paulavijit
05-25 02:15 PM
Sent emails and made phone calls to all Senators mentioned.
Thanks IV.
Good luck.
Thanks IV.
Good luck.
wallpaper Black Swan Natalie Portman
alex99
04-30 03:10 PM
That data include all EB categories and Even BEC cases.
chmur
07-27 06:58 PM
It has been hinted that EB3 lobbying undermines recapture efforts . Could proponents of this theory explain how??
Why both cannot happen simultaneously??
I have only seen implications to this effect but nobody has come forward and said it plainly - You EB3 folks don't spoil the EB2 party because you had it good previous years and we are afraid if you make too loud a noise, our party might come crashing down.
Everybody seems to imply it but nobody wants to call it as plainly as I stated it above.
I might have exaggerated the fear factor but I am unable to find any other reason as to they would discourage EB3-I lobby under the pretext of recapture efforts.
Why both cannot happen simultaneously??
I have only seen implications to this effect but nobody has come forward and said it plainly - You EB3 folks don't spoil the EB2 party because you had it good previous years and we are afraid if you make too loud a noise, our party might come crashing down.
Everybody seems to imply it but nobody wants to call it as plainly as I stated it above.
I might have exaggerated the fear factor but I am unable to find any other reason as to they would discourage EB3-I lobby under the pretext of recapture efforts.
2011 2010 Tags: mila kunis, natalie
delax
07-27 01:48 PM
Under the latest interpretation, EB3-I India will not get benefit until EB3-ROW gets benefit. So EB3-ROW benefiting will eventually benefit Eb3-I. That is the logical background.
The other two issues , which provided temporary relief, would have been redundant If we had recaptured the visas. Most of us, across the EB category/Country, would have been current or near current , rendering these issues redundant.
IV still went ahead with it (I am glad) knowing fully well recapture is difficult issue.
So no harm in EB3-I seeking temporary relief while still joining forces on the recapture issue.
Now you need to explain How EB3-I seeking favorable interpretation of spill over distribution undermines "Recapture effort". How are these related??
Chmur; I appreciate your post. For the sake of a discussion could you share what is the temporary relief that you are seeking. I am curious to know the details. Is it
1. Revert back to the vertical spillover rule. OR
2. Revert back to vertical spillover rule and after EB3-ROW becomes current split the visas equally between EB2-I and EB3-I OR
3. Keep the horizontal spill over in place but any spill over from EB2 ROW should go equally to EB2-Retro and EB3 (ROW and Retro) category.
Let me offer my answers to the questions above:
1. In this case EB3-I is no better off as EB3ROW and EB2-I has to become current before any excess visas can go to EB3-I.
2. Completely negates the categorization as laid out by law after the initial handout is done equally. Is a hybrid approach where the vertical rule would be enforced so long as EB2 and EB3 (both ROW) are current. But after that a selective interpretation of the vertical rule is sought where EB2-I and EB3-I share it equally. The basis of this selective interpretation appears to be length of wait - nowhere does the INA state that length of wait can be used as a basis for negating categorization of EB category.
3. Is against the law - read my earlier post. Again selectively uses horizontal spill over till EB2 ROW demand is satisfied and then use vertical spill over to share visas between EB2-Retro and EB3 category.
I completely respect your right to lobby for change. However I am a little baffled as to how this change can be sought without changing law. Even if the change is approved, I see a strong possibility of a counter EB2 movement to nullify this change. I would appreciate any details from you anybody else on this. Cheers
The other two issues , which provided temporary relief, would have been redundant If we had recaptured the visas. Most of us, across the EB category/Country, would have been current or near current , rendering these issues redundant.
IV still went ahead with it (I am glad) knowing fully well recapture is difficult issue.
So no harm in EB3-I seeking temporary relief while still joining forces on the recapture issue.
Now you need to explain How EB3-I seeking favorable interpretation of spill over distribution undermines "Recapture effort". How are these related??
Chmur; I appreciate your post. For the sake of a discussion could you share what is the temporary relief that you are seeking. I am curious to know the details. Is it
1. Revert back to the vertical spillover rule. OR
2. Revert back to vertical spillover rule and after EB3-ROW becomes current split the visas equally between EB2-I and EB3-I OR
3. Keep the horizontal spill over in place but any spill over from EB2 ROW should go equally to EB2-Retro and EB3 (ROW and Retro) category.
Let me offer my answers to the questions above:
1. In this case EB3-I is no better off as EB3ROW and EB2-I has to become current before any excess visas can go to EB3-I.
2. Completely negates the categorization as laid out by law after the initial handout is done equally. Is a hybrid approach where the vertical rule would be enforced so long as EB2 and EB3 (both ROW) are current. But after that a selective interpretation of the vertical rule is sought where EB2-I and EB3-I share it equally. The basis of this selective interpretation appears to be length of wait - nowhere does the INA state that length of wait can be used as a basis for negating categorization of EB category.
3. Is against the law - read my earlier post. Again selectively uses horizontal spill over till EB2 ROW demand is satisfied and then use vertical spill over to share visas between EB2-Retro and EB3 category.
I completely respect your right to lobby for change. However I am a little baffled as to how this change can be sought without changing law. Even if the change is approved, I see a strong possibility of a counter EB2 movement to nullify this change. I would appreciate any details from you anybody else on this. Cheers
more...
GCBy3000
07-19 11:13 PM
I am in for $100.
By the way if we have 20,000 members and even if each pledge $5, we can reimburse the core team expenses. How often we have to teach and tell the Math to our so called highly skilled free riders.
Some should be feeling really guilty for using IV and not contributing till now. Come out the stingy attitude and help.
By the way if we have 20,000 members and even if each pledge $5, we can reimburse the core team expenses. How often we have to teach and tell the Math to our so called highly skilled free riders.
Some should be feeling really guilty for using IV and not contributing till now. Come out the stingy attitude and help.
desi3933
06-27 02:15 PM
These kind of agreements doesnt stand in any court .You can always say that you are forced to sign for your livelihood period.Esp. if he is a desi employer he even doesnt dare to go to court as that will cause more damage.
Do you know the cost of defending suit? You have to prove the statements too.
Search for law cases in PA/NJ and you will SHOCKED to see many desi employers who have sued their employees.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Do you know the cost of defending suit? You have to prove the statements too.
Search for law cases in PA/NJ and you will SHOCKED to see many desi employers who have sued their employees.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
more...
manchala
02-25 08:54 PM
Friends,
I asked most of my friends to donate amount and they are not even on this site. They have donated some. I have been following up with all of my friends. Please do the same. Ask your friends and follow up with them. Also can we have a Facebook page for this advocacy day also??
I asked most of my friends to donate amount and they are not even on this site. They have donated some. I have been following up with all of my friends. Please do the same. Ask your friends and follow up with them. Also can we have a Facebook page for this advocacy day also??
2010 Natalie Portman,Mila Kunis
satish_hello
08-28 10:57 PM
any Update?
more...
k3GC
05-23 11:01 AM
Sent email to 2 state senators + 10 senators listed.
hair Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis
gc28262
07-20 10:29 PM
If America is so unfair, who/what is compelling you to stay, heard there is an apartment available in Nandita's bulding in Bombay.
I have my reasons to stay here which you will never understand.
I have my reasons to stay here which you will never understand.
more...
acpani
08-28 12:00 PM
same boat
hot Mila Kunis Natalie Portman
485Mbe4001
09-09 07:26 PM
<Rant>There is not mistake, i always feel that there is some @#$hole at the USCIS or state dept whose only goal in life is to get a sadistic kick by toying with the dates. How can these @#$@#@'s not realize that there is a person behind each visa number </Rant>
Like my title says - Could it be a mistake on their part for EB3 I ? Was it meant to be 15th April 2002 ?
In March of This year it was 15th Oct 2001. Then it goes to U for untli Oct and now its 15th April 2001 (gone back 6 months !!!!) This seems odd for a new fiscal year with new Visa Quota however small EB3I may be - are there still that many 2000-2001 applications pre-adjudicated in the system waiting for a visa that they had to roll it back ?
Like my title says - Could it be a mistake on their part for EB3 I ? Was it meant to be 15th April 2002 ?
In March of This year it was 15th Oct 2001. Then it goes to U for untli Oct and now its 15th April 2001 (gone back 6 months !!!!) This seems odd for a new fiscal year with new Visa Quota however small EB3I may be - are there still that many 2000-2001 applications pre-adjudicated in the system waiting for a visa that they had to roll it back ?
more...
house Natalie Portman. Natalie
InTheMoment
06-15 10:03 AM
and which state did you apply from ? Looks like there is some relation to where it is processed (If your I-140 was not already approved before the USCIS bispec III...see my message before )
My lawyer sent the applications on June 1st and we have the receipts already. They cashed the checks by June 6th.
My lawyer sent the applications on June 1st and we have the receipts already. They cashed the checks by June 6th.
tattoo Natalie Portman stars as a
saketkapur
08-18 01:17 PM
Hi Guys
My date is not current but I understand the frustration here. However I beleive USCIS is under severe pressure to reduce the backlogs and not waste any numbers this year....so they are trying to exhaust them as and when they can...in that scenaio I guess lower hanging fruits are getting picked.
But on the bright side as I see it as more and more people get their GCs its a smaller line and the officers should be able to get to everyone's file in due course.
I completely believe the system should be FIFO but then don't you think that will be too logical for the USCIS......
Hopefully if they are able to get a lot of people out of the way they should go back to normal processing from October when new numbers are available and the pressure is somewhat less.....
Again above is my theory. I hope everyone gets their green cards soon and the line keeps moving.
regards
Saket
My date is not current but I understand the frustration here. However I beleive USCIS is under severe pressure to reduce the backlogs and not waste any numbers this year....so they are trying to exhaust them as and when they can...in that scenaio I guess lower hanging fruits are getting picked.
But on the bright side as I see it as more and more people get their GCs its a smaller line and the officers should be able to get to everyone's file in due course.
I completely believe the system should be FIFO but then don't you think that will be too logical for the USCIS......
Hopefully if they are able to get a lot of people out of the way they should go back to normal processing from October when new numbers are available and the pressure is somewhat less.....
Again above is my theory. I hope everyone gets their green cards soon and the line keeps moving.
regards
Saket
more...
pictures Mila Kunis in the dramatic
syzygy
08-19 11:44 AM
,,
USCIS has invented a very nice random number generator. They use it for every purpose
1. To declare visa bulletin (canbe any day of the month)
2. To decalare processing times (can be again any day of the month)
3. Processing times themselves (can be anything)
4. Processing order (can be anything)
5. Answers from customer service (one can say "Your case will be processed in 60 days", other will way "we do not know anything more then website")
6. Answers from Service Requests
7. Answers from Infopass appointments
8. Unpredictability in transfers (eg. mine was transferred from NSC->TSC->CSC ..nice roaming)
9. ..the list goes on and on (feel free to add please, I think there is no limit).
Sorry, my mistake, there is one thing predictable in USCIS . The predicatble thing is unpredictability
USCIS has invented a very nice random number generator. They use it for every purpose
1. To declare visa bulletin (canbe any day of the month)
2. To decalare processing times (can be again any day of the month)
3. Processing times themselves (can be anything)
4. Processing order (can be anything)
5. Answers from customer service (one can say "Your case will be processed in 60 days", other will way "we do not know anything more then website")
6. Answers from Service Requests
7. Answers from Infopass appointments
8. Unpredictability in transfers (eg. mine was transferred from NSC->TSC->CSC ..nice roaming)
9. ..the list goes on and on (feel free to add please, I think there is no limit).
Sorry, my mistake, there is one thing predictable in USCIS . The predicatble thing is unpredictability
dresses natalie portman mila kunis
abhijitp
07-10 01:54 AM
Here is some more fax numbers (older entries moved to the bottom of this post):
From http://www.edgar.k12.wi.us/cloverbelt/medialist.htm
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1-715-858-7308
Wausau Daily Herald 1-715-848-9361
Chippewa Herald Telegram 1-715-723-9644
Marshfield News Herald 1-715-387-4175
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 1-715-848-9361
St. Point Journal 1-715-344-7229
Medford Star News 1-715-748-2699
TV 7 – Wausau 1-715-842-0879
TV 9 – Wausau 1-715-848-0195
TV 13 – Eau Claire 1-715-832-0246
TV 18 – Eau Claire 1-715-831-1859
From http://www.nynjtc.org/issues/natmedia.html
New York Times: FAX: 212.556.7614
Washington Post: FAX: 310.277.3704
Time Magazine: FAX: 212.522.1530
Newsweek: FAX: 212.445.4120
USA Today: FAX: 703.247.3108
Wall Street Journal: FAX: 202.862.9266
NPR: FAX: 202.414.3329
AP: FAX: 202.776.9570
CNN: FAX: 404.681.3578
Chicago Tribune: FAX: 202.824.8302
Los Angeles Times: FAX: 213.237.7968
San Francisco Chronicle: email: letters@sfchronicle.com
San Diego Union: FAX: 619.293.1440
Sacramento Bee: FAX: 916.321.1196
Oakland Tribune: FAX: 510.208.6477
Long Beach Press Telegram: FAX: 562.499.1277
Monterey County Herald: FAX: 831.372.8401
___________________________________
Here is the list copied from http://www.patrickcrusade.org/Fax.html:
ABC WASHINGTON DC 202-887-7684
ABC 20/20 NEW YORK NY 212-456-2969
ABC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
ABC TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-557-5210
ABC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-954-7633
ABC WORLD NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
AP LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-1200
AP SAN DIEGO CA 619-291-2098
AP WASHINGTON DC 202-828-6422
AP (BROADCAST) WASHINGTON DC 202-955-7367
ASSOCIATED PRESS BOSTON MA 617-338-8125
ASSOCIATED PRESS LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-9836
ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOENIX AZ 602-254-9573
ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-552-9430
ASSOCIATED PRESS MN MINNEAPOLIS MN 612-332-4245
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3183
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3192
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3490
BOSTON GLOBE NEWSRM BOSTON MA 617-929-3186
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-426-1865
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-542-1315
C-SPAN WASHINGTON DC 202-737-6226
CBS NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS WASHINGTON DC 202-659-2586
CBS (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-659-5578
CBS EVE NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-975-2115
CBS MORNING WASHINGTON DC 202-331-1765
CBS NEWS LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0285
CBS NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CBS NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0321
CBS TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES CHICAGO IL 312-321-3084
CHICAGO TRIBUNE CHICAGO IL 312-222-3143
CHRISTIAN SCI. MON. BOSTON MA 617-450-2317
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MO BOSTON MA 617-289-5352
CNBC HOLLYWOOD CA 213-465-1034
CNN LOS ANGELES CA 213-460-5081
CNN SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-398-4049
CNN PRESIDENT ATLANTA GA 404-827-1575
FORBES LOS ANGELES CA 213-478-8437
GANNETT WASHINGTON DC 202-243-0190
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA 916-446-7326
LOS ANGELES TIMES CHATSWORTH CA 818-772-3338
LOS ANGELES TIMES COSTA MESA CA 714-966-7711
LOS ANGELES TIMES LOS ANGELES CA 213-237-4712
LOS ANGELES TIMES SACRAMENTO CA 916-322-2422
LOS ANGELES TIMES VENTURA CA 805-658-5547
NBC WASHINGTON DC 202-362-2009
NBC (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 703-685-2197
NBC NEWS BURBANK CA 818-840-4275
NBC NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-956-2140
NBC NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NBC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-315-4037
NBC TV LOS ANGELES CA 818-840-4275
NBC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NEW YORK POST NEW YORK NY 212-732-4241
NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NEWSWEEK LOS ANGELES CA 213-444-5287
NEWSWEEK NEW YORK NY 212-421-4993
NEWSWEEK SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-788-4437
NEWSWEEK WASHINGTON DC 202-783-6512
NPRRADIO SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-553-2241
NY TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NY TIMES SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-421-2684
NY TIMES WASHINGTON DC 202-862-0340
REUTERS LOS ANGELES CA 213-622-0056
REUTERS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-986-5147
REUTERS WASHINGTON DC 202-898-8383
TIME LOS ANGELES CA 213-824-7205
TIME SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-434-5209
TIME WASHINGTON DC 202-463-5005
TIME MAGAZINE NEW YORK NY 212-522-0451
UPI BOSTON MA 617-338-9774
UPI LOS ANGELES CA 213-620-1237
UPI SEATTLE WA 206-283-0408
UPI WASHINGTON DC 202-789-2362
UPI (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-842-3625
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT WASHINGTON DC 202-955-2713
USA RADIO NETWORK DALLAS TX 214-243-3489
USA TODAY WASHINGTON DC 202-276-5527
WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON DC 202-862-9266
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ANGELES CA 213-658-3828
WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK NY 212-416-2658
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON DC 202-334-4480
Here is the list copied from http://www.mothersalert.org/mediafax.html
CNN: 404-681-3578
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 773-702-0725
New York Times: 212-556-7306
Washington Post: 202-496-3936
LA Times: 213-237-4712
CBS-TV Nightly News: 212-975-1893
60 Minutes: 212-975-2019
ABC Nightly News: 212-456-3720
UPI: 202-898-8057
AP: 212-621-7529
AFP [Agences France Presse]: 202-414-0524
Time Magazine: 212-522-0323
Newsweek Magazine: 212-212-445-5844
US News & World Report: 212-916-7400 or 212-716-6800 -- May or May Not Still Be Working
USA Today: 212-371-0241
CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]: 416-205-7459
Australian Broadcasting Corp.: 202-626-5188
Greenpeace USA: 202-462-4507
All International Greenpeace Fax#s Should be Accessable through: http://www.greenpeace.org
Center For Defense Information: 202-462-4559
Jim Hightower Show: 512-478-8536
Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now": 212-747-1698 and 202-588-0896
Boston Globe: 617-929-2019
Der Speigel: 212-302-6258
Reuters: 202-898-8401
PBS' "Frontline: 617-254-0243
Penthouse Magazine:212-702-6279
Ralph Nader: 202-234-5176
Las Vegas Sun: 702-383-7264
NPR's "Talk of the Nation": 202-414-3329
Pacifica Radio, KPFK: 818-763-7526
Pacifica Radio, WPFW: 202-588-0561
Pacifica Radio, KPFT: 713-526-5750
Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2653
Christian Science Monitor: 212-764-9648
From http://www.edgar.k12.wi.us/cloverbelt/medialist.htm
Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 1-715-858-7308
Wausau Daily Herald 1-715-848-9361
Chippewa Herald Telegram 1-715-723-9644
Marshfield News Herald 1-715-387-4175
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 1-715-848-9361
St. Point Journal 1-715-344-7229
Medford Star News 1-715-748-2699
TV 7 – Wausau 1-715-842-0879
TV 9 – Wausau 1-715-848-0195
TV 13 – Eau Claire 1-715-832-0246
TV 18 – Eau Claire 1-715-831-1859
From http://www.nynjtc.org/issues/natmedia.html
New York Times: FAX: 212.556.7614
Washington Post: FAX: 310.277.3704
Time Magazine: FAX: 212.522.1530
Newsweek: FAX: 212.445.4120
USA Today: FAX: 703.247.3108
Wall Street Journal: FAX: 202.862.9266
NPR: FAX: 202.414.3329
AP: FAX: 202.776.9570
CNN: FAX: 404.681.3578
Chicago Tribune: FAX: 202.824.8302
Los Angeles Times: FAX: 213.237.7968
San Francisco Chronicle: email: letters@sfchronicle.com
San Diego Union: FAX: 619.293.1440
Sacramento Bee: FAX: 916.321.1196
Oakland Tribune: FAX: 510.208.6477
Long Beach Press Telegram: FAX: 562.499.1277
Monterey County Herald: FAX: 831.372.8401
___________________________________
Here is the list copied from http://www.patrickcrusade.org/Fax.html:
ABC WASHINGTON DC 202-887-7684
ABC 20/20 NEW YORK NY 212-456-2969
ABC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
ABC TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-557-5210
ABC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-954-7633
ABC WORLD NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-456-4968
AP LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-1200
AP SAN DIEGO CA 619-291-2098
AP WASHINGTON DC 202-828-6422
AP (BROADCAST) WASHINGTON DC 202-955-7367
ASSOCIATED PRESS BOSTON MA 617-338-8125
ASSOCIATED PRESS LOS ANGELES CA 213-748-9836
ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOENIX AZ 602-254-9573
ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-552-9430
ASSOCIATED PRESS MN MINNEAPOLIS MN 612-332-4245
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3183
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3192
BOSTON GLOBE BOSTON MA 617-929-3490
BOSTON GLOBE NEWSRM BOSTON MA 617-929-3186
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-426-1865
BOSTON HERALD BOSTON MA 617-542-1315
C-SPAN WASHINGTON DC 202-737-6226
CBS NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS WASHINGTON DC 202-659-2586
CBS (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-659-5578
CBS EVE NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-975-2115
CBS MORNING WASHINGTON DC 202-331-1765
CBS NEWS LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0285
CBS NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CBS NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-975-1519
CBS TV LOS ANGELES CA 213-651-0321
CBS TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-362-7417
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES CHICAGO IL 312-321-3084
CHICAGO TRIBUNE CHICAGO IL 312-222-3143
CHRISTIAN SCI. MON. BOSTON MA 617-450-2317
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MO BOSTON MA 617-289-5352
CNBC HOLLYWOOD CA 213-465-1034
CNN LOS ANGELES CA 213-460-5081
CNN SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-398-4049
CNN PRESIDENT ATLANTA GA 404-827-1575
FORBES LOS ANGELES CA 213-478-8437
GANNETT WASHINGTON DC 202-243-0190
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA 916-446-7326
LOS ANGELES TIMES CHATSWORTH CA 818-772-3338
LOS ANGELES TIMES COSTA MESA CA 714-966-7711
LOS ANGELES TIMES LOS ANGELES CA 213-237-4712
LOS ANGELES TIMES SACRAMENTO CA 916-322-2422
LOS ANGELES TIMES VENTURA CA 805-658-5547
NBC WASHINGTON DC 202-362-2009
NBC (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 703-685-2197
NBC NEWS BURBANK CA 818-840-4275
NBC NEWS NEW YORK NY 212-956-2140
NBC NEWS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NBC NEWS PRESIDENT NEW YORK NY 212-315-4037
NBC TV LOS ANGELES CA 818-840-4275
NBC TV SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-441-2823
NEW YORK POST NEW YORK NY 212-732-4241
NEW YORK TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NEWSWEEK LOS ANGELES CA 213-444-5287
NEWSWEEK NEW YORK NY 212-421-4993
NEWSWEEK SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-788-4437
NEWSWEEK WASHINGTON DC 202-783-6512
NPRRADIO SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-553-2241
NY TIMES NEW YORK NY 212-556-4603
NY TIMES SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-421-2684
NY TIMES WASHINGTON DC 202-862-0340
REUTERS LOS ANGELES CA 213-622-0056
REUTERS SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-986-5147
REUTERS WASHINGTON DC 202-898-8383
TIME LOS ANGELES CA 213-824-7205
TIME SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-434-5209
TIME WASHINGTON DC 202-463-5005
TIME MAGAZINE NEW YORK NY 212-522-0451
UPI BOSTON MA 617-338-9774
UPI LOS ANGELES CA 213-620-1237
UPI SEATTLE WA 206-283-0408
UPI WASHINGTON DC 202-789-2362
UPI (RADIO) WASHINGTON DC 202-842-3625
US NEWS & WORLD REPORT WASHINGTON DC 202-955-2713
USA RADIO NETWORK DALLAS TX 214-243-3489
USA TODAY WASHINGTON DC 202-276-5527
WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON DC 202-862-9266
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WALL STREET JOURNAL LOS ANGELES CA 213-658-3828
WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK NY 212-416-2658
WALL STREET JOURNAL SAN FRANCISCO CA 415-391-4534
WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON DC 202-334-4480
Here is the list copied from http://www.mothersalert.org/mediafax.html
CNN: 404-681-3578
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 773-702-0725
New York Times: 212-556-7306
Washington Post: 202-496-3936
LA Times: 213-237-4712
CBS-TV Nightly News: 212-975-1893
60 Minutes: 212-975-2019
ABC Nightly News: 212-456-3720
UPI: 202-898-8057
AP: 212-621-7529
AFP [Agences France Presse]: 202-414-0524
Time Magazine: 212-522-0323
Newsweek Magazine: 212-212-445-5844
US News & World Report: 212-916-7400 or 212-716-6800 -- May or May Not Still Be Working
USA Today: 212-371-0241
CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]: 416-205-7459
Australian Broadcasting Corp.: 202-626-5188
Greenpeace USA: 202-462-4507
All International Greenpeace Fax#s Should be Accessable through: http://www.greenpeace.org
Center For Defense Information: 202-462-4559
Jim Hightower Show: 512-478-8536
Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now": 212-747-1698 and 202-588-0896
Boston Globe: 617-929-2019
Der Speigel: 212-302-6258
Reuters: 202-898-8401
PBS' "Frontline: 617-254-0243
Penthouse Magazine:212-702-6279
Ralph Nader: 202-234-5176
Las Vegas Sun: 702-383-7264
NPR's "Talk of the Nation": 202-414-3329
Pacifica Radio, KPFK: 818-763-7526
Pacifica Radio, WPFW: 202-588-0561
Pacifica Radio, KPFT: 713-526-5750
Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2653
Christian Science Monitor: 212-764-9648
more...
makeup Because in this movie, Natalie
diptam
06-27 11:53 AM
Point1) makes me perplexed - Can there be agreements with open ended
time periods.
But whatever is the exit strategy i will end up paying almost $10,000 as lawyer fees.
There are many points on which this agreement can be defended.
1. No fixed time period. Staying upto 1 year after getting GC is same as saying work until the car engine for the company CEO's car goes out. Nobody can predict either one.
2. Usually waiver of filing lawsuit by employee involves sum of money for its consideration. Many employer pay employee month salary (or part/multiple) to offer agreement for not suing. Agreement terms without consideration are usually null and void. For example, I can't have agreement with you that you will deliver free newspaper without stating consideration/compensation for you.
3. Company can claim for GC Expenses and other related expenses if employee leaves within reasonable and agreed period. So probably $10,000 is in the agreement to cover that.
Now for the bad news, defending this agreement could cost much more than $10,000, besides time and hassles. More so, if employee and employer are in two different states as employer can file suit in their state. In short, $10,000 is cost of moving out of this job at the time of your choice. You could also look at it as the added cost of GC.
I suggest you should consider making a plan to move in your life and career. As they say, freedom is priceless.
Good Luck.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
time periods.
But whatever is the exit strategy i will end up paying almost $10,000 as lawyer fees.
There are many points on which this agreement can be defended.
1. No fixed time period. Staying upto 1 year after getting GC is same as saying work until the car engine for the company CEO's car goes out. Nobody can predict either one.
2. Usually waiver of filing lawsuit by employee involves sum of money for its consideration. Many employer pay employee month salary (or part/multiple) to offer agreement for not suing. Agreement terms without consideration are usually null and void. For example, I can't have agreement with you that you will deliver free newspaper without stating consideration/compensation for you.
3. Company can claim for GC Expenses and other related expenses if employee leaves within reasonable and agreed period. So probably $10,000 is in the agreement to cover that.
Now for the bad news, defending this agreement could cost much more than $10,000, besides time and hassles. More so, if employee and employer are in two different states as employer can file suit in their state. In short, $10,000 is cost of moving out of this job at the time of your choice. You could also look at it as the added cost of GC.
I suggest you should consider making a plan to move in your life and career. As they say, freedom is priceless.
Good Luck.
Not a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Green Card holder since May 2002
desi3933 at gmail.com
girlfriend mila kunis natalie portman
gc_bulgaria
09-20 10:15 AM
Today I saw that my checks were cashed and I called USCIS to get the receipt numbers. The IO was very polite and gave me the numbers. Although I had filed at the Nebraska center, the receipt number starts with SRC (Texas).
EB2 ROW (Cross Charge)
PD: 1/11/07
I 140 Approved (Texas): 8/22/07
AOS sent (Nebraska) : 7/26/07
Receipt /Notice (SRC): 9/17/07
EB2 ROW (Cross Charge)
PD: 1/11/07
I 140 Approved (Texas): 8/22/07
AOS sent (Nebraska) : 7/26/07
Receipt /Notice (SRC): 9/17/07
hairstyles Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis
patchsk
11-17 04:49 PM
just did it
Macaca
07-08 08:09 PM
140K GCs were available on Oct 1 2005 and Oct 2006: categories were not current.
< 40K GCs were available on June 12 2007: all categories were current.
If there is a law to prevent acceptance of ALL AOS's on Oct 1 (when 140K GCs are available) then that law was violated on June 12 2007.
If there is no law to prevent acceptance of AOS's on June 12 (when < 40K GCs were available) then all categories should have been current on Oct 1 2005 and Oct 1 2006.
< 40K GCs were available on June 12 2007: all categories were current.
If there is a law to prevent acceptance of ALL AOS's on Oct 1 (when 140K GCs are available) then that law was violated on June 12 2007.
If there is no law to prevent acceptance of AOS's on June 12 (when < 40K GCs were available) then all categories should have been current on Oct 1 2005 and Oct 1 2006.
sukhyani
12-15 10:37 AM
Guys check out this article on Washington Post's website:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401362.html
A whole lot of anti-immigrant folks are posting their comments. All the eloquent members of IV, please mount a counter attack!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401362.html
A whole lot of anti-immigrant folks are posting their comments. All the eloquent members of IV, please mount a counter attack!
No comments:
Post a Comment