chanduv23
05-15 10:03 PM
For that only I am telling we need to teach a lesson. Take them once to court, and if we can get the judement once in our favour it will nail the coffin. If we lose, some one else try again in different court.
Shan - I totally understand your frustration and where you are coming from. I had the same level of aggression when i first started participated in IV activities and I am sure, a lot of people want to pursue things in an aggressive manner.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
Shan - I totally understand your frustration and where you are coming from. I had the same level of aggression when i first started participated in IV activities and I am sure, a lot of people want to pursue things in an aggressive manner.
But lets calm down for a minute.
The OP initially contacted IV after googling up and came across our threads and I spoke to him. He was frustrated with opening two MTRs and was looking into mandamus.
I requested him to do the following - exhaust all adminisrative procedures first. Contact Ombudsman, Senators, Congressman, try all options.
See - these kind of decisions are not easy and not not everyone understands this stuff.
Once you go to court, it may take a couple of hearings and you will also have the other side arguing their cause.
We must always remember that - we are in a civilised nation and people on the other side are willing to listen and try to resolve stuff in the best way possible
- Lobbying, awareness etc.. are basic principles of IV .
we are not here to teach someone a lesson or fight with someone - we are here because we want our issues resolved and we must work in the best possible way.
Nevertheless - one must know how litigation also works in case that is the only option.
I request people to please share their ideas and thoughts on how to tackle such issues.
Let frustration not dictate your views. I understand that we all want issues to be resolved and get really aggressive on these forums - but lets just relax and think and see what is the best possible solution.
wallpaper Women#39;s shoes: AK Anne Klein
guy03062
09-11 04:32 PM
This is really frustrating...moving EB2-I cut-off dates to Aug 2006, approving large number of 2006 PD cases and leaving 2003 - 2005 cases aside.
chantu
07-11 11:27 AM
I have one question?
I have case id for ETA form. I could see my details by downloading MDB file from flcdatacenter. How can I know whether I am EB2 or EB3? I do not want to ask my employer.
I have case id for ETA form. I could see my details by downloading MDB file from flcdatacenter. How can I know whether I am EB2 or EB3? I do not want to ask my employer.
2011 AK Anne Klein Shoes,
Green.Tech
06-17 03:48 PM
Wandmaker and Green.Tech - Thankyou for your leadership towards this funding drive
Thank you santb1975!
Thank you to all who have contributed...and to those who will contribute in the future!
Still waiting for 10 generous souls to come forward and help IV realize its first $20k enroute to $50k.
It's now or now!
Thank you santb1975!
Thank you to all who have contributed...and to those who will contribute in the future!
Still waiting for 10 generous souls to come forward and help IV realize its first $20k enroute to $50k.
It's now or now!
more...
Suva
07-18 02:17 PM
He is absolutely correct. 485 Processing would start depending on RD (Receipt Date). But at the time of approval PD should be current and if it is current then the applicant whose RD (Receipt Date) is oldest would get the approval first.
receipt date if your PD is current.
receipt date if your PD is current.
ashutrip
06-20 01:09 PM
Mine was filed in Feb 07. My lawyer has opened an inquiry and its pending too
Atalanta sucks
Atalanta sucks
more...
vkannan
03-12 10:19 PM
I know someone with PD EB3-I 2003 March who got his GC today.
Come on now, dont create another rumour....our brothers in EB3- I 2003 would all be excited ....but after few weeks they will know the truth and get disappointed.....Just think practically whether this is possible....
One example....just think....a week before April Bulletin was released.....there was lot of positive thought/wibes going around thinking EB2/EB3-I india (due to LUDs) would have a Huge jump forward.....well, everyone knows by now.....how it all went..........
Come on now, dont create another rumour....our brothers in EB3- I 2003 would all be excited ....but after few weeks they will know the truth and get disappointed.....Just think practically whether this is possible....
One example....just think....a week before April Bulletin was released.....there was lot of positive thought/wibes going around thinking EB2/EB3-I india (due to LUDs) would have a Huge jump forward.....well, everyone knows by now.....how it all went..........
