chanduv23
01-18 11:39 AM
Same thing happened to me, was driving on Adirondocks and there was a border post 100 miles well within the border. The border security agents asked us for passports and we did not have , all we had was our driver lisences and they did not want to accept it. They took us aside and we waited for 15 min, they verified us in their system and for some reason my info was old whereas my wife's was latest , then they asked me who my employer is and searched and found my latest info, they gave me a printout of the law that states that all non US citizens must carry passports and immigration documents all times and if we don't do it, we can be sentenced to jail or a $100 fine.
wallpaper Joe Blasco Makeup Academy. Los Angeles Makeup Academies
harish
05-29 10:05 PM
Here is a cross-reference to my other post with the case updates...http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=249686&postcount=85.
Received our cards today!
Good luck to the rest of you waiting on your approvals!
Received our cards today!
Good luck to the rest of you waiting on your approvals!
sc3
10-16 02:48 PM
I beg to disagree. If it was the visa bulletin, then why did they process newer applications first?. That shows some disorder out there. Even when Amazon breaks up, they set their operations right. Here we are being fed the same story over and over again.
Coming to backlogs, they introduced perm before all the existing labor applications were processed and what happened after that?. All the existing applications were sent to the infamous backlog elimination centers. While those applications were waiting to be picked up, perm applications were being processed left, right and centre.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications. USCIS had to use up the numbers so they took the path of least resistance -- not the right thing to do -- but it can't be branded as a "reaction" to the July 07 issue.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
Coming to backlogs, they introduced perm before all the existing labor applications were processed and what happened after that?. All the existing applications were sent to the infamous backlog elimination centers. While those applications were waiting to be picked up, perm applications were being processed left, right and centre.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications. USCIS had to use up the numbers so they took the path of least resistance -- not the right thing to do -- but it can't be branded as a "reaction" to the July 07 issue.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
2011 Joe blasco makeup school
Administrator2
06-10 09:20 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE. WE WILL ALSO START WITH THE PHONE CAMPAIGN IN THE MORNING.
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
Reason being, the other side is writing letters to other Senators to seek their support. They want to see this amendment pass. Here is the letter.
************************************************** ***************
COMPANIES LAYING-OFF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON’T NEED GUEST WORKERS
Please Support the Sanders-Grassley Employ America Amendment to the Tax Extenders bill
Dear Colleague:
Since the recession started in December of 2007, nearly 8 million Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. In total, 15 million Americans are officially unemployed, another 8.8 million Americans are working part-time only because they cannot find a full-time job, and more than one million workers have given up looking for work altogether.
With the unemployment rate still unacceptably high and millions of people looking for a job, we have a responsibility to ensure that companies do not use temporary visa programs to replace American workers with cheaper labor from overseas.
Therefore, during the consideration of the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, we will be offering an amendment that would prohibit companies which have announced mass lay-offs over the past year from hiring guest workers, unless they can prove that their overall employment will not be reduced as a result of these lay-offs.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the notion that we need to import labor from abroad because there are not enough qualified, willing or able American workers in this country rings hollow.
Recently, some of the very companies that have hired tens of thousands of guest-workers from overseas have announced large scale lay-offs of American workers. The high-tech industry, a major employer of H-1B guest workers, has announced over 330,000 job cuts since 2008. The construction industry, a major employer of H-2B guest-workers, has laid-off 1.9 million workers since December of 2007.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, signed into law last February, included a provision to prevent companies receiving assistance through the Troubled Asset Relief Program from replacing laid-off American workers with guest-workers from overseas.
The Employ America Act expands upon this provision to prevent any company engaged in a mass lay-off of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest-worker programs. Those companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying-off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.
If you would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please have your staff contact Warren Gunnels in Sen. Sanders’ office at 8-6358 or Kathy Nuebel Kovarik in Sen. Grassley's office at 4-3744.
Sincerely,
____________________ ____________________
BERNARD SANDERS CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES SENATOR
************************************************** ***************
more...
WillIBLucky
12-31 07:36 PM
I thought you said you posted in detroit website as well? Have you not? Just an update .. Following in following websites have posted with classifieds.
I am looking forward to more participation or other ideas from other Members ... or it's better I close this thread :)
Suggest ,comment or post a classified in a web site you know.
Following regional web sites have been posted with claissfied. Catch you folks later.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago .....................www.chicagosamachar.com
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego ................. www.sasural.com/san_diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston ...................... www.aapkamanoranjan.com
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland .....................www.eknazar.com
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
33) Atlanta .....................www.desigate.com,
34) Kanasas City ..............www.kcdesi.com
35) St. Louis ...................www.myilaaka.com
I am looking forward to more participation or other ideas from other Members ... or it's better I close this thread :)
Suggest ,comment or post a classified in a web site you know.
Following regional web sites have been posted with claissfied. Catch you folks later.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago .....................www.chicagosamachar.com
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego ................. www.sasural.com/san_diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston ...................... www.aapkamanoranjan.com
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland .....................www.eknazar.com
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
33) Atlanta .....................www.desigate.com,
34) Kanasas City ..............www.kcdesi.com
35) St. Louis ...................www.myilaaka.com
signifer123
02-13 11:50 AM
Dang it!!!!
Well maybe i'll make a new one, grinch your no fun, but on the bright side i get to make two entries.
Well maybe i'll make a new one, grinch your no fun, but on the bright side i get to make two entries.
more...
user2005
01-16 09:42 AM
signed up for $20/month.
2010 Makeup by Jillian Doherty while attending Joe Blasco Makeup School East.
pappu
01-09 07:53 PM
thanks for pointing it out. We need volunteers to do this task. anyone interested pls sign up here and start posting.
more...
Legal
07-04 08:36 PM
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
Don't see any light at the end of the tunnel...
How much numbers can we seek..to recapture from the lost EB numbers from previous years? 500,000?? There will be a hue and cry...new headlines "half a million cheap labor" etc.
Unless something like SKIL is passed only other thing that would help India EB2,3 would be to use these recaptured numbers to be used ONLY for priority dates older than 3years or something like that. Even if achieve legislation to recapture the EB numbers.. unlesss we seek something like this EB India will be screwed for ever.
Don't see any light at the end of the tunnel...
How much numbers can we seek..to recapture from the lost EB numbers from previous years? 500,000?? There will be a hue and cry...new headlines "half a million cheap labor" etc.
Unless something like SKIL is passed only other thing that would help India EB2,3 would be to use these recaptured numbers to be used ONLY for priority dates older than 3years or something like that. Even if achieve legislation to recapture the EB numbers.. unlesss we seek something like this EB India will be screwed for ever.
hair joe blasco makeup school.
3d Nirvana
02-27 09:39 PM
nice BLUE! That was exactly the site I was looking for. :)
more...
vin13
02-12 07:40 AM
I think it is important to understand and read what is being said. The information was not claimed to be true or false. The message was conveyed based on the information given. Now, everyone is free to evaluate and give their opinion on the information. There is no need to go for a personal attack.
hot Joe Blasco Cosmetics amp; Makeup School in Hollywood California,
yabayaba
08-11 02:23 PM
Also Could me in..
more...
house at Joe Blasco School of
gsc999
07-24 05:05 PM
Guies,
Dr. Emilio Gonz�lez Ask USCIS is over, we were hoping atleast we get a mention in this chat, but like everywhere we do not even get a mention, thats our plight.
That was the reason we were requesting IV to set up some kind of webfax to USCIS director, atleast he would be aware of the retrogression issue, then we can build our case from there.
But any way it is a waste of time.
---
It would be better to focus our energies in a directed fashion on some core issues that have been identified by the core team. Media, Senators, House members and other have become familiar with our issues. Will it be worthwhile to add these new provisons that might dilute our original charter? Let us address the key causes e.g. few immigrant visas, family counted towards visa numbers, re-capture past visas, increase immigrant visas etc.
Dr. Emilio Gonz�lez Ask USCIS is over, we were hoping atleast we get a mention in this chat, but like everywhere we do not even get a mention, thats our plight.
That was the reason we were requesting IV to set up some kind of webfax to USCIS director, atleast he would be aware of the retrogression issue, then we can build our case from there.
But any way it is a waste of time.
---
It would be better to focus our energies in a directed fashion on some core issues that have been identified by the core team. Media, Senators, House members and other have become familiar with our issues. Will it be worthwhile to add these new provisons that might dilute our original charter? Let us address the key causes e.g. few immigrant visas, family counted towards visa numbers, re-capture past visas, increase immigrant visas etc.
tattoo Joe Blasco Makeup School
sats123
12-28 12:57 PM
I had similar problem with United last year. I was flying thruogh Malaysian airlines and United charged me for extra 20 LBs. But it was checked in till India.
Both of the flights were on the same itinerary and were booked through Thai. United was asking for money for international part of the travel because he said that Thai would charge United for the extra weight if United checked in the luggage all the way to Bangkok, which isn't really true because Thai did allow 70 LB then. I am not sure what the regulation is now.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
Both of the flights were on the same itinerary and were booked through Thai. United was asking for money for international part of the travel because he said that Thai would charge United for the extra weight if United checked in the luggage all the way to Bangkok, which isn't really true because Thai did allow 70 LB then. I am not sure what the regulation is now.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
more...
pictures Joe Blasco#39;s makeup school
GCStatus
09-17 10:57 PM
If you don't like my rant stop reading it. What the hell is 'born thinking america'. Why do you rant about GC then? Why do you care being on this board? You go get a life. I never compelled to comment on my rant? Did I? You must have gone crazy
when did i rant..haha, its funny when people are cornered they talk stuff which arent even relevant
you crack me up, no offence
when did i rant..haha, its funny when people are cornered they talk stuff which arent even relevant
you crack me up, no offence
dresses of makeup in Joe Blasco
go_gc_way
01-15 11:13 PM
Bumping /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
more...
makeup to Joe Blasco Professional
dilber
07-20 05:37 AM
Here you go - conversion should not impact this as the number of LC approvals remains the same:
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
Here are all the LC approvals for India in the last seven years.
Year, Total LC Approved, Total India
2007 85112 24573
2006 79782 22298
2005 6133 1350
2004 43582 No Info
2003 62912 No Info
2002 79784 No Info
2001 77921 No Info
2000 70204 No Info
Lets assume about 25% of pre-PERM LCs are India based on post-PERM data. Thus for fiscal 2004 (Oct 2003 thru Sep 2004) the total LC number is 43,852. Assume 25% of that to be India based on PERM data. That gives about 11,000 India LCs in 2004 alone (All EB categories combined). If you assume an average of 2.5 dependents then the number of visas required for all India EB categories for 2004 is 27,500 (11,000*2.5). The regular quota for EB2 and EB3 combined is only about 9,800. That means 17,700 visas have to come from somewhere. I dont think those many visas are remaining for this year. Be prepared to see FIFO thrown under the bus and approvals with PDs that are all over the place. Please critique this analysis without piling on. Thoughts?
EB2 has been on or Apr 2004 for a long time so all the ones before should have got the GC or at least most would have when we are calculation numbers for calculating retrogation We have to consider the numbers in in a particular category 11000 number as you say includes all the EB categories you have to discount out the EB1's because they have got their GCs long back. EB3 will also have to cut out form the calculation because they are not being counted. even if you consider 40% of these to be EB2 (a conservative estimate) then total GC needed including the dependents will be closer to 11000 (Total not just primary) and as Vdlrao and others have shown there should be more than this number available in this fiscal year alone. So I will have to agree with them that the numbers will go back but not all the way to Apr 2004 It should easily come in 2005 range may even come to 2006 since there were very few cases applied during 2005. Also can some one let me know if during 2005 when perm was instigated was regular labor processing also going on or was it completed stopped during that time.
Also conversations will affect this because people converting from EB3 to EB2 will make sure that they port their priority dates and hence if say all the EB3 people from 2003 convert to EB2 and successfully port their dates it will definitely push the dates south of 2003. Did I make sense???
girlfriend Joe Blasco Make-up School
wizkid732
07-30 07:47 AM
It is a painful long journey. Remember there are always alternatives, just be prepared and dont put all your eggs in one basket. I did that once GC, House and School all supported by one job and when I was laid off all came crashing.
I wish you all the very best.
15 years is too long. Khudos to you
I am not crying buddy, Just letting others know how they treat.You might have known about this already since you experienced it. Anyway, now I knew that there are more sad pasts here than mine.
FYI this is not my first H1, this is my second H1.Total 12 years since I landed in US for first time.
I wish you all the very best.
15 years is too long. Khudos to you
I am not crying buddy, Just letting others know how they treat.You might have known about this already since you experienced it. Anyway, now I knew that there are more sad pasts here than mine.
FYI this is not my first H1, this is my second H1.Total 12 years since I landed in US for first time.
hairstyles Joe Blasco Orlando Makeup
pappu
07-05 03:45 PM
Update: Thank you everyone who has contributed since July 2 when we announced the drive. Our total contributions from paypal and google are around $2,500 till now (despite having 15 k members). As you can understand this is hardly of any significance for even a small legal effort. A big lawsuit is out of question. Thus IV core will use it for IV activities to further pursue its advocacy efforts. IV encourages its members being a plaintiffs with AILF if they so desire. If you are an IV member and also a plaintiff, you can let us know for any guidance we can provide. IV will be coming up with more direction to its members soon. We will have some plan for everyone and will need participation from everyone. Please stay tuned.
desi3933
02-11 12:03 PM
The visa numbers reported as used for FY 2009 is 141,020 from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09...ort_TableV.pdf
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
As per this link
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Page 6, the total number of family based visas (that are subject to numerical limitations) is 226,105. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. So, family based visa numbers were fully used.
So where is 13,000 unused family numbers for FY2008 that should have been available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
As per this link
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Page 6, the total number of family based visas (that are subject to numerical limitations) is 226,105. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. So, family based visa numbers were fully used.
So where is 13,000 unused family numbers for FY2008 that should have been available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
thescadaman
02-08 06:44 PM
I plan on attending the event in DC this April. I have emailed the details in our Texas IV yahoo group with my request for sponsorship with Travel and stay.
thescadaman TX.
thescadaman TX.