anurakt
01-03 01:49 PM
I have somebody in my family who is suffering from an incurable disease , thus I wan't to stay in this country till a medicine comes out. This country is known as the pioneer in the reserach of medicines . It may take 10 years for it to be in market but it may take another 25 years to be in India. I have been working with lot of pharmatuticals firms which may come out with a treatment.
GC is not important to me for money ! Never. I want to make sure that my family member gets the best treatment available in the world.
GC is not important to me for money ! Never. I want to make sure that my family member gets the best treatment available in the world.
wallpaper 2011 South Indian Actress
guy03062
04-25 08:56 AM
It is absolutely make sense. We should push amendment for PD to be considered as date of arrival in USA (first time) or may be date on which one has started working (if employment based immigration). It is ridiculous to have PD based on labor, as there is no certainity when will employer file the labor or how many times in this dynamic environment!!
Also we should ask if one's I-140 is approved and visa is retrogressed, he should allow portability immediately! I mean no need to start GC process all over again if such person change the job.
Does it make sense to request for first arrival date to be considered as the priority date for immigration purposes? Just a thought!!!
Also we should ask if one's I-140 is approved and visa is retrogressed, he should allow portability immediately! I mean no need to start GC process all over again if such person change the job.
Does it make sense to request for first arrival date to be considered as the priority date for immigration purposes? Just a thought!!!
ramaonline
06-01 04:02 PM
In such cases you need not worry - as the law only kicks in sometime in oct 08 - again the language is not certain until the time the president signs it - More changes are possible in the house if the senate passes it - The conference committee may again change the text
2011 indian actress wallpaper.
.jpg "indian actresses wallpapers.")
hopefullegalimmigrant
12-28 12:15 PM
According to this
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
many of us should have got AP by now. As usual a status does not match the fact.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
many of us should have got AP by now. As usual a status does not match the fact.
more...
Sachin_Stock
08-23 01:02 PM
I don't find anything in this memo that contradicts or radically changes the way EB-2 category has been affected. Correct me if I am wrong.
raju123
07-07 12:27 PM
I would suggest to meet your local Senator and pursue your case. Age-out is the genuine problem and I believe no lawmaker will deny to help in age-out case for legals. Only thing you need to pursue them how monster of retrogression is killing kids of legals with age-out weapon!
I am fully support this matter
None of the bills being considered currently benefit children of would-be legal immigrants, while the children of illegal immigrants are protected by the proposed DREAM ACT. Please write to senators and house representatives highlighting the "age-out" problem.
Appreciate your contribution to IV.
I am fully support this matter
None of the bills being considered currently benefit children of would-be legal immigrants, while the children of illegal immigrants are protected by the proposed DREAM ACT. Please write to senators and house representatives highlighting the "age-out" problem.
Appreciate your contribution to IV.
more...
conchshell
07-06 12:22 AM
I feel that initiator of this thread is not trying a coup d'�tat. He is merely pointing to the fact that every organization runs by elected officials. Having a life term president and core group is only heard in autocratic systems but not in a democratic one. What are we as an organization?
Why are we afraid of discussing new ideas? Why shouldn't we open up IV organization for elections? There is nothing wrong in declaring the rules and then playing by those rules.
So I completely support the guy who came up with this suggestion.
Why are we afraid of discussing new ideas? Why shouldn't we open up IV organization for elections? There is nothing wrong in declaring the rules and then playing by those rules.
So I completely support the guy who came up with this suggestion.
2010 South Indian Actress Samantha
vjkypally
07-06 05:47 PM
Does Condi know what shes speakin? That they worked during weekend clearing 25000 visas so that no one can apply on July 2nd.
more...
dummgelauft
06-11 09:43 AM
I would say fight back against the indirect discrimination against the Indian and Chinese nationals in the employment-based immigration.
If they want us to leave..then so be it..but they should say so directly. All India and Chinese EB immigrants please leave USA. Until that comes out of the US government directly, we can not be forced out through indirect policies.
Here are a few things you can do:
1) Withdraw all the $ you deposited in US banks from savings, checking, CDs and other investment accounts and setup an NRE account with an indian bank and move funds over. If you need you can bring back those funds in a day or two. Leave only bare minimum for your expenses in US banks. This would have an impact of ~$50K X 100K effect.
2) Do not leave the country just because the hopes of greencard are controlled, sqeeze out every $ from your jobs and economy as long as you are here.
3) Spend minimum and buy swadeshi when possible. Lets not give back even 10% of the income we make back into the economy. This is an economic blockade.
USCIS and US government has long harassed Indians in the name of greencard for a longtime and year after year we hear the same BS. Come on people, show some self-respect and fight back.
4) Those who are in foreclosure, stop paying your mortgage, your home is going to get foreclosed anyway.
5) Despite all this...those who still decide to leave to India, max out all your credit cards, leave your car in airport and abandon your home/apt without paying rent/mortgage for the few months before you leave.
TAKE all you can from your hard-lived and harassed lives out of this place before you do decide to move.
I am not keeping more than 5K in any of my US banks starting today. I am also pulling back from my mortgage application for 300K condo. I am determined to sell-off my investments in equities here and begin investing in BSE.
That is the least I could do to peacefully protest against the discrimination against me and my country people.
True to your handle, your ideas if implemented, can turn the tide (or move the mountain) as Sri Hanuman did!!
BUT, amigo, seriously, don't you think we, Indians as a community, are the biggest sell-outs. Only somebody with the caliber of Subhash Chandra Bose can bring us together
If they want us to leave..then so be it..but they should say so directly. All India and Chinese EB immigrants please leave USA. Until that comes out of the US government directly, we can not be forced out through indirect policies.
Here are a few things you can do:
1) Withdraw all the $ you deposited in US banks from savings, checking, CDs and other investment accounts and setup an NRE account with an indian bank and move funds over. If you need you can bring back those funds in a day or two. Leave only bare minimum for your expenses in US banks. This would have an impact of ~$50K X 100K effect.
2) Do not leave the country just because the hopes of greencard are controlled, sqeeze out every $ from your jobs and economy as long as you are here.
3) Spend minimum and buy swadeshi when possible. Lets not give back even 10% of the income we make back into the economy. This is an economic blockade.
USCIS and US government has long harassed Indians in the name of greencard for a longtime and year after year we hear the same BS. Come on people, show some self-respect and fight back.
4) Those who are in foreclosure, stop paying your mortgage, your home is going to get foreclosed anyway.
5) Despite all this...those who still decide to leave to India, max out all your credit cards, leave your car in airport and abandon your home/apt without paying rent/mortgage for the few months before you leave.
TAKE all you can from your hard-lived and harassed lives out of this place before you do decide to move.
I am not keeping more than 5K in any of my US banks starting today. I am also pulling back from my mortgage application for 300K condo. I am determined to sell-off my investments in equities here and begin investing in BSE.
That is the least I could do to peacefully protest against the discrimination against me and my country people.
True to your handle, your ideas if implemented, can turn the tide (or move the mountain) as Sri Hanuman did!!
BUT, amigo, seriously, don't you think we, Indians as a community, are the biggest sell-outs. Only somebody with the caliber of Subhash Chandra Bose can bring us together
hair indian actresses wallpapers.
InTheMoment
07-18 10:59 PM
Other than that RD also comes into play in deciding the order in which the file comes under review of an officer. This is irrespective of what the visa bulletin says..and is called in CIS parlance as pre-adjudication if the PD is not available.("pre" as in adjudication before a visa number is available).
Such files that have undergone adjudicator review/FBI name and fingerprint as well as IBIS checks and are complete in all other respects but for visa# are now placed in separate area shelf for quickly assigning #'s, stamping, signing and ordering cards when PD is current for such petitions.
So the work of reviewing files goes roughly in FIFO order (that is based on RD) all round the year whether the bulletin says C, U, A, B or JAN01STONEAGE!
You guys are mistaken one thing. No matter what PD has to be current at the time of I-485 processing. But if both applicant have PD current than RD comes into play. Other than that RD does not play any role at all.
Such files that have undergone adjudicator review/FBI name and fingerprint as well as IBIS checks and are complete in all other respects but for visa# are now placed in separate area shelf for quickly assigning #'s, stamping, signing and ordering cards when PD is current for such petitions.
So the work of reviewing files goes roughly in FIFO order (that is based on RD) all round the year whether the bulletin says C, U, A, B or JAN01STONEAGE!
You guys are mistaken one thing. No matter what PD has to be current at the time of I-485 processing. But if both applicant have PD current than RD comes into play. Other than that RD does not play any role at all.
more...
ameryki
01-19 11:39 AM
Hello Rameshk75,
Thank you very much for your reply. It gave me a mental peace. Do anyone believe if I go to the local office on next tuesday they will do something for me ?
i don't think going to local office is going to help. be patient you should get it. In my case it took almost 4 weeks since it got approved to physically receive AP. Although I don't know how long my lawyer held it prior to mailing it to me.
Thank you very much for your reply. It gave me a mental peace. Do anyone believe if I go to the local office on next tuesday they will do something for me ?
i don't think going to local office is going to help. be patient you should get it. In my case it took almost 4 weeks since it got approved to physically receive AP. Although I don't know how long my lawyer held it prior to mailing it to me.
hot south indian actress wallpaper
kchakrav
09-28 08:25 AM
Came to the US in 1998 Feb.
Applied for GC under EB-3 category in Jan-2001.
Still waiting. Next month my date will be current. Keeping fingers crossed.
Applied for GC under EB-3 category in Jan-2001.
Still waiting. Next month my date will be current. Keeping fingers crossed.
more...
house katrina indian actress
mirage
08-04 11:59 AM
I'm telling them my condition, and I know there are lot of people in the same boat. Again you need to talk to the lawyer about GC cost. Emplyee can bear all the GC related cost.
EAD/AP 360*2 + 305*3(Spouse + son) is almost 2K.
If your facts are different put that in writing and send it to them. Please stop telling me my facts. Also I have no idea why you are on this thread, please ignore this thread if it doesn't apply to you...
I suggest you talk to your lawyer first. The cost of Labor and I-140 should be borne by the employer as they are employer's petitions.
2K for EAD and AP this year alone! Let us see how many people on this forum has spend that much on EAD and AP. Paying high legal fees is NOT a basis to seek remedy.
That was your choice.
H1/H4 and Green Card processing are not related to each other. H1 is for current job and GC is for the future job.
One hand, you are saying guessing and still insist that it is based on facts.
EAD/AP 360*2 + 305*3(Spouse + son) is almost 2K.
If your facts are different put that in writing and send it to them. Please stop telling me my facts. Also I have no idea why you are on this thread, please ignore this thread if it doesn't apply to you...
I suggest you talk to your lawyer first. The cost of Labor and I-140 should be borne by the employer as they are employer's petitions.
2K for EAD and AP this year alone! Let us see how many people on this forum has spend that much on EAD and AP. Paying high legal fees is NOT a basis to seek remedy.
That was your choice.
H1/H4 and Green Card processing are not related to each other. H1 is for current job and GC is for the future job.
One hand, you are saying guessing and still insist that it is based on facts.
tattoo telugu actress wallpapers.
Kodi
07-12 02:49 PM
Did anyone here get their PERM LC approved from Atlanta recently? They seem to have started processing.
more...
pictures ,Hot South indian Actress
soda
08-12 12:23 PM
Uscis will mark it received on the 3rd. Anyway, what's the difference?
I was asking this because some agencies consider the post marked date as the date the appllication was filed. But thanks for the response
I was asking this because some agencies consider the post marked date as the date the appllication was filed. But thanks for the response
dresses girlfriend 2010 indian actress
panky72
06-25 04:08 PM
Loosing my investments
Since I am sure that my GC will take 5 to 10 years more. Meanwhile too many things will change that might make me go back home. So I decided to invest in home(India). I sold lot of stocks. Stopped contributing to 401K above employers match (I used to contribute full 15K). Deferred buying house until my 140 approved.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
Why is loosing such a loosely used word?. Guys, it is losing not loosing. Lose and loose have different meanings.
One more guy who is "loosing" things:D
Since I am sure that my GC will take 5 to 10 years more. Meanwhile too many things will change that might make me go back home. So I decided to invest in home(India). I sold lot of stocks. Stopped contributing to 401K above employers match (I used to contribute full 15K). Deferred buying house until my 140 approved.
I am at a life stage where I have enough experience and tendency to take risks (married but no kids etc...). If I have flexibility of not working, I want to invest my time in a small startup. Working/investing a start-up means I might go out of status anytime. So I decided not to try any of those. Its a loss for me as well as for economy. If I accumulate enough money I might go home and try to do something like startup or small business. It would be good for US and me if they let me do it here.
In essence I am loosing the oppurtunity and by restricting my career US is loosing an oppurtunity to create more jobs.
Why is loosing such a loosely used word?. Guys, it is losing not loosing. Lose and loose have different meanings.
One more guy who is "loosing" things:D
more...
makeup indian actresses wallpapers
reddog
03-12 03:42 PM
Reddog is an agent of someone paid to view IV site and create anti-IV posts. He may very well be an anti-immigrant who is now worried that he may not get access to secret info of our efforts.
If he cares for immigrants, why has he not even updated his profile with his application dates. I bet he will also be annonymous with fake contact info.
Tell us what you have done for IV till now?
So now I am a traitor and a secret agent and a US citizen, just bcos I dont concur with the DONOR based thread idea?
If he cares for immigrants, why has he not even updated his profile with his application dates. I bet he will also be annonymous with fake contact info.
Tell us what you have done for IV till now?
So now I am a traitor and a secret agent and a US citizen, just bcos I dont concur with the DONOR based thread idea?
girlfriend girlfriend indian actress
AabTuAgaGC
12-27 03:35 PM
Received date July 27th, 2007. No AP yet:mad::mad::mad::mad:I have to travel in February:(:(
hairstyles South Indian Actress Wallpaper
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:02 PM
California U.S. House results by county
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imm_Exploited
07-24 10:59 PM
priti8888
Congratulations!! Enjoy your freedom.
My PD is October 2003 (EB2 India) and I have always detested the fact that in some states the LC used to be approved very fast. If I remember correctly, the LC approvals used to have a state-wise bulletins prior to PERM and there was a time when in states like Maine, some got their GCs within a year of filing their LC. The majority unlucky ones got stuck in red tape racist states and LCs were moved to BECs.
priti888's LC was approved before December 2004 and she was able to file I-140 + I-485 concurrently in December 2004 becuase EB3 India was 'C' in December 2004 VB (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1343.html).
The title of the thread if funny (like the Monday Headlines in Jay Leno's Show) - card production ordered!!! July 23th :) instead of July 23rd
LuckyPaji - I don't even want to attempt to respond to his case. His explanantion that he has an undergraduate degree from Punjab is too clean and too good to be true.
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
Congratulations!! Enjoy your freedom.
My PD is October 2003 (EB2 India) and I have always detested the fact that in some states the LC used to be approved very fast. If I remember correctly, the LC approvals used to have a state-wise bulletins prior to PERM and there was a time when in states like Maine, some got their GCs within a year of filing their LC. The majority unlucky ones got stuck in red tape racist states and LCs were moved to BECs.
priti888's LC was approved before December 2004 and she was able to file I-140 + I-485 concurrently in December 2004 becuase EB3 India was 'C' in December 2004 VB (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1343.html).
The title of the thread if funny (like the Monday Headlines in Jay Leno's Show) - card production ordered!!! July 23th :) instead of July 23rd
LuckyPaji - I don't even want to attempt to respond to his case. His explanantion that he has an undergraduate degree from Punjab is too clean and too good to be true.
Visa Allotment or Assigning of Visas by USCIS - I cannot digest the assumption that USCIS/DOS/DOL are fools and there is no coordination among them to know who from which country has applied for GC under which category. These Govt. agencies are so efficient that they can even go through these forums and connect IDs here to applications. It is a piece of cake for them to find out the entire background of an applicant as soon as even the LC is filed. They very well know who is stuck with which employer in which state and what stage and to whom they are approving the GCs. If the employers are Americans, they can even call the DOL and ask them to hold the LC approval because they know that once their employees get their GCs they will quit them.
I am not trying to be negative and pessimistic, but please think about the chances of immigrants sueing these Govt. agencies during any of the stages in GC process and winning the lawsuit. And ofcourse, the immigration lawyers are too happy with the retrogressions and the way the immigration system works in this country.
skv
06-20 10:38 AM
enough of america....:mad: :mad: :mad: I am moving to UAE.....two hrs journey to goa India....no Income Tax:p :p :)
Delays at DOL PERM Processing Center in Atlanta to End Soon!
Posted May 11, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
A number of inquiries have come to us regarding delays in PERM labor certification case adjudication. Beginning early in 2007, there has been a noticeable slowing in case processing at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Atlanta Processing Center. This center is one of two locations where PERM labor certifications are adjudicated. The other location is in Chicago. This slow-down is a marked change from the generally fast PERM labor certification decisions that had become the norm.
�MurthyDotCom
Personnel Reassigned to H2B Cases
�MurthyDotCom
We at the Murthy Law Firm made inquiry about this matter, to gain some insight into why things had changed, and, of course, to determine how the situation might be improved. We were advised that personnel temporarily had been reallocated away from the PERM cases. The Atlanta Processing Center also processes temporary labor certifications needed in H2B cases. Due to demand and time constraints, personnel were diverted to work on the temporary labor certifications, which meant delays in the PERM labor certifications.
�MurthyDotCom
Changes Expected in the Near Future
�MurthyDotCom
Our sources indicate that the DOL adjudicators in Atlanta will be moved back to their regular responsibilities of processing PERM cases in the near future. Thus, PERM cases there should start moving again soon.
Delays at DOL PERM Processing Center in Atlanta to End Soon!
Posted May 11, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
A number of inquiries have come to us regarding delays in PERM labor certification case adjudication. Beginning early in 2007, there has been a noticeable slowing in case processing at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Atlanta Processing Center. This center is one of two locations where PERM labor certifications are adjudicated. The other location is in Chicago. This slow-down is a marked change from the generally fast PERM labor certification decisions that had become the norm.
�MurthyDotCom
Personnel Reassigned to H2B Cases
�MurthyDotCom
We at the Murthy Law Firm made inquiry about this matter, to gain some insight into why things had changed, and, of course, to determine how the situation might be improved. We were advised that personnel temporarily had been reallocated away from the PERM cases. The Atlanta Processing Center also processes temporary labor certifications needed in H2B cases. Due to demand and time constraints, personnel were diverted to work on the temporary labor certifications, which meant delays in the PERM labor certifications.
�MurthyDotCom
Changes Expected in the Near Future
�MurthyDotCom
Our sources indicate that the DOL adjudicators in Atlanta will be moved back to their regular responsibilities of processing PERM cases in the near future. Thus, PERM cases there should start moving again soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment