smuggymba
04-23 02:29 PM
yesetrday on CNN, AC 360, there were two latino ladies (US Citizens) and they kept saying that this bill is illegal and should be vetoed.
All latinos want other latinos to come to USA and have the numbers/political influence to get them GC's via amnesty before legal immigrants.
None of those ladies said they did not support illegal immigration, they just kept ranting about racial profiling.
All latinos want other latinos to come to USA and have the numbers/political influence to get them GC's via amnesty before legal immigrants.
None of those ladies said they did not support illegal immigration, they just kept ranting about racial profiling.
wallpaper This animated wallpaper from
BarneySha
07-23 09:24 AM
Here's my timeline:
Self e-filed: May 15, 2008
Docs sent: May 23, 2008
FP: Jun 12, 2008
Card prod ordered: July 22, 2008
EB3-I / PD: Jan 2003 / I-485 - RD: Jun 2007
Will post if we got 1 or 2 yr duration EADs just as soon as I get the cards in hand.
Good luck fplks. Proc times is not accurate after all!
Self e-filed: May 15, 2008
Docs sent: May 23, 2008
FP: Jun 12, 2008
Card prod ordered: July 22, 2008
EB3-I / PD: Jan 2003 / I-485 - RD: Jun 2007
Will post if we got 1 or 2 yr duration EADs just as soon as I get the cards in hand.
Good luck fplks. Proc times is not accurate after all!
Macaca
03-30 08:35 AM
Anyone is VIRGINIA interested in meeting with legislators? I am in Fairfax County, VA. Apart from posting here please PM me as well so we can get in touch quickly for the meeting.
nixtor has met some legislators in VA. Please contact him!
Please update your profile so that we can contact you for an event. Thanks!
nixtor has met some legislators in VA. Please contact him!
Please update your profile so that we can contact you for an event. Thanks!
2011 vista 3d wallpaper. perm2gc
EndlessWait
10-02 12:49 PM
I am not sure what a_to_z_Gc is looking for more details, but I would like to now if your case was transferred from NSC to CSC and back.
Those whose cases have transferred back to NSC have not received the FP notices. I would like to know if your case was transferred back to NSC.
when did u get ur reciept?
Those whose cases have transferred back to NSC have not received the FP notices. I would like to know if your case was transferred back to NSC.
when did u get ur reciept?
more...
TajMahal
10-01 06:43 PM
July 2nd filer.
Transfered from NSC to CSC. My bad luck. Didn't apply EAD, AP. No news on FP. I heard that CSC processes FP lat than other centers. I know my neighbours got FP notices who filed a month later from NSC.
Transfered from NSC to CSC. My bad luck. Didn't apply EAD, AP. No news on FP. I heard that CSC processes FP lat than other centers. I know my neighbours got FP notices who filed a month later from NSC.
EndlessWait
04-24 04:42 PM
we all suffer, waiting for the administration/immigration policies to be humane to us..but honestly they've only gotten worse every year. the only good thing was the july bulletin but that also was becoz of the pressure from the big companies who'd already paid big bucks for immigration/attorney fees.
honestly here or back home no one really cares...we will get old, die tryin' perhaps but its true "might is right" and that is how the US embassy treats us.
honestly here or back home no one really cares...we will get old, die tryin' perhaps but its true "might is right" and that is how the US embassy treats us.
more...
Libra
01-29 09:54 AM
bump
2010 Freak Vista - broken, eye,
go_guy123
01-04 07:01 PM
A freind of mine came across a gentleman, who is here on work visa and he is facing a unique problem. He is married to two persons and wants to bring his whole family here in the USA. He was looking for answer if he can get both his spouses and kids here on H4 visas. Currently both of them and his kids are in India. Interesting hmmm :D
I am curious to know with whom he spends the night with...only that one is eligible to come on H4.
Damm...my imagination is running wild.
I am curious to know with whom he spends the night with...only that one is eligible to come on H4.
Damm...my imagination is running wild.
more...
andy garcia
06-05 01:09 PM
(d) Form I-140 Petition Must be Approved Prior to a Favorable Determination of a �106(c) AC21 portability request.
this could be read 2 ways...either you need have an approved I-140 prior to filing for portability OR the adjudicator needs to approve the I-140 prior to determining portability.
You can read it 10 ways, but the CIS has only one interpretation(see bold below).
An un-adjudicated Form I-140 petition is not made valid merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days. Rather, the petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a �106(c) AC21 portability request.
this could be read 2 ways...either you need have an approved I-140 prior to filing for portability OR the adjudicator needs to approve the I-140 prior to determining portability.
You can read it 10 ways, but the CIS has only one interpretation(see bold below).
An un-adjudicated Form I-140 petition is not made valid merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days. Rather, the petition must have been filed on behalf of an alien who was entitled to the employment-based classification at the time that the petition was filed, and therefore must be approved prior to a favorable determination of a �106(c) AC21 portability request.
hair Earth Animated Wallpaper
Mr. Brown
11-30 12:29 PM
BIG Thanks for the report!
I wonder how the following calculator results would change (if they'd change i.e.):
http://immigrationvoice.org/tracker/waitimesUSCIS1.php
http://immigrationvoice.org/tracker/waitimesUSCIS2.php
Immigrationvoice team has been working on the publicly available USCIS data since its release on USCIS website and we have been discussing this data with top USCIS officials to clear doubts.
Immigration Voice is releasing the analysis of the information for the community. You can view the report at
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36
We are putting together a list of recommendations about this data for our next meeting with USCIS. If you have suggestions, do post on the thread. We would also be updating this report on regular basis as the data is updated on USCIS site and numbers change due to approvals/pre-adjudications/field office data/ CP and spillovers. The visa bulletin movement will also be compared against the report and checked with USCIS and DOS.
Team IV
Note: Please read the entire document rather than just basing your judgment on the graph and the visa bulletin charts. There are several caveats and limitations of this data.
We feel this is a one step ahead of the IV prediction tool published by IV in the past. We will continue to refine the analysis as we receive information from DOS and USCIS through our advocacy efforts.
I wonder how the following calculator results would change (if they'd change i.e.):
http://immigrationvoice.org/tracker/waitimesUSCIS1.php
http://immigrationvoice.org/tracker/waitimesUSCIS2.php
Immigrationvoice team has been working on the publicly available USCIS data since its release on USCIS website and we have been discussing this data with top USCIS officials to clear doubts.
Immigration Voice is releasing the analysis of the information for the community. You can view the report at
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36
We are putting together a list of recommendations about this data for our next meeting with USCIS. If you have suggestions, do post on the thread. We would also be updating this report on regular basis as the data is updated on USCIS site and numbers change due to approvals/pre-adjudications/field office data/ CP and spillovers. The visa bulletin movement will also be compared against the report and checked with USCIS and DOS.
Team IV
Note: Please read the entire document rather than just basing your judgment on the graph and the visa bulletin charts. There are several caveats and limitations of this data.
We feel this is a one step ahead of the IV prediction tool published by IV in the past. We will continue to refine the analysis as we receive information from DOS and USCIS through our advocacy efforts.
more...
sumansk
07-27 04:21 PM
I must say I haven't seen so many interesting !!! people at one place....AMAZING ..Please send one to Bush Bhai...May be they will consider yours a special case and immidiately grant you GC...you are one really SMART...:D :rolleyes:
hot vista 3d wallpaper.
sss9i
12-20 12:08 PM
Soon, We will get it from Immigration-Law.Com.
I am one of the victim.
I am one of the victim.
more...
house 3d wallpapers vista.
arvindkappula
01-18 04:04 PM
OK... now my primary project/goal from my side for this weekend is to make sure letter from my friends and known resources did their hand written letters to President or check if if they already did and worst case scenario make them print those letters sign them and mail to white house & copy to IV... I am pretty sure all our effort will NOT GO WASTE!!
You all are doing great job!! I may end up mailing few more letters from my side and see how quickly I can finish my stamps roll.....:D
You all are doing great job!! I may end up mailing few more letters from my side and see how quickly I can finish my stamps roll.....:D
tattoo vista animated wallpaper.
qtoask
06-20 12:05 PM
please update here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5379
more...
pictures Tags: Vista, Wallpaper
lostinbeta
02-05 04:46 PM
EG switched hosts and servers since then :-\
dresses 3d wallpapers vista.
bujjigadu123
02-21 01:29 AM
Thanks for the reply...
Initially I too got the same doubt that it could be a prank from my friend. But the name of the person who called me matches with the name of the person who visited my employer's office around 2 months back. After I got a call from ICE officer, I notified the same to my employer and explained about the call.
Really donno what to do.... Even though the ICE officer took prior appointment for visiting me, should I still contact attorney?
Initially I too got the same doubt that it could be a prank from my friend. But the name of the person who called me matches with the name of the person who visited my employer's office around 2 months back. After I got a call from ICE officer, I notified the same to my employer and explained about the call.
Really donno what to do.... Even though the ICE officer took prior appointment for visiting me, should I still contact attorney?
more...
makeup 3d pc backgrounds
Soul
02-07 01:32 PM
Thanks Kax :beam:
I think priness Kit :P
Heh
- Soul :goatee:
I think priness Kit :P
Heh
- Soul :goatee:
girlfriend vista 3d wallpaper.
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
hairstyles vista 3d wallpaper.
lotus26
05-30 07:09 PM
Done
logiclife
05-29 04:43 PM
For those who were waiting for lawyers to confirm our fears that those whose 140 was filed or to be filed after May 21 2007 will be forced to let go of their GC file and use the new points based merit system......you have lawyer's answer.
And the interpretation of IV core and lawyers is the same. THE INTRODUCTION DATE of the bill is the cut-off date for pending or approved 140s to be allowed under old system.
Actually their interpretation is that the intro date of bill was May 15th and not May 21 as IV core has stated previously.
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm
And the interpretation of IV core and lawyers is the same. THE INTRODUCTION DATE of the bill is the cut-off date for pending or approved 140s to be allowed under old system.
Actually their interpretation is that the intro date of bill was May 15th and not May 21 as IV core has stated previously.
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm
nk2006
05-22 04:30 PM
Seems like everyone losing hope including core - as someone else said above its really sad to see this. Please dont lose hope at this critical moment else all of our efforts for last two years will go waste.
I cant imagine how much time/effort has been put into this effort by core members (as a relatively inactive member I myself could have easily spent several hundred hours on these forums in last year and half; and atleast some time in calling/faxing etc.). After all these efforts and seeing the current bill its understandable to get deeply disappointed. But dont lose hope yet. Its not over.
Logiclife - coming this from you really shook me. At one point you were so confident that having our measures in any future CIR is but gauranteed - we thought its just a matter of time. All of us were also thinking that we are in a better position to introduce and enact amendments in this congress. We still have time (2 weeks) for amendments - why are we thinking about alternate arrangements and slowly losing hope. Does this show our level of confidence now or this thread is meant for some light hearted fun?
I cant imagine how much time/effort has been put into this effort by core members (as a relatively inactive member I myself could have easily spent several hundred hours on these forums in last year and half; and atleast some time in calling/faxing etc.). After all these efforts and seeing the current bill its understandable to get deeply disappointed. But dont lose hope yet. Its not over.
Logiclife - coming this from you really shook me. At one point you were so confident that having our measures in any future CIR is but gauranteed - we thought its just a matter of time. All of us were also thinking that we are in a better position to introduce and enact amendments in this congress. We still have time (2 weeks) for amendments - why are we thinking about alternate arrangements and slowly losing hope. Does this show our level of confidence now or this thread is meant for some light hearted fun?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar