julsun
01-03 12:01 PM
I checked with NSC today regarding our AP filed on Oct 8th, 2007. I was told that they are processing September 16th right now and it would be few weeks before they get to mine.
Thanks
Thanks
wallpaper happy bunny birthday quotes.
AllVNeedGcPc
05-20 09:08 PM
...Thanks God
Enjoy these moments.
Here's my journey so far.
0. Arrival - 1999
1. Initial labor
a. Filed - July 19th 2003 (4 years BE Software Engineering and 2 years Masters Computer Science in US) Filed as Software Engineer
b. Approved - June 2006, but BEC put NOC as Mechanical Engineer. Took a year to get it fixed back to Software Engineer
2. EB3 I140 (NSC)
a. Filed - July 2nd 2007
b. Approved - 2008
3. I485 (NSC)
a. Filed - July 2nd 2007
b. RFE - April 2009 (EVL for me and visa history for my wife)
4. Perm
a. Same Fortune 500 company for 10 years (By 2010, was promoted multiple times and moved to a different role)
b. Filed - Oct 2010 (No experience used only MS)
c. Approved - Dec 2011
5. EB2 I140 (TSC)
a. Filed - Jan 2011, Premium Processing
b. Approved - Jan 2011 (original A# and Priority Date retained)
6. Interfiling
a. Feb 2011 - Created a SR requesting the status of I485. Got a reply saying the category my 485 was applied is not current yet
b. Feb 2011 - Lawyer said that as my old A# and PD was already used on new 140, so that means that it has automatically been interfiled, now we do not need to do anything. But said will still send a reminder
c. March 2011 - Went for an Infopass Appointment (Useless in my opinion too) They said as your 140 is in TSC and 485 is in NSC that is why its taking time and they don't know how much more time will it take
d. April 2011 - Contacted Senator and got a reply that they have contacted NSC and will let us know their response as soon as they get one
e. Late April 2011 - Sent emails to NSC update, TSC update and TSC auto-current-date address
f. Early May 2011 - Contacted Congressman
6. Approval - Occurred the evening Congressman called NSC
a. Mid May 2011 - CPO email and cards within a week
Enjoy these moments.
Here's my journey so far.
0. Arrival - 1999
1. Initial labor
a. Filed - July 19th 2003 (4 years BE Software Engineering and 2 years Masters Computer Science in US) Filed as Software Engineer
b. Approved - June 2006, but BEC put NOC as Mechanical Engineer. Took a year to get it fixed back to Software Engineer
2. EB3 I140 (NSC)
a. Filed - July 2nd 2007
b. Approved - 2008
3. I485 (NSC)
a. Filed - July 2nd 2007
b. RFE - April 2009 (EVL for me and visa history for my wife)
4. Perm
a. Same Fortune 500 company for 10 years (By 2010, was promoted multiple times and moved to a different role)
b. Filed - Oct 2010 (No experience used only MS)
c. Approved - Dec 2011
5. EB2 I140 (TSC)
a. Filed - Jan 2011, Premium Processing
b. Approved - Jan 2011 (original A# and Priority Date retained)
6. Interfiling
a. Feb 2011 - Created a SR requesting the status of I485. Got a reply saying the category my 485 was applied is not current yet
b. Feb 2011 - Lawyer said that as my old A# and PD was already used on new 140, so that means that it has automatically been interfiled, now we do not need to do anything. But said will still send a reminder
c. March 2011 - Went for an Infopass Appointment (Useless in my opinion too) They said as your 140 is in TSC and 485 is in NSC that is why its taking time and they don't know how much more time will it take
d. April 2011 - Contacted Senator and got a reply that they have contacted NSC and will let us know their response as soon as they get one
e. Late April 2011 - Sent emails to NSC update, TSC update and TSC auto-current-date address
f. Early May 2011 - Contacted Congressman
6. Approval - Occurred the evening Congressman called NSC
a. Mid May 2011 - CPO email and cards within a week
Abhinaym
09-10 11:18 AM
I think these guys are just playing with our minds. They know how many applications are pending. At least they have a estimate and idea.
Now they will sit on these pending applications until the end of year and then suddenly move dates 2-3 years ahead and approve some GCs. Few will be happy and most of us will be disappointed.
Just curious, is it possible they have some reasoning to push applications to the end of the year? it'll be interesting to think of what could be the reason...
Now they will sit on these pending applications until the end of year and then suddenly move dates 2-3 years ahead and approve some GCs. Few will be happy and most of us will be disappointed.
Just curious, is it possible they have some reasoning to push applications to the end of the year? it'll be interesting to think of what could be the reason...
2011 happy bunny birthday quotes.
immuser
07-20 04:51 PM
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/dolsta1207.pdf
there were 144,000 PERM's done between oct 2006- march 2007
india, china have retro for both EB2 and EB3
mexico, philippines and bunch of other countries have retro for EB3
PERM is only for the Primary applicant. For I-485 every dependent of Primary applicant needs one separate application
Considering all these 750,000 I-485 filings in next 1 month sounds a reasonable estimate.
Many who had labor pending under the old system, applied in PERM also. So it is 144k minus duplicates. But, I have no idea know many are duplicates
there were 144,000 PERM's done between oct 2006- march 2007
india, china have retro for both EB2 and EB3
mexico, philippines and bunch of other countries have retro for EB3
PERM is only for the Primary applicant. For I-485 every dependent of Primary applicant needs one separate application
Considering all these 750,000 I-485 filings in next 1 month sounds a reasonable estimate.
Many who had labor pending under the old system, applied in PERM also. So it is 144k minus duplicates. But, I have no idea know many are duplicates
more...
villamonte6100
04-02 02:35 PM
That is right. People can express their opinions. No name calling and rough language.
Thank you.
Thank you.
prinive
07-06 01:28 PM
it seems they are planning to honor the July VB and make chanes in Aug VB. So I guess they will accept the applications in July. :rolleyes:
more...
diptam
08-12 01:18 PM
I worked for a MNC here in first few yrs at US (from 2000) and they suck up your Tax return , used to give a worthless health insurance and 'sweat shop' ( this probably a worse word than 'chop shop') like allowance for 12-14 hrs of work . If you do NOT accept that or ASK QUESTION your flight tickets back to origin to will be arranged. I know these practices changed to some extent over a period of time but by that time I left them and started doing things on my own ... :) and i'm very happy since then.
Another thing , I worked for good but medium sized consulting firms with US after leaving those shops ( sweat/chop/body whatever kind u call them) and they do maintain perfect balance - hardly 30-40% is H1B - they pay market salary to the H1B's ,standard health insurance , always got paid if i worked beyond 8-9 hrs ...
Lot of folks are like me within the community ...
Not true. Whatever they can outsource, its already gone. There are certain position where the clients demand onsite resource. I am not supporting this bill in anyway, I hate infy as much as I hate this bill. Remember these companies did not leave any stone unturned, milked the client every possible way and expoilted the employees to the maximum extent. In one another post - VLDRao was saying these companies does the tax filing on behalf the emoloyee, get the refund and again claim that tax in india using double taxation aoivdance treaty.
Another thing , I worked for good but medium sized consulting firms with US after leaving those shops ( sweat/chop/body whatever kind u call them) and they do maintain perfect balance - hardly 30-40% is H1B - they pay market salary to the H1B's ,standard health insurance , always got paid if i worked beyond 8-9 hrs ...
Lot of folks are like me within the community ...
Not true. Whatever they can outsource, its already gone. There are certain position where the clients demand onsite resource. I am not supporting this bill in anyway, I hate infy as much as I hate this bill. Remember these companies did not leave any stone unturned, milked the client every possible way and expoilted the employees to the maximum extent. In one another post - VLDRao was saying these companies does the tax filing on behalf the emoloyee, get the refund and again claim that tax in india using double taxation aoivdance treaty.
