Googler
07-09 06:34 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Message from USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
I understand that individuals are planning to send flowers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) beginning on Tuesday, July 10. USCIS has made arrangements to forward those flowers to our injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
*************************
USCIS' blasted PR brain is working this time. Dammit. Still this will increase press coverage. Let the reporters you are talking to know.
Message from USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
I understand that individuals are planning to send flowers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) beginning on Tuesday, July 10. USCIS has made arrangements to forward those flowers to our injured service members recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
*************************
USCIS' blasted PR brain is working this time. Dammit. Still this will increase press coverage. Let the reporters you are talking to know.
wallpaper Free Black Blue Blogger Layout
jsb
09-25 10:59 AM
Thanks much for providing this info..i will be contacting my local congressmen..I need small help..where can i find my A#?
USCIS declares in weekly updates that actual package receiving date will be recognized as the Receipt date. However, as filings are shuttled between centers in an effort to push work around, when data is entered, a different date appears. This needs to be corrected. Further, as there are still cases not owned by any center, weekly updates are misleading. Each center just reports on what it has accepted to deal with. This needs to be addressed as well.
I think congressmen should be approached with the larger and collective problem, which is likely to get attention/action. Individual cases just receive standard replies.
I am a July 2 filer still waiting for an action
USCIS declares in weekly updates that actual package receiving date will be recognized as the Receipt date. However, as filings are shuttled between centers in an effort to push work around, when data is entered, a different date appears. This needs to be corrected. Further, as there are still cases not owned by any center, weekly updates are misleading. Each center just reports on what it has accepted to deal with. This needs to be addressed as well.
I think congressmen should be approached with the larger and collective problem, which is likely to get attention/action. Individual cases just receive standard replies.
I am a July 2 filer still waiting for an action
pappu
11-06 03:28 PM
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
2011 UDPATE: The Google Blog has
indigokiwi
04-01 11:01 AM
Folks, we've still got a long way to go to reach our contribution target for Advocacy Days and hardly any time left. $50 or a $100 is what you might spend on a few nights out. I'm sure spending on this is much more important to you. Let's everyone pitch in and help ourselves out here.
And thank you to the many members on this thread who have already contributed.
And thank you to the many members on this thread who have already contributed.
more...
digital2k
09-09 04:04 PM
Admins/ Mods,
Please send an email from 'admin to registered users'.
Thank You
thanks to digital, here's an email template if you need.
---------------------
PLEASE SPREAD THIS MESSAGE AND CALL
Dear Friends and well wishers,
Please take a minute and Your call today can help half million people ( Talented, Legal immigrants ) in waiting ...
BACKGROUND & TALKING POINTS
HR5882 was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Sensenbrenner. This bill recaptures all the unused visa numbers that have been lost since 1992 due to processing delays in Employment based category and Family category. It is estimated that 216000 green cards will be recaptured which would help to eleviate the employment based backlogs.
Please use the instructions provided below to make the phone calls.
(1) Call the congressman/woman office and request to speak with the aide who handles Legislative and Immigration matters
(2) If they are not available leave a VM for them -
"I would like Representative "Representative Name" to support HR 5882, bill to recapture the green cards lost due to processing and bureaucratic delays. As you may already know that this is a bi-partisan bill with wide bipartisan support in the house and will help improve American competitiveness & reduce the back logs associated with USCIS. This bill is non controversial measures that will help US to stay competitive with a highly educated and skilled work force and address family based backlogs also."
To All congress-critters:
In a nutshell, this bill allows USCIS to manage their workflow more effectively, which provides better customer service, and will eventually lead to better turn-around times.
Pls inform Majority Members Democrats: More people will be able to get their citizenship in reasonable times.
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Please inform Minority Members Republicans: Companies will be able to attract more talent which improves economic performance."
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member] 202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
(3) As usual Do NOT get into the CIR issue or illegal Immigration. If the aide is confusing with CIR or illegal immigration, just tell them that these are legal immigration bills.
(4) If the aide asks whether you belong to the district or not, tell them NO if you don't. Mention to them that you already spoke with your representative and would like the congressman/congresswoman support.
Community of half million will appreciate and bless you for your efforts...
Thank You
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001
More info :
Please take a minute and review the list of Judiciary members http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html. If you, your friends, or your
family have any district-based connection with any of them, please reach out to these members (phone, email, fax, etc), let them know how important it is to get the bill passed this month and urge them to vote YEA on the bill. Constituent interest/support from key individuals, health care providers, recruiters and other organizations is critical at this stage.
It will be great be to have major support from House Judiciary Committee http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. In these economic and crucial times for our country...
If the HJC successfully passes the measure it will allow the full House to act on HR 5924, giving half million talented legal immigrants a ray of hope for action in 2008. Sure a very good step for USA.
The House Judiciary Committee intends to markup HR 5924, the Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Act, on Wednesday, September 10. Several other measures will also be marked up, including HR 5882, Congresswoman Lofgren's recapture legislation, HR 6020 (military), and HR 5950 (medical care for immigration detainees).
Please send an email from 'admin to registered users'.
Thank You
thanks to digital, here's an email template if you need.
---------------------
PLEASE SPREAD THIS MESSAGE AND CALL
Dear Friends and well wishers,
Please take a minute and Your call today can help half million people ( Talented, Legal immigrants ) in waiting ...
BACKGROUND & TALKING POINTS
HR5882 was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Sensenbrenner. This bill recaptures all the unused visa numbers that have been lost since 1992 due to processing delays in Employment based category and Family category. It is estimated that 216000 green cards will be recaptured which would help to eleviate the employment based backlogs.
Please use the instructions provided below to make the phone calls.
(1) Call the congressman/woman office and request to speak with the aide who handles Legislative and Immigration matters
(2) If they are not available leave a VM for them -
"I would like Representative "Representative Name" to support HR 5882, bill to recapture the green cards lost due to processing and bureaucratic delays. As you may already know that this is a bi-partisan bill with wide bipartisan support in the house and will help improve American competitiveness & reduce the back logs associated with USCIS. This bill is non controversial measures that will help US to stay competitive with a highly educated and skilled work force and address family based backlogs also."
To All congress-critters:
In a nutshell, this bill allows USCIS to manage their workflow more effectively, which provides better customer service, and will eventually lead to better turn-around times.
Pls inform Majority Members Democrats: More people will be able to get their citizenship in reasonable times.
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Please inform Minority Members Republicans: Companies will be able to attract more talent which improves economic performance."
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member] 202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
(3) As usual Do NOT get into the CIR issue or illegal Immigration. If the aide is confusing with CIR or illegal immigration, just tell them that these are legal immigration bills.
(4) If the aide asks whether you belong to the district or not, tell them NO if you don't. Mention to them that you already spoke with your representative and would like the congressman/congresswoman support.
Community of half million will appreciate and bless you for your efforts...
Thank You
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001
More info :
Please take a minute and review the list of Judiciary members http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html. If you, your friends, or your
family have any district-based connection with any of them, please reach out to these members (phone, email, fax, etc), let them know how important it is to get the bill passed this month and urge them to vote YEA on the bill. Constituent interest/support from key individuals, health care providers, recruiters and other organizations is critical at this stage.
It will be great be to have major support from House Judiciary Committee http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. In these economic and crucial times for our country...
If the HJC successfully passes the measure it will allow the full House to act on HR 5924, giving half million talented legal immigrants a ray of hope for action in 2008. Sure a very good step for USA.
The House Judiciary Committee intends to markup HR 5924, the Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Act, on Wednesday, September 10. Several other measures will also be marked up, including HR 5882, Congresswoman Lofgren's recapture legislation, HR 6020 (military), and HR 5950 (medical care for immigration detainees).
SunnySurya
08-07 10:59 AM
If people can move freely between the categories then Why do we have categories?...:confused:
An EB3 guy had waited patiently after getting into GC queue and you come later with your masters and go ahead of him, isn;t this cutting the GC line?.
An EB3 guy had waited patiently after getting into GC queue and you come later with your masters and go ahead of him, isn;t this cutting the GC line?.
more...
psgprasad
06-25 08:49 AM
For filing 485.
The application form states the cheque to payable to
"Department of Homeland Security"
Forum states "USCIS"
Which is correct?
Can someone clarifiy, Please ?
The application form states the cheque to payable to
"Department of Homeland Security"
Forum states "USCIS"
Which is correct?
Can someone clarifiy, Please ?
2010 or log#39;s background!
Jerrome
09-24 05:53 PM
They are referring to the Perm Labor data for year 2009.
I think one common mistake that is being made everywhere on this board since the USCIS data got out is to make assumptions on demand. We are only being shown data which shows pending applications from USCIS. If USCIS releases data of how much demand by priority date they were getting then its a different thing. When you say , are you basing that on this data released by USCIS or on something else. Because if you are then you are probably wrong. This data only tells you pending data as of Aug 2009 by priority dates. It could well be the case that USCIS got a lot of volume from Sep 2007 to Aug 2008 and processed them all and hence pending is less now. Hope you understand. The only way you can do it with some degree of success with current public data is by looking at PERM Filing data.
I think one common mistake that is being made everywhere on this board since the USCIS data got out is to make assumptions on demand. We are only being shown data which shows pending applications from USCIS. If USCIS releases data of how much demand by priority date they were getting then its a different thing. When you say , are you basing that on this data released by USCIS or on something else. Because if you are then you are probably wrong. This data only tells you pending data as of Aug 2009 by priority dates. It could well be the case that USCIS got a lot of volume from Sep 2007 to Aug 2008 and processed them all and hence pending is less now. Hope you understand. The only way you can do it with some degree of success with current public data is by looking at PERM Filing data.
more...
PDOCT05
10-01 12:23 PM
I had called up USCIS and they have transferred the call to second level IO, as my application is 90 days old. They donot find the information yet. (My employer says, they clubbed the applications in one fedex box and sent it. Got the list of FedEx tracking number, one tracking number has 4 pounds, so guessing he would have put my application in it. ) The IO says, I have to take the fedex tracking number printout as proof and send them by postal mail, so that they can track back with their computer systems. Do now know when I will receive RNs. May be I have to maintain another tracking number for this inquiry mail also.
Please post your experiances about calling to USCIS today.
Friend I just called to USCIS.No information yet and she could able to find all my I-140 info and my employer details. But no information beyound that.I requested her what should i do..it's been 90 days? She said wait for 2 more weeks ..they still have lot of applications it seems and it may take 2 weeks to one month.
Please post your experiances about calling to USCIS today.
Friend I just called to USCIS.No information yet and she could able to find all my I-140 info and my employer details. But no information beyound that.I requested her what should i do..it's been 90 days? She said wait for 2 more weeks ..they still have lot of applications it seems and it may take 2 weeks to one month.
hair Our Blogger templates are Free
Hunter
05-10 01:27 AM
Hunter, Mind your own business. What is your point.
1. We all agree there are loopholes in each and every system. Are you trying to fill 1% by punishing 99% of the people. If you want to fix loopholes this is not the right place to be. Go to the court and fight with the adminstration. Why the hell you are wasting your time.
2. Considering you are a anti-immigrant, and you want to fix the system. Are you targeting Employment based immigrants or family based immigrants. Employement based immigrants are just 17% of the total immigrants whereas family based immigrants are more than 50+ %. better target them. Don't waste your time since you won't get anything as everybody over here are working and US employers want them.
3. If you are unemployed, please spend your time in findiing a job. The minimum salary in US is around 8 dollars a hour so you have wasted your entire day. close to 100 dollars. You have not earned a thing by writing your thoughts in this forum.
4. Senator Grassley and Durbin are working on your side and they also like you don't want a google, yahoo, ebay and other firms to suceed iin US. Be prepare to immigrate to some other country in future.
I hope you get back to your work and THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ENOUGH.
J Thomas
Hey J(erk) Thomas,
Shove your condescending advise to where the sun never shines. It is NONE of your BUSINESS to tell me or anyone what they should be doing. No wonder average americans have started hating people like you and want to drive you out of the country.
If you think that you can fool everyone all the time, you are sadly mistaken. Even by DOL estimates, there is 20% fraud with H1. The real figure could be a lot higher than that
I am not the only one expressing these opinions in this forum, as I can see, "TN Man" has suggested pretty much the same here. There is no point in trying to close your eyes to reality.
Senator Grassley and Durbin wants Google and Yahoo to succeed in US. But they don't want Indian cyber-koolies like the body shops and TCS/INFY/Wipro to steal american jobs under the guise of globalization.
For all the geniuses out here, how many companies like Google or Microsoft or yahoo came out of India in the last 20 years? Yeah, that is what I thought too.. BIG ZERO. But if you read J(erk) Thomas' response, one would have thought that India is full of competitors for Microsoft and Google today :D :D :D
1. We all agree there are loopholes in each and every system. Are you trying to fill 1% by punishing 99% of the people. If you want to fix loopholes this is not the right place to be. Go to the court and fight with the adminstration. Why the hell you are wasting your time.
2. Considering you are a anti-immigrant, and you want to fix the system. Are you targeting Employment based immigrants or family based immigrants. Employement based immigrants are just 17% of the total immigrants whereas family based immigrants are more than 50+ %. better target them. Don't waste your time since you won't get anything as everybody over here are working and US employers want them.
3. If you are unemployed, please spend your time in findiing a job. The minimum salary in US is around 8 dollars a hour so you have wasted your entire day. close to 100 dollars. You have not earned a thing by writing your thoughts in this forum.
4. Senator Grassley and Durbin are working on your side and they also like you don't want a google, yahoo, ebay and other firms to suceed iin US. Be prepare to immigrate to some other country in future.
I hope you get back to your work and THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ENOUGH.
J Thomas
Hey J(erk) Thomas,
Shove your condescending advise to where the sun never shines. It is NONE of your BUSINESS to tell me or anyone what they should be doing. No wonder average americans have started hating people like you and want to drive you out of the country.
If you think that you can fool everyone all the time, you are sadly mistaken. Even by DOL estimates, there is 20% fraud with H1. The real figure could be a lot higher than that
I am not the only one expressing these opinions in this forum, as I can see, "TN Man" has suggested pretty much the same here. There is no point in trying to close your eyes to reality.
Senator Grassley and Durbin wants Google and Yahoo to succeed in US. But they don't want Indian cyber-koolies like the body shops and TCS/INFY/Wipro to steal american jobs under the guise of globalization.
For all the geniuses out here, how many companies like Google or Microsoft or yahoo came out of India in the last 20 years? Yeah, that is what I thought too.. BIG ZERO. But if you read J(erk) Thomas' response, one would have thought that India is full of competitors for Microsoft and Google today :D :D :D
more...
pappu
08-04 06:10 PM
more info
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
hot open Food log templates,
pat123
09-10 12:09 PM
I created a SR and got a reply that my case went for additional review and to call back after 6 months .IS this a STANDARD reply else something bigger coming up next?:confused:
more...
house graydient sep Your own really hating logger background Black ackground
ivofindia
07-09 09:35 PM
Now is the time to educate American people how badly we legal immigrants are treated. The whole immigration system is broken in the US. No wonder why 20 million illegal immigrants decided to conceal their identities. There are no rules to be followed (now USCIS itself has broken the immigration law by re-issuing July VB which is against law).
We should send a note to Mr. Director (USCIS) that this action of his department will make the already broken immigration system worse, and Mr. President (USA) will not like it. Even people from the illegal immigrant community who are planning to become legals will now change their minds seeing USCIS chaos.
We should send a note to Mr. Director (USCIS) that this action of his department will make the already broken immigration system worse, and Mr. President (USA) will not like it. Even people from the illegal immigrant community who are planning to become legals will now change their minds seeing USCIS chaos.
tattoo Black Music Blog Template
kshitijnt
05-10 06:14 PM
It is not true that all the H1bs are creating jobs. For one example I worked in a big garment company and they laid off hundreds of people(around 800) 4 years back and did offshoring 90% with 10% H1b and L1 to Infosys. This would have created less than 10 new admin jobs for setting up office here but it displaced 800 jobs plus all the new projects(jobs) go to Infosys and US government lost millions in taxes for a private company to save a few million dollars. But if a H1b is a real innovator or investor then he could create scores of new jobs but those guys are very less. They should be identified and rewarded by faster GC process.
But real intention of H1b when it was created was to fill shortage of skills but not for competing with citizens in rate. If the real intention is to compete globally then that needs to be revealed while lobbying with Senators. There is nothing wrong with immigrants or H1b persons. Most abuses are done and enouraged by employers. Corporations prefers a person always to be in H1b so they want more H1b quota and less gc so that they can exploit people.
Basically H1b numbers and offshoring needs to be increased when demand is high(Really it was needed on 1999 and 2000) and it needs to be decreased when demand is low. Also today also there is shortage of skills in a few areas. System should handle those also.
Well there are different examples you can cite all the time to turn the argument in your favor. By themselves H1Bs in that status can not create jobs, because they are bound to the employer. However there is no denying that a lot of them such as those who graduated from US universities with masters degrees, those from IIT or IIMs are smart and bright individuals. I know at least 2 Indians , family friends that after getting their green cards, started companies on their own and now employ hundreds locally if not thousands.And let me tell you these are not desi consulting cos. The very premise of tying an H1 to employer is wrong, not the individual by himself. Instead if there is point/skill based immigration system then it will ensure only the brightest will come inside the country. Currently the decision to hire the immigrant rests with an employer and hence we see systematic corruption to some degree.
Also what I said was companies are profit oriented business entities. Of course they will want to hire people who best benefit their business. Nobody is stopping a local from proving that.
But real intention of H1b when it was created was to fill shortage of skills but not for competing with citizens in rate. If the real intention is to compete globally then that needs to be revealed while lobbying with Senators. There is nothing wrong with immigrants or H1b persons. Most abuses are done and enouraged by employers. Corporations prefers a person always to be in H1b so they want more H1b quota and less gc so that they can exploit people.
Basically H1b numbers and offshoring needs to be increased when demand is high(Really it was needed on 1999 and 2000) and it needs to be decreased when demand is low. Also today also there is shortage of skills in a few areas. System should handle those also.
Well there are different examples you can cite all the time to turn the argument in your favor. By themselves H1Bs in that status can not create jobs, because they are bound to the employer. However there is no denying that a lot of them such as those who graduated from US universities with masters degrees, those from IIT or IIMs are smart and bright individuals. I know at least 2 Indians , family friends that after getting their green cards, started companies on their own and now employ hundreds locally if not thousands.And let me tell you these are not desi consulting cos. The very premise of tying an H1 to employer is wrong, not the individual by himself. Instead if there is point/skill based immigration system then it will ensure only the brightest will come inside the country. Currently the decision to hire the immigrant rests with an employer and hence we see systematic corruption to some degree.
Also what I said was companies are profit oriented business entities. Of course they will want to hire people who best benefit their business. Nobody is stopping a local from proving that.
more...
pictures Photography Blogger Template
addsf345
01-08 06:40 PM
I found this forum after my I 485 denied as I applied for AOS under AC21 at texas center on 12/31/2008. The first thing I did after joining IV is sent the four letters.
I know its a stressful time. Please follow this thread carefully, read it completely and contact ombudsman with correct form. It would be easier for all of us if CIS can see number of genuine cases which are denied wrongfully. This way, CIS may would act faster to again put your case on file and in future will not do this again.
I know its a stressful time. Please follow this thread carefully, read it completely and contact ombudsman with correct form. It would be easier for all of us if CIS can see number of genuine cases which are denied wrongfully. This way, CIS may would act faster to again put your case on file and in future will not do this again.
dresses Tumblrtumblr layouts blogger
yestogc
08-27 12:37 PM
5000 minutes Limit, I did not know that ................... where does it say in fine print, do you have any link for same.
Thanks a lot for alerting everyone ...........
Thanks a lot for alerting everyone ...........
more...
makeup Red Black Blogger Template
saileshdude
09-13 10:39 AM
Arewethereyet,
In the email that you send to the streamline address, in the subject we have to write it in the format "I-485/MM". THe document says we have to write the month for "MM" but does not say whether the month is priority date month or the month that your PD will be current. What did you write?
Thanks.
In the email that you send to the streamline address, in the subject we have to write it in the format "I-485/MM". THe document says we have to write the month for "MM" but does not say whether the month is priority date month or the month that your PD will be current. What did you write?
Thanks.
girlfriend Images are free blogging serviceblog ackgrounds completely Ourfree logger
chandooo
09-22 12:14 AM
Let me give you an example and you would understand my point. USCIS Customer Services Directorate received 16 million calls from the public and 300,000 from Members of Congress. Add to it, all other items people do to get attention for their case and think that by sending an email or a phone call from Senator or by a lawyer, the officer will realize his mistake and quickly open the file and approve it. If you look at the responses people post to their inquiries, you would see that most responses are standard. USCIS is not just approving 140K greencards but more than a million greencards, hundreds of thousands of H1 and other visa types, EADs etc...every year. Greencards do not get issued on the day date gets current. It is not a automatic process. There is lot of human work involved and many people do not understand that or spend time understanding it. They would rather waste their time either on useless task of tracking or calling customer service every single day.
i understand everybit you explained here but your missing human anxiousness whether it is GC or OC(no meaning) people willnot stop doing enquiry i think you might did to and being hypocritic that everyone is anxious about doing so the explaination looks like your working in uscis customer care and taking care of all this everyone knows that uscis doesnot only deals GC and not only we are calling them
take it easy brother
i understand everybit you explained here but your missing human anxiousness whether it is GC or OC(no meaning) people willnot stop doing enquiry i think you might did to and being hypocritic that everyone is anxious about doing so the explaination looks like your working in uscis customer care and taking care of all this everyone knows that uscis doesnot only deals GC and not only we are calling them
take it easy brother
hairstyles image log, ackground
seekerofpeace
10-09 09:46 PM
My wife got the approval on Oct 5th...CPO mail was first followed by approval notice and I also got a CPO mail after 35 days of approval....strange and surreal it seems
dwhuser,
I may be wrong since my wife's case was separated.....But this was from my congressman's office who told me that the reason that her case is pending and delayed is because our case got separated during adjudication.
Best
SoP
dwhuser,
I may be wrong since my wife's case was separated.....But this was from my congressman's office who told me that the reason that her case is pending and delayed is because our case got separated during adjudication.
Best
SoP
kate123
03-31 11:59 AM
Agreed, Thanks for correcting me :)
The calculation looks incorrect.
You considered the I+ C allocations and subtracted those in line 1. You again subtracted those in your final calculation.
The straight forward calculation is EB2 ROW is entitled to 34,436 (1) and they used 27,406 (2). So splillover was around 7 K.
The calculation looks incorrect.
You considered the I+ C allocations and subtracted those in line 1. You again subtracted those in your final calculation.
The straight forward calculation is EB2 ROW is entitled to 34,436 (1) and they used 27,406 (2). So splillover was around 7 K.
punjabi77
09-09 02:35 PM
I am from Ga.. So i called Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605..
I will try to call some more people..
I will try to call some more people..
No comments:
Post a Comment