GCBy3000
01-03 03:57 PM
Great pledge and Thanks.
Members, please update your signature with your pledge. It is an inspiration point for you as well as to other members. We need this inspiration for ourselves more than IV needed.
This pledge and contribution is for ourselves and not for anyone else. We are going to enjoy the fruits if we can make the difference with lawmakers. IV core members can put their head into more important statergic thinking than worrying about funds. We can atleaset help ourselves by this simple pledge. There is not physical work invovled with it. Commonnnnn..... cheer up and lets get what we want from the new congress.
Do your KARMA and leave the results to time.
I pledge to contribute $40 a month. And more when ever I can.
-- Also guys lets keep the momentum going .. we need more people enrolled and every single one of us opening up their wallets.
Members, please update your signature with your pledge. It is an inspiration point for you as well as to other members. We need this inspiration for ourselves more than IV needed.
This pledge and contribution is for ourselves and not for anyone else. We are going to enjoy the fruits if we can make the difference with lawmakers. IV core members can put their head into more important statergic thinking than worrying about funds. We can atleaset help ourselves by this simple pledge. There is not physical work invovled with it. Commonnnnn..... cheer up and lets get what we want from the new congress.
Do your KARMA and leave the results to time.
I pledge to contribute $40 a month. And more when ever I can.
-- Also guys lets keep the momentum going .. we need more people enrolled and every single one of us opening up their wallets.
wallpaper justin bieber never say
cdeneo
07-27 02:01 PM
What if one decides to go back to school to get another degree when on EAD, is this possible?
The only issue I see is that you need to have a job lined up when your GC is close to approval and you get a RFE for proof of employment for example - is it a norm to get this kind of RFE or at most times you just get the approval notification for the GC?
Any insight in this regard will be very much appreciated.
The only issue I see is that you need to have a job lined up when your GC is close to approval and you get a RFE for proof of employment for example - is it a norm to get this kind of RFE or at most times you just get the approval notification for the GC?
Any insight in this regard will be very much appreciated.
cram
08-23 08:34 PM
On July 20, I got an RFE for my employer's 2006 ITR. They are taking forever to subnit the document. How much time are we given to submit the evidence. How many days?
2011 Justin Bieber “Never Say
LCtank
05-19 01:53 AM
To be honest I don't like the title, but it's good to have our voices heard loudly, anyway.
more...
rustamehind
08-03 05:06 PM
Hello,
I am working on H1B and filed for my extention in Mar 2007. My original H1B expired in Jun 2007 and filed for EAD/AP/485 on Jul 22 2007. Today my employer received that h1b extension got denied. He got a RFE in may 2007 to which he replied.
What are my options now? Can I stay here now? Can I work now? Can another employer file for my h1 extension now?
Please help.
Thank you.
You can always file Motion to open the denied case.You also need to go through the reasons for denial , which you will be knowing soon in USCIS response.Without knowing the reason for denial , it will be pure speculation suggesting future course of action.You can continue to work untill your case is being adjudicated.
I am working on H1B and filed for my extention in Mar 2007. My original H1B expired in Jun 2007 and filed for EAD/AP/485 on Jul 22 2007. Today my employer received that h1b extension got denied. He got a RFE in may 2007 to which he replied.
What are my options now? Can I stay here now? Can I work now? Can another employer file for my h1 extension now?
Please help.
Thank you.
You can always file Motion to open the denied case.You also need to go through the reasons for denial , which you will be knowing soon in USCIS response.Without knowing the reason for denial , it will be pure speculation suggesting future course of action.You can continue to work untill your case is being adjudicated.
summitpointe
04-16 02:53 PM
Open an MTR ASAP. It sometimes takes lot of time(may be one year) for final decision.
As your H1B is valid for another one year, just to have a support talk with your attorney about filing a PERM labor ASAP.
As your H1B is valid for another one year, just to have a support talk with your attorney about filing a PERM labor ASAP.
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
2010 justin bieber father photo.
LONGGCQUE
12-28 04:41 PM
glad it worked for you and thanks for sharing as it may help one of us someday.
more...
xyz
05-11 08:14 AM
The following question is posed at www.ktrh.com which is a website for a Houston AM talk radio. This radio station usually plays conservative programs including Rush Limbaugh. So, it is likely that mostly conservatives are visiting and voting on this website:
Should highly skilled workers move to the front of the immigration line?
The current poll results:
Yes: 59.56%
No: 40.44%
You can go to this website to view the poll. However, to view the statistics for the first time you will have to vote. To clarify, in the news program this morning they were talking about the points based immigration system which, according to them, is "quitely being considered in the Senate", and they were mentioning that the points based system would favor highly skilled immigrants over extended family and low-skill immigrants.
The point-based system will not be good for this country. Many other countries have point-based systems such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc. The most who immigrate in these countries on the point-based system don't have jobs. Only those should be allowed to immigrate who has the job offer here. All the immigration fees and expenses to immigrate should be borne by the employer offering the job.
