bayarea07
03-17 10:04 PM
Well,If you think that it was a cheap attempt, then i belive you need tutoring in english first, i would have appreciated if you would have read the full documents first, if you are not in the same boat as others doesnot means that others are not, there are still many H1 holders whose spouse doesnot have a SSN and only ITIN, and i am not over or below quoting the statement made by IRS.
Please think twice before issuing any statements.
P.S- Thanks for Pointing that Title of a Thread is for writing autobiographies, I will keep that in mind,when you are around. :-)
A very cheap attempt at sensationalism, if that's what your intention was. But if you really are clueless about this issue, then here are the facts:
There are several thousands of H-1Bs and GC aspirants who have SSNs for themselves and their spouses. This stimulus package will give rebates to these thousands so long as their AGI allows for it. Also, all H-1Bs are eligible for their rebate since they would have SSNs. It is only when their non-working spouse (H-4) does not have a SSN that the H-1B holder becomes ineligible.
Thus, the title of your thread is misleading. Change the title to "No Stimulus Package to H-1Bs whose spouses do not have SSNs". And again, this is not targetting H-1Bs or GC aspirants. Any US resident without a SSN is ineligible for the stimulus package.
Regards,
Jayant
Please think twice before issuing any statements.
P.S- Thanks for Pointing that Title of a Thread is for writing autobiographies, I will keep that in mind,when you are around. :-)
A very cheap attempt at sensationalism, if that's what your intention was. But if you really are clueless about this issue, then here are the facts:
There are several thousands of H-1Bs and GC aspirants who have SSNs for themselves and their spouses. This stimulus package will give rebates to these thousands so long as their AGI allows for it. Also, all H-1Bs are eligible for their rebate since they would have SSNs. It is only when their non-working spouse (H-4) does not have a SSN that the H-1B holder becomes ineligible.
Thus, the title of your thread is misleading. Change the title to "No Stimulus Package to H-1Bs whose spouses do not have SSNs". And again, this is not targetting H-1Bs or GC aspirants. Any US resident without a SSN is ineligible for the stimulus package.
Regards,
Jayant
wallpaper Rimmel Black Mascara
Green.Tech
06-20 11:20 PM
Wake up people...
obviously
09-15 10:55 PM
I think the at the heart of this kind of reckless, selfish 'crusade' is a problem with poor upbringing. Some kids are brought up to look at the world through myopic self-interests, and are molly coddled by their parents into believing that their narrow views are indeed honorable and respectable.
The sad reality is that such 'crusades' do nothing more than unite those against the larger cause of brown/black/non-white immigration and divide those that are already in pain.
No wonder then that history repeats itself ever so often when those from the 'great Eastern lands' can so easily be ruled by those with shorter histories and accomplishments.
Take a look at illegal immigrants. They break the law. Yet, they are able to unite so effectively to make themselves heard. For a group that has absolutely no locus standi for legal or political relief, they are amazingly effective in shaping the dialog around their interests.
As a strategy and communications professional (with a strong background in Harvard Law School mediation/negotiation and US public policy) I can vouch for the effectiveness of a united voice that speaks to larger interests oriented towards US economic gains. These kinds of narrow sub-optimal "causes" only make the USCIS and the larger establishment care less about legal employment based immigration.
Absent in this dialog from this 'erudite PhD' is analyses of root causes of underlying problems. For one, there is the absolutely crystal clear problem with country based quotas for employment based immigration in a country where the primary act, i.e., employment itself cannot be discriminated based on national origin. And so on and so forth.
Instead of taking cause with such short sighted and self-centered acts, why not apply your collective 'high skills' towards highlighting the POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS of legal immigrants and pushing for a better overall process?
Instead of collecting money to slit the wrists of those around you, why not join hands and petition the lawmakers for better, more transparent processing estimates?
Instead of trying to make a futile argument that EB1 > EB2 > EB3, why not attempt to have a real public policy dialog that reframes larger interests?
Further more, dont forget that when the USCIS needs to respond to such frivolous lawsuits, it costs US taxpayer dollars... which further alienates the USCIS and Citizens from the cause of legal immigration.
No wonder then we find an increase in backlash against non-white immigrants that seek a higher sense of entitlement... seriously... I can bet just as I did with that SunnySurya joker a while ago, put your EB2 petition up online and let us see if there really is no US Citizen available to do the job.
What makes it fair for a foreigner like you to come to this country and claim that there there is NO ONE to do the job based on which you seek to immigrate?
If you are really serious about US national interest and the larger question of fairness, it is only fair that you post the EB2 job and we confirm that there is no US person ready and able to take that job. And dont try those advertising tricks, I will hire a lawyer to smoke out your games.
BTW, I will be looking out for this lawsuit. I will get the details from you directly without you even knowing about it. Heck, I will even contribute to your "cause" so that you give me the details. Then, I will file a separate petition to have your specific EB case investigated for the merits your lawyer posed. Ready for that game?
Bottomline, I blame poor parenting for creating such characters in society that cause a drain on the moral fabric of humanity.
The sad reality is that such 'crusades' do nothing more than unite those against the larger cause of brown/black/non-white immigration and divide those that are already in pain.
No wonder then that history repeats itself ever so often when those from the 'great Eastern lands' can so easily be ruled by those with shorter histories and accomplishments.
Take a look at illegal immigrants. They break the law. Yet, they are able to unite so effectively to make themselves heard. For a group that has absolutely no locus standi for legal or political relief, they are amazingly effective in shaping the dialog around their interests.
As a strategy and communications professional (with a strong background in Harvard Law School mediation/negotiation and US public policy) I can vouch for the effectiveness of a united voice that speaks to larger interests oriented towards US economic gains. These kinds of narrow sub-optimal "causes" only make the USCIS and the larger establishment care less about legal employment based immigration.
Absent in this dialog from this 'erudite PhD' is analyses of root causes of underlying problems. For one, there is the absolutely crystal clear problem with country based quotas for employment based immigration in a country where the primary act, i.e., employment itself cannot be discriminated based on national origin. And so on and so forth.
Instead of taking cause with such short sighted and self-centered acts, why not apply your collective 'high skills' towards highlighting the POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS of legal immigrants and pushing for a better overall process?
Instead of collecting money to slit the wrists of those around you, why not join hands and petition the lawmakers for better, more transparent processing estimates?
Instead of trying to make a futile argument that EB1 > EB2 > EB3, why not attempt to have a real public policy dialog that reframes larger interests?
Further more, dont forget that when the USCIS needs to respond to such frivolous lawsuits, it costs US taxpayer dollars... which further alienates the USCIS and Citizens from the cause of legal immigration.
No wonder then we find an increase in backlash against non-white immigrants that seek a higher sense of entitlement... seriously... I can bet just as I did with that SunnySurya joker a while ago, put your EB2 petition up online and let us see if there really is no US Citizen available to do the job.
What makes it fair for a foreigner like you to come to this country and claim that there there is NO ONE to do the job based on which you seek to immigrate?
If you are really serious about US national interest and the larger question of fairness, it is only fair that you post the EB2 job and we confirm that there is no US person ready and able to take that job. And dont try those advertising tricks, I will hire a lawyer to smoke out your games.
BTW, I will be looking out for this lawsuit. I will get the details from you directly without you even knowing about it. Heck, I will even contribute to your "cause" so that you give me the details. Then, I will file a separate petition to have your specific EB case investigated for the merits your lawyer posed. Ready for that game?
Bottomline, I blame poor parenting for creating such characters in society that cause a drain on the moral fabric of humanity.
2011 Pictures of RIMMEL of LONDON
admin
03-02 12:52 PM
it`s not working
One needs Realplayer to listen to the hearings. But even then I only get a high pitched sound.
One needs Realplayer to listen to the hearings. But even then I only get a high pitched sound.
more...
chanduv23
11-17 03:07 PM
Chandu, did you get a chance to read this thread on RG's forums?
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461
so atleast we can say that there is a different opinion exists among attorney's too, than one of that RK's.
As mentioned in some of the above posts,
1. PPL mentioned successful renewal of EAD while MTR was filed.
2. PPL reported been able to continue working while 485 was in appeal due to invocation of 140 by previous employer after 180 days of 485.
So, I am sure there is something that is mis-guiding us here. As suggested above, Do you think if sending an email to CIS ombudsman as an individual would help? or can we do it under IV's banner if that is more effective? Suggestions?
desi - I am not sure how we do that but I personally think if we ask such a thing we are letting USCIS send us denial notice even though they must not send it.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6461
so atleast we can say that there is a different opinion exists among attorney's too, than one of that RK's.
As mentioned in some of the above posts,
1. PPL mentioned successful renewal of EAD while MTR was filed.
2. PPL reported been able to continue working while 485 was in appeal due to invocation of 140 by previous employer after 180 days of 485.
So, I am sure there is something that is mis-guiding us here. As suggested above, Do you think if sending an email to CIS ombudsman as an individual would help? or can we do it under IV's banner if that is more effective? Suggestions?
desi - I am not sure how we do that but I personally think if we ask such a thing we are letting USCIS send us denial notice even though they must not send it.
langagadu
03-07 10:59 AM
Well, he is saying differently here. What the hell?
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7464
See the link
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7065
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7464
See the link
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7065
more...
Keeme
03-06 05:32 PM
Few observations based on thread postings
1) Last year around this same time not many RFE/LUD were seen.
2) Most of these cases with RFE/LUD are either EB2 around 2005-2006 or EB3 2003-2004
3) My Lawyer based out of IL confirming RFEs are in high volume and majority of these are Employment verification with Birth verification and Health letter verification as close second.
Now given the gov attitude and the current scenario it does not seem that they would be interested in pre-adjudication. There is something else that is going on. On the same note I am also seeing that people with dates which could possibly be current anytime this year are not seeing any LUD/RFE. If pre-adjudicating is the objective than these cases should have received the RFEs first.
Just my observation. Any input is appreciated.
Possibility 1: Could be renewal of fingerprints as most of these 485 were filed befoe 16-17 months and FP life is 15 months. A memo was issued that they will reuse this FPs and won't ask another FPs if 485 takes longer than 15 months.
This possiblility is quetioned by so many RFEs ! Why so many RFEs if its for FP ?
2 - It could be a preparation for adjudicating thosdands of applications as some one in this tread mentioned that spill over wouldn't be as it was last year.
Also, current Economy may force them to use larger number of FB visas for EBs for next few years.
Let's see ! I don't wonder any more why 'Hope' is the most sellable slogan for politicians/cheaters around the worlds !
1) Last year around this same time not many RFE/LUD were seen.
2) Most of these cases with RFE/LUD are either EB2 around 2005-2006 or EB3 2003-2004
3) My Lawyer based out of IL confirming RFEs are in high volume and majority of these are Employment verification with Birth verification and Health letter verification as close second.
Now given the gov attitude and the current scenario it does not seem that they would be interested in pre-adjudication. There is something else that is going on. On the same note I am also seeing that people with dates which could possibly be current anytime this year are not seeing any LUD/RFE. If pre-adjudicating is the objective than these cases should have received the RFEs first.
Just my observation. Any input is appreciated.
Possibility 1: Could be renewal of fingerprints as most of these 485 were filed befoe 16-17 months and FP life is 15 months. A memo was issued that they will reuse this FPs and won't ask another FPs if 485 takes longer than 15 months.
This possiblility is quetioned by so many RFEs ! Why so many RFEs if its for FP ?
2 - It could be a preparation for adjudicating thosdands of applications as some one in this tread mentioned that spill over wouldn't be as it was last year.
Also, current Economy may force them to use larger number of FB visas for EBs for next few years.
Let's see ! I don't wonder any more why 'Hope' is the most sellable slogan for politicians/cheaters around the worlds !
2010 rimmel max volume flash
lonedesi
08-04 04:14 PM
Letter to be sent for an I-140 petition pending at TSC:
From,
First Name, Last Name
Address,
To,
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Dear Mr. Ombudsman:
Re: I-140 processing delays at TSC for June - August 2007 concurrent petitioners
I submitted I-140 & I-485 petitions concurrently for an employment based green card to TSC during the July 07. I have been waiting for little more than a year now and still there have been no updates on my case. While the processing times on USCIS website shows that TSC is processing cases filed around July 23 2007, we have been consistently observing (on multiple tracker websites online and from friends who recently received their approvals) that TSC has been processing & approving cases filed post August 2007 and some as recent as this year. While people like us are still waiting, people who applied recently are getting approval notices. This fact can be confirmed by Ombudsman's office requesting TSC to provide with the receipt dates for all the I-140 cases approved in the last few months. It's only fair that people who filed earlier are given preference following the FIFO policy of USCIS.
This delay in processing and ignoring our cases at the expense of recently filed cases is causing us undue hardship. Some of members who are in similar situation who contacted TSC have received responses that our cases will not be picked for processing until our priority dates are current. But there are several hundred cases like mine, who have an earlier approved I-140 and have filed a new I-140 petition(based on a new PERM labor) after we joined a new employer and were intending to port our old priority date which is current per the latest visa bulletin. At the same time, TSC has been approving I-140 petitions (filed non-concurrently) and whose PD's are not current.
Also some of the members, who contacted TSC, have received responses like "We are waiting for FBI name check to clear before we can process I-140 petition". It is clearly known that there is no need for FBI name check for processing I-140 petitions. Also, now that there is a new memo stating that if FBI name check has been pending over 180 days, then I-485 can be conditionally approved without having to wait for clearance from FBI. In spite of this memo, TSC has been consistently ignoring our petitions.
Some of members who have contacted USCIS Ombudsman regarding this delay have received responses from the Ombudsman's office stating that they are aware of the delays in processing I-140 petitions. But till date, we have not seen any action on part of USCIS to address this issue in-spite of many members raising this issue during Ombudsman's conference calls and sending letters to your office.
Lack of I-140 processing for concurrent petitioners has prevented us from receiving some of the interim benefits (EAD/AP valid for 2 years, possibility of using AC21 in these uncertain economic conditions) that come with an I-140 approval. This has resulted in us applying for EAD/AP's multiple times and paying for expenses associated with it.
I seek your assistance in investigating in this matter with TSC and impress upon the center to complete processing I-140 petitions for the concurrently filed cases during July 2007. I also urge you to request USCIS to re-instate the premium processing service for all categories of I-140 petitions with no pre-conditions to qualify.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. I would appreciate your response and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
From,
First Name, Last Name
Address,
To,
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
Department of Homeland Security
Attention: Case Problems
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Dear Mr. Ombudsman:
Re: I-140 processing delays at TSC for June - August 2007 concurrent petitioners
I submitted I-140 & I-485 petitions concurrently for an employment based green card to TSC during the July 07. I have been waiting for little more than a year now and still there have been no updates on my case. While the processing times on USCIS website shows that TSC is processing cases filed around July 23 2007, we have been consistently observing (on multiple tracker websites online and from friends who recently received their approvals) that TSC has been processing & approving cases filed post August 2007 and some as recent as this year. While people like us are still waiting, people who applied recently are getting approval notices. This fact can be confirmed by Ombudsman's office requesting TSC to provide with the receipt dates for all the I-140 cases approved in the last few months. It's only fair that people who filed earlier are given preference following the FIFO policy of USCIS.
This delay in processing and ignoring our cases at the expense of recently filed cases is causing us undue hardship. Some of members who are in similar situation who contacted TSC have received responses that our cases will not be picked for processing until our priority dates are current. But there are several hundred cases like mine, who have an earlier approved I-140 and have filed a new I-140 petition(based on a new PERM labor) after we joined a new employer and were intending to port our old priority date which is current per the latest visa bulletin. At the same time, TSC has been approving I-140 petitions (filed non-concurrently) and whose PD's are not current.
Also some of the members, who contacted TSC, have received responses like "We are waiting for FBI name check to clear before we can process I-140 petition". It is clearly known that there is no need for FBI name check for processing I-140 petitions. Also, now that there is a new memo stating that if FBI name check has been pending over 180 days, then I-485 can be conditionally approved without having to wait for clearance from FBI. In spite of this memo, TSC has been consistently ignoring our petitions.
Some of members who have contacted USCIS Ombudsman regarding this delay have received responses from the Ombudsman's office stating that they are aware of the delays in processing I-140 petitions. But till date, we have not seen any action on part of USCIS to address this issue in-spite of many members raising this issue during Ombudsman's conference calls and sending letters to your office.
