Legal
07-05 12:42 PM
I called the congresswomen and senator from our constituencies. They do not have any idea what I am talking about. I think I made them more confused than ever.
We need to come up with a letter format, which can be printed and send it to them by mail as well as we need to have web fax with a clear message.
Dear Senator,
I am an immigrant who entered this country legally. I�ve been waiting for my US permanent resident visa -also known as green card for the past several years along with 500,000 other educated, highly skilled employment based (EB) immigrants. Many of us have been waiting for our turn to get the green card for 5-10 years while consistently abiding by all the laws of this country. Such long delays are due to tortuous and confusing paper work, back logs due to various quotas and processing delays at US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).
Several categories of EB immigrant visa numbers have been unavailable (�retrogressed�) since the fall of 2005. Because our immigrant petitions are tied to the sponsoring employer, for many of us these delays have led to indentured servitude. Our professional prospects, job mobility and potential opportunities for entrepreneurship have been shattered.
For the past several decades, the US Department of State (DOS) has been publishing advisories known as visa bulletins once a month to announce the availability of immigrant .visa numbers. On June 13, 2007, after a gap of nearly two years, DOS announced that all EB visa numbers would be �current� for the month of July. This meant, irrespective of our �priority date�, all of us were made eligible to apply for some interim immigration benefits. This �priority date� refers to the date when our labor certification (documentation verifying no US citizen worker was available for a given job) had been filed.
This announcement by DOS on 6/13/2007 would not have led to immediate green card for most of us; but at least it would have ensured us interim benefits such as job mobility, some freedom from the employer, work authorization for our spouses and a travel authorization known as �advance parole�. This authorization would allow us to travel outside US without fear of not being able to re-enter the country.
We spent thousands of dollars in legal fees, immigration medical exams, vaccinations, blood tests, x-rays and getting various supporting documents ready to file our immigrant petitions to USCIS. It has been an agonizing two weeks for us. Some of us to had to fly in our spouses from our native countries. To our shock and dismay, on the morning of July 2nd 2007, USCIS announced that EB visa numbers were not available and all our petitions would be rejected. Within a span of 2 weeks, to be precise -in 12 working days- USCIS claims to have approved 60,000 EB immigrant visa petitions. This unprecedented rapid action of USCIS has led to exhaustion of all the available visa numbers for this fiscal year. Meanwhile it is prognosticated that in the next fiscal year which begins on October 1, 2007 our plight and delays would actually worsen.
Interestingly USCIS has never processed so many applications this fast, and it is unclear why they did not convey this potential exhaustion of visa numbers to DOS before June 13, 2007.
For the legal skilled immigrants this has been a rather traumatizing and disheartening experience.
We sincerely seek immediate congressional/ legislative remedial measures which would
(1) Reduce the enormous backlogs of green card petitions of legal skilled immigrants
(2) Ensure and enable USCIS not to reject our immigrant visa petitions and give us interim benefits of a pending immigrant visa petition.
I make this sincere request on behalf of all legal skilled immigrants with the hope that people who played by the rules will be rewarded.
Yours Sincerely,
We need to come up with a letter format, which can be printed and send it to them by mail as well as we need to have web fax with a clear message.
Dear Senator,
I am an immigrant who entered this country legally. I�ve been waiting for my US permanent resident visa -also known as green card for the past several years along with 500,000 other educated, highly skilled employment based (EB) immigrants. Many of us have been waiting for our turn to get the green card for 5-10 years while consistently abiding by all the laws of this country. Such long delays are due to tortuous and confusing paper work, back logs due to various quotas and processing delays at US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).
Several categories of EB immigrant visa numbers have been unavailable (�retrogressed�) since the fall of 2005. Because our immigrant petitions are tied to the sponsoring employer, for many of us these delays have led to indentured servitude. Our professional prospects, job mobility and potential opportunities for entrepreneurship have been shattered.
For the past several decades, the US Department of State (DOS) has been publishing advisories known as visa bulletins once a month to announce the availability of immigrant .visa numbers. On June 13, 2007, after a gap of nearly two years, DOS announced that all EB visa numbers would be �current� for the month of July. This meant, irrespective of our �priority date�, all of us were made eligible to apply for some interim immigration benefits. This �priority date� refers to the date when our labor certification (documentation verifying no US citizen worker was available for a given job) had been filed.
This announcement by DOS on 6/13/2007 would not have led to immediate green card for most of us; but at least it would have ensured us interim benefits such as job mobility, some freedom from the employer, work authorization for our spouses and a travel authorization known as �advance parole�. This authorization would allow us to travel outside US without fear of not being able to re-enter the country.
We spent thousands of dollars in legal fees, immigration medical exams, vaccinations, blood tests, x-rays and getting various supporting documents ready to file our immigrant petitions to USCIS. It has been an agonizing two weeks for us. Some of us to had to fly in our spouses from our native countries. To our shock and dismay, on the morning of July 2nd 2007, USCIS announced that EB visa numbers were not available and all our petitions would be rejected. Within a span of 2 weeks, to be precise -in 12 working days- USCIS claims to have approved 60,000 EB immigrant visa petitions. This unprecedented rapid action of USCIS has led to exhaustion of all the available visa numbers for this fiscal year. Meanwhile it is prognosticated that in the next fiscal year which begins on October 1, 2007 our plight and delays would actually worsen.
Interestingly USCIS has never processed so many applications this fast, and it is unclear why they did not convey this potential exhaustion of visa numbers to DOS before June 13, 2007.
For the legal skilled immigrants this has been a rather traumatizing and disheartening experience.
We sincerely seek immediate congressional/ legislative remedial measures which would
(1) Reduce the enormous backlogs of green card petitions of legal skilled immigrants
(2) Ensure and enable USCIS not to reject our immigrant visa petitions and give us interim benefits of a pending immigrant visa petition.
I make this sincere request on behalf of all legal skilled immigrants with the hope that people who played by the rules will be rewarded.
Yours Sincerely,
wallpaper By Nicholas D. Kristof and
ssa
09-10 04:33 PM
USCIS currently has no accountability at all. Nor do they seem to have any clue about how many cases they have in the queue. Just see EB2-I dates for all the 12 VBs for the 2008 fiscal year: It started at 1 APR 2004 then retrogressed back steadily till it eventually became "U" just to jump back to 1 Aug 2006 for the last 3 months! Now after one whole year of processing and approving some 20-30K green cards for EB2-I it is starting at 1 APR 2003, a full year back from where it began last year!! Meanwhile they have handed out thousands of green cards to PDs in 2006 when the rule clearly states they have to clear older PDs first! Care to explain, USCIS?
I know people are sending out mails and DHS-7001 forms on their own but these individual scatter-shot attempts will all vanish in a big black abyss of USCIS bureaucracy and fall on deaf years. Only chance to instill some sense in this adhoc process seems to be if IV as a whole organization takes up this matter with Ombudsman and influential congressmen/senators like Zoe lofgren. IV had been very influential in redressing excesses by USCIS in the past - turing back July 2007 fiasco was no mean feat! Can we have some IV action item from core for this?
I'm afraid unless we do something about it as a group there is absolutely nothing to prevent USCIS from doing the same outrageous thing year after year with little fear of any retribution. We will all be practically at complete USCIS mercy!
Finally, I'm nothing but happy for those who got their GCs in this last round of "Lotto drawing" - including those with PD much later than mine - but the prospect of being stuck in a black hole called USCIS year after year scares the hell out of me!
I know people are sending out mails and DHS-7001 forms on their own but these individual scatter-shot attempts will all vanish in a big black abyss of USCIS bureaucracy and fall on deaf years. Only chance to instill some sense in this adhoc process seems to be if IV as a whole organization takes up this matter with Ombudsman and influential congressmen/senators like Zoe lofgren. IV had been very influential in redressing excesses by USCIS in the past - turing back July 2007 fiasco was no mean feat! Can we have some IV action item from core for this?
I'm afraid unless we do something about it as a group there is absolutely nothing to prevent USCIS from doing the same outrageous thing year after year with little fear of any retribution. We will all be practically at complete USCIS mercy!
Finally, I'm nothing but happy for those who got their GCs in this last round of "Lotto drawing" - including those with PD much later than mine - but the prospect of being stuck in a black hole called USCIS year after year scares the hell out of me!
m306m
05-27 08:28 AM
^ to the top ^
2011 D Kristof amp; Sheryl Wudunn
santb1975
07-16 11:11 AM
People receive emails about info. posted on state chapters. I have asked other chapter leads to post on their chapter boards as well. I am not sure if we have a consolidated, updated and verified list of all the members across all the state chapters to be able to send an email at this time.
Admins
is it possible to send an email, probably daily once to all members about High Five ?
I feel that most of the members are not aware at this time. Usually when ever something is happening live at senate or congress, more members visit and follow the proceedings. Since there is nothing like that right now, i think it's time to communicate to all of'em.
Just a thought to increase the momentum. This is a great initiative indeed in this tough economy
By the way, i've mailed another check of $50 today morning, towards yesterday's target of $2000
Satya
Admins
is it possible to send an email, probably daily once to all members about High Five ?
I feel that most of the members are not aware at this time. Usually when ever something is happening live at senate or congress, more members visit and follow the proceedings. Since there is nothing like that right now, i think it's time to communicate to all of'em.
Just a thought to increase the momentum. This is a great initiative indeed in this tough economy
By the way, i've mailed another check of $50 today morning, towards yesterday's target of $2000
Satya
more...
sparklinks
08-10 12:58 PM
no receipts for me too :( r Williams 7:55am 07/02
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
R Williams 7:55am 07/02, NO receipt either...:confused:
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
R Williams 7:55am 07/02, NO receipt either...:confused:
Libra
09-11 12:15 PM
thank you param_r, ritu_raj and kittu1991 for your contributions.
more...
nlssubbu
10-01 04:20 PM
A cut-off date avoids submission of AOS applications with PD after cut-off date. In my opinion, this was the only reason to retrogress on July 2: avoid AOS submission whose PDs became current in July.
Now nearly all AOS applications have been submitted. Hence, setting cut-off dates conservatively is not that motivating.
Cut-off days not only determine number of applications that can be received at their end, but also the make eligible applications approvable. I think at times when the cut-off date resulted in more approvable cases than USCIS can handle, then they move it back as well.
May be they should have two cut-off days instead of one like this:
1. One for receiving applications beyond that date.
2. Another for approval.
This may help them to pick necessary applications needed from this pool and approve them without losing the allocated visas.
I think change has to come from the legislation wing to amend the procedure in USCIS.
Thanks
Now nearly all AOS applications have been submitted. Hence, setting cut-off dates conservatively is not that motivating.
Cut-off days not only determine number of applications that can be received at their end, but also the make eligible applications approvable. I think at times when the cut-off date resulted in more approvable cases than USCIS can handle, then they move it back as well.
May be they should have two cut-off days instead of one like this:
1. One for receiving applications beyond that date.
2. Another for approval.
This may help them to pick necessary applications needed from this pool and approve them without losing the allocated visas.
I think change has to come from the legislation wing to amend the procedure in USCIS.
Thanks
2010 Kristof and WuDunn feature a
GCwaitforever
05-01 02:49 PM
The fee we pay is very less compare to what we pay to Attorneys. And USCIS cannot drastically increase fees. And we are stuck. That is the reality.
I think we should cut a check of same amount what we pay to attorneys.
It is not the problem of money. If they privatize the USCIS operations, I will show how to get it done much quickly, correctly, with lot of customer interaction.
USCIS wants you to believe what they tell you is the reality. It is not. They cover up their inefficiency with lies. There is way too much bereaucracy. Information does not trickle down from top to the bottom layers quickly, and top layer does not know what kind of operations are happening at bottom layer.
At best, we are feeding their pension plans and cushy retirement benefits.
I think we should cut a check of same amount what we pay to attorneys.
It is not the problem of money. If they privatize the USCIS operations, I will show how to get it done much quickly, correctly, with lot of customer interaction.
USCIS wants you to believe what they tell you is the reality. It is not. They cover up their inefficiency with lies. There is way too much bereaucracy. Information does not trickle down from top to the bottom layers quickly, and top layer does not know what kind of operations are happening at bottom layer.
At best, we are feeding their pension plans and cushy retirement benefits.
more...
diptam
07-06 02:42 PM
Ooh - you are right !!! It took me more time to write the above than it took 25 USCIS workers to approve 25,000 I-485's... (48 hrs X 60 mins X 25) / 25000 = 3 mins.
They are thinking us dumb fools because we are immigrants and we have to accept whatever they say !!
I doubt if anyone was denied. They have to approve anyone and everyone to meet the numbers.
They are thinking us dumb fools because we are immigrants and we have to accept whatever they say !!
I doubt if anyone was denied. They have to approve anyone and everyone to meet the numbers.
hair and Sheryl WuDunn#39;s book,
geesee
03-03 01:57 PM
I don't think EB3-I would be U for more than a month, as I keep saying this year EB3 would be getting some share of spill-over. So even if it becomes U for April that would be temporarily and it would return back in May.
Thank's
MDix
I dont know why people add signature in a forum post ?
Regards
Geesee
Thank's
MDix
I dont know why people add signature in a forum post ?
Regards
Geesee
more...
desi chala usa
01-06 10:25 AM
Don't forget the education is the biggest business in U.S.A and the immigration is the second one, thats what I learned from my 5 years experience. Both businesses dragging money from foreign ppl (International student has to pay 3-4 times more than local).
hot by Sheryl Wudunn, Nicholas D.
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...
house Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn.
jonty_11
07-06 01:42 PM
we really need this benefit....or else we may have our hair on fire....
Rumor has to be true..or else I am ......................going to Canada
Rumor has to be true..or else I am ......................going to Canada
tattoo D. Kristof amp; Sheryl WuDunn
prom2
09-28 10:23 PM
Last week we saw just few approvals, so I guess this FY is over.
I don't think they are going to work 24 hours this weekend.
Visa number rollover now !
I don't think they are going to work 24 hours this weekend.
Visa number rollover now !
more...
pictures by Nicholas D. Kristof and
DSLStart
09-10 09:30 AM
EB2 dates moving back more than 5 years is really sickening. Lets just only hope that they've used and alloted visa numbers already to approvable cases and see approvals coming through...
dresses D. Kristof amp; Sheryl WuDunn
conchshell
09-30 11:26 PM
Guys don't you think that once again flooding USCIS with flowers/shame-card as a protest is a good idea ??
more...
makeup Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn,
new_gc_guy
09-11 03:48 PM
second 100$ contribution...
GO IV
Order Details - Sep 11, 2007 4:10 PM EDT
Google Order #655717973031323
GO IV
Order Details - Sep 11, 2007 4:10 PM EDT
Google Order #655717973031323
girlfriend Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn
boom
05-19 08:21 PM
Congrates Ind_game,
You deserved it.Your continued and vigrous effort made the difference.
You deserved it.Your continued and vigrous effort made the difference.
hairstyles Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn
thomachan72
03-19 01:38 PM
I would encourage that IV should compile cases of members who have been denied home loans because of their immigration status and present them to the president. Housing industry is in a crisis and they are denying loans to people with solid income????
breddy2000
12-10 04:14 PM
Should Section 202(a)(5) be applied, the rate of number use in the Employment preference category would continue to be monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for oversubscribed countries. This action provides the best possible assurance that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while still ensuring that numbers remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to apply:
China and India: October through December 2005
It clearly states that "IF Section 202(a) were to apply(spillover rule) then the dates move as mentioned above. That means that it did not happen until now...
Question is since the section 202(a) is part of the law , does it state that they need to utilize this section 202(a) quarterly or at USCIS/DOS own descretion.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY-2010?
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off dates which will be reached by the end of FY-2010 are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: July through October 2005
India: February through early March 2005
If Section 202(a)(5)were to apply:
China and India: October through December 2005
It clearly states that "IF Section 202(a) were to apply(spillover rule) then the dates move as mentioned above. That means that it did not happen until now...
Question is since the section 202(a) is part of the law , does it state that they need to utilize this section 202(a) quarterly or at USCIS/DOS own descretion.
chanduv23
05-15 11:15 PM
Thanks for your wishes.
I agree with you regarding the timeline and evidence. I have mentioned it to my attorney numerous times. My attorney was insistent that adjudicating officers can see all my info on their computer screens. It is only a matter of looking at the info correctly.
It looks like the first MTR went to the same IO who denied my I-485. I could say it from ID in both the denial letters.
Your Attorney is funny. "Looking at the info correctly" - Hello, it is a job of the person and the person is being paid for looking at the computer screen correctly.
Whoever your Attorney is - GOOD JOKE. We must add his comments to the "lighten up" thread.
I agree with you regarding the timeline and evidence. I have mentioned it to my attorney numerous times. My attorney was insistent that adjudicating officers can see all my info on their computer screens. It is only a matter of looking at the info correctly.
It looks like the first MTR went to the same IO who denied my I-485. I could say it from ID in both the denial letters.
Your Attorney is funny. "Looking at the info correctly" - Hello, it is a job of the person and the person is being paid for looking at the computer screen correctly.
Whoever your Attorney is - GOOD JOKE. We must add his comments to the "lighten up" thread.
No comments:
Post a Comment