2010 happy bunny birthday quotes.
jonty_11
07-06 01:31 PM
Why USCIS suddenly did this press release? Something fishy?
see now this rumor is taking steam.....this would make james WAtt proud...
I think we are onto something here.
see now this rumor is taking steam.....this would make james WAtt proud...
I think we are onto something here.
more...
haddi_No1
06-26 10:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501945.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
Building a Wall Against Talent
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.
On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.
If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.
Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.
The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.
Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.
Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.
Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.
Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.
John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.
Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.
georgewill@washpost.com
hair house happy bunny birthday
mashu
07-10 08:18 PM
Hello,
EB3
I 140 PP approved
I485 FedExed overnight, reached USCIS at 1am on July 2 (according to my lawyer)
I am in Northern San Diego county, I am in!
EB3
I 140 PP approved
I485 FedExed overnight, reached USCIS at 1am on July 2 (according to my lawyer)
I am in Northern San Diego county, I am in!
more...
kopra
05-02 09:43 AM
yes...it would have been nice if we got the stimulus pakage with this situation of spouse on H4/ITIN. I called my congresswomen and wrote a letter to IL Senator(obama) to let her/him know this issue. I dont expect any action, but since they are aware of this situation, may be next time when they give this pakage( may be 10 years from now) they will include H4's
Many H1s like me have their non-working spouses on H4 visa who are not given SSNs. Do we not pay taxes ? Do we not pay Social security ? We do, and therefore we should also be eligible for the Stimulus package. Indeed my son is autistic and disabled but we are not eligible for any kind of aid but we pay tons of taxes and social security. It is highly non-justified think. I know people will argue a lot if it is compared to slavery. But it is a "modern form of slavery". Yes, we are in this country with our own will but that is what they are making use of.
Many H1s like me have their non-working spouses on H4 visa who are not given SSNs. Do we not pay taxes ? Do we not pay Social security ? We do, and therefore we should also be eligible for the Stimulus package. Indeed my son is autistic and disabled but we are not eligible for any kind of aid but we pay tons of taxes and social security. It is highly non-justified think. I know people will argue a lot if it is compared to slavery. But it is a "modern form of slavery". Yes, we are in this country with our own will but that is what they are making use of.
hot happy bunny birthday quotes.
gumpena
08-02 05:11 PM
Nebraska has issued only 2800 receipts for today...
more...
house Happy Bunny Birthday Quotes.
kalyan
09-12 01:32 PM
count me .I cant come out of my Place till Oct 7'th.
If you want me in Some Rally, i will be there. I am'nt anonymous.
Looks like USCIS needs people who can do Math, SQL Developers, Business Process analysts
Lets help them out who in turn can help us
Lets volunteer to work with USCIS in any form or shape they need , like digging the records, streamlining data or any other matter.
If you want me in Some Rally, i will be there. I am'nt anonymous.
Looks like USCIS needs people who can do Math, SQL Developers, Business Process analysts
Lets help them out who in turn can help us
Lets volunteer to work with USCIS in any form or shape they need , like digging the records, streamlining data or any other matter.
tattoo happy birthday stopping by to
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:04 PM
San Diego - District 49 100.0% of 318 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 48,622 63.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 25,478 33.3%
Lars Grossmith Lib 2,319 3.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Diego - District 50 100.0% of 578 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brian Bilbray (I)
GOP 91,990 53.3%
Francine Busby
Dem 74,932 43.4%
Paul King Lib 3,175 1.8%
Miriam Clark PFP 2,586 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Diego - District 51 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 46,455 67.0%
Blake Miles
GOP 21,284 30.7%
Dan Litwin Lib 1,638 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Diego - District 52 100.0% of 623 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Duncan Hunter (I)
GOP 96,600 65.0%
John Rinaldi
Dem 46,996 31.6%
Michael Benoit Lib 5,105 3.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Diego - District 53 100.0% of 393 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Susan Davis (I)
Dem 73,731 66.9%
Woody Woodrum
GOP 33,773 30.7%
Ernie Lippe Lib 2,680 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Francisco - District 8 100.0% of 473 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Nancy Pelosi (I)
Dem 101,002 80.5%
Mike DeNunzio
GOP 13,043 10.4%
Krissy Keefer Grn 9,611 7.7%
Philip Berg Lib 1,880 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Francisco - District 12 100.0% of 107 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Tom Lantos (I)
Dem 22,953 81.7%
Mike Moloney
GOP 5,137 18.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Joaquin - District 11 100.0% of 576 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 44,965 50.7%
Jerry McNerney
Dem 43,721 49.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Joaquin - District 18 100.0% of 201 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 15,615 74.2%
John Kanno
GOP 5,425 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Luis Obispo - District 22 100.0% of 86 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 23,695 62.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 14,267 37.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Luis Obispo - District 23 100.0% of 78 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lois Capps (I)
Dem 24,314 60.5%
Victor Tognazzini
GOP 15,843 39.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Mateo - District 12 100.0% of 356 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Tom Lantos (I)
Dem 80,382 73.8%
Mike Moloney
GOP 28,569 26.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Mateo - District 14 100.0% of 162 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Anna Eshoo (I)
Dem 32,249 72.4%
Rob Smith
GOP 10,329 23.2%
Carol Brouillet Grn 1,070 2.4%
Brian Holtz Lib 889 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Barbara - District 23 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lois Capps (I)
Dem 43,244 65.2%
Victor Tognazzini
GOP 23,118 34.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Barbara - District 24 100.0% of 131 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Elton Gallegly (I)
GOP 17,639 66.2%
Jill Martinez
Dem 9,000 33.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Clara - District 11 100.0% of 54 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 6,067 60.9%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 3,897 39.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Clara - District 14 100.0% of 284 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Anna Eshoo (I)
Dem 65,960 70.8%
Rob Smith
GOP 23,203 24.9%
Brian Holtz Lib 2,195 2.4%
Carol Brouillet Grn 1,858 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Clara - District 15 100.0% of 436 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Honda (I)
Dem 95,775 71.9%
Raymond Chukwu
GOP 37,358 28.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Clara - District 16 100.0% of 470 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Zoe Lofgren (I)
Dem 81,796 72.5%
Charel Winston
GOP 31,003 27.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Cruz - District 14 100.0% of 140 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Anna Eshoo (I)
Dem 14,388 66.7%
Rob Smith
GOP 5,713 26.5%
Carol Brouillet Grn 734 3.4%
Brian Holtz Lib 729 3.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Cruz - District 17 100.0% of 177 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 39,954 84.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 7,593 16.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Shasta - District 2 100.0% of 138 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 30,989 67.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 13,728 29.8%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,388 3.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sierra - District 4 100.0% of 23 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 832 53.2%
Charlie Brown
Dem 604 38.6%
Dan Warren Lib 127 8.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Siskiyou - District 2 100.0% of 87 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 8,352 63.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 4,454 33.7%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 408 3.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Solano - District 3 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 1,775 57.1%
Bill Durston
Dem 1,255 40.3%
Douglas Tuma Lib 47 1.5%
Michael Roskey PFP 34 1.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Solano - District 7 100.0% of 133 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 29,457 80.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 7,282 19.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Solano - District 10 100.0% of 83 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 13,406 63.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,793 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sonoma - District 1 100.0% of 81 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 14,041 66.4%
John Jones
GOP 6,115 28.9%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 611 2.9%
Timothy Stock PFP 381 1.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sonoma - District 6 100.0% of 389 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 75,560 68.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 31,189 28.1%
Richard Friesen Lib 4,379 3.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Stanislaus - District 18 100.0% of 191 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 19,821 62.4%
John Kanno
GOP 11,923 37.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Stanislaus - District 19 100.0% of 248 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 27,971 60.0%
TJ Cox
Dem 18,629 40.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sutter - District 2 100.0% of 68 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 11,968 67.6%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 5,198 29.4%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 534 3.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Tehama - District 2 100.0% of 47 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 10,060 69.1%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 4,046 27.8%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 461 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Trinity - District 2 100.0% of 23 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,104 58.8%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,939 36.8%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 233 4.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Tulare - District 21 100.0% of 257 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 34,318 66.2%
Steven Haze
Dem 15,967 30.8%
John Miller Grn 1,579 3.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Tuolumne - District 19 100.0% of 76 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 10,713 59.3%
TJ Cox
Dem 7,355 40.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Ventura - District 23 100.0% of 127 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lois Capps (I)
Dem 18,199 71.1%
Victor Tognazzini
GOP 7,405 28.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Ventura - District 24 100.0% of 423 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Elton Gallegly (I)
GOP 66,976 59.9%
Jill Martinez
Dem 44,921 40.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Yolo - District 1 100.0% of 121 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 25,597 65.9%
John Jones
GOP 11,348 29.2%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,409 3.6%
Timothy Stock PFP 507 1.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Yolo - District 2 100.0% of 25 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,931 64.1%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 2,050 33.5%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 147 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Yuba - District 2 100.0% of 46 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 6,895 66.3%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 3,085 29.7%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 414 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 48,622 63.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 25,478 33.3%
Lars Grossmith Lib 2,319 3.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Diego - District 50 100.0% of 578 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brian Bilbray (I)
GOP 91,990 53.3%
Francine Busby
Dem 74,932 43.4%
Paul King Lib 3,175 1.8%
Miriam Clark PFP 2,586 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Diego - District 51 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 46,455 67.0%
Blake Miles
GOP 21,284 30.7%
Dan Litwin Lib 1,638 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Diego - District 52 100.0% of 623 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Duncan Hunter (I)
GOP 96,600 65.0%
John Rinaldi
Dem 46,996 31.6%
Michael Benoit Lib 5,105 3.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Diego - District 53 100.0% of 393 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Susan Davis (I)
Dem 73,731 66.9%
Woody Woodrum
GOP 33,773 30.7%
Ernie Lippe Lib 2,680 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Francisco - District 8 100.0% of 473 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Nancy Pelosi (I)
Dem 101,002 80.5%
Mike DeNunzio
GOP 13,043 10.4%
Krissy Keefer Grn 9,611 7.7%
Philip Berg Lib 1,880 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Francisco - District 12 100.0% of 107 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Tom Lantos (I)
Dem 22,953 81.7%
Mike Moloney
GOP 5,137 18.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Joaquin - District 11 100.0% of 576 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 44,965 50.7%
Jerry McNerney
Dem 43,721 49.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Joaquin - District 18 100.0% of 201 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 15,615 74.2%
John Kanno
GOP 5,425 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Luis Obispo - District 22 100.0% of 86 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 23,695 62.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 14,267 37.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Luis Obispo - District 23 100.0% of 78 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lois Capps (I)
Dem 24,314 60.5%
Victor Tognazzini
GOP 15,843 39.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Mateo - District 12 100.0% of 356 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Tom Lantos (I)
Dem 80,382 73.8%
Mike Moloney
GOP 28,569 26.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Mateo - District 14 100.0% of 162 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Anna Eshoo (I)
Dem 32,249 72.4%
Rob Smith
GOP 10,329 23.2%
Carol Brouillet Grn 1,070 2.4%
Brian Holtz Lib 889 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Barbara - District 23 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lois Capps (I)
Dem 43,244 65.2%
Victor Tognazzini
GOP 23,118 34.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Barbara - District 24 100.0% of 131 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Elton Gallegly (I)
GOP 17,639 66.2%
Jill Martinez
Dem 9,000 33.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Clara - District 11 100.0% of 54 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 6,067 60.9%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 3,897 39.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Clara - District 14 100.0% of 284 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Anna Eshoo (I)
Dem 65,960 70.8%
Rob Smith
GOP 23,203 24.9%
Brian Holtz Lib 2,195 2.4%
Carol Brouillet Grn 1,858 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Clara - District 15 100.0% of 436 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Honda (I)
Dem 95,775 71.9%
Raymond Chukwu
GOP 37,358 28.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Clara - District 16 100.0% of 470 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Zoe Lofgren (I)
Dem 81,796 72.5%
Charel Winston
GOP 31,003 27.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Cruz - District 14 100.0% of 140 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Anna Eshoo (I)
Dem 14,388 66.7%
Rob Smith
GOP 5,713 26.5%
Carol Brouillet Grn 734 3.4%
Brian Holtz Lib 729 3.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Santa Cruz - District 17 100.0% of 177 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 39,954 84.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 7,593 16.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Shasta - District 2 100.0% of 138 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 30,989 67.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 13,728 29.8%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,388 3.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sierra - District 4 100.0% of 23 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 832 53.2%
Charlie Brown
Dem 604 38.6%
Dan Warren Lib 127 8.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Siskiyou - District 2 100.0% of 87 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 8,352 63.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 4,454 33.7%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 408 3.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Solano - District 3 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 1,775 57.1%
Bill Durston
Dem 1,255 40.3%
Douglas Tuma Lib 47 1.5%
Michael Roskey PFP 34 1.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Solano - District 7 100.0% of 133 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 29,457 80.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 7,282 19.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Solano - District 10 100.0% of 83 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 13,406 63.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,793 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sonoma - District 1 100.0% of 81 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 14,041 66.4%
John Jones
GOP 6,115 28.9%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 611 2.9%
Timothy Stock PFP 381 1.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sonoma - District 6 100.0% of 389 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 75,560 68.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 31,189 28.1%
Richard Friesen Lib 4,379 3.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Stanislaus - District 18 100.0% of 191 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 19,821 62.4%
John Kanno
GOP 11,923 37.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Stanislaus - District 19 100.0% of 248 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 27,971 60.0%
TJ Cox
Dem 18,629 40.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sutter - District 2 100.0% of 68 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 11,968 67.6%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 5,198 29.4%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 534 3.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Tehama - District 2 100.0% of 47 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 10,060 69.1%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 4,046 27.8%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 461 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Trinity - District 2 100.0% of 23 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,104 58.8%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,939 36.8%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 233 4.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Tulare - District 21 100.0% of 257 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 34,318 66.2%
Steven Haze
Dem 15,967 30.8%
John Miller Grn 1,579 3.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Tuolumne - District 19 100.0% of 76 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 10,713 59.3%
TJ Cox
Dem 7,355 40.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Ventura - District 23 100.0% of 127 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lois Capps (I)
Dem 18,199 71.1%
Victor Tognazzini
GOP 7,405 28.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Ventura - District 24 100.0% of 423 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Elton Gallegly (I)
GOP 66,976 59.9%
Jill Martinez
Dem 44,921 40.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Yolo - District 1 100.0% of 121 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 25,597 65.9%
John Jones
GOP 11,348 29.2%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,409 3.6%
Timothy Stock PFP 507 1.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Yolo - District 2 100.0% of 25 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,931 64.1%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 2,050 33.5%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 147 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Yuba - District 2 100.0% of 46 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 6,895 66.3%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 3,085 29.7%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 414 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
more...
pictures happy bunny birthday quotes
checklaw
08-02 08:18 PM
Hello gurus,
I applied 485 on July 25th,2007. Now can i travel outside of USA, or have to wait until i receive the receipt? Please help as soon as you can.
I know someone replied appropriately but here is something more to chew on...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=138625&postcount=171
I applied 485 on July 25th,2007. Now can i travel outside of USA, or have to wait until i receive the receipt? Please help as soon as you can.
I know someone replied appropriately but here is something more to chew on...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=138625&postcount=171
dresses happy bunny birthday quotes
bestofall
07-15 11:39 PM
Gentle Bump , to see the total 2000 $
more...
makeup Happy Bunny Graphic #23
rvr_jcop
03-04 11:42 AM
Is your case at NSC? I have definitely noticed a pattern of pre-adjudcation activity from NSC for cases filed in July-August 2007.
I noticed that too, especially if the PD is 2003 or 2004, both EB2 and EB3.
I noticed that too, especially if the PD is 2003 or 2004, both EB2 and EB3.
girlfriend the happy bunny quotes. pics
ind_game
05-15 09:50 PM
Hi! I have some questions:
1. Do you have a lawyer when you filed the first MTR or did you do it by yourself?
2. Did you submit a copy of the I-140 approval and the AC21 memo during MTR?
Thanks.
1. Yes, I have been having an attorney all the way thru the two MTRs
2. Yes, I-140 approval copy was present in my first MTR. My first MTR did not have AC 21 memo. AC21 memo (2003 Yates Memo) was present in my second MTR when we filed it. Of course, I-140 approval copy was there in the second MTR.
1. Do you have a lawyer when you filed the first MTR or did you do it by yourself?
2. Did you submit a copy of the I-140 approval and the AC21 memo during MTR?
Thanks.
1. Yes, I have been having an attorney all the way thru the two MTRs
2. Yes, I-140 approval copy was present in my first MTR. My first MTR did not have AC 21 memo. AC21 memo (2003 Yates Memo) was present in my second MTR when we filed it. Of course, I-140 approval copy was there in the second MTR.
hairstyles Happy Bunny Birthday Quotes.
BPforGC
07-18 07:32 PM
Based on what my lawyer said, this is how it happens.
1. LC/I-140 processing is independent from I-485.
2. I-485 RD is critical.
3. When your date comes and when they review your application, they will check if your I-140 is approved or not. Then they will look in the application and if everything is ok (FP, background check - Name check etc) and if VISA number is available, you will get it.
If they don't have VISA numbers available, they will not process any I-485. So, availability of VISA numbers is key when they process I-485.
PD of I-140 comes into play when we have retrogression. Since they opened flood gates, all of us who apply now will go by our I-485 RD. Until substantial numbers of our applications are cleared, there is no chance that future VISA bulletins will be current. Even though future VISA bulletins show PD way earlier than your PD, your I-485 may get approved since you are in the system.
So, who ever gets to apply I-485 are in much better shape than people with PDs in 2002 or 2003 but do not file I-485 now.
REMEMBER, USCIS USUALLY DO NOT FOLLOW ORDER AND YOU HAVE TO BE VERY LUCKY OTHER THAN TURNING ALL THE RIGHT PAPER WORK.
Good luck folks.:p :confused: :rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :mad: :D
1. LC/I-140 processing is independent from I-485.
2. I-485 RD is critical.
3. When your date comes and when they review your application, they will check if your I-140 is approved or not. Then they will look in the application and if everything is ok (FP, background check - Name check etc) and if VISA number is available, you will get it.
If they don't have VISA numbers available, they will not process any I-485. So, availability of VISA numbers is key when they process I-485.
PD of I-140 comes into play when we have retrogression. Since they opened flood gates, all of us who apply now will go by our I-485 RD. Until substantial numbers of our applications are cleared, there is no chance that future VISA bulletins will be current. Even though future VISA bulletins show PD way earlier than your PD, your I-485 may get approved since you are in the system.
So, who ever gets to apply I-485 are in much better shape than people with PDs in 2002 or 2003 but do not file I-485 now.
REMEMBER, USCIS USUALLY DO NOT FOLLOW ORDER AND YOU HAVE TO BE VERY LUCKY OTHER THAN TURNING ALL THE RIGHT PAPER WORK.
Good luck folks.:p :confused: :rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :mad: :D
GCwaitforever
04-30 10:56 AM
Those numbers can be misleading. USCIS does not count petitions pending under FBI Name Check as backlogged.
Sachin_Stock
08-23 09:42 AM
So I am guessing that there's no significant change in policy towards EB-2 from what appears in the memo. They are merely reiterating on what exists. Lets not sweat.
No comments:
Post a Comment