chiragmodi
09-10 10:28 AM
So far contributed $200. Can not make it to the rally because of prior commitments.
EB3
pd: dec 2005.
lc approved: Jan 2006
I-485 filed on july 2 and fp done on 09/07.
Thanks guys for all your efforts. This is massive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EB3
pd: dec 2005.
lc approved: Jan 2006
I-485 filed on july 2 and fp done on 09/07.
Thanks guys for all your efforts. This is massive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wallpaper 2011 love quotes girls. sad love love quotes girls. pictures love quotes
ItIsNotFunny
10-24 05:12 PM
ItIsNotFunny:
I have sent out the email and couple of my friends will also do the same. Good intiative, much appreciated.
Thanks wandmaker for appreciation. It helps!
I got quite a few positive responses. On other side I got few negative messages, few pessimitics and few red dots on posts after I started this exercise. Sometimes it still bothers me but I guess I need to get out of this critics and appreciations and want to concentrate 100% on agenda: Fight against injustice in AC21 implementation.
To all,
If you appreciate me, please help me by motivating others to join the movement.
If you don't like me - please be generous and atleast tell me what should be done rather than just criticizing.
I have sent out the email and couple of my friends will also do the same. Good intiative, much appreciated.
Thanks wandmaker for appreciation. It helps!
I got quite a few positive responses. On other side I got few negative messages, few pessimitics and few red dots on posts after I started this exercise. Sometimes it still bothers me but I guess I need to get out of this critics and appreciations and want to concentrate 100% on agenda: Fight against injustice in AC21 implementation.
To all,
If you appreciate me, please help me by motivating others to join the movement.
If you don't like me - please be generous and atleast tell me what should be done rather than just criticizing.
vin13
03-12 12:43 PM
Yes...this how we need to work. Why you dont support the donor idea. We dont need the free riders. We need only comitted people and not junks
I support the donor idea. But there is no transperency to who is leading what initative. If i want to contribute my time, i have to read through the posts every day for several hours to find who is leading the effort so i can discuss with them. Sometimes i feel there is so much more talk.
Why don't we list out the initiatives that is being considered or worked on. Along with some contact information so people can discuss offline with them. I cannot be online for several hours and read through all the discussions and still not find out who is coordinating the efforts.
I support the donor idea. But there is no transperency to who is leading what initative. If i want to contribute my time, i have to read through the posts every day for several hours to find who is leading the effort so i can discuss with them. Sometimes i feel there is so much more talk.
Why don't we list out the initiatives that is being considered or worked on. Along with some contact information so people can discuss offline with them. I cannot be online for several hours and read through all the discussions and still not find out who is coordinating the efforts.
2011 attitude quotes for girls in
chanduv23
11-17 05:16 PM
Update: Googling and found the muthy forums thread what I was mentioned earlier.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2704080912&m=3031070961
some ppl reported succssfully renewed EAD, AP while appeal to 485 denial was pending.
Desi we definitely need to get clarification on this. Can you post a message with interpretations from differnet lawyers? Maybe we can get more people to ask their lawyers like Fragomen, Shusterman, Siskind ..... we will then match.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=2704080912&m=3031070961
some ppl reported succssfully renewed EAD, AP while appeal to 485 denial was pending.
Desi we definitely need to get clarification on this. Can you post a message with interpretations from differnet lawyers? Maybe we can get more people to ask their lawyers like Fragomen, Shusterman, Siskind ..... we will then match.
more...
santa123
07-11 09:26 AM
Just wondering...
How many people would benefit out of this big movement?
What estimated # of applications is USCIS expecting through this movement?
If the dates were current last year same time, how many ppl with PDs between 2004 and 2006 would have missed the bus last year? Dont think many wld have...
Excuse my ignorance if there is a basic mistake in my assumption
How many people would benefit out of this big movement?
What estimated # of applications is USCIS expecting through this movement?
If the dates were current last year same time, how many ppl with PDs between 2004 and 2006 would have missed the bus last year? Dont think many wld have...
Excuse my ignorance if there is a basic mistake in my assumption
Libra
09-12 11:43 AM
12k+ more to reach goal. please contribute.
more...
gcformeornot
03-17 07:35 PM
I received letter from IRS 2 days back it says I am elligible....
2010 attitude quotes for girls in
gcisadawg
02-10 08:30 PM
I think, gcisadawg, the problem is the structure of the indian society. This is true with westerners too but as much true.
An Indian/asian guy has to earn because he is perceived to be a bread winner. Unless he is properly settled he is not eligible for marriage.
On the other hand, if a girl is not career-oriented she can still get good husbands depending on her personality and so on.
And such girls invariably forfeit the right to send money to their parents. In such cases, one should not expect girl's parents to give her a share in their property. Its all clean.
You have Indian house wives (many of them) but you have fewer house husbands. Even if your wife works, it is supplementary income and not the main.
This is a complex equation and husbands and wives must understand the social structure we live in and adjust with each other.
Well, couple of my friends are "house husbands" now...they got laid off and their wives are still working! :D
Agreed, it is all situation based. As long as one is not forced, a couple can talk between themselves and come to an amicable solution.
An Indian/asian guy has to earn because he is perceived to be a bread winner. Unless he is properly settled he is not eligible for marriage.
On the other hand, if a girl is not career-oriented she can still get good husbands depending on her personality and so on.
And such girls invariably forfeit the right to send money to their parents. In such cases, one should not expect girl's parents to give her a share in their property. Its all clean.
You have Indian house wives (many of them) but you have fewer house husbands. Even if your wife works, it is supplementary income and not the main.
This is a complex equation and husbands and wives must understand the social structure we live in and adjust with each other.
Well, couple of my friends are "house husbands" now...they got laid off and their wives are still working! :D
Agreed, it is all situation based. As long as one is not forced, a couple can talk between themselves and come to an amicable solution.
more...
satishku_2000
07-05 04:04 PM
I just finished my call with Julia Preston of Nytimes ..I am so happy and did my part :)
hair love quotes girls. love quotes
CADude
07-04 03:18 PM
Contact your Senator regarding unprecedented move by the Department of State.
If you all can then please contact your senator.
Below is the letter I sent to my local senator.
You can find your local senator by using this link (Enter zip code and state) - http://capwiz.com/aila2/officials/congress/?lvl=C&azip=75063&state=TX.
You can also send email from this link.
It does not matter whether this brings any value or not but there is no harm in doing this, in case you are really frustrated, troubled and sad!.
Dear Senator :
This is to bring to your attention regarding an unprecedented move by Department of State with regards to filing of adjustment of status applications.
On June 13, Department of State announced in its Visa Bulletin for July 2007 that all employment-based categories (except for the Other Workers category) for immigrant visas will be "current," (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) meaning that individuals/businesses going through the lengthy and backlogged immigrant visa or "green card" process can, throughout July, file adjustment of status applications.
The Department Of State regulations at 22 CFR 42.51 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/22cfr42_05.html) and 8 CFR 245.1(g), allows individuals/businesses to rely on and use such information. Historically, they have relied on such information knowing that when they prepare and file such applications, they will be accepted and adjudicated.
However on July 2, 2007, The Department of State issued a new bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) with an update on July Visa Availability and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) started rejecting adjustment of status applications for several employment-based immigration preference categories (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletin2Jul07.pdf), despite the fact that the published July Visa Bulletin shows that visas for these categories are available thereby violating its long-standing policy and the expectations of thousands of people, without any advance notification to the general public or issuing any notification under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Such a revision, coming in the same month in which the bulletin is issued, would be contrary to years of practice in which revisions or adjustments to the availability of immigrant visa numbers are made in the following month of before the beginning of the month, not in the same month individuals and businesses have begun preparing and submitting applications for adjustment of status.
By taking this unprecedented mid-month update, the Departments of State and Homeland Security have seriously undermined the stability and predictability of U.S. immigration law. Thousands of individuals and businesses rely on the monthly bulletins to prepare and plan for the submission of applications. In addition, individuals have taken the necessary steps to prepare and file applications for adjustment of status, including thousands of dollars of expenses to engage counsel, flights for employees to quickly obtain necessary documents and medical exams for the applications, cancellation of business and holiday travel, changes in family plans to ensure families are in the proper location, etc. This unprecedented action of the government is shocking and disturbing. It has left many in a state of disbelief, frustration, confusion, and anger.
Pursuant to Department Of State regulations 8 CFR 245.1(g), [i]f the applicant [for adjustment of status] is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available.. Thus, when the Visa Bulletin shows that visas for most preference categories are available for applicants with priority dates on or before the listed priority date, the USCIS must accept those adjustment of status applications for adjudication. Under section 245 of the INA, an alien may apply for adjustment of status if, inter alia, (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed. The question is what the term immediately available means. The regulation at 8 CFR 245.1(g) defines the term and instructs how to determine when an immigrant visa is immediately available under Sec. 245 of the INA.
8 CFR 245.1(g) states, An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I-485 i[f] the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current). An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101-238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service Office. (Emphasis added.)
Reliance on the current Visa Bulletin is well-established. In 1994, the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) published a revision to 8 CFR Part 245 in response to enactment of section 245(i) of the Act. In the Supplementary Information provided with that regulation, the INS took the opportunity to revise its definition of immediately available to be consistent with that of the Department of State.
The INS said: All applicants for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act must have an immediately available immigrant visa number. "Immediately available" for the
purpose of accepting and processing the Form I-485 application filed by a preference alien is defined in 8 CFR 245.1(f) as being not later than the date shown in the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin. The Department of State, however, defines "immediately available" as being earlier than the date shown in the current Visa Bulletin. This rule amends 8 CFR 245.1(f) to bring the adjustment of status provision into accordance with the Department o f State's definition.
I request your prompt attention on this matter asking the Department of State for clarification on this unprecedented change which defies years of established process of individuals/businesses relying on visa bulletin to prepare and file adjustment of status applications.
Sincerely,
If you all can then please contact your senator.
Below is the letter I sent to my local senator.
You can find your local senator by using this link (Enter zip code and state) - http://capwiz.com/aila2/officials/congress/?lvl=C&azip=75063&state=TX.
You can also send email from this link.
It does not matter whether this brings any value or not but there is no harm in doing this, in case you are really frustrated, troubled and sad!.
Dear Senator :
This is to bring to your attention regarding an unprecedented move by Department of State with regards to filing of adjustment of status applications.
On June 13, Department of State announced in its Visa Bulletin for July 2007 that all employment-based categories (except for the Other Workers category) for immigrant visas will be "current," (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) meaning that individuals/businesses going through the lengthy and backlogged immigrant visa or "green card" process can, throughout July, file adjustment of status applications.
The Department Of State regulations at 22 CFR 42.51 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/22cfr42_05.html) and 8 CFR 245.1(g), allows individuals/businesses to rely on and use such information. Historically, they have relied on such information knowing that when they prepare and file such applications, they will be accepted and adjudicated.
However on July 2, 2007, The Department of State issued a new bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) with an update on July Visa Availability and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) started rejecting adjustment of status applications for several employment-based immigration preference categories (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletin2Jul07.pdf), despite the fact that the published July Visa Bulletin shows that visas for these categories are available thereby violating its long-standing policy and the expectations of thousands of people, without any advance notification to the general public or issuing any notification under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Such a revision, coming in the same month in which the bulletin is issued, would be contrary to years of practice in which revisions or adjustments to the availability of immigrant visa numbers are made in the following month of before the beginning of the month, not in the same month individuals and businesses have begun preparing and submitting applications for adjustment of status.
By taking this unprecedented mid-month update, the Departments of State and Homeland Security have seriously undermined the stability and predictability of U.S. immigration law. Thousands of individuals and businesses rely on the monthly bulletins to prepare and plan for the submission of applications. In addition, individuals have taken the necessary steps to prepare and file applications for adjustment of status, including thousands of dollars of expenses to engage counsel, flights for employees to quickly obtain necessary documents and medical exams for the applications, cancellation of business and holiday travel, changes in family plans to ensure families are in the proper location, etc. This unprecedented action of the government is shocking and disturbing. It has left many in a state of disbelief, frustration, confusion, and anger.
Pursuant to Department Of State regulations 8 CFR 245.1(g), [i]f the applicant [for adjustment of status] is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available.. Thus, when the Visa Bulletin shows that visas for most preference categories are available for applicants with priority dates on or before the listed priority date, the USCIS must accept those adjustment of status applications for adjudication. Under section 245 of the INA, an alien may apply for adjustment of status if, inter alia, (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed. The question is what the term immediately available means. The regulation at 8 CFR 245.1(g) defines the term and instructs how to determine when an immigrant visa is immediately available under Sec. 245 of the INA.
8 CFR 245.1(g) states, An alien is ineligible for the benefits of section 245 of the Act unless an immigrant visa is immediately available to him or her at the time the application is filed. If the applicant is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available. An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing the application Form I-485 i[f] the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in the Bulletin (or the Bulletin shows that that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current). An immigrant visa is also considered immediately available if the applicant establishes eligibility for the benefits of Public Law 101-238. Information concerning the immediate availability of an immigrant visa may be obtained at any Service Office. (Emphasis added.)
Reliance on the current Visa Bulletin is well-established. In 1994, the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) published a revision to 8 CFR Part 245 in response to enactment of section 245(i) of the Act. In the Supplementary Information provided with that regulation, the INS took the opportunity to revise its definition of immediately available to be consistent with that of the Department of State.
The INS said: All applicants for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act must have an immediately available immigrant visa number. "Immediately available" for the
purpose of accepting and processing the Form I-485 application filed by a preference alien is defined in 8 CFR 245.1(f) as being not later than the date shown in the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin. The Department of State, however, defines "immediately available" as being earlier than the date shown in the current Visa Bulletin. This rule amends 8 CFR 245.1(f) to bring the adjustment of status provision into accordance with the Department o f State's definition.
I request your prompt attention on this matter asking the Department of State for clarification on this unprecedented change which defies years of established process of individuals/businesses relying on visa bulletin to prepare and file adjustment of status applications.
Sincerely,
more...
Totoro
05-07 12:56 PM
Love your attitude. Basically it is "I got the stimulus so tough luck if you didn't."
Second thing. Nobody has posted in this thread for days. However, by making a comment, all you did was bump it to the top of the discussion. If you don't like this thread, why are you bumping it?
Second thing. Nobody has posted in this thread for days. However, by making a comment, all you did was bump it to the top of the discussion. If you don't like this thread, why are you bumping it?
hot in love quotes for girls
ras
10-16 05:47 PM
Added some missing in's and to's, etc. if it appears appropriate, you may keep the changes.
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
house girls in urdu. Love Quotes
ggyro
07-22 11:46 AM
As far as I know the amendment is still a part of the Defense bill.
Sen Cornyn introduced it as an amendment to another bill on 19th (I dont remember the bill) in addition to the Defense bill and strictly speaking the motion to attach the amendment was rejected on the basis that it did not belong in that particular bill and not the amendment.
Texas Members - Would it possible to find out if Sen. Cornyn is planning to introduce the amendment again later this year?
Clearly, he has to work with Sen.Dick Durbin to gain support among the Democrats.
Sen Cornyn introduced it as an amendment to another bill on 19th (I dont remember the bill) in addition to the Defense bill and strictly speaking the motion to attach the amendment was rejected on the basis that it did not belong in that particular bill and not the amendment.
Texas Members - Would it possible to find out if Sen. Cornyn is planning to introduce the amendment again later this year?
Clearly, he has to work with Sen.Dick Durbin to gain support among the Democrats.
tattoo quotes about falling in love
yabadaba
07-11 12:01 PM
heres the thing..we have been talking about the 2004 hump for eb2 for a while now. if you download the perm data from 2005 you will see only 7000+ PERM approvals for India. this included a significant number of EB3 other worker categories like pipe welder, cook, etc ( i am assuming they were eb3 -other worker...correct me if i m wrong)
this was the breakdown per month for perm 2005
March-1
April -13
May-72
June-324
July-351
Aug-833
Sept-1172
Oct-1212
Nov-1541
Dec-1771
7290 - includes everybody - eb2, eb3, eb3 other workers
the whole question was the hump of 2004-march2005
ithis is the first time since when retrogression started on oct 1 2005, that the dates have moved beyond 2005.
this was the breakdown per month for perm 2005
March-1
April -13
May-72
June-324
July-351
Aug-833
Sept-1172
Oct-1212
Nov-1541
Dec-1771
7290 - includes everybody - eb2, eb3, eb3 other workers
the whole question was the hump of 2004-march2005
ithis is the first time since when retrogression started on oct 1 2005, that the dates have moved beyond 2005.
more...
pictures love quotes girls. love quotes
Macaca
09-12 04:06 PM
RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEELA BANERJEE: nbanerjee@nytimes.com *
JAMES BARRON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NINA BERNSTEIN: nbernstein@nytimes.com *
JULIE BOSMAN
EMILY BRADY
CARA BUCKLEY
DAVID W. CHEN
MARJORIE CONNELLY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HELENE COOPER
ANNIE CORREAL
NICOLE COTRONEO
MONICA DAVEY
LAWRENCE DOWNES
TIMOTHY EGAN
KAREEM FAHIM
ALAN FEUER
ROBIN FINN
IAN FISHER
SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN sgfreedman@nytimes.com
DAVID GONZALEZ
STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Clyde Haberman
RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JOSEPH P. HOAR
JOHN HOLUSHA
CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
KIRK JOHNSON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
CLIFFORD KRAUSS
PAUL KRUGMAN krugman@nytimes.com
MARC LACEY
BRUCE LAMBERT
DAVID LEONHARDT Leonhardt@nytimes.com
PATRICIA NELSON LIMERICK
STEVE LOHR: slohr@nytimes.com *
MICHAEL LUO (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEIL MacFARQUHAR
EILEEN MARKEY
ROBERT D. McFADDEN
JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
TIM MURPHY
MIREYA NAVARRO
JACQUELINE PALANK: jpalank@nytimes.com
ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) rpear@nytimes.com
JULIA PRESTON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) juliapreston@nytimes.com
ANTHONY RAMIREZ: aramirez@nytimes.com | anthonyramirez@nytimes (did not work)
DAVID K. RANDALL
SAM ROBERTS
JESS ROW
JIM RUTENBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
MARC SANTORA (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
DAVID STOUT (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HEATHER TIMMONS
ROBIN TONER
MICHAEL WINERIP parenting@nytimes.com
JEFF ZELENY
NEELA BANERJEE: nbanerjee@nytimes.com *
JAMES BARRON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NINA BERNSTEIN: nbernstein@nytimes.com *
JULIE BOSMAN
EMILY BRADY
CARA BUCKLEY
DAVID W. CHEN
MARJORIE CONNELLY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HELENE COOPER
ANNIE CORREAL
NICOLE COTRONEO
MONICA DAVEY
LAWRENCE DOWNES
TIMOTHY EGAN
KAREEM FAHIM
ALAN FEUER
ROBIN FINN
IAN FISHER
SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN sgfreedman@nytimes.com
DAVID GONZALEZ
STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Clyde Haberman
RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JOSEPH P. HOAR
JOHN HOLUSHA
CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
KIRK JOHNSON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
CLIFFORD KRAUSS
PAUL KRUGMAN krugman@nytimes.com
MARC LACEY
BRUCE LAMBERT
DAVID LEONHARDT Leonhardt@nytimes.com
PATRICIA NELSON LIMERICK
STEVE LOHR: slohr@nytimes.com *
MICHAEL LUO (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
NEIL MacFARQUHAR
EILEEN MARKEY
ROBERT D. McFADDEN
JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
TIM MURPHY
MIREYA NAVARRO
JACQUELINE PALANK: jpalank@nytimes.com
ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) rpear@nytimes.com
JULIA PRESTON (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) juliapreston@nytimes.com
ANTHONY RAMIREZ: aramirez@nytimes.com | anthonyramirez@nytimes (did not work)
DAVID K. RANDALL
SAM ROBERTS
JESS ROW
JIM RUTENBERG (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
MARC SANTORA (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
DAVID STOUT (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html)
HEATHER TIMMONS
ROBIN TONER
MICHAEL WINERIP parenting@nytimes.com
JEFF ZELENY
dresses wallpaper in love quotes for
eeezzz
07-11 12:05 PM
I don't think so. Eventhough they make U in september bulletin. They have to move dates in October bulletin because of new visa numbers.
Yes there will be dates in Oct. but will that be 2006 Jan.? That is what karanp25 means.
And answer is it probably will not be. We can look back the bulletin on May and June 2007. Are they match Oct. 2007 bulletin ?
Yes there will be dates in Oct. but will that be 2006 Jan.? That is what karanp25 means.
And answer is it probably will not be. We can look back the bulletin on May and June 2007. Are they match Oct. 2007 bulletin ?
more...
makeup house 2011 in love quotes for
delhiboy
12-15 12:25 PM
Here are the details:
Type: EB2 - RIR (State - CT)
PD: June 2004
45 DL Received: December 2005
Current Status: CERTIFIED (On 12/15/2006) per DOL website.
Can anyone tell me what happens next?
Type: EB2 - RIR (State - CT)
PD: June 2004
45 DL Received: December 2005
Current Status: CERTIFIED (On 12/15/2006) per DOL website.
Can anyone tell me what happens next?
girlfriend makeup sad love quotes for
black_logs
01-05 08:44 AM
Looks like PBEC is sending approvals for labors with PD in Jun'02. Comments!!
hairstyles tattoo quotes for girls in
baburob2
03-09 10:03 AM
i believe the way it is going to proceed is if they don't have time to discuss everything they will discuss the rest in the senate floor. however if the conflicting ones like illegal aliens one, enforcement ones are resolved then this bill might go to the floor and the remaining ones would be discussed. hence if till tile 3 is over then this bill might be considered for vote on teh senate floor. this is my understnading based on what i heard.
sirinme
07-15 12:47 PM
Contributions for both self and spouse!
skv
06-20 01:24 PM
what on earth is that supposed to be?
Refer this.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2567
Refer this.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2567
No comments:
Post a Comment