Lack of I-140 processing for concurrent petitioners has prevented us from receiving some of the interim benefits (EAD/AP valid for 2 years, possibility of using AC21 in these uncertain economic conditions) that come with an I-140 approval. This has resulted in us applying for EAD/AP's multiple times and paying for expenses associated with it.
I seek your assistance in investigating in this matter with TSC and impress upon the center to complete processing I-140 petitions for the concurrently filed cases during July 2007. I also urge you to request USCIS to re-instate the premium processing service for all categories of I-140 petitions with no pre-conditions to qualify.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information. I would appreciate your response and assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
more...
Vsach
03-13 09:05 PM
:confused:Dear All,
I am still on H1 (not utilized EAD), the visa on my passport expired last year. Planning to visit India next week, should I be getting a visa stamped or use AP?
APPRECIATE INPUTS FROM THE EXPERIENCED/SIMILAR SITUATION. Any USCIS link will also help.
Regards
I am still on H1 (not utilized EAD), the visa on my passport expired last year. Planning to visit India next week, should I be getting a visa stamped or use AP?
APPRECIATE INPUTS FROM THE EXPERIENCED/SIMILAR SITUATION. Any USCIS link will also help.
Regards
hair only Rimmel mascara I#39;ve
snathan
05-15 10:13 PM
Shan - I totally understand your frustration and where you are coming from. I had the same level of aggression when i first started participated in IV activities and I am sure, a lot of people want to pursue things in an aggressive manner.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
I totally agree with you on this. But I am not talking about the MTR. I am talking about the fee issues. Why do we need to pay if its their mistake. I dont think we are talking about the fee waiver with congress men's office or anyone else.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
I totally agree with you on this. But I am not talking about the MTR. I am talking about the fee issues. Why do we need to pay if its their mistake. I dont think we are talking about the fee waiver with congress men's office or anyone else.
more...
TomTancredo
03-04 01:45 PM
I have an RFE on my 485 (EB3 I SEP 2004 )....
hot Rimmel#39;s new spokes model is
NKR
06-25 11:47 AM
When a guy comes to US for education the average age is around 23 - 24 years. MS completed by 25. Most guys at that time have burning desire to do something new and innovative (either in job or starting own business).
And then you lose your libido :). Agreed�. With the delay you lose the golden period in your career and end up at a lower level. Most of the self made millionaires rockstarted young when they had the drive and desire. I still say America gains more than what they lose by delaying GC process. If they hand out GCs faster then who will work for those millionaires and billionaires?.
And then you lose your libido :). Agreed�. With the delay you lose the golden period in your career and end up at a lower level. Most of the self made millionaires rockstarted young when they had the drive and desire. I still say America gains more than what they lose by delaying GC process. If they hand out GCs faster then who will work for those millionaires and billionaires?.
more...
house Rimmel Lash Maxxx Mascara
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:02 PM
California U.S. House results by county
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
tattoo Lips: Rimmel Lasting Finish
pappu
08-08 12:15 PM
I sent you one in a PM a few minutes ago.
Pankaj
Thanks I got it and sent you a PM. Could you post it yourself on this thread so that others can also view it.
Pankaj
Thanks I got it and sent you a PM. Could you post it yourself on this thread so that others can also view it.
more...
pictures Rimmel Before (l), After (r)
cse_us
03-04 02:37 PM
Thanks.
Any one else with recent RFEs/LUDs on their I-485 ? Pl post.
Mine is a NSC-CSC-NSC 485, july 2nd filer, with Apr 2007 EB2 Priority.
I got Hard and soft LUDs on 2/5/09 and 2/10/09 resp.
Hard LUD says, my case is now pending. (before it was 'this case has been transfered ...).
No idea wht the soft LUD means, might be no RFE.
BTW, I used EAD and also filed AC21 thru my lawyer.
Regards.
Any one else with recent RFEs/LUDs on their I-485 ? Pl post.
Mine is a NSC-CSC-NSC 485, july 2nd filer, with Apr 2007 EB2 Priority.
I got Hard and soft LUDs on 2/5/09 and 2/10/09 resp.
Hard LUD says, my case is now pending. (before it was 'this case has been transfered ...).
No idea wht the soft LUD means, might be no RFE.
BTW, I used EAD and also filed AC21 thru my lawyer.
Regards.
dresses Rimmel Sexy Curves Mascara
vinod_gvk
09-09 06:59 PM
Transaction ID: 7B814063HN269762U
more...
makeup Have you tried any Rimmel
srikondoji
08-02 04:06 PM
Thats a mess forced onto themselves. However, iam feeling happy and lucky about it. The hardships of USCIS employees started off from mid june and will never end just because of mess & mass miss-communication between the agencies.
Since I was bored at work, I called this number and talked with a rep this morning @10. She told me that they have 76K applications pending for the receipt date as of July 27th. She said this two times thinking me to take on with surprise with this huge number. Yes, of course I am surprised. Is it only 76K apps by July 27th?
Since I was bored at work, I called this number and talked with a rep this morning @10. She told me that they have 76K applications pending for the receipt date as of July 27th. She said this two times thinking me to take on with surprise with this huge number. Yes, of course I am surprised. Is it only 76K apps by July 27th?
girlfriend Rimmel Glam#39; eyes Mascara
manishs7
07-20 04:08 PM
Hilary and Obama said NO to Legal Immigration...
MCcain said YES...
Choice is yours..
THINK before you vote...
MCcain said YES...
Choice is yours..
THINK before you vote...
hairstyles Rimmel Eye Opener Mascara
willwin
10-01 04:34 PM
This might work, except that the law would have to be changed he other way also.
If they allow you to apply for 485, the law says that you have the right to EAD and AP which will make it then too cumbersome for CIS to handle.
That is why when you apply for Consular Processing, your approved Visa petition(140) remains on NVC(National Visa Center) and you do not get any fringe benefit until your PD is current.
Andy,
CP does not have interim benefits but the papers (Form 230) does not stay at NVC. They process Form 230, approve it, update DOS about the approval and send them to respective consulates. My paper is in Chennai Consulate for the last 2 months (and may be several years in future).
I have a question to the experts here.
If 485 applications cannot be approved because of big queue in 485, name check, general USCIS delay in processing 485, why not issue VISA numbers to cases pending in consulates (which would be 1% of 485 queue) which are already approved and just awaiting VISA numbers. I know that CP and 485 share the same pool but that just sounds ridiculous knowing that thousands of numbers wasted despite that would very well take care of ALL applications pending at Consulates.
If they allow you to apply for 485, the law says that you have the right to EAD and AP which will make it then too cumbersome for CIS to handle.
That is why when you apply for Consular Processing, your approved Visa petition(140) remains on NVC(National Visa Center) and you do not get any fringe benefit until your PD is current.
Andy,
CP does not have interim benefits but the papers (Form 230) does not stay at NVC. They process Form 230, approve it, update DOS about the approval and send them to respective consulates. My paper is in Chennai Consulate for the last 2 months (and may be several years in future).
I have a question to the experts here.
If 485 applications cannot be approved because of big queue in 485, name check, general USCIS delay in processing 485, why not issue VISA numbers to cases pending in consulates (which would be 1% of 485 queue) which are already approved and just awaiting VISA numbers. I know that CP and 485 share the same pool but that just sounds ridiculous knowing that thousands of numbers wasted despite that would very well take care of ALL applications pending at Consulates.
GCKaIntezar
12-16 07:05 PM
Guys.. Peace! cut-it now.. this is totally absurd and childish to spend your energies in the type of back-and-forth discussions you're engaging yourselves in. What NYCGal369 started was an intellectual discussion, but now let's stop this downward spiral.
Thanks!
Thanks!
trueguy
02-26 12:01 PM
Forget about LIFO or FIFO, this year EB2 won't be getting enough visa's from spill-over. They would be giving majority of spill-over to EB3-ROW/I/C and EB2 would be getting very small fraction. And how's that is possible for that they would play around the law ( by making EB2 current).
Thanks'
MDix
On what basis you are saying that? Do you have any data/links to support this?
Thanks'
MDix
On what basis you are saying that? Do you have any data/links to support this?
No comments:
Post a Comment