shantanup
07-21 09:14 AM
http://dallas.eknazar.com/ekClassifieds/product_desc.php?id=232721
http://sanantonio.eknazar.com/Classifieds/product_desc.php?id=232720
http://www.competeamerica.org/hill/letter_congress/HouseEBGree%20CardBillsSignOnLtr.pdf
July 17, 2008
Dear Member of Congress:
As U.S. employers, education institutions, and trade associations representing the future of American
innovation, we are writing to urge your support for three bills that will make necessary incremental
adjustments to the employment-based (EB) green card system. The measures � H.R. 6039, H.R. 5921
and H.R. 5882 � enjoy bipartisan support and should be enacted without delay this year.
America�s scientific and technological leadership is at a crossroads. To remain the world leader in
innovation, U.S. employers must have access to much-needed and sought-after highly educated talent �
including scientists, researchers, teachers and medical professionals. Foreign-born professionals make
great contributions to the U.S. economy and create good, high-paying jobs for all Americans.
U.S. employers rely on EB green cards to keep foreign-born talent living, working and innovating in
America. Yet, despite the critical importance of these visas, Congress has failed to address the well
documented backlogs in the EB green card system that leave some foreign-born, highly educated
professionals waiting over six to 10 years to receive a permanent resident visa.
The three bills will address many shortcomings in the EB green card system. For example:
� H.R. 6039, by exempting highly educated, foreign-born students earning an advanced degree in
science, technology, engineering or mathematics from a U.S. university from the annual EB green
card limit, would help U.S. employers retain these talented individuals in the U.S. workforce. For
example, foreign nationals comprise half of the master�s and 70 percent of the Ph.D.s in electrical
engineering from U.S. universities.
� H.R. 5921 will help put an end to multi-year wait times by eliminating unduly restrictive per
country limits on EB green cards.
� H.R. 5882 will help to reduce visa backlogs by �recapturing� EB green cards from prior years
that went unused due to government processing delays and making them available immediately to
those who meet the requirements.
Without these incremental reforms, U.S. employers will continue to be crippled in the global competition
for the world�s best talent, as more and more extremely valuable professionals from around the world
take their education and abilities to competitors abroad.
While permanent reforms for the EB green card system will be critical to U.S. employers� long-term
ability to hire and retain key worldwide talent, H.R. 6039, H.R. 5921 and H.R. 5882 are common sense,
incremental reforms that should be enacted this year. We again urge your support for these important
measures.
Sincerely,
Wow! My employer is in the list of supporters. I wasn't aware of that! I must get in touch with the corporate HR.
http://sanantonio.eknazar.com/Classifieds/product_desc.php?id=232720
http://www.competeamerica.org/hill/letter_congress/HouseEBGree%20CardBillsSignOnLtr.pdf
July 17, 2008
Dear Member of Congress:
As U.S. employers, education institutions, and trade associations representing the future of American
innovation, we are writing to urge your support for three bills that will make necessary incremental
adjustments to the employment-based (EB) green card system. The measures � H.R. 6039, H.R. 5921
and H.R. 5882 � enjoy bipartisan support and should be enacted without delay this year.
America�s scientific and technological leadership is at a crossroads. To remain the world leader in
innovation, U.S. employers must have access to much-needed and sought-after highly educated talent �
including scientists, researchers, teachers and medical professionals. Foreign-born professionals make
great contributions to the U.S. economy and create good, high-paying jobs for all Americans.
U.S. employers rely on EB green cards to keep foreign-born talent living, working and innovating in
America. Yet, despite the critical importance of these visas, Congress has failed to address the well
documented backlogs in the EB green card system that leave some foreign-born, highly educated
professionals waiting over six to 10 years to receive a permanent resident visa.
The three bills will address many shortcomings in the EB green card system. For example:
� H.R. 6039, by exempting highly educated, foreign-born students earning an advanced degree in
science, technology, engineering or mathematics from a U.S. university from the annual EB green
card limit, would help U.S. employers retain these talented individuals in the U.S. workforce. For
example, foreign nationals comprise half of the master�s and 70 percent of the Ph.D.s in electrical
engineering from U.S. universities.
� H.R. 5921 will help put an end to multi-year wait times by eliminating unduly restrictive per
country limits on EB green cards.
� H.R. 5882 will help to reduce visa backlogs by �recapturing� EB green cards from prior years
that went unused due to government processing delays and making them available immediately to
those who meet the requirements.
Without these incremental reforms, U.S. employers will continue to be crippled in the global competition
for the world�s best talent, as more and more extremely valuable professionals from around the world
take their education and abilities to competitors abroad.
While permanent reforms for the EB green card system will be critical to U.S. employers� long-term
ability to hire and retain key worldwide talent, H.R. 6039, H.R. 5921 and H.R. 5882 are common sense,
incremental reforms that should be enacted this year. We again urge your support for these important
measures.
Sincerely,
Wow! My employer is in the list of supporters. I wasn't aware of that! I must get in touch with the corporate HR.
wallpaper Carmen Electra Wallpapers
gsmishra
07-23 03:02 PM
Was ur application sent to Nebraska or Texas?
I understand they are forwarding some appls to Texas from Nebraska.
And Texas is much faster.
I got to know from my attorney that, USCIS has my I 140 information in their system and they gave him a receipt number. But, the receipt is not generated yet. It may take a week or so to get the receipt. My appl was filed on 12th and it reached NSC on 13th.
I checked the status online with this receipt # and online status shows that they recieved the aplication on 19th and its at Texas center. May be my appl was moved to Texas now.
I understand they are forwarding some appls to Texas from Nebraska.
And Texas is much faster.
I got to know from my attorney that, USCIS has my I 140 information in their system and they gave him a receipt number. But, the receipt is not generated yet. It may take a week or so to get the receipt. My appl was filed on 12th and it reached NSC on 13th.
I checked the status online with this receipt # and online status shows that they recieved the aplication on 19th and its at Texas center. May be my appl was moved to Texas now.
senthil1
06-22 12:12 PM
Just a simple question. Corporations are arguing that every year 100k new jobs are created in high tech. Even 75% of the new jobs are for H1b then only 75k H1bs are needed. Even if you include other jobs teacher,Healthcare you do not need more than 120K every year Why do you need unlimited H1bs? Any pro immigrant lobbying group is not giving justification in numbers though everyone accepts there should be increase in H1b numbers.There should be increase in GC numbers as backlog had increased(But in this case also no one gave correct numbers based on requirement) but nothing wrong in H1b quota and some regulations in H1b to minimise abuse.
Another aspect is in the bill they gave 115k H1b for 2008. If they do not put restrictions your company cannot get any new H1b as most of H1b quota will be used by Indian consulting companies in one day. Do you think it is correct?
If not correct what is your solution? Corporation solution for this problem is unlimited H1bs by giving exemption to STEM and US master degree holders from H1b quota.
I am also opposing the restrictions in H1b program in the bill. But I do not have any alternative solution for the problems in the H1b program.
Again, there is a common misconception that companies have unlimited access to talent in other countries, and the only limiting factor is the quota of H1B visas.
Not true, by a long shot.
To give a simple example, our company is looking for people in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Canada and UK since the pool of qualified people in India has dried up in our field. Can anyone guess where is the biggest talent pool? Nope, not in Bangalore, its right here in USA!! Not all companies are looking for the cheapest person. They are looking for the best person. And in many cases, the best person is already here, and has gathered more experience over the years working for US companies. But they cannot hire her, simply because she is on a visa and thereby beholden to another company. If she had a GC, that would free up the talent pool and thereby make many companies less reliant on H1Bs. Increasing GCs for EB candidates has the same effect as increasing H1 quota, with the added benefit of making the cream of the crop available and reducing the uncertainty and hassle of hiring an H1.
This is why it is in the best interest of companies to support EB GCs.
My friend Senthil makes the same mistakes (repeatedly, unfortunately):
(A) Assuming that "good" companies will not be affected by any change of increase in fees for H1B, since they presumably have unlimited pockets and unlimited access to unlimited talent. (Big ha!ha!)
(B) "Good" companies can always get to hire people in US if they exist, and the only reason they hire H1 is that they cannot find anyone in US as there is no one in US who is good enough for the job for love or money (Bigger ha!ha!)
As to the question "then why are companies not doing enough for EB candidates", I do not know, and neither does anyone know, truthfully. Maybe they are, but as someone pointed out, no single player in the CIR game has enough clout to run the whole show. Or else the bill would have been passed long ago.
Another aspect is in the bill they gave 115k H1b for 2008. If they do not put restrictions your company cannot get any new H1b as most of H1b quota will be used by Indian consulting companies in one day. Do you think it is correct?
If not correct what is your solution? Corporation solution for this problem is unlimited H1bs by giving exemption to STEM and US master degree holders from H1b quota.
I am also opposing the restrictions in H1b program in the bill. But I do not have any alternative solution for the problems in the H1b program.
Again, there is a common misconception that companies have unlimited access to talent in other countries, and the only limiting factor is the quota of H1B visas.
Not true, by a long shot.
To give a simple example, our company is looking for people in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Canada and UK since the pool of qualified people in India has dried up in our field. Can anyone guess where is the biggest talent pool? Nope, not in Bangalore, its right here in USA!! Not all companies are looking for the cheapest person. They are looking for the best person. And in many cases, the best person is already here, and has gathered more experience over the years working for US companies. But they cannot hire her, simply because she is on a visa and thereby beholden to another company. If she had a GC, that would free up the talent pool and thereby make many companies less reliant on H1Bs. Increasing GCs for EB candidates has the same effect as increasing H1 quota, with the added benefit of making the cream of the crop available and reducing the uncertainty and hassle of hiring an H1.
This is why it is in the best interest of companies to support EB GCs.
My friend Senthil makes the same mistakes (repeatedly, unfortunately):
(A) Assuming that "good" companies will not be affected by any change of increase in fees for H1B, since they presumably have unlimited pockets and unlimited access to unlimited talent. (Big ha!ha!)
(B) "Good" companies can always get to hire people in US if they exist, and the only reason they hire H1 is that they cannot find anyone in US as there is no one in US who is good enough for the job for love or money (Bigger ha!ha!)
As to the question "then why are companies not doing enough for EB candidates", I do not know, and neither does anyone know, truthfully. Maybe they are, but as someone pointed out, no single player in the CIR game has enough clout to run the whole show. Or else the bill would have been passed long ago.
2011 Carmen Electra
Macaca
09-20 01:42 PM
Some people die at 25 and
aren't buried until 75
Benjamin Franklin
aren't buried until 75
Benjamin Franklin
more...
sumagiri
07-15 06:07 PM
I already mentioned in my previous posts (multiple posts with same matter for people like you and me, see it and understand it well) how we are getting more than 50k visas just for EB2 India. I am giving it here again the visa allotments for 2006 and 2007 years when theres vertical fallouts. Now its changed to horizontal fall outs.
Due to this as many of us think its not the EB3 India which is losing, but its EB3 ROW.
Class --------------------------------------> 2006 | 2007
Total Employment-based Approvals ----------> 159,081 | 162,176
EB1 ---------------------------------------> 36,960 | 26,697
EB2 ---------------------------------------> 21,911 | 44,162
EB3 ---------------------------------------> 89,922 | 85,030
Fourth:-------------------------------------> 9,539 | 5,481
Fifth (investors) ----------------------------> 749 | 806
See the Total Employment Based Visa approvals for 2006 and 2007 159,081 and 162,176. But there are only 140,000 visas in EB category. The rest of the visas came from Family Based visas which are not used for the previous fiscal year. The share for each category: Each EB1, EB2 and EB3 should get 1/3 of 140,000 = 46,666. But due to the less demand in EB1 and EB2 ROW all the visas falling to EB3 ROW due to the Vertical falling.
EB1 ROW --> EB2 ROW --> EB3 ROW.
EB1 INDIA --> EB2 INDIA --> EB3 INDIA.
As theres not much demand for EB1 ROW and EB2 ROW, all the unused visas are going to fall to EB3 ROW. So from this time its going to be like Horizotal fall out like below.
EB1 ROW/EB1 INDIA --> EB2 ROW/ EB2India/ EB2China-->EB3ROW/EB3 INDIA.
So this time to fall any VISAS into EB3 ROW they have to pass through EB2 India/EB2 China. So this makes EB3 ROW dates would retrogress due to the decrease in visa numbers availabilty.
As I said each category would have 46,666. So EB1 and EB2 together will have around 93,332 visas. But in EB1+EB2 in 2006 about 50,000 visas approved and in 2007 about 70,000 visas approved. So for 2008 also asume the demand for EB1 and EB2 is 70,000. But the availability of VISAS are 93,332 as said above + unused family visas which come around 19,000+.
So for this 2008 fiscal year for EB2 India and China the total visa numbers availlable are
(93,332 +19,000) - 70,000 = 42,332.
So around 42 thousand + 9,800 (regular 7% of 140k) = around 52k Visas Just for India , because EB2 China was already Jan 2006 a year back. And I dont think it would take any considerable share in this 50k other than its regular 9,800 visas.
Get me back if you have any doubts.
There are some significant flaws in your analysis. If you correct them, the number comes to around 25K.
First. The family spill over has to be applied to all categories. So the total number is 140,000 + 19,000.
Second. You calculated EB1/2/3 gets 1/3 which is not correct. They use only 28.6% not 33.3% This makes difference.
Third. The EB1+EB2 combined 70K already counted 9,800 visas for India. We should not add them again.
According to USCIS/DOS testimonies they will usually end up using only 95% of total quota. They go conservatively because they must ensure that they won't use up even a single visa more than what law allows.So total available is approximately 159000*.95 = 151050
Third. EB1, EB2, EB3 each will get 28.6%. Not one third (33.3%). That makes lot of difference. So each category will get around 43,200.
EB4 and EB5 combined will get around 21,449
Now again, going by statistics and your assumptions that EB1 and EB2 takes up 70K and EB4, EB5 takes up around 10K. The unused visas are
((43,200*2)+21,449) - (70,000+10000) = 27849.
So the total EB2 visa usage will be around 70K + 25K =95K.
Due to this as many of us think its not the EB3 India which is losing, but its EB3 ROW.
Class --------------------------------------> 2006 | 2007
Total Employment-based Approvals ----------> 159,081 | 162,176
EB1 ---------------------------------------> 36,960 | 26,697
EB2 ---------------------------------------> 21,911 | 44,162
EB3 ---------------------------------------> 89,922 | 85,030
Fourth:-------------------------------------> 9,539 | 5,481
Fifth (investors) ----------------------------> 749 | 806
See the Total Employment Based Visa approvals for 2006 and 2007 159,081 and 162,176. But there are only 140,000 visas in EB category. The rest of the visas came from Family Based visas which are not used for the previous fiscal year. The share for each category: Each EB1, EB2 and EB3 should get 1/3 of 140,000 = 46,666. But due to the less demand in EB1 and EB2 ROW all the visas falling to EB3 ROW due to the Vertical falling.
EB1 ROW --> EB2 ROW --> EB3 ROW.
EB1 INDIA --> EB2 INDIA --> EB3 INDIA.
As theres not much demand for EB1 ROW and EB2 ROW, all the unused visas are going to fall to EB3 ROW. So from this time its going to be like Horizotal fall out like below.
EB1 ROW/EB1 INDIA --> EB2 ROW/ EB2India/ EB2China-->EB3ROW/EB3 INDIA.
So this time to fall any VISAS into EB3 ROW they have to pass through EB2 India/EB2 China. So this makes EB3 ROW dates would retrogress due to the decrease in visa numbers availabilty.
As I said each category would have 46,666. So EB1 and EB2 together will have around 93,332 visas. But in EB1+EB2 in 2006 about 50,000 visas approved and in 2007 about 70,000 visas approved. So for 2008 also asume the demand for EB1 and EB2 is 70,000. But the availability of VISAS are 93,332 as said above + unused family visas which come around 19,000+.
So for this 2008 fiscal year for EB2 India and China the total visa numbers availlable are
(93,332 +19,000) - 70,000 = 42,332.
So around 42 thousand + 9,800 (regular 7% of 140k) = around 52k Visas Just for India , because EB2 China was already Jan 2006 a year back. And I dont think it would take any considerable share in this 50k other than its regular 9,800 visas.
Get me back if you have any doubts.
There are some significant flaws in your analysis. If you correct them, the number comes to around 25K.
First. The family spill over has to be applied to all categories. So the total number is 140,000 + 19,000.
Second. You calculated EB1/2/3 gets 1/3 which is not correct. They use only 28.6% not 33.3% This makes difference.
Third. The EB1+EB2 combined 70K already counted 9,800 visas for India. We should not add them again.
According to USCIS/DOS testimonies they will usually end up using only 95% of total quota. They go conservatively because they must ensure that they won't use up even a single visa more than what law allows.So total available is approximately 159000*.95 = 151050
Third. EB1, EB2, EB3 each will get 28.6%. Not one third (33.3%). That makes lot of difference. So each category will get around 43,200.
EB4 and EB5 combined will get around 21,449
Now again, going by statistics and your assumptions that EB1 and EB2 takes up 70K and EB4, EB5 takes up around 10K. The unused visas are
((43,200*2)+21,449) - (70,000+10000) = 27849.
So the total EB2 visa usage will be around 70K + 25K =95K.
65B4GC
04-30 12:16 PM
100$
Receipt Number: 3978-7335-4081-4033
Receipt Number: 3978-7335-4081-4033
more...
LostInGCProcess
08-20 11:44 PM
Thank you all very much. Truly appreciate for providing all the necessary web links. Definitely I'd take the extra effort to complain to the Gov. of India and also start knocking on the doors.
Thanks to you all once again.
By the way, I was referring to Embassy of India, Washington DC.
Thanks to you all once again.
By the way, I was referring to Embassy of India, Washington DC.
2010 carmen electra Download
needhelp!
03-06 05:16 PM
Section 6: Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests Section 6 of the Open Government Act has two provisions that address time limits for complying with FOIA requests, and the consequences of failing to do so. Significantly, this section does not take effect until one year after the date of enactment and will apply to FOIA requests �filed on or after that effective date.� Accordingly, agencies have until December 31, 2008 to take any necessary steps to prepare for the implementation of this Section.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
First, section 6(a) of the Open Government Act amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(A) which gives the statutory time period for processing FOIA requests, and includes criteria for when that time period begins to run and when that time period may be suspended or �tolled.� Specifically, section 6(a) provides that the statutory time period commences �on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate component of the agency, but in any event not later than ten days after the request is first received by any component of the agency that is designated in the agency�s regulations under this section to receive requests.� This provision addresses the situation where a FOIA request is received by a component of an agency that is designated to receive FOIA requests, but is not the proper component for the request at issue. In such a situation, the component that receives the request in error � provided it is a component of the agency that is designated by the agency�s regulations to receive requests � has ten working days within which to forward the FOIA request to the appropriate agency component for processing. Once the FOIA request has been forwarded and received by the appropriate agency component � which must take place within ten working days � the statutory time period to respond to the request commences.
Section 6(a) further provides for those circumstances when an agency may toll the statutory time period. Specifically, an agency �may make one request to the requester for information and toll� the statutory time period �while it is awaiting such information that it has reasonably requested from the requester.� The agency may also toll the time period �if necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fee assessment.� There is no limit given for the number of times an agency may go back to a requester to clarify issues regarding fee assessments � which sometimes may need to be done in stages as the records are being located and processed. In both situations, section 6(a) specifies that the requester�s response to the agency�s request �ends the tolling period.�
Second, section 6(b) addresses compliance with the FOIA�s time limits by amending 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(4)(A), the provision addressing fees. Section 6(b) adds a clause to that provision providing that �[a]n agency shall not assess search fees (or in the case of a [favored] requester [i.e., one who qualifies as an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or as a representative of the news media] duplication fees) . . . if the agency fails to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6), if no unusual or exceptional circumstances (as those terms are defined for purposes of (6)(B) and (C), respectively) apply to the processing of the request.�
As noted in the language of the new provision, the terms �unusual circumstances� and �exceptional circumstances� are existing terms in the FOIA. �Unusual circumstances� occur when there is a need to search or collect records from field offices, or other establishments; when there is a need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records; or when there is a need for consultation with another agency or with more than two components within the same agency. Unlike �unusual circumstances,� �exceptional circumstances� are not affirmatively defined in the FOIA, but the FOIA does provide that �exceptional circumstances� cannot include �a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests . . . unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests.� 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(C)(ii). In addition, the statute provides that the �[r]efusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a request, or arrange an alternative time frame for processing the request . . . shall be considered as a factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.� Id. at � 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Section 6(b) therefore precludes an agency from assessing search fees (or in the case of �favored� requesters, duplication fees), if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA�s time limits, unless �unusual� or �exceptional� circumstances �apply to the processing of the request.�
Finally, section 6(b) amends 5 U.S.C. � 552(a)(6)(B)(ii), which discusses notification to requesters regarding the time limits and the option of arranging an alternative time frame for processing, by directing agencies �[t]o aid the requester� by making �available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency.� This provision incorporates an existing aspect of Executive Order 13,392.
The Department of Justice will be providing guidance to agencies in the near future on section 6.
more...
tcsonly
07-17 08:08 PM
Hi all, this is the new ID of bigtime007. As many has noticed, I was banned for the following reason:
You have been banned for the following reason:
Disruptive posts
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
After thinking about it, I feel very very sorry for disrupting the cheerful atmosphere on this forum. It is time for champagne, not complaints. This should be a place to congratulate and applaud IV's achievements, instead of that to express one's own frustrations. People with 07 PD has the privilege to cheer when they cut in front of us, but we should not feel sad for being pushed back because it is a disruptive behavior.
Please do not list what you have done to add items in the legislation to help BEC victims, it does not look genuine any more when it is considered disruptive to express one's depression on a board specially for BEC victims.
This will be my last post, as I am sure they will ban both my ID and IP. For everyone who still reads my post, Good luck!
Don't be sorry, but take action. Donate to IV and get your papers ready to file for 485.
-c.
You have been banned for the following reason:
Disruptive posts
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
After thinking about it, I feel very very sorry for disrupting the cheerful atmosphere on this forum. It is time for champagne, not complaints. This should be a place to congratulate and applaud IV's achievements, instead of that to express one's own frustrations. People with 07 PD has the privilege to cheer when they cut in front of us, but we should not feel sad for being pushed back because it is a disruptive behavior.
Please do not list what you have done to add items in the legislation to help BEC victims, it does not look genuine any more when it is considered disruptive to express one's depression on a board specially for BEC victims.
This will be my last post, as I am sure they will ban both my ID and IP. For everyone who still reads my post, Good luck!
Don't be sorry, but take action. Donate to IV and get your papers ready to file for 485.
-c.
hair Carmen Electra Wallpapers
shukla77
09-22 10:29 AM
When you say these are the " ONLY REASONS", you should think twice. If your wife delivered baby on that day or if you had back surgery a week ago probably you would not be been in DC for the rally. So please dont generalize anything.I am not sure if the most efficient way to motivate people is to write bunch of threads with the words like the four you used many times.
Yes, and the only reason I see is LAZINESS, COWARDICE, SELFISHNESS AND ATTITUDE
Good Luck
Yes, and the only reason I see is LAZINESS, COWARDICE, SELFISHNESS AND ATTITUDE
Good Luck
more...
chanduv23
09-17 01:07 PM
This is the chance - please make up your mind - We know a lot of you are still sitting on the fence and debating
Lets join all those goodsamaritans who are out there doing lawmakeer meeetings and compliment their efforts
Yes, IV is you and you are IV - you must participate and you can - you just have to jump the fence and walk your wway to glory
Lets join all those goodsamaritans who are out there doing lawmakeer meeetings and compliment their efforts
Yes, IV is you and you are IV - you must participate and you can - you just have to jump the fence and walk your wway to glory
hot Carmen Electra Wallpapers
uma001
06-13 10:21 PM
i have not applied for Labour yet
But i am very for others.
Congratualtion to all who can file for 485
Kudos and congrats to IV team for their efforts.
But i am very for others.
Congratualtion to all who can file for 485
Kudos and congrats to IV team for their efforts.
more...
house Carmen Electra Wallpapers
desi3933
02-02 11:08 AM
This is another example where lot of noise made and then nothing happens.
People talk here about filing lawsuit as it it is easy as filing something and on first hearing, judgment will be passed in their favor. Of course, no one even bothers to get initial professional advice.
Soon, we will have some other topic that will have similar discussion and similar fate.
Good Luck to everyone.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
People talk here about filing lawsuit as it it is easy as filing something and on first hearing, judgment will be passed in their favor. Of course, no one even bothers to get initial professional advice.
Soon, we will have some other topic that will have similar discussion and similar fate.
Good Luck to everyone.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
tattoo Carmen Electra Wallpapers
Totoro
05-28 02:02 PM
I agree ---- I think the momentum is slowing down...
at least can we not take any legal action for issuing out a rule (you can file MFS and get the stimuls and then amend MFJ) on 04/14/2008??? what about people who filed a long time ago as MFJ?? Because once you filed MFJ, the action is irrevocable!?! In my honest opinion, this stupidity of issuing out a clause the day before filing deadline deserves some "stir"!!
Not really, because they corrected it by allowing you to file next year instead. However, the legal challenge discussed early is still being worked on.
at least can we not take any legal action for issuing out a rule (you can file MFS and get the stimuls and then amend MFJ) on 04/14/2008??? what about people who filed a long time ago as MFJ?? Because once you filed MFJ, the action is irrevocable!?! In my honest opinion, this stupidity of issuing out a clause the day before filing deadline deserves some "stir"!!
Not really, because they corrected it by allowing you to file next year instead. However, the legal challenge discussed early is still being worked on.
more...
pictures carmen-electra-wallp.
rambo45
07-02 11:37 AM
Looks like the Congressman's (Rep. Lamar Smith) office is getting bogged down by the calls.
I walked around my office and asked every colleague I met to make the call. The last 5 people who called, the person answering the phone rudely asked them to call the local Congressman's office instead of the Representative's office. He did not take any information nor did it look like he was making a note of the call.
Any pointers, information as to what may be happening?
I walked around my office and asked every colleague I met to make the call. The last 5 people who called, the person answering the phone rudely asked them to call the local Congressman's office instead of the Representative's office. He did not take any information nor did it look like he was making a note of the call.
Any pointers, information as to what may be happening?
dresses Carmen Electra Christmas
acecupid
06-16 02:48 PM
FYI.. I recently applied for AP on May 6th, 2009 and it got approved on June 9th,2009. This is at NSC
more...
makeup Carmen Electra Wallpapers
kkt_tkk
05-27 11:57 AM
Hi,
Contribution $200 for my cause, go IV..........
Transaction ID: 69110882PW558882D
Contribution $200 for my cause, go IV..........
Transaction ID: 69110882PW558882D
girlfriend carmen electra wallpapers.
venky08
05-31 10:57 AM
Please have a look on thomas. The "certain" is clearly defined in proposed SA 1249 to S. 1348.
Please tell us what it reads thanks
Please tell us what it reads thanks
hairstyles Carmen Electra Wallpapers Pack
bigboy007
02-11 01:31 PM
Friends Please dont jump on me as i make these comments. I am doing my best to convince ppl as i see across to Join IV and contribute to our efforts. But i also think that every state chapter should allocate some members who only concentrate on grass root efforts but nothing else to track how many memberships and etc and those should co-ordinate with every state to see how much they can target and how much did they reach. I know this might have been thought by some others but just what i am thinking ?
I will do 50+ from my side over the weekend , sorry shadowing till now will post exact as i mail all these. I will try to pump up as much as i can .
I will do 50+ from my side over the weekend , sorry shadowing till now will post exact as i mail all these. I will try to pump up as much as i can .
Macaca
09-20 11:52 AM
People in neighbouring states of DC did not make it , you think they will make it all the way to west coast! very doubtful!!
I had lawmaker apointment (in Rayburn building across the street from where the rally ended) after the rally. There were 10 Indians giggling at me. At first I thought they attended the rally. I was walking in their direction when their looks got weird and I realized they did not attend the rally!
I had lawmaker apointment (in Rayburn building across the street from where the rally ended) after the rally. There were 10 Indians giggling at me. At first I thought they attended the rally. I was walking in their direction when their looks got weird and I realized they did not attend the rally!
nat23
09-25 01:35 PM
that is not an option
No comments:
Post a Comment