mailroom at 7.55am (reference : FedEx tracking number xxxx).
USCIS website says NSC are working with August 2007 received AOS applications. However, I haven't heard any sort of communication pertaining to my pending application with USCIS. USCIS Customer Service would not pull up my application information in the system yet. Seems like USCIS is either not following the First in First out (FIFO) process for sure or the figures are misleading.
Details as provided below:
First Name of Applicant: xxx
Last Name of Applicant: xxx
Date of Birth: xxxx
FedEx Tracking No: xxxx
I would greatly appreciate if your office can help me to track and process my AOS application delivered to NSC on July 2nd 2007. Please feel free to contact me at xxxx for any additional information.
Thanks and Best Regards,
more...
abuddyz
02-29 08:21 AM
here are some updates..
i received reply to my inquiry email from mumbai consulate. and they wrote following in email
"Please wait till you get an email from us.
Mumbainiv/vd"
I also visited the inquiry window at mumbai consulate personally and here is the coversation I had..
me: I had my H1b visa interview on feb 11 and I want to know the status of my visa.
she: what is your name (did something on computer). it is still pending for verification
me: how long will it take?
she: it might take another 1 or 2 weeks
me: i was initially told that it will take only 1 week and it is already more than 2 weeks.
she: it takes time
me: what is the procedure to withdraw my visa application
she: if you withdraw, how will you go there?
me: i have advance parole document with me
she: it is advisable to wait for this visa. if you go on advance parole, you might be inquired at port of entry.
me: i have to find some other option as my client is waiting there.
she: if you want to withdraw, you can send an email or you can come here personally but it is advisable to wait for this visa (she said it again).
me: (i again asked) so i can withdraw and then go back using advance parole?
she: as I said, it is advisable that you wait for visa
I hope this is useful to everyone..(i have decided to wait for the visa and not use advance parole)
i received reply to my inquiry email from mumbai consulate. and they wrote following in email
"Please wait till you get an email from us.
Mumbainiv/vd"
I also visited the inquiry window at mumbai consulate personally and here is the coversation I had..
me: I had my H1b visa interview on feb 11 and I want to know the status of my visa.
she: what is your name (did something on computer). it is still pending for verification
me: how long will it take?
she: it might take another 1 or 2 weeks
me: i was initially told that it will take only 1 week and it is already more than 2 weeks.
she: it takes time
me: what is the procedure to withdraw my visa application
she: if you withdraw, how will you go there?
me: i have advance parole document with me
she: it is advisable to wait for this visa. if you go on advance parole, you might be inquired at port of entry.
me: i have to find some other option as my client is waiting there.
she: if you want to withdraw, you can send an email or you can come here personally but it is advisable to wait for this visa (she said it again).
me: (i again asked) so i can withdraw and then go back using advance parole?
she: as I said, it is advisable that you wait for visa
I hope this is useful to everyone..(i have decided to wait for the visa and not use advance parole)
2010 Jerry Seinfeld Jessica
jv101
03-29 10:19 AM
MurthyDotCom : EB2 India Expected to Advance in May 2011 (http://murthy.com/news/n_eb2a11.html)
more...
DallasBlue
09-13 03:00 PM
Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 10 September 2007
Applicants seeking US citizenship languish for years as the FBI conducts cumbersome records checks. Lawsuits are a result.
Seeking to become a U.S. citizen, Biljana Petrovic filed her application, completed her interview and passed her civics test.
More than three years later, she is still waiting to be naturalized - held up by an FBI name-check process that has been criticized as slow, inefficient and a danger to national security.
Petrovic, a stay-at-home mother in Los Altos, Calif., who has no criminal record, has sued the federal government to try to speed up the process. She said it's as if her application has slipped into a "black hole."
"It's complete frustration," said Petrovic, who is originally from the former Yugoslavia and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. "It's not like I am applying to enter the country. I have been here for 19 years."
Nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of Aug. 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years.
Applicants for permanent residency or citizenship have lost jobs, missed out on student loans and in-state tuition, and been unable to vote or bring relatives into the country. The delays have prompted scores of lawsuits around the country.
Already this fiscal year, more than 4,100 suits have been filed against the citizenship and immigration agency, compared with 2,650 last year and about 680 in 2005. The mandamus suits ask federal judges to compel immigration officials to adjudicate the cases. The majority of the cases were prompted by delays in checking names, spokesman Chris Bentley said.
"There is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd," said Ranjana Natarajan, an ACLU staff attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit in Southern California last year on behalf of applicants waiting for their names to be checked. "People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
In addition to the bureaucratic nightmare that the lengthy delays present, attorneys and government officials say there is a far more serious concern: They could be allowing potential terrorists to stay in the country.
Fallout From 9/11
The backlog began after 9/11, when Citizenship and Immigration Services officials reassessed their procedures and learned that the FBI checks were not as thorough as they had believed. So "out of an abundance of caution," the agency resubmitted 2.7 million names in 2002 to be checked further, Bentley said.
Rather than simply determining if the applicants were subjects of FBI investigations, the bureau checked to see if their names showed up in any FBI files, including being listed as witnesses or victims. About 90% of the names did not appear in the agency's records, FBI spokesman Bill Carter said.
But for the 10% who were listed, authorities carefully reviewed the files to look for any "derogatory" information, Carter said. Because many documents aren't electronic and are in the bureau's 265 offices nationwide, that process can take months, if not years.
"It is not a check of your name," said Chuck Roth, director of litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, which also filed a class-action suit. "It is a file review of anywhere your name happens to appear. It has just created a giant bureaucratic mess."
Although many of those stuck in the backlog are from predominantly Muslim countries, there are also people from Russia, China, India and elsewhere. They include government employees and Iraq war veterans. Many have been in the U.S. legally for decades.
In one case decided in Washington, D.C., recently, a federal judge wrote that a Chinese man's four-year wait for permanent residency was unreasonable and ordered the government to decide on the application within three months. Petrovic, who has two U.S.-born teenagers, doesn't know what delayed her application. The only explanation she can think of is that her name is common in her native country.
She and her husband, Ihab Abu-Hakima, also a Canadian citizen, applied for citizenship in April 2003 and had their interviews in February 2004. Her husband was sworn in that summer, while her application continued to languish. She checked the mail daily.
When she still didn't hear anything, Petrovic contacted immigration officials, who told her that the FBI had her file and that it was still active. She also contacted her representative and her senator, whose offices asked Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite the application. She filed a Freedom of Information Act request for her FBI file, which simply showed that she had never been arrested.
"I have a feeling that the system has broken down," she said.
Joining a Different Group
In August, Petrovic joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed in Northern California against the federal government. She is waiting to become a U.S. citizen so she can sponsor her elderly parents, who live in Canada and visit often.
"Every time they leave, I feel bad," she said. "This is their life here, more than there."
The problem extends beyond the disruption of personal lives.
In his yearly report to Congress in June, immigration services ombudsman Prakash wrote that the policy on checking names "may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country." questioned the overall value of the process, writing that it was the "single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits."
The Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged the threat, last month announcing plans to work with the FBI to address the backlog and reduce delays. Citizenship and Immigration Services will reassess the way name checks are done and earmark $6 million toward streamlining the process, Bentley said.
Though 99% of the agency's name checks are completed within six months, Bentley said, the lengthy delays for some applicants is "unacceptable."
"That requires a lot of patience on the part of an applicant because they have to wait sometimes multiple years," he said.
Nevertheless, he said, no benefit will be approved until that name check comes back clear. Security checks have produced information about sex crimes, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism, according to the agency.
Carter, the FBI spokesman, said he understands that applicants waiting for answers are anxious, but he said the process is complicated and involves dozens of agencies and databases - and, in some cases, foreign governments.
"The FBI's No. 1 priority remains to protect the United States from terrorist attack," Carter said. "To that end, we must ensure the proper balance between security and efficiency."
In addition to clearing the backlog and processing the 27,000 new name checks it receives each week from immigration officials, the FBI is trying to accelerate the process by making more documents electronic. It is also adding more staff and moving resources to a new records facility in Virginia, Carter said.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, said the government needs to make sure that it carefully checks every application. And working with foreign governments is inevitably going to slow the process down, he said.
"We correctly have much more stringent standards for immigration," he said. "I am not really sure that there is any way to do this kind of deep background check efficiently."
But attorneys said that because of the inefficiency, the program isn't serving its purpose.
"Let's say this guy is a terrorist or a criminal," Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said. "Why wouldn't the FBI rush the case?"
Mervyn Sam, a South African native who got a green card in 1998, has been waiting more than four years for the FBI to complete his name check. Sam said his career has been affected by the delay. He lives in Anaheim and is a project manager at a software company but cannot work on certain government projects because he is not a U.S. citizen. He has sued the federal government.
"I am not sure what the hiccup is on my end," he said. "It is very, very frustrating."
Shusterman, whose office is representing Sam, said applicants waste their time by contacting the immigration services agency, the FBI or their legislators.
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court," he said.
--------
anna.gorman@latimes.com
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 10 September 2007
Applicants seeking US citizenship languish for years as the FBI conducts cumbersome records checks. Lawsuits are a result.
Seeking to become a U.S. citizen, Biljana Petrovic filed her application, completed her interview and passed her civics test.
More than three years later, she is still waiting to be naturalized - held up by an FBI name-check process that has been criticized as slow, inefficient and a danger to national security.
Petrovic, a stay-at-home mother in Los Altos, Calif., who has no criminal record, has sued the federal government to try to speed up the process. She said it's as if her application has slipped into a "black hole."
"It's complete frustration," said Petrovic, who is originally from the former Yugoslavia and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. "It's not like I am applying to enter the country. I have been here for 19 years."
Nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of Aug. 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years.
Applicants for permanent residency or citizenship have lost jobs, missed out on student loans and in-state tuition, and been unable to vote or bring relatives into the country. The delays have prompted scores of lawsuits around the country.
Already this fiscal year, more than 4,100 suits have been filed against the citizenship and immigration agency, compared with 2,650 last year and about 680 in 2005. The mandamus suits ask federal judges to compel immigration officials to adjudicate the cases. The majority of the cases were prompted by delays in checking names, spokesman Chris Bentley said.
"There is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd," said Ranjana Natarajan, an ACLU staff attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit in Southern California last year on behalf of applicants waiting for their names to be checked. "People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
In addition to the bureaucratic nightmare that the lengthy delays present, attorneys and government officials say there is a far more serious concern: They could be allowing potential terrorists to stay in the country.
Fallout From 9/11
The backlog began after 9/11, when Citizenship and Immigration Services officials reassessed their procedures and learned that the FBI checks were not as thorough as they had believed. So "out of an abundance of caution," the agency resubmitted 2.7 million names in 2002 to be checked further, Bentley said.
Rather than simply determining if the applicants were subjects of FBI investigations, the bureau checked to see if their names showed up in any FBI files, including being listed as witnesses or victims. About 90% of the names did not appear in the agency's records, FBI spokesman Bill Carter said.
But for the 10% who were listed, authorities carefully reviewed the files to look for any "derogatory" information, Carter said. Because many documents aren't electronic and are in the bureau's 265 offices nationwide, that process can take months, if not years.
"It is not a check of your name," said Chuck Roth, director of litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, which also filed a class-action suit. "It is a file review of anywhere your name happens to appear. It has just created a giant bureaucratic mess."
Although many of those stuck in the backlog are from predominantly Muslim countries, there are also people from Russia, China, India and elsewhere. They include government employees and Iraq war veterans. Many have been in the U.S. legally for decades.
In one case decided in Washington, D.C., recently, a federal judge wrote that a Chinese man's four-year wait for permanent residency was unreasonable and ordered the government to decide on the application within three months. Petrovic, who has two U.S.-born teenagers, doesn't know what delayed her application. The only explanation she can think of is that her name is common in her native country.
She and her husband, Ihab Abu-Hakima, also a Canadian citizen, applied for citizenship in April 2003 and had their interviews in February 2004. Her husband was sworn in that summer, while her application continued to languish. She checked the mail daily.
When she still didn't hear anything, Petrovic contacted immigration officials, who told her that the FBI had her file and that it was still active. She also contacted her representative and her senator, whose offices asked Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite the application. She filed a Freedom of Information Act request for her FBI file, which simply showed that she had never been arrested.
"I have a feeling that the system has broken down," she said.
Joining a Different Group
In August, Petrovic joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed in Northern California against the federal government. She is waiting to become a U.S. citizen so she can sponsor her elderly parents, who live in Canada and visit often.
"Every time they leave, I feel bad," she said. "This is their life here, more than there."
The problem extends beyond the disruption of personal lives.
In his yearly report to Congress in June, immigration services ombudsman Prakash wrote that the policy on checking names "may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country." questioned the overall value of the process, writing that it was the "single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits."
The Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged the threat, last month announcing plans to work with the FBI to address the backlog and reduce delays. Citizenship and Immigration Services will reassess the way name checks are done and earmark $6 million toward streamlining the process, Bentley said.
Though 99% of the agency's name checks are completed within six months, Bentley said, the lengthy delays for some applicants is "unacceptable."
"That requires a lot of patience on the part of an applicant because they have to wait sometimes multiple years," he said.
Nevertheless, he said, no benefit will be approved until that name check comes back clear. Security checks have produced information about sex crimes, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism, according to the agency.
Carter, the FBI spokesman, said he understands that applicants waiting for answers are anxious, but he said the process is complicated and involves dozens of agencies and databases - and, in some cases, foreign governments.
"The FBI's No. 1 priority remains to protect the United States from terrorist attack," Carter said. "To that end, we must ensure the proper balance between security and efficiency."
In addition to clearing the backlog and processing the 27,000 new name checks it receives each week from immigration officials, the FBI is trying to accelerate the process by making more documents electronic. It is also adding more staff and moving resources to a new records facility in Virginia, Carter said.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, said the government needs to make sure that it carefully checks every application. And working with foreign governments is inevitably going to slow the process down, he said.
"We correctly have much more stringent standards for immigration," he said. "I am not really sure that there is any way to do this kind of deep background check efficiently."
But attorneys said that because of the inefficiency, the program isn't serving its purpose.
"Let's say this guy is a terrorist or a criminal," Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said. "Why wouldn't the FBI rush the case?"
Mervyn Sam, a South African native who got a green card in 1998, has been waiting more than four years for the FBI to complete his name check. Sam said his career has been affected by the delay. He lives in Anaheim and is a project manager at a software company but cannot work on certain government projects because he is not a U.S. citizen. He has sued the federal government.
"I am not sure what the hiccup is on my end," he said. "It is very, very frustrating."
Shusterman, whose office is representing Sam, said applicants waste their time by contacting the immigration services agency, the FBI or their legislators.
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court," he said.
--------
anna.gorman@latimes.com
hair NEW YORK -- Jerry Seinfeld#39;s
anda007
07-11 12:24 AM
Lets look at the pigger picture, instead of nitpicking small things
Anand Sharma is referred as she. so what
The main point is conveyed
Anand Sharma
I hate to be nitpicking but
The irony is, in this whole migration debate, our issues are probably easiest to solve," said Bajaj.
Bajaj its not migrationits immigration. bird migrate people immigrate
Anand Sharma is referred as she. so what
The main point is conveyed
Anand Sharma
I hate to be nitpicking but
The irony is, in this whole migration debate, our issues are probably easiest to solve," said Bajaj.
Bajaj its not migrationits immigration. bird migrate people immigrate
more...
shahuja
02-06 02:59 PM
Hi stuck_here, how do you know you are stuck for PIMS and not anything else ??
hot dresses jerry seinfeld uotes
fatjoe
10-22 04:14 PM
Cali: Did you try Ombudsman too? No result?
Mine is at TSC. PD: July 04. RD: Aug 17, 2007. ND: Oct 15, 2007. What is your RD and ND?
I have a feeling that the IO might look at the applications received on Aug 17, 2007, only at last. Its because, when I went for infopass, the IO said that, "You have filed on the last date, so you will have to wait".
Anyhow, I have tried all that I could, and now I leave it to the Almighty.[/QUOTE]
Mine is at TSC. PD: July 04. RD: Aug 17, 2007. ND: Oct 15, 2007. What is your RD and ND?
I have a feeling that the IO might look at the applications received on Aug 17, 2007, only at last. Its because, when I went for infopass, the IO said that, "You have filed on the last date, so you will have to wait".
Anyhow, I have tried all that I could, and now I leave it to the Almighty.[/QUOTE]
more...
house A judge says Jessica Seinfeld
chanduv23
03-25 10:10 AM
Another reason the companies give nowadays is "Unfortunately it is a government project and we cannot accept EAD status" - am baffled as to why they are OK with Green card and not EAD.
tattoo crying child 580x425 Jerry
Macaca
02-21 10:50 AM
Broken Borders and Dover Sole: My Lunch With Lou Dobbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/opinion/21thu4.html?ref=opinion) By LAWRENCE DOWNES | NYT, Feb 21
So I was having lunch at the Four Seasons with Lou Dobbs the other day, locked in disagreement over who cared more about working people, him or me.
Him: CNN host, biggest and loudest gun in the battle for tougher immigration policies, leader of a nightly crusade to expose the misdeeds of those he views as elitist fools and scoundrels.
Me: editorial writer whose views on immigration qualify, to Mr. Dobbs and many others on his side of the debate, as elitist, foolish and scoundrelly.
Meeting at the Four Seasons was his idea, to continue a long, civil and inconclusive phone conversation about immigration. I got there early and waited at Mr. Dobbs�s banquette. I looked around the hushed room, full of dark suits and a wintry glow. Mr. Dobbs appeared and settled in, his drink, cranberry juice and seltzer, materializing at his right elbow.
In the spirit of the occasion, I ordered strictly within our borders: lobster bisque, filet of bison and New York tap water. He had the Dover sole.
Among people whose immigration views I admire, Mr. Dobbs has a reputation as a hopeless blowhard. I did not dwell on that at lunch. I was his guest, and I had seen what happens if you try to skewer him with insult or accusation. Mr. Dobbs is unencumbered by self-doubt. The granite fortress of his certitude is smooth and featureless, and whatever boulders you hurl at it will end up on your head. Besides, I was looking for something better than an argument. I wanted to convert him.
An honest person must concede a lot when arguing immigration with Mr. Dobbs: Yes, the borders and ports are insecure, and poor countries like Mexico have done too little to solve their economic and migration problems. Yes, illegal immigration hurts some Americans, globalization causes many global problems and big corporations love to stick it to the little guy.
My point to Mr. Dobbs was that the little-little guy � the �illegal alien� crossing our �broken borders� � was the wrong target. His overriding emphasis on solving globalization�s many ills by urgently sealing the borders strikes me as populism gone astray.
First, it�s ineffective, because the country will never be ziplocked as tightly as he wants it to be. The price of trying is too high, and it ignores the millions who enter the country legally but overstay. Most shamefully, it does nothing to resolve the fates of the 12 million undocumented already here.
Second, the obsession with enforcement dovetails with the agendas of some nasty people: the nativists for whom immigration is a simple case of brown and white, of preserving �American� culture by keeping Latinos out.
Third, it does too little to attack the evil corporate elites that are Mr. Dobbs�s sworn enemy. What makes illegal immigrants so delectable to big, bad business is their illegality � their willingness to work cheap and under the table. So why not legalize and tax them? Assimilate the good guys, as this country has always done, and save law enforcement for the bad ones.
The idea is to confront abusive corporate power with worker power. If day laborers end up in our suburbs, where the money and jobs are, then give them safe places to gather and help them work together to keep from driving wages and working conditions down. If companies take advantage of workers, empower the workers to fight back: as union members, legal residents, citizens.
But that�s �amnesty,� a Dobbsian expletive. It�s the opposite of the crackdowns endorsed by him and the hard-liners he praises, like the Minutemen.
Mr. Dobbs listened graciously and budged not. He said he respected immigrants, even illegal ones, who he felt had gotten an unfair shake from their governments. He reminded me of his fondness for Cesar Chavez.
Then he repeated his immigration credo. It went like this: the 1986 immigration law was an amnesty promoted by corporate interests waging war on the middle class. Thus the 2006 and 2007 reforms were also amnesty, pushed by the same self-serving plutocrats. So nothing they want is worth doing � at least not until the border is sealed.
That could be a long time. While we wait, I am going to keep trying to convince Mr. Dobbs that a comprehensive solution � enforcement plus assimilation � is the best expression of the populism he espouses.
Mr. Dobbs admits that mass deportation would never work, although if you press him on what to do about the 12 million, he has no answer. He wants to hold that question �in abeyance� until the border is sealed. I find that oddly passive for someone so convinced of the dangers from the aliens in our midst.
I told him that, and he smiled. The lunch was over. I didn�t wrestle over the check because there was no check, just a goodbye from the staff. I got my coat and walked with Mr. Dobbs to his car. We shook hands and I thanked him for the discussion. He made me promise to continue it. I assured him I would.
So I was having lunch at the Four Seasons with Lou Dobbs the other day, locked in disagreement over who cared more about working people, him or me.
Him: CNN host, biggest and loudest gun in the battle for tougher immigration policies, leader of a nightly crusade to expose the misdeeds of those he views as elitist fools and scoundrels.
Me: editorial writer whose views on immigration qualify, to Mr. Dobbs and many others on his side of the debate, as elitist, foolish and scoundrelly.
Meeting at the Four Seasons was his idea, to continue a long, civil and inconclusive phone conversation about immigration. I got there early and waited at Mr. Dobbs�s banquette. I looked around the hushed room, full of dark suits and a wintry glow. Mr. Dobbs appeared and settled in, his drink, cranberry juice and seltzer, materializing at his right elbow.
In the spirit of the occasion, I ordered strictly within our borders: lobster bisque, filet of bison and New York tap water. He had the Dover sole.
Among people whose immigration views I admire, Mr. Dobbs has a reputation as a hopeless blowhard. I did not dwell on that at lunch. I was his guest, and I had seen what happens if you try to skewer him with insult or accusation. Mr. Dobbs is unencumbered by self-doubt. The granite fortress of his certitude is smooth and featureless, and whatever boulders you hurl at it will end up on your head. Besides, I was looking for something better than an argument. I wanted to convert him.
An honest person must concede a lot when arguing immigration with Mr. Dobbs: Yes, the borders and ports are insecure, and poor countries like Mexico have done too little to solve their economic and migration problems. Yes, illegal immigration hurts some Americans, globalization causes many global problems and big corporations love to stick it to the little guy.
My point to Mr. Dobbs was that the little-little guy � the �illegal alien� crossing our �broken borders� � was the wrong target. His overriding emphasis on solving globalization�s many ills by urgently sealing the borders strikes me as populism gone astray.
First, it�s ineffective, because the country will never be ziplocked as tightly as he wants it to be. The price of trying is too high, and it ignores the millions who enter the country legally but overstay. Most shamefully, it does nothing to resolve the fates of the 12 million undocumented already here.
Second, the obsession with enforcement dovetails with the agendas of some nasty people: the nativists for whom immigration is a simple case of brown and white, of preserving �American� culture by keeping Latinos out.
Third, it does too little to attack the evil corporate elites that are Mr. Dobbs�s sworn enemy. What makes illegal immigrants so delectable to big, bad business is their illegality � their willingness to work cheap and under the table. So why not legalize and tax them? Assimilate the good guys, as this country has always done, and save law enforcement for the bad ones.
The idea is to confront abusive corporate power with worker power. If day laborers end up in our suburbs, where the money and jobs are, then give them safe places to gather and help them work together to keep from driving wages and working conditions down. If companies take advantage of workers, empower the workers to fight back: as union members, legal residents, citizens.
But that�s �amnesty,� a Dobbsian expletive. It�s the opposite of the crackdowns endorsed by him and the hard-liners he praises, like the Minutemen.
Mr. Dobbs listened graciously and budged not. He said he respected immigrants, even illegal ones, who he felt had gotten an unfair shake from their governments. He reminded me of his fondness for Cesar Chavez.
Then he repeated his immigration credo. It went like this: the 1986 immigration law was an amnesty promoted by corporate interests waging war on the middle class. Thus the 2006 and 2007 reforms were also amnesty, pushed by the same self-serving plutocrats. So nothing they want is worth doing � at least not until the border is sealed.
That could be a long time. While we wait, I am going to keep trying to convince Mr. Dobbs that a comprehensive solution � enforcement plus assimilation � is the best expression of the populism he espouses.
Mr. Dobbs admits that mass deportation would never work, although if you press him on what to do about the 12 million, he has no answer. He wants to hold that question �in abeyance� until the border is sealed. I find that oddly passive for someone so convinced of the dangers from the aliens in our midst.
I told him that, and he smiled. The lunch was over. I didn�t wrestle over the check because there was no check, just a goodbye from the staff. I got my coat and walked with Mr. Dobbs to his car. We shook hands and I thanked him for the discussion. He made me promise to continue it. I assured him I would.
more...
pictures and funny man Jerry Seinfeld,
Sri_1975
06-22 12:13 PM
Hi Guys any updates..
dresses jerry seinfeld wife and kids.
sachin76
01-03 03:26 AM
Hi,
I have my visa appointment at Mumbai for H-1B stamping on January 10th 2008. Is dealy happening only at Chennai center or it is also happening at mumbai center.
I have my visa appointment at Mumbai for H-1B stamping on January 10th 2008. Is dealy happening only at Chennai center or it is also happening at mumbai center.
more...
makeup 2011 jerry seinfeld tyra banks
vshar
01-08 05:26 PM
I found this forum after my I 485 denied as I applied for AOS under AC21 at texas center on 12/31/2008. The first thing I did after joining IV is sent the four letters.
girlfriend Jerry Seinfeld - 20th Anniversary Celebration Of The Children#39;s Defense
jthomas
05-09 01:11 PM
Guys,
This is one of the key reasons why we are not successful in our mission. All we can do is "lets kill H1/L1 so I can get GC", "lets not worry about EB3 as long as my EB2 is fine!". The only way we can make any progress is to stay united. Lets not try to find carrots that would really be sticks on people who are also part of this cause.
EB3-I and EB2-I are both the same. EB3-I can port to EB2-I when the PD comes near. This is a normal human tendency and anybody would like to do it. The present EB3 guys are just waiting for the EB2 PD's to progress and they would move to EB2. I don't see anything wrong in that.
Lets come up with some action plan. Maybe we can draw the media's attention or send letters to our lawmakers and white house.
This is one of the key reasons why we are not successful in our mission. All we can do is "lets kill H1/L1 so I can get GC", "lets not worry about EB3 as long as my EB2 is fine!". The only way we can make any progress is to stay united. Lets not try to find carrots that would really be sticks on people who are also part of this cause.
EB3-I and EB2-I are both the same. EB3-I can port to EB2-I when the PD comes near. This is a normal human tendency and anybody would like to do it. The present EB3 guys are just waiting for the EB2 PD's to progress and they would move to EB2. I don't see anything wrong in that.
Lets come up with some action plan. Maybe we can draw the media's attention or send letters to our lawmakers and white house.
hairstyles jerry seinfeld gif
CADude
09-25 01:45 PM
Recent approved 140s (i.e. sept 2006 or later) has A#. Not all Approved 140 has A#. So don't worry. Earlier applicants used to get A# after filing AOS. Still in AOS process, CRU[one dept of USCIS] will verify the written A# or assign new to each applicant.
on my i-140 I have A#
on my i-140 I have A#
yestogc
08-27 12:37 PM
5000 minutes Limit, I did not know that ................... where does it say in fine print, do you have any link for same.
Thanks a lot for alerting everyone ...........
Thanks a lot for alerting everyone ...........
spatial
08-20 07:31 PM
Not excatly. eb3_2004 has posted the link of INA. You will find more interesting things if you read through it.
Non-descrimination rule is clearly spelled out in Section 202 (a). I assume this rule should be generally applied to all applicants, no matter which categories they are falling, unless other rules specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203.
INA does not say to spillover unused visas first to EB2 then EB3. I assume USCIS and Department of State should treat each EB applicants equally (based on their priority dates, not based on EB categories) in according to INA act.
It is likely the misinterpretation violates the law. We need some one which more professional knowledge to read through it. Can some core member help?
if a change in interpretation is done intentionally, then USCIS admits they were allotting visas incorrectly during the previous years...if it were a public company, lawyers would be climbing over one another to file a class action suit...unfortunately all we can do is write letters, make phone calls and pray :rolleyes:
Non-descrimination rule is clearly spelled out in Section 202 (a). I assume this rule should be generally applied to all applicants, no matter which categories they are falling, unless other rules specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203.
INA does not say to spillover unused visas first to EB2 then EB3. I assume USCIS and Department of State should treat each EB applicants equally (based on their priority dates, not based on EB categories) in according to INA act.
It is likely the misinterpretation violates the law. We need some one which more professional knowledge to read through it. Can some core member help?
if a change in interpretation is done intentionally, then USCIS admits they were allotting visas incorrectly during the previous years...if it were a public company, lawyers would be climbing over one another to file a class action suit...unfortunately all we can do is write letters, make phone calls and pray :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment