bsnf
04-20 09:10 PM
I was asked for the AP in India and Germany. The custom officer in India was aware of the AP and immediately completed the process and let me go. In Germany the 1st person ( probability a new hire) did not understand the AP so he asked another custom officer to look at the AP document. The other office looked at the AP and then explained the document to the 1st officer and let me go.
BTW, the trip last month was the 3rd time I traveled to India on AP.
BTW, the trip last month was the 3rd time I traveled to India on AP.
wallpaper Monster wallpapers: October
kaisersose
08-24 10:42 AM
I still don't get it. There are around 300k AOS applications now pending. Given that there are only 10k EB based green cards for India, and I am sure there are more applications than 10k for FY2008 and still Visa bulletin for Oct indicates a date of Apr 2004. Should it not be "U" for the entire FY2008?
No.
There are 2 agencies involved here - DOS and USCIS. Visa numbers and cut-off dates are owned by DOS. 485 applications are held and processed by USCIS as and when visa numbers are released by DOS.
No.
There are 2 agencies involved here - DOS and USCIS. Visa numbers and cut-off dates are owned by DOS. 485 applications are held and processed by USCIS as and when visa numbers are released by DOS.
bobzibub
02-01 02:25 PM
OK, they'll raise the fees (I can live with that). But how do we improve the chances of better services?
USCIS is asking for comments....If IV would be so kind as to submit comments for the raising of the fees. I humbly throw these out for discussion:
Accept the fee increases providing:
1) That USCIS propose public standards of reducing processing times to 30 days+10 day security check.. Automatically produce an EAD if it takes longer. Hey. We're all still in the country whether the process succeeds or not right? We would just appeal, submit more info or beat it until it's done. Who's any safer?
2) That RFEs not be used to manage work levels. Plus they ought not to reset the 90 day clock to zero if they issue one. That is ridiculous and unheard of.
3) That they simplifiy applications (a la Canada) so that "lay persons" can (carefully) fill in the forms. Lawyers not required.
4) That the USCIS abide by the laws. Especially regarding FBI name checking. We have a duty to follow the law. I'm careful to do so. The government should be careful to do so as well.. Call me a radical.
5) That they publish proposals to stream line the process with modern business methods and concrete goals. The increases should be tied to fulfilling stated goals of improvements of service. Otherwise they roll back. Have a 3rd (independent) party decide if the goals have been met in three years.
If we tax payers are giving them extraordinary increases in fees, we should at least expect some meaningful process improvements. Simply claiming that they need-the-cash-for-process-improvements is not sufficient. What is to prevent them from using the money to give everyone big raises and bonuses and a nice fancy new office, and big fancy new computers if they're going to continue to use paper and use the computers to access rickety old systems with terminal emulators? I'd love to deal with happy USCIS employees, but I'd love it even more if I had to deal efficient USCIS employees. (Give them the tools and they'll be happier!)
USCIS is asking for comments....If IV would be so kind as to submit comments for the raising of the fees. I humbly throw these out for discussion:
Accept the fee increases providing:
1) That USCIS propose public standards of reducing processing times to 30 days+10 day security check.. Automatically produce an EAD if it takes longer. Hey. We're all still in the country whether the process succeeds or not right? We would just appeal, submit more info or beat it until it's done. Who's any safer?
2) That RFEs not be used to manage work levels. Plus they ought not to reset the 90 day clock to zero if they issue one. That is ridiculous and unheard of.
3) That they simplifiy applications (a la Canada) so that "lay persons" can (carefully) fill in the forms. Lawyers not required.
4) That the USCIS abide by the laws. Especially regarding FBI name checking. We have a duty to follow the law. I'm careful to do so. The government should be careful to do so as well.. Call me a radical.
5) That they publish proposals to stream line the process with modern business methods and concrete goals. The increases should be tied to fulfilling stated goals of improvements of service. Otherwise they roll back. Have a 3rd (independent) party decide if the goals have been met in three years.
If we tax payers are giving them extraordinary increases in fees, we should at least expect some meaningful process improvements. Simply claiming that they need-the-cash-for-process-improvements is not sufficient. What is to prevent them from using the money to give everyone big raises and bonuses and a nice fancy new office, and big fancy new computers if they're going to continue to use paper and use the computers to access rickety old systems with terminal emulators? I'd love to deal with happy USCIS employees, but I'd love it even more if I had to deal efficient USCIS employees. (Give them the tools and they'll be happier!)
2011 Venom Monster Wallpapers and
kaisersose
07-28 04:10 PM
I have old I 140 approval notice, Is it necessary to send the old I 140 approval while interfiling. What if the old company withdraw old I 140, How can I interfile in that situation.
Doesn't matter. You interfile based on priority date and once a 14 0 is approved, your PD remains yours - even if it is revoked later.
Doesn't matter. You interfile based on priority date and once a 14 0 is approved, your PD remains yours - even if it is revoked later.
more...
dartkid31
05-25 12:06 PM
Canada has the stupidest immigration policy from the standpoint of policy maker if you ask me.
Dont get me wrong. It works great for us. For the immigrant. You get greencard on an independent petition(self-petition) and adjudicated based on points. And there is no numerical cap.
Guess what? It works great for everyone in the world, everyone has flocked there and caused and over supply of labor and 9% or higher unemployment. The way they count unemployment is also very Enron-like. They dont count people receiving unemployment benefits as unemployed. And then Jim Volpe will post on website "Canada has unemployment rate of 5-6%".
Anyways, if you want to immigrate to a country, you want to go where there is low unemployment. That is the biggest criteria for choice. USA's system HAS HUGE FLAWS. The employer petition-system creates a breeding ground for exploitation and the numerical cap is too low that results in delays that are unbearable. And yes, the DOL has come really close to making people commit suicide because of labor backlogs. But then, only the employer petition system can actually give greencards to THOSE WHO CAN SURVIVE and get jobs in the economy and not give greencards just because they scored points.
I know I will receive a lot of flak as I have before, and I wish there was points based system here in USA too with self-petition option like Canada, but trust me, if that happens, then this country will be full of people with greatest points,(obtained thru fake degrees and Ph.Ds from the whole world) and really really make the nightmares of NumbersUSA and FAIR become true, and it wont be worth living.
US systems needs major rework and increase in quota and increase in efficiency at USCIS and DOL. But getting rid of employer petition is going to make USA like Canada where Ph.Ds and doctors drive cabs and work in restaurants, but every one of those doctors and engineers would have greencard in 1 year.
There is a simple solution to the labor over-supply problem you mentioned above. How about making it a requirement to have a job or job offer in your field before you are allowed to apply. That way, the over-supply problem is solved, and the exploitation factor removed as well. And to weed out the fake graduate degrees, they could require that the degree come from a US school. I think most lawmakers would agree with me, and thats why they have written similar language into the underlying bill, although only for STEM's. Your main arguement (over-supply) would be irrelevant if those conditions were applied.
Dont get me wrong. It works great for us. For the immigrant. You get greencard on an independent petition(self-petition) and adjudicated based on points. And there is no numerical cap.
Guess what? It works great for everyone in the world, everyone has flocked there and caused and over supply of labor and 9% or higher unemployment. The way they count unemployment is also very Enron-like. They dont count people receiving unemployment benefits as unemployed. And then Jim Volpe will post on website "Canada has unemployment rate of 5-6%".
Anyways, if you want to immigrate to a country, you want to go where there is low unemployment. That is the biggest criteria for choice. USA's system HAS HUGE FLAWS. The employer petition-system creates a breeding ground for exploitation and the numerical cap is too low that results in delays that are unbearable. And yes, the DOL has come really close to making people commit suicide because of labor backlogs. But then, only the employer petition system can actually give greencards to THOSE WHO CAN SURVIVE and get jobs in the economy and not give greencards just because they scored points.
I know I will receive a lot of flak as I have before, and I wish there was points based system here in USA too with self-petition option like Canada, but trust me, if that happens, then this country will be full of people with greatest points,(obtained thru fake degrees and Ph.Ds from the whole world) and really really make the nightmares of NumbersUSA and FAIR become true, and it wont be worth living.
US systems needs major rework and increase in quota and increase in efficiency at USCIS and DOL. But getting rid of employer petition is going to make USA like Canada where Ph.Ds and doctors drive cabs and work in restaurants, but every one of those doctors and engineers would have greencard in 1 year.
There is a simple solution to the labor over-supply problem you mentioned above. How about making it a requirement to have a job or job offer in your field before you are allowed to apply. That way, the over-supply problem is solved, and the exploitation factor removed as well. And to weed out the fake graduate degrees, they could require that the degree come from a US school. I think most lawmakers would agree with me, and thats why they have written similar language into the underlying bill, although only for STEM's. Your main arguement (over-supply) would be irrelevant if those conditions were applied.
gk_2000
07-29 03:13 PM
You are saying that because you are from ROW.
I would be delighted since I am from EB3-I. That is what is unfair about this country cap. You probably filed your GC in 2009 and is already impatient. Think about people who came to this country in 2000 or before still waiting for their GCs.
Some of them has aging out kids who will lose their eligibility because of this long wait.
This "me vs you" attitude is what is unhealthy. Having PD of June 2002 is nothing to be happy about, either for EB3-I or ROW. It is just pathetic. We should all be together in this. Asking for more visa numbers, recapture, etc would be more practical for us
I would be delighted since I am from EB3-I. That is what is unfair about this country cap. You probably filed your GC in 2009 and is already impatient. Think about people who came to this country in 2000 or before still waiting for their GCs.
Some of them has aging out kids who will lose their eligibility because of this long wait.
This "me vs you" attitude is what is unhealthy. Having PD of June 2002 is nothing to be happy about, either for EB3-I or ROW. It is just pathetic. We should all be together in this. Asking for more visa numbers, recapture, etc would be more practical for us
more...
Bpositive
08-06 04:58 PM
I-485 applied aug 2007
I-140 approved dec 2007
I-140 approved dec 2007
2010 2010 2011 monster wallpapers.
newu77
07-02 04:11 PM
I spent $500 for medical.
Lawyer fee and other expenses (fedex etc) (around $2000) - paid by my company.
plus $1500 is filing fee (which I guess should be refunded).
Lawyer fee and other expenses (fedex etc) (around $2000) - paid by my company.
plus $1500 is filing fee (which I guess should be refunded).
more...
trishanku
02-13 03:46 PM
mpadapa,
You are right that spill over of 23020 visas from family based category contributed to movements in EB2 categories, however that was not the only spill over that happened. There were 12144 unused visas in EB-4 and EB-5 category which also spilled over. You could argue that those visas spill over to EB-1, however EB-1 had usage of 36591 visas last year compared to maximum allocation of 40040 visas which meeans that EB-1 also had 3449 unused visas. This means that there was a spill over of 15593 visas just from EB-4,EB-5 and EB-1 category.
So there will definately be some spill over this year if you assume same usage level as last year. How much? I am not sure yet.
I have my analysis in an excel file, i tried to upload it here as zip file, but it seems to be failing.
You are right that spill over of 23020 visas from family based category contributed to movements in EB2 categories, however that was not the only spill over that happened. There were 12144 unused visas in EB-4 and EB-5 category which also spilled over. You could argue that those visas spill over to EB-1, however EB-1 had usage of 36591 visas last year compared to maximum allocation of 40040 visas which meeans that EB-1 also had 3449 unused visas. This means that there was a spill over of 15593 visas just from EB-4,EB-5 and EB-1 category.
So there will definately be some spill over this year if you assume same usage level as last year. How much? I am not sure yet.
I have my analysis in an excel file, i tried to upload it here as zip file, but it seems to be failing.
hair Cry Monster Wallpapers and
belmontboy
02-27 06:47 PM
this thread is useless. Please delete!
more...
leoindiano
06-02 11:11 AM
Do not think anything wrong in voting. Atleast so many IV members are again active due to this voting. No harm...
hot Dark - Monster Wallpaper
shana04
02-12 03:39 PM
I had the same soft LUD on all my cases after AC21 letter was filed. No FP yet.
Good to hear atleast some one is onthe same boat
Good to hear atleast some one is onthe same boat
more...
house Monster Hunter Tri wallpaper
Eagle
12-05 02:08 PM
Thanks Easygoer for your reply.
I also have Chartered Accoutancy (CA) and Cost Accoutancy(CWA) qualifications in addition to my Masters. I have approached Sheila and she is helping me out.
I also have Chartered Accoutancy (CA) and Cost Accoutancy(CWA) qualifications in addition to my Masters. I have approached Sheila and she is helping me out.
tattoo monster wallpaper.
chanduv23
10-10 02:39 PM
Service industry is not always based on labor cost differentials. Many services are value added services. For example, stock brokers used to charge $200 and above for stock trades; however, electronic brokers came and made the industry efficient and hence can profit more by charging only $10 or even less. But this does not mean that the stock brokers are earning less. In fact they are earning more than before. However, their value additions come from faster settlement times and high volumes. This is easier to analyze. Now look at London or Hong Kong -- what services it provides and why is it booming?
High investments in R&D in general is good for economy but not necessarily true for a company. For example, German manufacturers are best R&D shops; however, their over investment in precision is precisely their problem. On the other hand Apple copied mp3 music players from Creative and made millions. One can find countless examples of skilled marketing (services) not innovative products making money. So don't assume that R&D investments are always good for a company.
Finally, Wipro & the likes -- they have already opened up shops in China, Mexico, Brazil (yes)... and finally if dollar falls further they could actually buy the US companies and make them efficient (Honda and GM example).
Yes, and providing "Skilled Labor" is basically a value added service. Another poster Sanju got it right "Issue is not with body shops or companies, issue is within the thought process of these politicians - what they are trying to achieve"
High investments in R&D in general is good for economy but not necessarily true for a company. For example, German manufacturers are best R&D shops; however, their over investment in precision is precisely their problem. On the other hand Apple copied mp3 music players from Creative and made millions. One can find countless examples of skilled marketing (services) not innovative products making money. So don't assume that R&D investments are always good for a company.
Finally, Wipro & the likes -- they have already opened up shops in China, Mexico, Brazil (yes)... and finally if dollar falls further they could actually buy the US companies and make them efficient (Honda and GM example).
Yes, and providing "Skilled Labor" is basically a value added service. Another poster Sanju got it right "Issue is not with body shops or companies, issue is within the thought process of these politicians - what they are trying to achieve"
more...
pictures Scary Monster Wallpaper
rameshk75
02-13 12:36 PM
Thanks Shana..Even i had the same thought.. it should be the day we arrive in US...
To my know it should start from jun 05
To my know it should start from jun 05
dresses Ducati Monster 1100
mammoy2k
09-09 07:04 AM
I140 should be approved or approvable at the time of filing. Yates memo is very clear on that- I-140 approval is not required in concurrent filing. Also there is no salary requirements on invoking AC 21. Again, please read Yates Memo.
Requirements to change employer when GC is pending:
- I-140 should be approved
- More than 180 days should have passed after filing I-485. The clock for 180 days starts from 485 receipt.
- Approved EAD
Significance of 180 days barrier
If you have approved I-140 and EAD, you can change employer without having to wait for 180 days. But then your employer can revoke the I-140 which invalidates the 485 application. After 180 days from I-485 receipt, I-140 cannot be revoked so that is why it is always recommended to invoke AC-21 after 180 days from the 485 receipt.
After 180 days, you cannot change jobs, you can only change employers
When you invoke AC-21, you have o fulfill two conditions:
1.) You new jobs has the same or similar job description as mentioned in the green card labor certification application
2.) You salary should be almost the same as the wages mentioned in GC labor certification application
This means, you have to continue to stay in the same job title and job description till the time your GC is approved. If you fulfill the requirements mentioned above, you do not have to inform USCIS when invoking AC-21. You just switch employer. At some point USCIS will send you a query asking for the information of the employer who continues your green card application. It is best to take up job where the job title and job description is exactly the same as specified in your GC labor certification application. Any variance in the job title or job description could be extremely damaging to the GC application processing.
It is best to not to change to an employer offering you anything less than the wage rate specified in the GC labor certification. On the higher side, it is better not to take up a job that offers more than 4% more salary of that specified in the GC labor certification. It is hard to resist 20-30K higher salary, but one would have to resist the temptation for taking the job offering higher salary. Otherwise, there is a risk of USCIS denying the GC application.
USCIS doesn�t account for dollar appreciation or devaluation. USCIS also doesn�t account for annual inflation when calculating the wage rate. So even if your labor certification was applied in 2003, you still have to continue at the job with the salary specified in the GC labor certification. If GC application takes another 5-7 years, then you have to continue with the salary specified in GC labor certification application.
Hope this is useful.
Requirements to change employer when GC is pending:
- I-140 should be approved
- More than 180 days should have passed after filing I-485. The clock for 180 days starts from 485 receipt.
- Approved EAD
Significance of 180 days barrier
If you have approved I-140 and EAD, you can change employer without having to wait for 180 days. But then your employer can revoke the I-140 which invalidates the 485 application. After 180 days from I-485 receipt, I-140 cannot be revoked so that is why it is always recommended to invoke AC-21 after 180 days from the 485 receipt.
After 180 days, you cannot change jobs, you can only change employers
When you invoke AC-21, you have o fulfill two conditions:
1.) You new jobs has the same or similar job description as mentioned in the green card labor certification application
2.) You salary should be almost the same as the wages mentioned in GC labor certification application
This means, you have to continue to stay in the same job title and job description till the time your GC is approved. If you fulfill the requirements mentioned above, you do not have to inform USCIS when invoking AC-21. You just switch employer. At some point USCIS will send you a query asking for the information of the employer who continues your green card application. It is best to take up job where the job title and job description is exactly the same as specified in your GC labor certification application. Any variance in the job title or job description could be extremely damaging to the GC application processing.
It is best to not to change to an employer offering you anything less than the wage rate specified in the GC labor certification. On the higher side, it is better not to take up a job that offers more than 4% more salary of that specified in the GC labor certification. It is hard to resist 20-30K higher salary, but one would have to resist the temptation for taking the job offering higher salary. Otherwise, there is a risk of USCIS denying the GC application.
USCIS doesn�t account for dollar appreciation or devaluation. USCIS also doesn�t account for annual inflation when calculating the wage rate. So even if your labor certification was applied in 2003, you still have to continue at the job with the salary specified in the GC labor certification. If GC application takes another 5-7 years, then you have to continue with the salary specified in GC labor certification application.
Hope this is useful.
more...
makeup monster wallpapers. cookie monster wallpaper.
ychuck
07-02 04:52 PM
Medical Exam: ~800 (me + wife)
Photos: 60
birth/marriage certs: 200
paid working hours off: 400
Pain before and after: lot!.
Photos: 60
birth/marriage certs: 200
paid working hours off: 400
Pain before and after: lot!.
girlfriend 23 Cute Monster Illustration
H4_losing_hope
02-29 05:43 PM
I have sent the letters to both WH and to my state congressman who happens to be a co-chair of India Caucus.
Thanks for joining in the campaign :)
Thanks for joining in the campaign :)
hairstyles Monster Energy Drink Wallpaper
Jimi_Hendrix
06-26 02:38 PM
PD Aug 2001
RD Jan 2005
CSC case transfered to NSC in Feb 07
Senator Inquiry 5 days ago yielded result that cards will be ordered in 30 days.
RD Jan 2005
CSC case transfered to NSC in Feb 07
Senator Inquiry 5 days ago yielded result that cards will be ordered in 30 days.
Berkeleybee
02-15 09:38 PM
Feb 15, 2006
Today, four members of IV met with 3 staffers from Dianne Feinstein’s office in San Francisco.
Two constituent services representatives, who deal with immigration problems on a daily basis (helping people with labor cert, I-140, I-485, security check etc problems) and one assistant field representative who interfaces with the Senator’s staff in DC on a whole host of issues.
We spent 1.5 hours with them. We went through our presentation, answering questions and giving examples all the way. Then we spent some time talking about how they could help us, suggestions about what IV should do, and how we could work with them. All in all it was an excellent meeting – they were riveted through out – asked lots of questions and were very supportive.
TAKEAWAYS
1.Getting the Word Out to Lawmakers
• They all said they learned a lot from our presentation – the people who deal with immigration problems on a nitty gritty daily level didn’t know the big picture on legal immigration, and the field representative didn’t know anything about the particular problems of legal EB immigrants.
• The field representative said she had had three meeting with immigration related groups that day already, and that the Senator’s staff has been hearing about immigration a lot BUT this was the first time she was hearing about legal skilled immigrants!!
• They thought our goals were reasonable and that they would be supportive. They thought we should reach out to as many other lawmakers as possible
BOTTOM LINE: Do you want favorable legislation not to pass simply because people didn’t know about our problems??? No! We need to get the word out.
2.Content
• They repeatedly said they were impressed with our presentation (go check it out).
• They liked the fact that we had an easy to read table which showed which of the current bills addressed some of our goals.
• They liked the fact that we printed and bound two copies of the presentation to give them.
• We also gave them copies of our tri-fold brochure
• We also gave them a number tabbed, bound copy of the following
-Must Read Documents on Legal Skilled Immigration
a) CIS Ombudsman's Report:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CIS_AnnualReport_2005.pdf
b) GAO Report on Backlogs at USCIS
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0620.pdf
c) Exec Summary of NAS Rising Above a Gathering Storm
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
d) How Visa Date Cutoffs Are Established from July 2000 Bulletin
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/2000-07bulletin.html
e) President’s Economic Report: Chapter 2: Skills for the U.S. Workforce.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/ch2-erp06.pdf
3.Action Items
• We decided to keep in touch – I will follow up on the feedback they get from the Senator’s DC staffers.
• They wanted to know more about how our meetings with other lawmakers are going.
• I offered to act as source of facts and examples for their office on these issues – since I have read the relevant documents and data carefully.
• They suggested that we keep reaching out to members of the House – especially those who are in states without a lot of tech sector firms – those are the people who are least likely to know about our existence, let alone our problems.
BOTTOM LINE: I will keep in touch with all three, sharing talking points and getting feedback.
4. Lessons for future meetings with lawmakers/ Lessons for other states
• Do not be intimidated by the idea of initiating a meeting with the staffers of lawmaker – they do this all the time, and are friendly, easy to talk to, it is their job to listen to you– just put yourselves in the mindset of someone telling a story to a friendly audience.
• Get organized, print and bind copies of the presentation and additional docs listed above to give to them.
• Do a dry run of the talk, so that you build a narrative patter to go with the slides – this worked really well in this meeting.
• Whenever possible use examples from the experience of the IV members present to illustrate the point in the slide – for example when we were doing the I-485 Life with and Without Slide, we used Ollie and Neha’s experiences with layoffs and partner not being able to work
• Ask how you can follow up with them, what they would like you to do
• Write to thank them for their time and reiterate your basic points
So people from other states – come on lets go!
Today, four members of IV met with 3 staffers from Dianne Feinstein’s office in San Francisco.
Two constituent services representatives, who deal with immigration problems on a daily basis (helping people with labor cert, I-140, I-485, security check etc problems) and one assistant field representative who interfaces with the Senator’s staff in DC on a whole host of issues.
We spent 1.5 hours with them. We went through our presentation, answering questions and giving examples all the way. Then we spent some time talking about how they could help us, suggestions about what IV should do, and how we could work with them. All in all it was an excellent meeting – they were riveted through out – asked lots of questions and were very supportive.
TAKEAWAYS
1.Getting the Word Out to Lawmakers
• They all said they learned a lot from our presentation – the people who deal with immigration problems on a nitty gritty daily level didn’t know the big picture on legal immigration, and the field representative didn’t know anything about the particular problems of legal EB immigrants.
• The field representative said she had had three meeting with immigration related groups that day already, and that the Senator’s staff has been hearing about immigration a lot BUT this was the first time she was hearing about legal skilled immigrants!!
• They thought our goals were reasonable and that they would be supportive. They thought we should reach out to as many other lawmakers as possible
BOTTOM LINE: Do you want favorable legislation not to pass simply because people didn’t know about our problems??? No! We need to get the word out.
2.Content
• They repeatedly said they were impressed with our presentation (go check it out).
• They liked the fact that we had an easy to read table which showed which of the current bills addressed some of our goals.
• They liked the fact that we printed and bound two copies of the presentation to give them.
• We also gave them copies of our tri-fold brochure
• We also gave them a number tabbed, bound copy of the following
-Must Read Documents on Legal Skilled Immigration
a) CIS Ombudsman's Report:
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CIS_AnnualReport_2005.pdf
b) GAO Report on Backlogs at USCIS
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0620.pdf
c) Exec Summary of NAS Rising Above a Gathering Storm
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html
d) How Visa Date Cutoffs Are Established from July 2000 Bulletin
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/2000-07bulletin.html
e) President’s Economic Report: Chapter 2: Skills for the U.S. Workforce.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/ch2-erp06.pdf
3.Action Items
• We decided to keep in touch – I will follow up on the feedback they get from the Senator’s DC staffers.
• They wanted to know more about how our meetings with other lawmakers are going.
• I offered to act as source of facts and examples for their office on these issues – since I have read the relevant documents and data carefully.
• They suggested that we keep reaching out to members of the House – especially those who are in states without a lot of tech sector firms – those are the people who are least likely to know about our existence, let alone our problems.
BOTTOM LINE: I will keep in touch with all three, sharing talking points and getting feedback.
4. Lessons for future meetings with lawmakers/ Lessons for other states
• Do not be intimidated by the idea of initiating a meeting with the staffers of lawmaker – they do this all the time, and are friendly, easy to talk to, it is their job to listen to you– just put yourselves in the mindset of someone telling a story to a friendly audience.
• Get organized, print and bind copies of the presentation and additional docs listed above to give to them.
• Do a dry run of the talk, so that you build a narrative patter to go with the slides – this worked really well in this meeting.
• Whenever possible use examples from the experience of the IV members present to illustrate the point in the slide – for example when we were doing the I-485 Life with and Without Slide, we used Ollie and Neha’s experiences with layoffs and partner not being able to work
• Ask how you can follow up with them, what they would like you to do
• Write to thank them for their time and reiterate your basic points
So people from other states – come on lets go!
H4_losing_hope
02-27 08:22 PM
Since the CP guys are in minority here , if IV has to invest for them (read we all have to pay for them ) let us see how much they can contribute for their own provision. Let us see if each one of them contribute more than 500 dollars to IV and posts the paypal number.
Why should majority allow a provison for some minority who do not even want to first contribute.
Guys let's all take a break on this discussion before it offends more people. IV is a place for everyone. As far as I am concerned we are all equal and all in this together. Please everyone contribute your letters, time, and financial support and give each other some respect. It is impossible and wrong to generalize and doesn't do the IV cause any good. Thank you.
Why should majority allow a provison for some minority who do not even want to first contribute.
Guys let's all take a break on this discussion before it offends more people. IV is a place for everyone. As far as I am concerned we are all equal and all in this together. Please everyone contribute your letters, time, and financial support and give each other some respect. It is impossible and wrong to generalize and doesn't do the IV cause any good. Thank you.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar