desi3933
07-09 04:20 PM
legally speakn, there is a commonly term used "bad faith".. this is where DOS/USCIS falls in right now. Read the document, the y did not break any law, what they did was in "Bad Faith" ,. Cant make it clearer than this...
You have the prove 2 things
This "bad faith" was illegal and it caused harm & damages.
Winning a case in court and being emotionally charged are two different things.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
You have the prove 2 things
This "bad faith" was illegal and it caused harm & damages.
Winning a case in court and being emotionally charged are two different things.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
wallpaper cute anime boy ^__^
jkays94
07-10 02:39 AM
It seems several persons are already discrediting the lawsuit and from the comments I have seen, it is apparent that some have not read the entire complaint.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
amar123
07-03 11:12 PM
Do you know even to come to site and get some info also need money..
Not to hurt you but just giving one small example of why we need money...
I agree hosting /maintaining a site does take quite a bit of resources, I am not referring to it in this thread. But, I was hoping that IV can make a distinction of what it plans to do for the lawsuit from what AILF does. As I had mentioned, this would make it only more meaningful for IV members to contribute :)
I am not hurt, like I said I appreciate the effort you guys are putting in.
Also, I added another dig on the USCIS scandal:
http://digg.com/politics/USCIS_Visa_scandal (http://digg.com/politics/USCIS_Visa_scandal)
Guys, digging is free, and if we can get it to 1000 digs, I am sure people will begin to notice if it is sensational news.
Not to hurt you but just giving one small example of why we need money...
I agree hosting /maintaining a site does take quite a bit of resources, I am not referring to it in this thread. But, I was hoping that IV can make a distinction of what it plans to do for the lawsuit from what AILF does. As I had mentioned, this would make it only more meaningful for IV members to contribute :)
I am not hurt, like I said I appreciate the effort you guys are putting in.
Also, I added another dig on the USCIS scandal:
http://digg.com/politics/USCIS_Visa_scandal (http://digg.com/politics/USCIS_Visa_scandal)
Guys, digging is free, and if we can get it to 1000 digs, I am sure people will begin to notice if it is sensational news.
2011 cute anime screensavers.
neelu
12-13 01:01 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Our dear Pappu,
I understand how difficult it must be to respond to so many questions directed towards core members, and can understand how frustrating it can be to answer repetitive questions.
So thanks for clarifying this again for many of us who thought an easy route was available (but half knew that it was there, it would have been taken).
But can I please add that if this question has been asked repetitively, I think it warrants to be added to the "The Employment-Based Green Card: Process and Problems" section on the home page, so people can find the answer easily that searching our huge forum database. I understand that each of you are very busy and feel bad that I am adding additional work.
Thank you.
Neelu
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Our dear Pappu,
I understand how difficult it must be to respond to so many questions directed towards core members, and can understand how frustrating it can be to answer repetitive questions.
So thanks for clarifying this again for many of us who thought an easy route was available (but half knew that it was there, it would have been taken).
But can I please add that if this question has been asked repetitively, I think it warrants to be added to the "The Employment-Based Green Card: Process and Problems" section on the home page, so people can find the answer easily that searching our huge forum database. I understand that each of you are very busy and feel bad that I am adding additional work.
Thank you.
Neelu
more...
srkamath
07-13 02:30 PM
I agree. Infact my application hasnt even been touched once (July 2, RD), no soft LUD either, even after FP .. makes me believe that there might be other applications out there too that have never been touched so far..so we cant assume that all the cases prior to July 2007 have already been pre-adjudicated, just because the processing-dates at NSC say July 2007. I think the processing dates reflect only those cases whose PD was current when the processing-dates timeframe came out. We will know more accurately when the processing-dates are updated next month. If the processing-dates, even after next month's update remain at July, 2007, then we can probably assume that our cases have already been pre-adjudicated. (still makes me wonder how that can happen without any soft LUDs at all, but anything is possible). I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
krupa
07-25 03:57 PM
If you see the letter and spirit of clause in the said notification, an employment letter is not required and adjudicator has to send RFE if he feels required. File with latest paystubs. If RFE sent to you , then again file latest paystub to show that you was in employment with that employer from the date of filing 485 petition and for at least another 6-7 months further to that date.
more...
EB3_SEP04
06-11 12:49 PM
I wouldn't worry about this.. this bill is in embyonic stage, hundreds of such ridiculous bills are persented each years and they never make it to either house or senate floors for voting. Remember US politicians all the time "propose" or "talk about" such crazy bills to make happy the crazy segment of voters in their constituency and to make a buzz in the media. This is nothing more than Rakhi sawant accusing Mika of kissing. Nothing is going to happen without the full fledge CIR. Anyone believes the country which gives amnesty to illegals every 10-15 years will take such a nasty step and hurt itself ? Just watch in the months ahead what happens to AZ law or rather it's (non)implementation.
2010 girlfriend Anime middot; Naruto middot; Hidan cute anime naruto.
pcs
07-02 07:42 PM
I put in $100 today to fight for our cause
more...
2114
02-21 10:25 AM
Hi,
I have no news for over 15 months on my FBI security check due to which my 485 approval is delayed.
There is no way to find what�s happening � earlier there use to be an email for FBI to find status but they stopped responding since past 15 months during which I have written to them 10 times but no reply.
I have applied for 4th EAD and AP � each time to apply it costs us $600+time+uncertainty and we have to reapply every 9 months to be safe � this process is not just costing money but also impact work, personal decision and progress.
I have written to my senator no help and also tried to find from USCIS about name-check no luck.
My green-card process has taken over 4.5 yrs now and it� still a black-hole.
The minimal help they can provide us is by having a system to check name-check status and expected date of decision.
Thank you.
I have no news for over 15 months on my FBI security check due to which my 485 approval is delayed.
There is no way to find what�s happening � earlier there use to be an email for FBI to find status but they stopped responding since past 15 months during which I have written to them 10 times but no reply.
I have applied for 4th EAD and AP � each time to apply it costs us $600+time+uncertainty and we have to reapply every 9 months to be safe � this process is not just costing money but also impact work, personal decision and progress.
I have written to my senator no help and also tried to find from USCIS about name-check no luck.
My green-card process has taken over 4.5 yrs now and it� still a black-hole.
The minimal help they can provide us is by having a system to check name-check status and expected date of decision.
Thank you.
hair 3.5quot; Anime Naruto Cute
Jaime
09-14 11:35 AM
Guys EVERYBODY needs to come to DC, there are few valid excuses not to attend! Many people are flying from far-flung places and making this sacrifice for you. You need to make a sacrifice for them too!!!!
more...
cygent
03-21 04:35 PM
Hello all,
How do you determine if the category filed is EB2 or EB3? How can you find that out from which document?
Thanks!
How do you determine if the category filed is EB2 or EB3? How can you find that out from which document?
Thanks!
hot Cute Anime Kid.
punjabi
07-13 09:53 AM
Congratulations!!
I suggest you do it right away. I mean, keep papers and application ready. And Fedex it on 31st July evening.
Good Luck, my friend!
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
I suggest you do it right away. I mean, keep papers and application ready. And Fedex it on 31st July evening.
Good Luck, my friend!
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
more...
house cute anime on this site.
goan2005
09-26 09:22 AM
CNN HAS CORRECTED THE ARTICLE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOWWW. THANKS IV.
Oh My God, CNN is screwing us in different way now. They are telling american people the Rally last week at SC was for increse in H1B and not for Incresed GCs.
I am getting freakled out by such American politics. I thought USA is different than INDIA atleast in this regard.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
WOWWW. THANKS IV.
Oh My God, CNN is screwing us in different way now. They are telling american people the Rally last week at SC was for increse in H1B and not for Incresed GCs.
I am getting freakled out by such American politics. I thought USA is different than INDIA atleast in this regard.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/smbusiness/h1b_cap.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007092606
tattoo Tenten cute anime
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
more...
pictures Related Products. Anime Naruto
saimrathi
07-05 01:52 PM
In the time it took you to write all this up, mayb you coudl have enlightened a senator or two...
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
I think atleast the forums section should be made restricted to contributing members. I see many newcomers (both paying and freebies) come to this site and hoping to get a quick guidence on their immigration issue. They come here becasue they know a) they will get some answer quickly b) that answer will make sense and experinced users here who have gone through similar situation will share their insights.
Those are major outcomes or results for not paying any dime.
I can understand someone's concern about asking everyone to pay certain amount. But most of us here are earning decent wages and can contribute atleast 3$ a month (or 25$ a year) for such a service.
If those members want to contribute more as many of us do then they are most welcome to do so.
In $$$ terms of the 12K + members we can retain 40% (about 5K) and each of them contributes atleast 25$ a year (one time payment) = $75,000.00
Remember this $75K is only based on basic membership fees. Any dropouts or reduced rate of conversion will be compensated by those '20$ a month' paying members (roughly by 1 as to 10).
In short, I support this idea of having majority of forums under restricted umbrella.
- PMAMP
dresses Anime Naruto Uchiha Sasuke
nixstor
07-04 09:44 PM
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
more...
makeup Download Anime Naruto.
gk_2000
08-11 05:08 PM
Guys,
I have thought of one more idea..
We know very well that by current interpretation EB3 is permanently fixed to the back of the line. NO EB3 will get processed until the last EB2 who files in the year 2013 gets approved, (counting out the regular quota).
And why are we here? Many believe (or know) that it is because of the 245(i) amnesty signed by Clinton and Bush.
Isn't it ironic that the illegals that were put in the line are not being moved back as the line expands? Why only we legals? Maybe there is some scope to challenge the 245(i) visa number allocation and point out that legal immigrants are waiting in line then how can you admit illegals in front
Anyone having the facts and numbers of 245(i)?
I have thought of one more idea..
We know very well that by current interpretation EB3 is permanently fixed to the back of the line. NO EB3 will get processed until the last EB2 who files in the year 2013 gets approved, (counting out the regular quota).
And why are we here? Many believe (or know) that it is because of the 245(i) amnesty signed by Clinton and Bush.
Isn't it ironic that the illegals that were put in the line are not being moved back as the line expands? Why only we legals? Maybe there is some scope to challenge the 245(i) visa number allocation and point out that legal immigrants are waiting in line then how can you admit illegals in front
Anyone having the facts and numbers of 245(i)?
girlfriend (Rose: Naruto Rulez!)
minimalist
04-03 12:41 PM
tying GC to housing initiative. You say there are things that can be done without money. Then, when I requested you to outline each step on how to approach, gather people and take it forward, you vanished and you sprout here again.
COntributing or not contributing money is your prerogative. If you don't see merit in something you do not have to contribute. But if you feel something can be done, just don't expect someone else to execute that idea. YOU have to take ownership.
There was a good explanation given on why it needs 10,000. EVeryone knows USCIS asked 5000. That would probably take 2 years time as there are 20,000 requests in queue before this one. Given that fact, they had some ideas to see if they can get a faster response time following a different path. They estimated it would cost about 5000 more.
People who trust them (in terms of their ability and honesty), contributed. If you do not trust them, that is fair enough. But they earned the trust of so many people who are willing to contribute. Believe me, none of the people who contributed have done so after careful deliberation.
Well, even for this initiative, you are welcome to outline steps and then am sure many of the IV members will join you.
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
COntributing or not contributing money is your prerogative. If you don't see merit in something you do not have to contribute. But if you feel something can be done, just don't expect someone else to execute that idea. YOU have to take ownership.
There was a good explanation given on why it needs 10,000. EVeryone knows USCIS asked 5000. That would probably take 2 years time as there are 20,000 requests in queue before this one. Given that fact, they had some ideas to see if they can get a faster response time following a different path. They estimated it would cost about 5000 more.
People who trust them (in terms of their ability and honesty), contributed. If you do not trust them, that is fair enough. But they earned the trust of so many people who are willing to contribute. Believe me, none of the people who contributed have done so after careful deliberation.
Well, even for this initiative, you are welcome to outline steps and then am sure many of the IV members will join you.
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
hairstyles Naruto | Cute Anime Pics
f_b_2007
07-18 08:32 AM
Mine reached on July 2nd 9:01 AM. I don't think they must have rejected any application. I think, if someone is saying "rejected" means USCIS refused to accept the fedex, in which case package should be returned back to lawyers in 3/4 days.
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
Mine reached USCIS Jul 2, 2007 10:25 AM.. no check cashed, no RD..
I will call USCIS next monday if I dont hear anything before then..
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
Mine reached USCIS Jul 2, 2007 10:25 AM.. no check cashed, no RD..
I will call USCIS next monday if I dont hear anything before then..
Karthikthiru
06-10 03:55 PM
Done. Just did it
.soulty
03-19 11:02 PM
moved it, status closed now.. ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment