rayoflight
03-09 04:54 PM
I just called my congressman office and explained the sitatuion. The aide asked me to call the legislative aide in the Capitol Hill to discuss about changes. She said the congressman understands the importance however the political fraternity is currently trying to resolve the financial crisis and Immigration Reform is the last thing on their mind.
When I asked her honest opinion about visa numbers being released she did suggest that if you can join an immigration group with a good lobbying firm it can be a possibility that Congress can approve a 'piece-meal' bill releasing visa numbers by moving numbers from unused categories and/or unused from past years.
Again the emphasis was "Group focusing on Legal Immigration with a good Lobbying Firm".
Administrators, Senior Members and All:
I think it is the time to plan something big as 'Saburi' mentioned and bring our issues to their attention.
Please count me in for any rallies / organizing help.
All IV members please weigh in your thoughts.
Thanks,
Rayoflight
When I asked her honest opinion about visa numbers being released she did suggest that if you can join an immigration group with a good lobbying firm it can be a possibility that Congress can approve a 'piece-meal' bill releasing visa numbers by moving numbers from unused categories and/or unused from past years.
Again the emphasis was "Group focusing on Legal Immigration with a good Lobbying Firm".
Administrators, Senior Members and All:
I think it is the time to plan something big as 'Saburi' mentioned and bring our issues to their attention.
Please count me in for any rallies / organizing help.
All IV members please weigh in your thoughts.
Thanks,
Rayoflight
wallpaper cool wrist tattoos name
Ramba
07-04 07:25 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
GCwaitforever
11-24 09:09 AM
Definitely this is one of the favors to ask the law makers in these days of retrogression. Let the I-140 and PD available to the worker and let the labor substitution go with the date of transfer to the new worker. This releases the stranglehold of the employers.
2011 2010 cool wrist tattoo designs
nagio
02-20 12:50 PM
Hi Vin,
I am willing to donate 13,194 Korean airline miles. I have PM'd you with details. I appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Naga
I am willing to donate 13,194 Korean airline miles. I have PM'd you with details. I appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Naga
more...
gcbeku
08-10 03:35 PM
I think this is a brilliant idea and might even fly esp because it still preserves USCIS/DOS EB caste system while providin some relief to the EB3s.
While porting is still an option, it is in EB3 filers' interest to push forward on this idea.
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
While porting is still an option, it is in EB3 filers' interest to push forward on this idea.
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
nojoke
09-17 10:06 PM
it seems like that ...actually if things get worse and many of us indeed lose jobs ..then I guess the mighty GC will finally become just a silly card.
here is a link which explains why it is not yet over ..I was talking to a friend and he told me that credit card companies, auto loans , commercial loans are in big trouble and could be the next shoe to drop. as for housing ..there was a small light at the end of tunnel ..but it seems that it was big bang collapse of wall street ..
------------
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105782/How-We-Got-Here-It-Is-Housing-Stupid
It will probably cause inflation. Eventually they hope that house prices will catch up with the inflation. But a small problem though. The salary is not going to rise to match the housing price. The great benefits of global economy.:)
here is a link which explains why it is not yet over ..I was talking to a friend and he told me that credit card companies, auto loans , commercial loans are in big trouble and could be the next shoe to drop. as for housing ..there was a small light at the end of tunnel ..but it seems that it was big bang collapse of wall street ..
------------
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105782/How-We-Got-Here-It-Is-Housing-Stupid
It will probably cause inflation. Eventually they hope that house prices will catch up with the inflation. But a small problem though. The salary is not going to rise to match the housing price. The great benefits of global economy.:)
more...
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
2010 Wrist tattoo by
kumar1
03-16 05:56 PM
I am impressed to see that our buddy Infinite_Patience_GC is not using F** words today. Good job!
Infinite_Patience_GC,
Though I don't like your language and attitude, you have a valid point. I honestly feel that those who have used labor substitution should not get their green cards earlier than me.
Infinite_Patience_GC,
Though I don't like your language and attitude, you have a valid point. I honestly feel that those who have used labor substitution should not get their green cards earlier than me.
more...
venky321
08-22 09:36 AM
Seriously, why are you giving OP such a hard time? She only came here looking for help.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
hair star tattoo designs for. Wrist
Googler
02-20 03:11 PM
googler u r the new berkeleybee!!
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
more...
Madhuri
10-15 01:46 PM
and will mail it tomorrow.
hot Stars Tattoos On Wrist
axp817
01-30 01:31 PM
Sorry to hear about your plight, what do you plan to do if the RFE is for employment verification?
Please do keep us updated, it will help other members in similar situations out, and you might find some useful advice as well.
Good luck.
Please do keep us updated, it will help other members in similar situations out, and you might find some useful advice as well.
Good luck.
more...
house tattoos on wrist stars.
WillIBLucky
12-28 12:31 PM
For Detroit you can use http://miindia.com.
Thanks Pappu.
IV members :
Need help !! .. finding regional web sites. As an example
atlantadesi.com in Atlanta.
I have listed cities below , can IV members help find regional web site of the cities below, then we can post in the sites .. We need to take these action items with a SENSE OF URGENCY, just like we MADE CALLS in Lame duck. PREPARATION IS IMPORTANT, INCREASING MEMBERSHIP WILL HELP SOLVE MANY PROBLEMS APART FROM FUNDING.
LET'S COMPLETE THIS EFFORT ASAP.
I am bumping this thread , with a classified in atlantadesi.com
Cities ,I am looking for most popular regional web sites.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
Thanks Pappu.
IV members :
Need help !! .. finding regional web sites. As an example
atlantadesi.com in Atlanta.
I have listed cities below , can IV members help find regional web site of the cities below, then we can post in the sites .. We need to take these action items with a SENSE OF URGENCY, just like we MADE CALLS in Lame duck. PREPARATION IS IMPORTANT, INCREASING MEMBERSHIP WILL HELP SOLVE MANY PROBLEMS APART FROM FUNDING.
LET'S COMPLETE THIS EFFORT ASAP.
I am bumping this thread , with a classified in atlantadesi.com
Cities ,I am looking for most popular regional web sites.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
tattoo wallpaper wrist tattoos
nonimmi
02-21 01:52 PM
yes, you can unless your eb3 I140 has been revoked for fraud or misrepresentation of facts.
Good info.
My attorney said EB3->EB2 is not possible now. Can you please post some link for this and pm me some attorney you may know have done this before.
Good info.
My attorney said EB3->EB2 is not possible now. Can you please post some link for this and pm me some attorney you may know have done this before.
more...
pictures Sanksrit Wrist Tattoos (3rd
desidude
09-26 11:47 AM
I just sent an email to the editor... hope these mails open their eyes and they repost the correct article... :D
dresses The tattoo artists establish
shiva7
05-26 11:54 PM
It was Sunday when I got off the bus in Phoenix and CBP asked me for the papers. I was not carrying any leagal document with me at that time. They tried to get my info on their computer based on the info I gave them about me but they could not for misterious reasons. Ultimately they arrested me for not carrying papers with me and put me in jail. I spent horrible night in jail that Sunday. The next day Judge asked me more details and could find my data. They released me and warned me to carry such papers with me all the time.I never knew that I was supposed to keep a copy of the papers with me. I am just wondering who is supposed to notify us that we need to carry papers with us at all the times ?
more...
makeup cool wrist tattoos
vandanaverdia
09-10 04:05 PM
Very well explained facts!!! Nice...
I am going to start emailing the same to people I know.....
Let us all join hands & unite in this cause...
I am going to start emailing the same to people I know.....
Let us all join hands & unite in this cause...
girlfriend wrist tattoos designs. cool
thirdworldman
02-16 08:50 PM
I tend to sterr away from nurbs and use polygons exclusively...most 3d packages now (max, maya, xsi, lightwave, etc.) have really improved upon polygonal modeling, having added features such as subdivision surfaces (or sub'd's). This is great for any type of model, whether it be architectural or organic. Some people argue that Sub D's have rendered nurbs obsolete (no pun intended). I personally use XSI, but this is a new standard modeling method that can be applied to almost any program. Google the term, and see if there are any good tuts out there for your program.
In a nutshell, Sub D's allow you to work on a low density object, while in real-time, a virtual high resolution copy of that object is updated. The beauty of this lies in the ability to create organic nurbslike objects) with very little work, with even more accurate results than what can be achieved with nurbs. On the flipside, almost all architectural/structural modeling should be built with polys in the first place. I hope that helps, and if you need any more pointers about Sub D's, let me know.
In a nutshell, Sub D's allow you to work on a low density object, while in real-time, a virtual high resolution copy of that object is updated. The beauty of this lies in the ability to create organic nurbslike objects) with very little work, with even more accurate results than what can be achieved with nurbs. On the flipside, almost all architectural/structural modeling should be built with polys in the first place. I hope that helps, and if you need any more pointers about Sub D's, let me know.
hairstyles makeup Star Tattoo on Wrist.
Bhargav Goswami
07-13 12:41 PM
Sheela Murthy is not my lawyer but I often check out her office's website as it is quite informative. If she's written a well thought our letter to Chertoff - it's to our benefit...we should welcome any ally we can instead of turning them away.
Some of you who've so viciously attacked her please get a life or get medical help. Why such pain???
Some of you who've so viciously attacked her please get a life or get medical help. Why such pain???
ItIsNotFunny
09-19 09:46 AM
Legal Immigrants Rally
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...76080420003555
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20059427058009
http://picasaweb.google.com/raghumoh...lyWashingtonDC
Happy viewing, Foward to your friends n family
--
Regards,
Raghu
I wish atleast one of the links could work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...76080420003555
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20059427058009
http://picasaweb.google.com/raghumoh...lyWashingtonDC
Happy viewing, Foward to your friends n family
--
Regards,
Raghu
I wish atleast one of the links could work.
franklin
06-08 02:48 AM
FBI security clearance has been a blackhole with many people stuck in it without having a hope of relief in sight.Everyone might have tried the senetors, congressman, snail-mails and Faxes but of no use.
How about the following new methods:
1. Send a collective petition, A common letter requesting FBI, president with the details of all those stuck in the process.
2. A letter to the news channels.
3. Web fax to the senators/congressman
Please share your ideas.
I would actually also suggest requesting a meeting with both senators and congressperson in your area, rather than sending a webfax.
How about the following new methods:
1. Send a collective petition, A common letter requesting FBI, president with the details of all those stuck in the process.
2. A letter to the news channels.
3. Web fax to the senators/congressman
Please share your ideas.
I would actually also suggest requesting a meeting with both senators and congressperson in your area, rather than sending a webfax.
0 comments:
Post a Comment