fide_champ
04-10 05:17 AM
Financial applications - FI research. BTech Comp Sc IITBombay'96 9 years exp. Currently a part time NYU Masters student in Maths
are you interested to move to telecom? do you know unix & c? my company has openings if you would like? The job is in NJ. please let me know.
are you interested to move to telecom? do you know unix & c? my company has openings if you would like? The job is in NJ. please let me know.
wallpaper Blank Calendar 2011 June
go_guy123
02-09 06:26 PM
All three- Lofgren, Eshoo and Pelosi- represent the High Tech areas of California, Silicon Valley and the areas around it. I'm sure there are many immigrants/IV members in those areas. We need to have a webfax and phone campaign to get interim relief now. Folks in that area can viist lawmakers offices too. Maybe CompeteAmerica wants to recapture H1 visas and EB visas for high tech immigrants too??
In 2005, a special 50K quota was carved out for Sch A. Now they're talking about another 90K quota exclusively for Sch A. I'm not against Sch A relief, but for once we High tech immigrants need relief too. We've been waiting 5 years for our Green Cards and still no end in sight!!
Its all because of corporate lobby. Corp america actually likes the H1B slave
nature thats why they never actively lobby for Green card reform for IT
professionals.
But nurses cant be hired on H1B therefore the corp lobby pushes for
Green Card reform for nurses.
In 2005, a special 50K quota was carved out for Sch A. Now they're talking about another 90K quota exclusively for Sch A. I'm not against Sch A relief, but for once we High tech immigrants need relief too. We've been waiting 5 years for our Green Cards and still no end in sight!!
Its all because of corporate lobby. Corp america actually likes the H1B slave
nature thats why they never actively lobby for Green card reform for IT
professionals.
But nurses cant be hired on H1B therefore the corp lobby pushes for
Green Card reform for nurses.
qvadis
03-20 08:33 PM
The visa office's interpretation is correct and if you read 202 (a) (5) it clearly says that the country limits should be ignored for unused visa numbers.
Well, which interpretation? The one from April '08 or from November '05? They substantially differ. That's part of the controversy. What motivated them to change it?
I do think that the interpretation is, at least, debatable, and I can see both interpretations. In the end, the question comes down to: does the country limit have priority over the EB category, and I don't think you can have a conclusive answer.
I have gone through the sections of 202 (a) (5) and 203 (b) and the text of the law does not say that prefer country limits over categories.
But it also doesn't say the opposite.
In 202 (a) (5) it actually says assign visa numbers wasted in any category can be assigned with out per country limits. If you look at how they overflow from one category to another, those visa numbers belong to that category before they do NOT belong to a oversubscribed state or belong to ROW.
It also states: if Visas available. You can certainly construe the case that Visas can only be available if they cannot be assigned to a lower category. 202 (a) (5) (B) actually states that only in application of 202 (e), Visas should be deemed to be required. Does that mean they are not required otherwise? 203(b) actually uses the same terminology to allow non-required visas to fall through.
Historically, before AC-21 was added, Visa numbers were wasted because they needed to be assigned in proportion. Irrespective of the interpretation of 202 (a) (5) this cannot happen with AC-21.
Well, which interpretation? The one from April '08 or from November '05? They substantially differ. That's part of the controversy. What motivated them to change it?
I do think that the interpretation is, at least, debatable, and I can see both interpretations. In the end, the question comes down to: does the country limit have priority over the EB category, and I don't think you can have a conclusive answer.
I have gone through the sections of 202 (a) (5) and 203 (b) and the text of the law does not say that prefer country limits over categories.
But it also doesn't say the opposite.
In 202 (a) (5) it actually says assign visa numbers wasted in any category can be assigned with out per country limits. If you look at how they overflow from one category to another, those visa numbers belong to that category before they do NOT belong to a oversubscribed state or belong to ROW.
It also states: if Visas available. You can certainly construe the case that Visas can only be available if they cannot be assigned to a lower category. 202 (a) (5) (B) actually states that only in application of 202 (e), Visas should be deemed to be required. Does that mean they are not required otherwise? 203(b) actually uses the same terminology to allow non-required visas to fall through.
Historically, before AC-21 was added, Visa numbers were wasted because they needed to be assigned in proportion. Irrespective of the interpretation of 202 (a) (5) this cannot happen with AC-21.
2011 june 2011 calendar blank.
needhelp!
03-06 05:16 PM
Section 6: Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests Section 6 of the Open Government Act has two provisions that address time limits for complying with FOIA requests, and the consequences of failing to do so. Significantly, this section does not take effect until one year after the date of enactment and will apply to FOIA requests �filed on or after that effective date.� Accordingly, agencies have until December 31, 2008 to take any necessary steps to prepare for the implementation of this Section.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
more...
psaxena
09-29 11:55 AM
I bought my own private jet and I travel in that only. On top of it , to keep an eye on my own private jet's schedule(which flies only for me) I got website developed as well.
Also, I got 5 strippers (sorry air hostess) to entertain me during the flight. Guys if you want to fly in my Private jet and avail all the facilities on board please call my dreamland office and speak to Ms. Fantasy and book up a ticket to neverland.
Adios
Also, I got 5 strippers (sorry air hostess) to entertain me during the flight. Guys if you want to fly in my Private jet and avail all the facilities on board please call my dreamland office and speak to Ms. Fantasy and book up a ticket to neverland.
Adios
cooler
06-26 09:52 AM
Wohooo!!
Made my first call and am beginning to feel like a contributing member of the forum.
Albeit, a little unsettling at first, a great sense of satisfaction prevails after the call.
Cheers
Made my first call and am beginning to feel like a contributing member of the forum.
Albeit, a little unsettling at first, a great sense of satisfaction prevails after the call.
Cheers
more...
m306m
05-19 04:15 PM
I cannot attend the DC rally because of family issues but I can contribute. Here is my $200. I request that someone keep a running total of how much has been collected so far for this drive.
Additionally I will contribute $100 when we hit the first $10,000. Please IM me.
Go IV!
Here are the transaction details
Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #53L64693R0456694L)
Original Transaction
Date Type Status Details Amount
May 19, 2010 Payment For Immigration Voice Completed ... -$200.00 USD
Business Name:
Immigration Voice
Email:
donations@immigrationvoice.org
Business Contact Information
Customer Service URL: ImmigrationVoice.org - Home (http://www.immigrationvoice.org)
Customer Service Email: donations@immigrationvoice.org
Customer Service Phone: 850-391-4966
Additionally I will contribute $100 when we hit the first $10,000. Please IM me.
Go IV!
Here are the transaction details
Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #53L64693R0456694L)
Original Transaction
Date Type Status Details Amount
May 19, 2010 Payment For Immigration Voice Completed ... -$200.00 USD
Business Name:
Immigration Voice
Email:
donations@immigrationvoice.org
Business Contact Information
Customer Service URL: ImmigrationVoice.org - Home (http://www.immigrationvoice.org)
Customer Service Email: donations@immigrationvoice.org
Customer Service Phone: 850-391-4966
2010 june 2011 calendar blank.
storm
07-09 04:28 PM
Why don't you ask your attorney? He should know better than the rest of us here.
more...
CndnTN
01-28 02:34 PM
We are Canadian and on a visa, our son is an American citizen and we also cannot get the stimulus, not even our son's $300 which is wrong!
People do not care about the immigration problems because most do not know about them or understand them. It is a very unjust system that encourages illegal immigration and discourages allowing educated, upstanding people from coming here.
People do not care about the immigration problems because most do not know about them or understand them. It is a very unjust system that encourages illegal immigration and discourages allowing educated, upstanding people from coming here.
hair june 2011 calendar blank. lank
mhathi
05-17 12:10 PM
Done! Thanks for everyone's efforts!
more...
BharatPremi
03-14 02:19 PM
o.k..I read some of your old posts (but not thorougly) and I was confused (I guess you have done lot of research) - so can you explain again ?
in yr opinion - does it mean EB3(I) won't go back to april 2001 ?
I guess by "what happened in 2002 - 2004" - you mean lawyers filed most cases in EB3 ..am I right ?
would appreciate yr reply ..Thanks !!
I am not saying it will not go back to APR 2001. USCIS can and will do anything. Bottomline is that adverse effect of APR 2001 is practically over except some residual ones ( residual cases also could be in hundreds). So now if uSCIS is taking any category back to APR 2001 it will merely be a game to keep particular catgeory stopped for a while. USCIS need one case to do that and it will surely have at least one case.
in yr opinion - does it mean EB3(I) won't go back to april 2001 ?
I guess by "what happened in 2002 - 2004" - you mean lawyers filed most cases in EB3 ..am I right ?
would appreciate yr reply ..Thanks !!
I am not saying it will not go back to APR 2001. USCIS can and will do anything. Bottomline is that adverse effect of APR 2001 is practically over except some residual ones ( residual cases also could be in hundreds). So now if uSCIS is taking any category back to APR 2001 it will merely be a game to keep particular catgeory stopped for a while. USCIS need one case to do that and it will surely have at least one case.
hot june 2011 calendar blank. june
JazzByTheBay
09-20 04:03 PM
..from any single state, afaik (perhaps with the exception of NJ, don't have the exact numbers - but in stark contrast to many other states... ).
Also note, the attendance at short notice for the SJ rally was phenomenal.
Let's just say Californians are more motivated and active then many from the DC area, and you can expect an even larger crowd the next time around, with better planning and more time imo.
jazz
Jaime, your thought of having one more rally in Silicon Valley is a good one but again you are going to have the same crowd..!!
People in neighbouring states of DC did not make it , you tthink they will make it all the way to west coast! very doubtful!!
We should aim at bringing in more people to this family as possible..
Looks like a simultaneous rally on a weekend will be very effective!
And this time for the rally we will carry one one slogan banners
'SHORTEN THE WAIT FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS' or something similar!
just a thought!
Also note, the attendance at short notice for the SJ rally was phenomenal.
Let's just say Californians are more motivated and active then many from the DC area, and you can expect an even larger crowd the next time around, with better planning and more time imo.
jazz
Jaime, your thought of having one more rally in Silicon Valley is a good one but again you are going to have the same crowd..!!
People in neighbouring states of DC did not make it , you tthink they will make it all the way to west coast! very doubtful!!
We should aim at bringing in more people to this family as possible..
Looks like a simultaneous rally on a weekend will be very effective!
And this time for the rally we will carry one one slogan banners
'SHORTEN THE WAIT FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS' or something similar!
just a thought!
more...
house june 2011 calendar template.
LostInGCProcess
08-20 07:47 PM
Hi All,
I applied for my daughter's PIO card and sent all the documents as mentioned in the instructions sheet of the embassy website along with the self addressed stamped envelope. I heard from my other friends that even after you send everything in order, the embassy people would call and say that they did not receive the self addressed stamped envelop. It happened to three of my friends. I am the 4th one. They called today to tell that I did not send the envelope.
The funny part that happened with my friends is that, they all sent $20 and the package came in the very envelope they sent in the first place, that the embassy said they didn't receive.
Did anybody of you also had the same kind of experience or similar incident. If so, please do share.
Why are they doing like that? Do they really think we would do like that, trying to save on an self addressed envelope? It really bothered me for the fact that the lady from the consulate was utterly rude when talking. I am amazed how in the world, The Indian Government is still hiring such people? Of more then a billion population, is that the best person the government of India could find for that customer service post? Its a shame and I am ashamed that such dic*heads working and representing India?
Coming back to the issue...she said sternly, send $20.00 or send envelope stamped otherwise the application would not be processed.
Folks, please let me know where I can complain about this careless attitude of this monster woman. What steps can I take to make sure they don't do that again? I live in TN and I can't fly/drive to Washington DC. The questions is not about the money, but the way they are operating without any ethics is deplorable.
Hoping to hear all your valuable suggestions.
Thank you.
I applied for my daughter's PIO card and sent all the documents as mentioned in the instructions sheet of the embassy website along with the self addressed stamped envelope. I heard from my other friends that even after you send everything in order, the embassy people would call and say that they did not receive the self addressed stamped envelop. It happened to three of my friends. I am the 4th one. They called today to tell that I did not send the envelope.
The funny part that happened with my friends is that, they all sent $20 and the package came in the very envelope they sent in the first place, that the embassy said they didn't receive.
Did anybody of you also had the same kind of experience or similar incident. If so, please do share.
Why are they doing like that? Do they really think we would do like that, trying to save on an self addressed envelope? It really bothered me for the fact that the lady from the consulate was utterly rude when talking. I am amazed how in the world, The Indian Government is still hiring such people? Of more then a billion population, is that the best person the government of India could find for that customer service post? Its a shame and I am ashamed that such dic*heads working and representing India?
Coming back to the issue...she said sternly, send $20.00 or send envelope stamped otherwise the application would not be processed.
Folks, please let me know where I can complain about this careless attitude of this monster woman. What steps can I take to make sure they don't do that again? I live in TN and I can't fly/drive to Washington DC. The questions is not about the money, but the way they are operating without any ethics is deplorable.
Hoping to hear all your valuable suggestions.
Thank you.
tattoo june 2011 calendar blank.
walking_dude
10-15 09:53 AM
Mea Culpa. I'm the culprit here :).
I requested for the meeting close to weekend. It turned out some other new chapters were also in the same boat. Core put us together in the same call, which helped, as our issues are more or less the same. Timing was inconvenient for cagedcactus due to personal reasons. Yet he participated (which we should appreciate). Some veterans also nearly-missed the call as everything got finalized a few hours before it.
Regarding nearby states, we can try to accomodate Indiana (IN) and Ohio (OH), and my be Wisconsin (WI), the states that border Michigan, that is if they already don't have an active chapter.
I missed it, not aware of it, not sure why. I am glad to see this chapter grow. There was a time where we were searching for folks with torchlights. Thanks to Chintu, walking_dude, cagedcactus, bestin and all others who are now making this happen.
I have a very close friend in Michigan, and asked him to join, but he talks about all hardships, about his HR manager, about his company, about his lawyer, about everything except IV stuff. I am sure there are many more people here doing the same thing. We have to motivate folks to come forward. We cannot afford to have people who are inactive.
Good luck to you all, try to merge folks from nearby states if they are still not organized until they get organized.
I requested for the meeting close to weekend. It turned out some other new chapters were also in the same boat. Core put us together in the same call, which helped, as our issues are more or less the same. Timing was inconvenient for cagedcactus due to personal reasons. Yet he participated (which we should appreciate). Some veterans also nearly-missed the call as everything got finalized a few hours before it.
Regarding nearby states, we can try to accomodate Indiana (IN) and Ohio (OH), and my be Wisconsin (WI), the states that border Michigan, that is if they already don't have an active chapter.
I missed it, not aware of it, not sure why. I am glad to see this chapter grow. There was a time where we were searching for folks with torchlights. Thanks to Chintu, walking_dude, cagedcactus, bestin and all others who are now making this happen.
I have a very close friend in Michigan, and asked him to join, but he talks about all hardships, about his HR manager, about his company, about his lawyer, about everything except IV stuff. I am sure there are many more people here doing the same thing. We have to motivate folks to come forward. We cannot afford to have people who are inactive.
Good luck to you all, try to merge folks from nearby states if they are still not organized until they get organized.
more...
pictures june 2011 calendar blank.
franklin
09-27 01:58 PM
Franklin, yes, Ombudsman report includes ALL I-485 numbers, plus ALL naturalizations. Among all of them EBs are a small number.
What I was trying to understnd by running the numbers, where does the "leacky bucket" go over time. Imagine EB category as a leacky bucket - new workers on H1Bs are getitng their documents done, that goes to adds, and approvals are being given out, that goes to substracts. If the expected new petititons being ready are more than 140K, the total bucket will grow. If it is less, it will shrink. What I am basically saying, it is between 10K and 20K less adds than deletes, so the backlog should shrink over time (not tomorrow, of course). And it will start shrinking from EB3 ROW, because that is where the unused numbers end up. By watching EB3 ROW number we should be able to tell how fast the pool is shrinking.
Also, in the concept of the leaky bucket, it becomes essential not to lose any numbers, this is why 10K lost numbers a year is unacceptable. Personally, I think advocating number recapture is a waste of time (better off advocating quota increases), but we should be vigilant about CIS not losing numbers going forward.
Efficiency of precessing, in my opinion, is not an issue at all, at least on the USCIS side. FBI is a different story, but even for them, it is rare that cases are stuck for more than two years. Retrogression is the real culpit - being stuck in retro for 5 years is not unusual, and this is a whole lot worse than namecheck. By the way, because naturalizations are also subject to namechecks, there is enough outrage out there that I think namecheck issue will be solved in the next year or so.
The numbers game is really a 6 of one, half a dozen of the other - since we can only best guess it all - as I think this healthy debate has shown!
Efficiency of processing is a HUGE problem! Why do you think the visa numbers have gone unused? Your statement perplexes me somewhat. The name check isn't the only reason that there are delays. The Ombudsman's 1st 3 annual reports documents where the inefficiencies are.
In reality, its a complex problem that is a combination of many things;Inefficiencies in processing,Retrogression, country limits etc etc
I'm sorry, you just piqued my interest. You just seemed to be saying "there is no problem"
What I was trying to understnd by running the numbers, where does the "leacky bucket" go over time. Imagine EB category as a leacky bucket - new workers on H1Bs are getitng their documents done, that goes to adds, and approvals are being given out, that goes to substracts. If the expected new petititons being ready are more than 140K, the total bucket will grow. If it is less, it will shrink. What I am basically saying, it is between 10K and 20K less adds than deletes, so the backlog should shrink over time (not tomorrow, of course). And it will start shrinking from EB3 ROW, because that is where the unused numbers end up. By watching EB3 ROW number we should be able to tell how fast the pool is shrinking.
Also, in the concept of the leaky bucket, it becomes essential not to lose any numbers, this is why 10K lost numbers a year is unacceptable. Personally, I think advocating number recapture is a waste of time (better off advocating quota increases), but we should be vigilant about CIS not losing numbers going forward.
Efficiency of precessing, in my opinion, is not an issue at all, at least on the USCIS side. FBI is a different story, but even for them, it is rare that cases are stuck for more than two years. Retrogression is the real culpit - being stuck in retro for 5 years is not unusual, and this is a whole lot worse than namecheck. By the way, because naturalizations are also subject to namechecks, there is enough outrage out there that I think namecheck issue will be solved in the next year or so.
The numbers game is really a 6 of one, half a dozen of the other - since we can only best guess it all - as I think this healthy debate has shown!
Efficiency of processing is a HUGE problem! Why do you think the visa numbers have gone unused? Your statement perplexes me somewhat. The name check isn't the only reason that there are delays. The Ombudsman's 1st 3 annual reports documents where the inefficiencies are.
In reality, its a complex problem that is a combination of many things;Inefficiencies in processing,Retrogression, country limits etc etc
I'm sorry, you just piqued my interest. You just seemed to be saying "there is no problem"
dresses See other June 2011 Calendars
Lasantha
06-08 02:05 PM
We almost fell in to the Fire from the Frying Pan. Now that we are back in the Frying Pan, somehow it doesn't feel that bad of a place to be in. LOL :D
more...
makeup june 2011 calendar blank. lank
walking_dude
10-05 09:02 PM
That should be okay. Right now there are only 3-4 potential participants from Lansing - including you :) . If there are more they can carpool amongst themselves.
Thanks for the help
:D. limited to 4 more.:D.first come first serve basis.put in ur requests here.
Thanks for the help
:D. limited to 4 more.:D.first come first serve basis.put in ur requests here.
girlfriend Blank Calendar June 2011
DesiGuy
09-12 08:20 AM
he has said something similar before during the debates but there is no clear plan from any of the candidates. given the heat this issue is generating (and lack of publics understanding); i doubt any of the candidate will be vocal about it.
hairstyles Blank Calendar Planner June
LONGGCQUE
05-21 03:13 PM
Sent 2nd round emails. Will do more next week.
gc_chahiye
06-26 12:07 PM
64 Ayes, 35 Nos
the battle begins again... :(
the battle begins again... :(
eb3_nepa
06-08 11:09 PM
Just a question, why is everyone so happy that the CIR has Failed and more importantly why does everyone on here feel that if CIR is resurrected it will "haunt" us?
If CIR fails to go into "production" this year, is it not true that we have ZERO reform? I mean would it not be better to ride this wave and try and sneak our provisions into the mix rather than SIMPLY feeling happy that CIR is "dead"?
At this point (even after the PD movement), About 70% of us are still in the retrogression mess and will continue to be in that mess till SOME immigration reform passes. So the question then is: Should we not be trying and praying that CIR passes WITH our provisions (and i know how hard the core team is working and hence i am asking this question). I mean the core team has given an infinite amount of time and energy to this project. Would it not be easier to see a bill finally pass and try and get our provisions in this bill rather than killing this bill?
If CIR fails to go into "production" this year, is it not true that we have ZERO reform? I mean would it not be better to ride this wave and try and sneak our provisions into the mix rather than SIMPLY feeling happy that CIR is "dead"?
At this point (even after the PD movement), About 70% of us are still in the retrogression mess and will continue to be in that mess till SOME immigration reform passes. So the question then is: Should we not be trying and praying that CIR passes WITH our provisions (and i know how hard the core team is working and hence i am asking this question). I mean the core team has given an infinite amount of time and energy to this project. Would it not be easier to see a bill finally pass and try and get our provisions in this bill rather than killing this bill?
No comments:
Post a Comment