Not only this, the people who promote this point-based system are interested in shutting off immgration based on family unification. Why you would not like your own family members to be here, when they all have been allowed until this day to bring their own family members from European countries.
Should highly skilled workers move to the front of the immigration line?
The current poll results:
Yes: 59.56%
No: 40.44%
You can go to this website to view the poll. However, to view the statistics for the first time you will have to vote. To clarify, in the news program this morning they were talking about the points based immigration system which, according to them, is "quitely being considered in the Senate", and they were mentioning that the points based system would favor highly skilled immigrants over extended family and low-skill immigrants.
The point-based system will not be good for this country. Many other countries have point-based systems such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc. The most who immigrate in these countries on the point-based system don't have jobs. Only those should be allowed to immigrate who has the job offer here. All the immigration fees and expenses to immigrate should be borne by the employer offering the job.
Not only this, the people who promote this point-based system are interested in shutting off immgration based on family unification. Why you would not like your own family members to be here, when they all have been allowed until this day to bring their own family members from European countries.
hair Justin Bieber Never say never
ak27
02-12 06:51 PM
I asked this question to my attorney last week and she told me that there is no rule such as H4 premium processing. However, when both are filed together, it H1 and H4 get processed in premium processing
more...
miguy
06-16 01:52 PM
anyone?
hot Justin Bieber: Never Say Never
gantilk
04-28 09:44 AM
when you say new fees, i assuem it is $340 . Correct ??
more...
house Justin Bieber: Never Say Never
mohitb272
03-20 06:29 PM
Read the Yates memo...After 180 days of I485 pending, the employer's revocation of I140 has not effect on the GC application. But I know a few cases where this was an issue, so make sure you are armed with proof like pay stubs, employment letter et al.
tattoo Fans To Be Nice 1296010847
needhelp!
05-16 05:10 PM
What is MI phone list?
Some of my friends got the response saying that they are getting lot of calls and your name is added to MI phone list.
Some of my friends got the response saying that they are getting lot of calls and your name is added to MI phone list.
more...
pictures justin bieber never say
hope2007
05-22 11:20 AM
plss do not rush with ur filing in june....pls file after june 10th so that cut off dates move foward in july VB.
;)
;)
dresses Justin Bieber - Never Say
satyasaich
09-05 11:48 AM
For sure, things will be different after Nov Elections. However when it comes to immigration reforms or SKIL kind of bills, i think (i hate to say this) ambiguity still persists, no matter who controls the house
Well, there is a slightly increased chance in case of Dems control the houses
I would like to discuss two issues
1) Is there a reasonable chance for Democrats to take control of the House after Nov elections.
2) What would that mean for skilled legal Immigrant community (aka will my GC come faster :))
It looks like Americans are fed up with the war in Iraq and other issues. Especially here in TX there is one seat definitely going to Democrats ( Tom Delay's seat). Would a Democrat majority make passing SKIL a slam dunk ?
Well, there is a slightly increased chance in case of Dems control the houses
I would like to discuss two issues
1) Is there a reasonable chance for Democrats to take control of the House after Nov elections.
2) What would that mean for skilled legal Immigrant community (aka will my GC come faster :))
It looks like Americans are fed up with the war in Iraq and other issues. Especially here in TX there is one seat definitely going to Democrats ( Tom Delay's seat). Would a Democrat majority make passing SKIL a slam dunk ?
more...
makeup Justin Bieber: Never Say Never
smisachu
05-13 03:51 PM
[QUOTE=michael_trs;1852366]Smisachu, I agree, I need to add alternative education� thank you for your advice.
What about �requirements normal for the occupation� is this Yes or No for Master's + 5 years ?
What is your experience?[/QUOTE
Yes. That's a little dicy for Software Developer. Maybe you work in a sepcific skill and can elaborate on that.
For me I work in a field with very specific skills and my Job title was also more specific than this. We put MS+3 and that 3 years have to be spent working in one particular area and must have acquired a set of specific skills. So the requirements for my occupation were normal and we said yes.
What about �requirements normal for the occupation� is this Yes or No for Master's + 5 years ?
What is your experience?[/QUOTE
Yes. That's a little dicy for Software Developer. Maybe you work in a sepcific skill and can elaborate on that.
For me I work in a field with very specific skills and my Job title was also more specific than this. We put MS+3 and that 3 years have to be spent working in one particular area and must have acquired a set of specific skills. So the requirements for my occupation were normal and we said yes.
girlfriend Justin Bieber: Never Say Never
optimist
09-30 09:53 AM
Thank you folks, for sharing your thoughts!
thomachan72: Ideally, what you are saying is the best thing to do. But somehow we ended up bringing our goodies here and now we are worried about being harassed by customs when we land in India with all the jewellery :(
By the way, I checked the Indian Customs website (BAGGAGE RULES (http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/formatted-htmls/cs-rulef.htm)) and the limits on jewellery that can be brought in duty-free is:
<quote>
(i) upto an aggregate value of Rs. 10,000 by a gentleman passenger
(ii) Upto aggregate value of Rs. 20,000 by a lady passenger.
</quote>
How generous, isn't it?? :eek:
Any one else, with good/bad experiences to share about this ?
.
.
thomachan72: Ideally, what you are saying is the best thing to do. But somehow we ended up bringing our goodies here and now we are worried about being harassed by customs when we land in India with all the jewellery :(
By the way, I checked the Indian Customs website (BAGGAGE RULES (http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/formatted-htmls/cs-rulef.htm)) and the limits on jewellery that can be brought in duty-free is:
<quote>
(i) upto an aggregate value of Rs. 10,000 by a gentleman passenger
(ii) Upto aggregate value of Rs. 20,000 by a lady passenger.
</quote>
How generous, isn't it?? :eek:
Any one else, with good/bad experiences to share about this ?
.
.
hairstyles JUSTIN BIEBER - Poster - Never
bluez25
07-16 04:24 PM
I did submit through mail when I applied last year and it took for ever. My personnel preference DO NOT try that option. They atleast need 45 to 60 days for the PCC to be issued.
waitingnwaiting
01-04 12:35 PM
Sorry to break your bubble but how exactly it this movie going to help us?
Is this movie advocating something? Like a bill or provision? Just saying here are a bunch of immigrants with their stories does not do any good. There are many immigrant stories in media already. What special are you bringing to the table?
Does the movie tells people to go to Immigrationvoice and support immigrants? So what is your message? How exactly you want immigrants to support Immigrantion voice? You are only posting a link to your film everywhere. Not even once on other sites you are asking people to support Immigrationvoice. The film also does not say about Immigrationvoice.
If you say that you are trying to raise awareness in Americans, then how about asking Americans to listen to Immigration voice and support IV. Have you said that. You have just shown pretty picture and a fancy music and trying to sell your movie.
What is the script of the movie? Has it been approved by IV? If it is not approved by IV, why are you using IV for your movie's publicity.
How is this movie going to help Immigrants? Will you be donating all money made by publicity and selling of movie to IV?
What is your goal? The goal I see is that you would be entering this movie in some award show and winning some award. Some award shows have online voting and you will use immigration sites to get votes from innocent immigrants. The money you make from the movie is also yours. So how exactly it is helping immigrants? Have you given any percentage of the movie rights to IV that truly represents immigrants?
I would say stop promoting your product on this site. Your product -Movie is your business to make money. You have no interest in the pain we suffer and what IV does. You created a profile just today to promote the movie.
Is this movie advocating something? Like a bill or provision? Just saying here are a bunch of immigrants with their stories does not do any good. There are many immigrant stories in media already. What special are you bringing to the table?
Does the movie tells people to go to Immigrationvoice and support immigrants? So what is your message? How exactly you want immigrants to support Immigrantion voice? You are only posting a link to your film everywhere. Not even once on other sites you are asking people to support Immigrationvoice. The film also does not say about Immigrationvoice.
If you say that you are trying to raise awareness in Americans, then how about asking Americans to listen to Immigration voice and support IV. Have you said that. You have just shown pretty picture and a fancy music and trying to sell your movie.
What is the script of the movie? Has it been approved by IV? If it is not approved by IV, why are you using IV for your movie's publicity.
How is this movie going to help Immigrants? Will you be donating all money made by publicity and selling of movie to IV?
What is your goal? The goal I see is that you would be entering this movie in some award show and winning some award. Some award shows have online voting and you will use immigration sites to get votes from innocent immigrants. The money you make from the movie is also yours. So how exactly it is helping immigrants? Have you given any percentage of the movie rights to IV that truly represents immigrants?
I would say stop promoting your product on this site. Your product -Movie is your business to make money. You have no interest in the pain we suffer and what IV does. You created a profile just today to promote the movie.
dotsndots
05-06 02:55 AM
Folks,
I received a Transfer notice today for both me and my wife suggesting that our I-485 petitions have been transferred to the local USCIS office. Below is the exact message.
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On April 30, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our LOS ANGELES, CA location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our LOS ANGELES, CA location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
From what I could find through browsing through various forums is that usually one ends up getting an interview when this happens. Does anybody have any other thoughts? or has anybody received a similar notice recently?
Just get ready for an in person interview at local office.
I received a Transfer notice today for both me and my wife suggesting that our I-485 petitions have been transferred to the local USCIS office. Below is the exact message.
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On April 30, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our LOS ANGELES, CA location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our LOS ANGELES, CA location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
From what I could find through browsing through various forums is that usually one ends up getting an interview when this happens. Does anybody have any other thoughts? or has anybody received a similar notice recently?
Just get ready for an in person interview at local office.
No comments:
Post a Comment