a_yaja
06-26 07:46 AM
I think the country based quota has been eliminated for the "merit based" quota. Am I missing something.
The original bill had a 10% per country cap. Don't think that has been removed in the new bill.
The original bill had a 10% per country cap. Don't think that has been removed in the new bill.
govindk
05-17 04:07 PM
Done.
chanduv23
02-02 11:18 AM
This is another example where lot of noise made and then nothing happens.
People talk here about filing lawsuit as it it is easy as filing something and on first hearing, judgment will be passed in their favor. Of course, no one even bothers to get initial professional advice.
Soon, we will have some other topic that will have similar discussion and similar fate.
Good Luck to everyone.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
By now you would understand that most people who come here are just making noise. A very few come that extra bit forward to do something.
Thousands of members were on IV when July 07 fiasco happened and everyone were discussing all sorts of stratagies - but it was the very few hundreds that actually rallied and sent flowers and went the extra step to do someting about it.
This generation people lack unity, courage and empathy. Everyone wants to just discuss issues and vent but do not want to join hands together to get something done that benefits all.
People talk here about filing lawsuit as it it is easy as filing something and on first hearing, judgment will be passed in their favor. Of course, no one even bothers to get initial professional advice.
Soon, we will have some other topic that will have similar discussion and similar fate.
Good Luck to everyone.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
By now you would understand that most people who come here are just making noise. A very few come that extra bit forward to do something.
Thousands of members were on IV when July 07 fiasco happened and everyone were discussing all sorts of stratagies - but it was the very few hundreds that actually rallied and sent flowers and went the extra step to do someting about it.
This generation people lack unity, courage and empathy. Everyone wants to just discuss issues and vent but do not want to join hands together to get something done that benefits all.
nixstor
03-20 11:10 PM
Well, which interpretation? The one from April '08 or from November '05? They substantially differ. That's part of the controversy. What motivated them to change it?
I do think that the interpretation is, at least, debatable, and I can see both interpretations. In the end, the question comes down to: does the country limit have priority over the EB category, and I don't think you can have a conclusive answer.
But it also doesn't say the opposite.
It also states: if Visas available. You can certainly construe the case that Visas can only be available if they cannot be assigned to a lower category. 202 (a) (5) (B) actually states that only in application of 202 (e), Visas should be deemed to be required. Does that mean they are not required otherwise? 203(b) actually uses the same terminology to allow non-required visas to fall through.
Historically, before AC-21 was added, Visa numbers were wasted because they needed to be assigned in proportion. Irrespective of the interpretation of 202 (a) (5) this cannot happen with AC-21.
Snips from Nov 05 Bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2712.html)
The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
>> As per my understanding, When there are no per country limits, It can be assigned to any one with oldest PD. Not that it is working like that with USCIS. As I said, before in my previous post, we can imagine these visa numbers tagged with the category name beside them. <<
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
>> Just to let you know before you think I am biased towards one thing or the other, I haven't looked at the text of the INA until a week before and for the past 2 years I have heard the same story that country limits trump category. I have spoken with an attorney and he expressed above similar opinion where we might not have noticed how numbers were overflowing and NOT overflowing to demand or lack of demand. Either way, This is not a panacea for the problem at hand as there is no clarity what so ever in either procedures. <<
I do think that the interpretation is, at least, debatable, and I can see both interpretations. In the end, the question comes down to: does the country limit have priority over the EB category, and I don't think you can have a conclusive answer.
But it also doesn't say the opposite.
It also states: if Visas available. You can certainly construe the case that Visas can only be available if they cannot be assigned to a lower category. 202 (a) (5) (B) actually states that only in application of 202 (e), Visas should be deemed to be required. Does that mean they are not required otherwise? 203(b) actually uses the same terminology to allow non-required visas to fall through.
Historically, before AC-21 was added, Visa numbers were wasted because they needed to be assigned in proportion. Irrespective of the interpretation of 202 (a) (5) this cannot happen with AC-21.
Snips from Nov 05 Bulletin (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2712.html)
The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
>> As per my understanding, When there are no per country limits, It can be assigned to any one with oldest PD. Not that it is working like that with USCIS. As I said, before in my previous post, we can imagine these visa numbers tagged with the category name beside them. <<
During FY due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
>> Just to let you know before you think I am biased towards one thing or the other, I haven't looked at the text of the INA until a week before and for the past 2 years I have heard the same story that country limits trump category. I have spoken with an attorney and he expressed above similar opinion where we might not have noticed how numbers were overflowing and NOT overflowing to demand or lack of demand. Either way, This is not a panacea for the problem at hand as there is no clarity what so ever in either procedures. <<
more...
pitha
05-31 10:42 AM
This is a slippery slope,
"would create a quota exemption for certain highly skilled immigrants who have at least three years of U.S. work experience"
the keyword is "certain", in skil that "certain" meany MS or PHD, what does this certain mean, it all depends on the definition of certain, it would be nice if the use the same definition of skil (masters and phd)
would create a quota exemption for certain highly skilled immigrants who have at least three years of U.S. work experience
"would create a quota exemption for certain highly skilled immigrants who have at least three years of U.S. work experience"
the keyword is "certain", in skil that "certain" meany MS or PHD, what does this certain mean, it all depends on the definition of certain, it would be nice if the use the same definition of skil (masters and phd)
would create a quota exemption for certain highly skilled immigrants who have at least three years of U.S. work experience
redddiv
07-02 09:31 AM
Hi,
I have worked with these lawyers. I had the best experience. They were always on top of everything.
www.gowda.com
:)
Guys,
Wanted to started this thread to get reviews on different law firms
I can understand the quality and committment of lawyers can make a huge difference especially in this unprecendented situation where all EB categories are made current now and now there is a rumour that it would be retrogressed back probably sometime next week with a new visa bulletin.
A lot of lawyers who are really committed and sincere to their client's clause: Getting them Green Card, are working overnight and over the weekend also so that their client can file I-485 ASAP and on the other hand few law firms are acting as slackers and not even responding to their client's emails.
Anyway, I am interested in knowing everyone's experience ( good or bad ) with law-firms and their recommendation.
My Own Case:-> I work for a multibillion dollar telecom company and joined this company almost 15 mos ago with a promise that they would start my GC immediately. Till Now, they have not yet file my labor. Their lawfirm is Larrabee http://www.larrabee.com/ in sanDiego. I don't have much experience with them as my application is still in my company's internal queue but based on the basis of my little experience, I would certainly not recommend them
Thanks
DD
I have worked with these lawyers. I had the best experience. They were always on top of everything.
www.gowda.com
:)
Guys,
Wanted to started this thread to get reviews on different law firms
I can understand the quality and committment of lawyers can make a huge difference especially in this unprecendented situation where all EB categories are made current now and now there is a rumour that it would be retrogressed back probably sometime next week with a new visa bulletin.
A lot of lawyers who are really committed and sincere to their client's clause: Getting them Green Card, are working overnight and over the weekend also so that their client can file I-485 ASAP and on the other hand few law firms are acting as slackers and not even responding to their client's emails.
Anyway, I am interested in knowing everyone's experience ( good or bad ) with law-firms and their recommendation.
My Own Case:-> I work for a multibillion dollar telecom company and joined this company almost 15 mos ago with a promise that they would start my GC immediately. Till Now, they have not yet file my labor. Their lawfirm is Larrabee http://www.larrabee.com/ in sanDiego. I don't have much experience with them as my application is still in my company's internal queue but based on the basis of my little experience, I would certainly not recommend them
Thanks
DD
more...
andy garcia
02-07 01:51 PM
23800 more to go
If you extend the deadline anymore, you should change the name to either
The Honorable Barack Obama :mad::mad: or
The Honorable Hillary Clinton :mad::mad:
If you extend the deadline anymore, you should change the name to either
The Honorable Barack Obama :mad::mad: or
The Honorable Hillary Clinton :mad::mad:
delhiguy79
07-23 07:24 AM
...
more...
checklaw
05-17 08:30 PM
Completed.
lalithkx
07-02 01:34 PM
Called him last week itself. The polling page says I may not vote for this. how do I vote???
more...
prince_charming
09-12 07:28 PM
I am not a lawyer, but this is what my understanding: if your I-485 was is pending for at least 180 days and your I-140 was approved at the time when you used AC21, you should be safe. In this scenario, even if the ex-employer revokes your I-140, you should be fine and if USCIS has denied your I-485 based on this, you should be able to fight it.
USCIS usually won't deny a I-485 unless the applicant was out of status at some point of time. Sometimes, the attorney messes up the application somewhere and that causes denial. But again, as someone has mentioned, USCIS is suppose to issue NOID before denying it. If they haven't done so, this gives you an additional material to fight the denial.
I would suggest that you wait for the denial notice and see what it says. If it sounds complicated or you think the USCIS has made a mistake, get a reputable attorney and file a MTR.
After searching on google, i found almost 20 cases on first 2-3 pages itself indicating the denial notice and MTR.
I think they are just sending denials to put us in another limbo.... Its going to be the hardest and longest 10-15 days of my life........
USCIS usually won't deny a I-485 unless the applicant was out of status at some point of time. Sometimes, the attorney messes up the application somewhere and that causes denial. But again, as someone has mentioned, USCIS is suppose to issue NOID before denying it. If they haven't done so, this gives you an additional material to fight the denial.
I would suggest that you wait for the denial notice and see what it says. If it sounds complicated or you think the USCIS has made a mistake, get a reputable attorney and file a MTR.
After searching on google, i found almost 20 cases on first 2-3 pages itself indicating the denial notice and MTR.
I think they are just sending denials to put us in another limbo.... Its going to be the hardest and longest 10-15 days of my life........
rennieallen
09-26 12:24 PM
When it is already proved that no American is available for the skill set required and being substituted with a Foreign worker, then from where the nationality came in to the picture?
Here is the reasoning (I have not thought deeply enough about the reasoning to have a personal opinion on it yet):
The U.S. has a policy of cultural integration called "the melting pot". The idea, is that instead of (as Canada does it) maintaining simultaneous separate cultural identities (referred to as a "mosaic") cultural identities are "blended" together to arrive at a new cultural identity that will still be uniquely "American".
Given this policy, the per country quota makes sense, since to not restrict immigration from certain cultures risks the potential of getting more of a mosaic than a melting pot (since if there is sufficient "critical mass" of one cultural identity, this group would be prone to establish a "district" of their own and maintain their source culture). An example of this is the "little country" syndrome (e.g. little China, little Vietnam, little India, little Italy, etc.).
Does the companies bother about the skill set required or the nationality?
Thanks
The quota is applied post qualification of the candidate, so the skill set is not a factor (i.e. if country 'A' does not achieve quota with qualified applicants, then these visas are distributed to countries that have hit the quota).
Applicants from countries that don't achieve quota are subject to the exact same tests on their qualifications as applicants from countries that do achieve quota.
I think what frustrates most people here is not the per country quota, so much as the low level of the overall quota (since, as others have pointed out, most countries do not use their quota, and that quota *is* redistributed to the countries that do achieve quota, thus allowing them to exceed quota).
So in effect, all the per country quota does, is give applicants from those countries first-crack at available visas *once other countries are at quota*, and has no effect at all until some country has hit their quota.
I think there is plenty of room for discussion about what percentage a country should be able to send, and what the overall number of visas should be, but I really don't think the per country quota is worth getting worked up about.
Here is the reasoning (I have not thought deeply enough about the reasoning to have a personal opinion on it yet):
The U.S. has a policy of cultural integration called "the melting pot". The idea, is that instead of (as Canada does it) maintaining simultaneous separate cultural identities (referred to as a "mosaic") cultural identities are "blended" together to arrive at a new cultural identity that will still be uniquely "American".
Given this policy, the per country quota makes sense, since to not restrict immigration from certain cultures risks the potential of getting more of a mosaic than a melting pot (since if there is sufficient "critical mass" of one cultural identity, this group would be prone to establish a "district" of their own and maintain their source culture). An example of this is the "little country" syndrome (e.g. little China, little Vietnam, little India, little Italy, etc.).
Does the companies bother about the skill set required or the nationality?
Thanks
The quota is applied post qualification of the candidate, so the skill set is not a factor (i.e. if country 'A' does not achieve quota with qualified applicants, then these visas are distributed to countries that have hit the quota).
Applicants from countries that don't achieve quota are subject to the exact same tests on their qualifications as applicants from countries that do achieve quota.
I think what frustrates most people here is not the per country quota, so much as the low level of the overall quota (since, as others have pointed out, most countries do not use their quota, and that quota *is* redistributed to the countries that do achieve quota, thus allowing them to exceed quota).
So in effect, all the per country quota does, is give applicants from those countries first-crack at available visas *once other countries are at quota*, and has no effect at all until some country has hit their quota.
I think there is plenty of room for discussion about what percentage a country should be able to send, and what the overall number of visas should be, but I really don't think the per country quota is worth getting worked up about.
more...
srikondoji
12-24 02:01 PM
You have to understand the simple fact that no,law or system is 100% perfect on day 1. Over time we have to learn the system and take the feedback and modify the system according to changing times. You cannot say that discrimination is built into the law. This is totally wrong.
Again H1-B visa is a privillege just like Driver license. It is not a right.
We can only request/protest democratically following proper protocols and get our things done. Otherwise there won't be any difference between us and those terrorists who protest by suicide bombers.
I hope i didn't offend anyone here.
of course, a different visa type, discrimination built into the law.
Again H1-B visa is a privillege just like Driver license. It is not a right.
We can only request/protest democratically following proper protocols and get our things done. Otherwise there won't be any difference between us and those terrorists who protest by suicide bombers.
I hope i didn't offend anyone here.
of course, a different visa type, discrimination built into the law.
rajeshalex
03-05 08:40 AM
I will contribute 25$ on my behalf. And I suggest that we can take a copy of this letter and send it to Ombudsman, president and hilar clinton telling that USCIS even dont know how many applications with PD per country.
We can also send the copy of this letter to AILA and any other media and try to get an publicity so that ultimately aim should be like the processing times there must be a web page in USCIS where it should display each month what is the no of applications with pd per country. If we dont request this then after an year again we have to pay 5K to get this report.
Third thing is can IV management contribute some money?
Rajesh
We can also send the copy of this letter to AILA and any other media and try to get an publicity so that ultimately aim should be like the processing times there must be a web page in USCIS where it should display each month what is the no of applications with pd per country. If we dont request this then after an year again we have to pay 5K to get this report.
Third thing is can IV management contribute some money?
Rajesh
more...
dixie
11-08 04:52 PM
Agreed CIR benefits illegals more than us, and some of its provisions are flaky. But then it raises the EB cap to 625K and exempts MS + 3 yrs from cap.That in itself is a huge relief measure for us. Agreed illegals benefit a lot more, and the dems are more sympathetic to them but the point is we are not the choosers here. Something is better than nothing is the dictum for us.
Let us now stop re-inventing the wheel and re-focus our efforts to make the new congressmen aware of our situation. Have a nice day !
Actually I do have a convincing answer... whether or not that bill passes, we are in a lose-lose situation. I have read the bill (not in its entirety like I already stated). I know that the amnesty section already specified there will be no immediate granting of citizenship, excepting the wording for those who have been in this country for more than 5/6 years seems to imply they would get citizenship (again, the way a bill is worded can be twisted in future).
What I am worried about is, I get the feeling this is going to end up dipping into our EB3 pool... we previously had a Sched A for physicians and nurses that took numbers out of EB3 exclusively for them.
And I don't listen to Lou Dobbs or NumbersUSA rantings. But if you kept your ears open more than 6 months ago, you would also have heard some Dems says some not-so-friendly things about us.
One prominent Dem senator said H1-Bs are not suffering as much as illegals.
Another prominent Dem said this country needed more farm workers, not more IT / skilled ppl.
Have a nice day, anyway.
Let us now stop re-inventing the wheel and re-focus our efforts to make the new congressmen aware of our situation. Have a nice day !
Actually I do have a convincing answer... whether or not that bill passes, we are in a lose-lose situation. I have read the bill (not in its entirety like I already stated). I know that the amnesty section already specified there will be no immediate granting of citizenship, excepting the wording for those who have been in this country for more than 5/6 years seems to imply they would get citizenship (again, the way a bill is worded can be twisted in future).
What I am worried about is, I get the feeling this is going to end up dipping into our EB3 pool... we previously had a Sched A for physicians and nurses that took numbers out of EB3 exclusively for them.
And I don't listen to Lou Dobbs or NumbersUSA rantings. But if you kept your ears open more than 6 months ago, you would also have heard some Dems says some not-so-friendly things about us.
One prominent Dem senator said H1-Bs are not suffering as much as illegals.
Another prominent Dem said this country needed more farm workers, not more IT / skilled ppl.
Have a nice day, anyway.
Narayan
08-14 12:28 AM
DO NOT use Philip Sheldon & Associates in Long Beach California. Screwed up our case and did not file in time.. Very unresponsive.
more...
jayram123
09-20 02:31 PM
'Too many Cooks spoiled the broth'. If each person steering the boat paddles in a different direction, boat will go in circles.
True to certain extent but I don't know that there are too many cooks. We are all making suggestions but if there is any action based on that, we don't know. It's sorta brainstorming and some good ideas may come out of that.
If we stick to 'Don't ask what we can do for you, ask what you can do for us', we won't go far with it.
I have had other people express the same thing to me. It's about the collective group but if we cannot convince individual folks there isn't a way we can gather the group. We truly need to be proactive in recruiting people to the organization actively as opposed to being passive and saying it's fine - we will let whoever wants to join us join and whoever wants to contribute let them contribute.
I think as more number of people join this organization, the responsibility increases for the organization too. I also truly think the anonymity of the members is truly not helping and is in a way responsible for all the offensive posts in this forum. Once you attach a face and name and location to the IV handle, some of that should stop.
Also, make this a paid forum, please.
True to certain extent but I don't know that there are too many cooks. We are all making suggestions but if there is any action based on that, we don't know. It's sorta brainstorming and some good ideas may come out of that.
If we stick to 'Don't ask what we can do for you, ask what you can do for us', we won't go far with it.
I have had other people express the same thing to me. It's about the collective group but if we cannot convince individual folks there isn't a way we can gather the group. We truly need to be proactive in recruiting people to the organization actively as opposed to being passive and saying it's fine - we will let whoever wants to join us join and whoever wants to contribute let them contribute.
I think as more number of people join this organization, the responsibility increases for the organization too. I also truly think the anonymity of the members is truly not helping and is in a way responsible for all the offensive posts in this forum. Once you attach a face and name and location to the IV handle, some of that should stop.
Also, make this a paid forum, please.
TheOmbudsman
11-08 02:26 PM
Rheoretro,
Yes, so they think that Katrina is a right winger ? She is the most liberal one around !
Best regards,
Ombudsman
I am glad someone on this site injects a daily dose of reality - half the people that post are out to lunch, anyway!
Keep it up, Ombudsman! And let the whiners whine! There seem to be too many of them, anyway. Lots of people who come up with lots of "suggestions." Mostly nonsense, anyway. And then there are some that post messages in the news article thread that are simply wrong and inaccurate. Some people are still in third grade...they believe everything that they read. And believe everything that they hear on TV or the radio. If Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly is your source of accurate news or objective analysis, why, even the heavens weep for you!
BTW, there are people on here who think that "The Nation" is a right-wing newspaper! How retarded is that! Katrina van den Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, is no right winger!
check out www.mediamatters.org for another healthy dose of reality checks.
Yes, so they think that Katrina is a right winger ? She is the most liberal one around !
Best regards,
Ombudsman
I am glad someone on this site injects a daily dose of reality - half the people that post are out to lunch, anyway!
Keep it up, Ombudsman! And let the whiners whine! There seem to be too many of them, anyway. Lots of people who come up with lots of "suggestions." Mostly nonsense, anyway. And then there are some that post messages in the news article thread that are simply wrong and inaccurate. Some people are still in third grade...they believe everything that they read. And believe everything that they hear on TV or the radio. If Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly is your source of accurate news or objective analysis, why, even the heavens weep for you!
BTW, there are people on here who think that "The Nation" is a right-wing newspaper! How retarded is that! Katrina van den Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, is no right winger!
check out www.mediamatters.org for another healthy dose of reality checks.
jkays94
07-21 08:26 PM
AILA now feels defeated because they could not show themselves as the protector of this community. If you see the lawsuit text by AILF, it clearly asks for money for lawyer fees, but does not asks for moeny for Medical exam and mental agony. So if you are going to trust your lawyers to help you, then good luck.
By the way, your Indian lawyer I dont know the name, sued DOL once and lost.
IV alone did not win the battle alone, it took the concerted efforts of IV and other organizations including AILA and the threat of the AILF lawsuit to get DOS and USCIS to relent and reverse their decision.
It obvious you misunderstood the purpose of the AILF lawsuit. Why file a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief to allow plaintiffs to file and at the same time demand reimbursement of medical fees and compensation for mental agony (I doubt if there were any plaintiffs put on anti-depressants or therapy in those two weeks as a result of the decision). You can't have your cake and eat it, you either win the case to enable filing, or you sue for damages incurred as a result of the decision but then you have to forget about contesting the ability to file, I'm sure any sane individual will be glad to choose the former and in this case thats what the lawsuit reflects. If you have ever read any class action lawsuit, the lawyers always ask for costs of the suit, this is normal even in non class action lawsuits, the loosing party pays the prevailing party's costs!
In the prior lawsuit that was lost, it is clear that Rajiv said recently that such cases against the executive branch of government need to filed in other federal court circuits other than the DC one where it is likely they will not be inclined to frown when deciding against the executive. For the record, his lawsuit was not against the DOL.
By the way, your Indian lawyer I dont know the name, sued DOL once and lost.
IV alone did not win the battle alone, it took the concerted efforts of IV and other organizations including AILA and the threat of the AILF lawsuit to get DOS and USCIS to relent and reverse their decision.
It obvious you misunderstood the purpose of the AILF lawsuit. Why file a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief to allow plaintiffs to file and at the same time demand reimbursement of medical fees and compensation for mental agony (I doubt if there were any plaintiffs put on anti-depressants or therapy in those two weeks as a result of the decision). You can't have your cake and eat it, you either win the case to enable filing, or you sue for damages incurred as a result of the decision but then you have to forget about contesting the ability to file, I'm sure any sane individual will be glad to choose the former and in this case thats what the lawsuit reflects. If you have ever read any class action lawsuit, the lawyers always ask for costs of the suit, this is normal even in non class action lawsuits, the loosing party pays the prevailing party's costs!
In the prior lawsuit that was lost, it is clear that Rajiv said recently that such cases against the executive branch of government need to filed in other federal court circuits other than the DC one where it is likely they will not be inclined to frown when deciding against the executive. For the record, his lawsuit was not against the DOL.
newgcor
07-27 05:50 PM
I140 filed in Nebraska - 20th June 2007
Received in Nebraska - 21st june 2007
Receipt received on - 26th July 2007.
Finally I140 receipt notice arrived and have filed my 485.. Thanks IV who gave me valuable suggestions
Received in Nebraska - 21st june 2007
Receipt received on - 26th July 2007.
Finally I140 receipt notice arrived and have filed my 485.. Thanks IV who gave me valuable suggestions
eager_immi
02-12 01:02 PM
If you have read this post you have also read that IV won't inform which firms that they are going with, and the change is because of contract expiring. Please stop letting your disillusionment affect ur judgment. All people can do is join state chapters and contribute more. If you feel this leadership is going nowhere why don't you give up some of your free time and do some active work and contribute more.
ok, i am beginning to lose confidence now... first no i-485 relief and now wait till CIR>.....last year, CIR turned out to be a big circus....i hope this time something productive happens....
why are we changing lobbying firm? what do you mean it is a strategic decision?
are we dissatisfied with our lobbying firm? pm me if you can post on public forum..
but we need answers....this leadership is going nowhere now......
ok, i am beginning to lose confidence now... first no i-485 relief and now wait till CIR>.....last year, CIR turned out to be a big circus....i hope this time something productive happens....
why are we changing lobbying firm? what do you mean it is a strategic decision?
are we dissatisfied with our lobbying firm? pm me if you can post on public forum..
but we need answers....this leadership is going nowhere now......
No comments:
Post a Comment