gjoe
10-03 05:37 PM
Every year congress mandates that 140k immigrant visas may be issued. Lets say, in a particular year 200k applications were sent in, but only half of them could reach a stage where they could be approved (rest half are stuck in name check et al). Now you can approve only 100k which means that 40k visas which could have been used will go wasted for that year.
If visa numbers are assigned to cases as soon as the application is entered into the system based on the PD even if there case is not approved that year still they can get the visa whenever there case can be approved so effectively no visas are wasted in any year.
If visa numbers are assigned to cases as soon as the application is entered into the system based on the PD even if there case is not approved that year still they can get the visa whenever there case can be approved so effectively no visas are wasted in any year.
wallpaper Messi+2011+barcelona
Junky
09-10 08:07 AM
Damn :mad:, I can't believe that USCIS will going to waste visa numbers again. Therefore friends please call congressmen to support HR5882.
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
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
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Data available in Mumbai consulate website
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 15 April 2002 15 April 2002
FX 1 May 2001 1 May 2001
F2A 1 January 2004 1 January 2004
F2B 15 December 1999 15 December 1999
F3 22 June 2000 22 June 2000
F4 22 May 1997 22 October 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 April 2003 Current
E3 1 July 2001 1 January 2005
EW 1 Janurary 2003 1 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
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
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY SPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Data available in Mumbai consulate website
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
Category India Most Other Countries
F1 15 April 2002 15 April 2002
FX 1 May 2001 1 May 2001
F2A 1 January 2004 1 January 2004
F2B 15 December 1999 15 December 1999
F3 22 June 2000 22 June 2000
F4 22 May 1997 22 October 1997
E1 Current Current
E2 1 April 2003 Current
E3 1 July 2001 1 January 2005
EW 1 Janurary 2003 1 Janurary 2003
E4 Current Current
E4-Religious Current Current
unseenguy
02-13 10:06 PM
This is the message I have got from this guy....
I have contributed more than $500 to IV. I am not sure I want green card anymore. Thanks.
Just another junk in IV
Why are you not posting other messages from me, kiddo. MS + 1 yr. LOL. What an experienced and talented guy :)
I have contributed more than $500 to IV. I am not sure I want green card anymore. Thanks.
Just another junk in IV
Why are you not posting other messages from me, kiddo. MS + 1 yr. LOL. What an experienced and talented guy :)
2011 Ronaldo vs Messi Round IV
DSJ
07-06 11:01 AM
we (those who already filed + those will be filing) can never be united, may be it is our birth right to dispute each other. What a pathetic scene, guyz one thing to remember is unless old cases get cleared there is no way new one gets benefited in the long run.
more...
kaisersose
07-20 01:36 PM
The important thing is, not all BEC cases are alive today. Most people moved on to PERM. On the flip side, some newbies took advantage of substituted Labor, but I am guessing the count is not very high.
So if we have 150K BEC + 144K PERM, then in reality, the total 485 primary applicants will be < (150K + 144K).
More like 200K, I would think. Including spouses and foreign born kids, the number would be 400K (as not all primaries are married).
Add some more applicants from eb1, etc., who do not require Labors and the number should not exceed half a million in total including dependants. But again, we are speculating. In reality, the total may be less than half a million or more.
Assuming DOS and USCIS are efficient and use up all 140K visas each year, all of us should have GCs in < 4 years. The per country quota may cause some trouble, which may require adjusting the timeframe a little bit, but not much.
So if we have 150K BEC + 144K PERM, then in reality, the total 485 primary applicants will be < (150K + 144K).
More like 200K, I would think. Including spouses and foreign born kids, the number would be 400K (as not all primaries are married).
Add some more applicants from eb1, etc., who do not require Labors and the number should not exceed half a million in total including dependants. But again, we are speculating. In reality, the total may be less than half a million or more.
Assuming DOS and USCIS are efficient and use up all 140K visas each year, all of us should have GCs in < 4 years. The per country quota may cause some trouble, which may require adjusting the timeframe a little bit, but not much.
gk_2000
08-23 10:50 PM
Then why you are fighting for the spill over rules as they stand. Because its going to help you :confused:
Read all the pages and let us know where anyone is stating to close the program. All we are saying is to close the loophole.
Context is everything
And people here are scolding and ranting against the program, not "loophole". But why even fight against the so-called loopholes? Don't we have anything better to do? Visa recapture is a much more worthy goal
And BTW, a 30k salary doesn't matter for executives. Jerry Yang works for $1 a year, so does it mean he is not eligible? And what about the executives working for free for a noble cause? Not everyone is money-minded, and they may choose their goals and priorities
Read all the pages and let us know where anyone is stating to close the program. All we are saying is to close the loophole.
Context is everything
And people here are scolding and ranting against the program, not "loophole". But why even fight against the so-called loopholes? Don't we have anything better to do? Visa recapture is a much more worthy goal
And BTW, a 30k salary doesn't matter for executives. Jerry Yang works for $1 a year, so does it mean he is not eligible? And what about the executives working for free for a noble cause? Not everyone is money-minded, and they may choose their goals and priorities
more...
billu
09-13 08:22 AM
i had heard a lot of ppl everywhere talk abt "new numbers will be available from oct.".....due to fiscal year starting.....now that oct visa bulletin is out and there are no EB3 numbers for india as "current"....did they mean november visa bulletin which will release mid october?......or is bridge amendment the only hope for us Schedule A professionals now?
2010 united, ronaldo, vs, kaka,
gc_dedo
08-11 06:06 PM
The reason CIS isnt processing EB3 for last 3 months is because the dates are U and since they have lot of pressure not to waste visa numbers they have put all resources into EB2.
I have seen EB2 cases filed in May-08 been approved.
But i know this is unfair for EB3 people like us waiting for over a yr.
I have seen EB2 cases filed in May-08 been approved.
But i know this is unfair for EB3 people like us waiting for over a yr.
more...
haddi_No1
06-26 10:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501945.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
hair ronaldinho vs kaka who will win messi vs the rest. messi vs the rest
gc_dedo
04-30 03:41 PM
this sucks.
they dont know the difference between gc visas and h1 visas.
hes talking about employer trying to get visas to people to come and work.
no hope
they dont know the difference between gc visas and h1 visas.
hes talking about employer trying to get visas to people to come and work.
no hope
more...
diptam
07-06 02:35 PM
More important is the last 48 hrs where they processed 25000 cases
AT-WILL.
Ohh this guy has a good first name - 485 granted.
Ohh this guy married twice,needs money - 485 granted.
Ooh this girl doesnt look good - 485 denied.
Ooh this girl has excellent looks - 485 granted.
Ooh This couple stayed EUROPE not so loyal - 485 denied.
and so on and so forth....
They were/are so busy approving cases that they donot have time to update the message. Everyone from Janitors to Execs have been working for the last week to approve those 66K cases.
AT-WILL.
Ohh this guy has a good first name - 485 granted.
Ohh this guy married twice,needs money - 485 granted.
Ooh this girl doesnt look good - 485 denied.
Ooh this girl has excellent looks - 485 granted.
Ooh This couple stayed EUROPE not so loyal - 485 denied.
and so on and so forth....
They were/are so busy approving cases that they donot have time to update the message. Everyone from Janitors to Execs have been working for the last week to approve those 66K cases.
hot cristiano ronaldo vs
ashutrip
06-21 11:53 AM
process, thanks to Cohen & Grisby PERM presentation at the recent AILA conference.
So, things might slow down for PERMs due to this. Of course it will. See my posts about C & G elsewhere.
thats more bad news
So, things might slow down for PERMs due to this. Of course it will. See my posts about C & G elsewhere.
thats more bad news
more...
house c.ronaldo vs messi vs kaka
leo2606
08-12 12:59 PM
I don't think so, all centers which handle 485s will look at the application delivered date as the the RD.
I was asking this because some agencies consider the post marked date as the date the appllication was filed. But thanks for the response
I was asking this because some agencies consider the post marked date as the date the appllication was filed. But thanks for the response
tattoo Messi+vs+ronaldo+vs+kaka
immi2006
05-04 10:26 AM
He would have brought DOL work culture to your work place, who knows you might have incurred loss :-)
Maybe it would be eating and sleeping... if they get bored with that they might approve 1 or 2 cases.
Maybe it would be eating and sleeping... if they get bored with that they might approve 1 or 2 cases.
more...
pictures Videos Related To #39;ronaldo Vs
sanju
04-30 02:49 PM
Michael Aytes starts speaking - provides stats about how good USCIS is doing and how many people were processed/given green cards.
dresses ~Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Lionel
rp0lol
07-11 11:59 AM
I read this in another thread... May be USCIS wants to collect more money for EAD renewals by moving eb2 date and issuing 1yr approval.
===========================
Will applicants get a two-year EAD when they file an I-765 with their I-485 adjustment of status application?
Generally no. Initial EAD filings will generally receive an EAD that is valid for one- year because they are usually submitted with the Form I-485 that can only be filed when there is an immigrant visa number immediately available to the individual. Applicants are only eligible for a two-year EAD if their immigrant visa availability date retrogresses (i.e., when actual demand for visa numbers exceeds forecasted supply) after the Form I-485 is filed. If an immigrant visa number is available, USCIS will grant the one-year EAD.
How will USCIS decide whether to issue an EAD valid for one or two years?
USCIS will decide whether to renew an EAD for either a one or two-year validity period based on the most recent Department of State Visa Bulletin. If an applicant�s visa number has retrogressed and is unavailable, USCIS may issue a renewal EAD valid for two years. USCIS will continue to issue the EAD in one-year increments when the Department of State Visa Bulletin shows an employment-based preference category is current as a whole or the applicant�s priority date is current.
==================
===========================
Will applicants get a two-year EAD when they file an I-765 with their I-485 adjustment of status application?
Generally no. Initial EAD filings will generally receive an EAD that is valid for one- year because they are usually submitted with the Form I-485 that can only be filed when there is an immigrant visa number immediately available to the individual. Applicants are only eligible for a two-year EAD if their immigrant visa availability date retrogresses (i.e., when actual demand for visa numbers exceeds forecasted supply) after the Form I-485 is filed. If an immigrant visa number is available, USCIS will grant the one-year EAD.
How will USCIS decide whether to issue an EAD valid for one or two years?
USCIS will decide whether to renew an EAD for either a one or two-year validity period based on the most recent Department of State Visa Bulletin. If an applicant�s visa number has retrogressed and is unavailable, USCIS may issue a renewal EAD valid for two years. USCIS will continue to issue the EAD in one-year increments when the Department of State Visa Bulletin shows an employment-based preference category is current as a whole or the applicant�s priority date is current.
==================
more...
makeup not believe wayne Messi vs
kalinga_sena
04-30 02:54 PM
heavy traffic!!!
girlfriend Messi+vs+ronaldo+real+
beppenyc
03-02 12:47 PM
it`s not working
hairstyles Zinedine Zidane vs Ronaldinho
sanju
03-12 08:31 PM
Oh I can find that information again-
Goto - http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=selectfields
- check box for client name
- click 'submit' button
- enter 'Immigration Voice' in the client name
- click 'submit' button
Now you see the amount spent by IV for lobbying in the Senate documents. Its around 1/2 million dollars.
Goto - http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=selectfields
- check box for client name
- click 'submit' button
- enter 'Immigration Voice' in the client name
- click 'submit' button
Now you see the amount spent by IV for lobbying in the Senate documents. Its around 1/2 million dollars.
Rajeev
08-12 02:18 PM
My guess is that we have discussed enough about the bill. Next in the line is the dream act for children of undocumented immigrants. Do we want to have a campaign to add children of legal immigrants to the bill or we want to only discuss the implications about the act, once it is passed by house and senate.
yoda
09-13 04:59 PM
Sent it to the Indian Embassy. They have a monthly newsletter. Hope to see this in the Oct. newsletter.
No comments:
Post a Comment