2010 AK Anne Klein Shoes,
ameryki
01-03 08:00 PM
hi applied for 485/ ead and ap on Aug 1st to NSC. I received Ead cards and finger printing complete. But no RN's for any of the 3 applications and no AP yet :-(. Can't even find out AP file number since lawyer used money order to file.
more...
immi_seeker
10-01 03:04 PM
My impression was that USCIS calculated the possible number of cases that would be ready to be assigned a visa (means all the name check and other formalities finished) , before a month and the first PD that will not get a VISA will be the cutoff date for the bulletin for that month.
If the USCSI didnt have enough applications to be assigned the VISA , then why are they so conservative in making the cutoff dates move ahead. What is the harm in pro-actively moving the cutiff dates, to amek sure no visa gets wasted. I think focussing on avoiding visa wastage itself will reduce this retrogression mess to a big extent
If the USCSI didnt have enough applications to be assigned the VISA , then why are they so conservative in making the cutoff dates move ahead. What is the harm in pro-actively moving the cutiff dates, to amek sure no visa gets wasted. I think focussing on avoiding visa wastage itself will reduce this retrogression mess to a big extent
hair AK Anne Klein Shoes,
optimystic
09-10 09:36 PM
HR 5882 has the answer for the FIFO problem.
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
USCIS is pretty good with approving cased based on PD for 3/4th of the year and in the last quarter they for the "Hail mary" play and DOS gives a wide PD range during the last quarter for USCIS to play. Apart from recapturing wasted visa's HR 5882 also has an automatic recapture provision to avoid any future visa wastage. If this provision is in place then UCSIS/DOS will not be in a position to playing the "some how use up visa by sep 31" card to approve random cases.
Rather than focusing on HR 5882 many are still pondering about LUD's and sill day dreaming. The demand for visa's is much higher than the supply of visa's, it doesn't matter what new spillover policy USCIS adopts, it can only provide incremental improvements. For a quantum improvment in the situation we need a legislation and HR 5882 is the best option we have now.
Good points.
However ...
How many visa numbers will get recaptured if 5882 gets approval and how soon (within this FY09 ? )
How many pending applications are there?
How many new ones accumulating every year?
Are there enough recaptured visas to cover all?
Agreed that with more visa numbers, and no potential threat to wastage of visa numbers, USCIS has no incentive nor tricky cards to play to justify their random approval bursts.....but will that be enough to prevent them from doing so, just because they can? I mean this is USCIS we are talking about.....Even with laws/memos/rules already in place, they are violating them left and right....
Whats to say that they won't try to reassure people that they don't have to worry about out of order processing because
- there are enough visa numbers for all.
- Though people may see delays, they will eventually all get their GCs
- Its faster and easier if they just grab the first box that is on the top of the pile, and approve cases from there rather than spending very limited resources they have to try to dig thru the boxes to find the cases with oldest PD.
- It will just be a minor inconveneince to the applicants...Their waiting times would drastically reduce from several years to only couple of years.
Would that be acceptable to us then?
If they say every body will be current, with free job movement due to EADs, and every body will get GC within 2-3 years absolutely. PERIOD. Just no gaurantees of FIFO processing. --- Would that be acceptable to us then?
more...
WeldonSprings
05-02 04:15 PM
I know everyone has looked at the Visa Bulletin. Here is a quote from it-
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
So, don't you guys think that there more than 140,000 visas can be given away, if need me as it is this moment. So, I don't understand the retrogression???
It really appeared to me that by the way lofgren asked the questions, and her comments (So recapturing is first step, She mentions "i will let the co-author know that you like the bill to uscis/state dept officials" etc. See the video again if u missed it out) makes me think they will go ahead and introduce in house for voting. What happens in the house is upto your speculation. Lets cross the fingers and wait for updates.
by the way they have 5 business days to ask any questions or clarifications which will end on Wednesday, So until then lets sit tight.
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
So, don't you guys think that there more than 140,000 visas can be given away, if need me as it is this moment. So, I don't understand the retrogression???
It really appeared to me that by the way lofgren asked the questions, and her comments (So recapturing is first step, She mentions "i will let the co-author know that you like the bill to uscis/state dept officials" etc. See the video again if u missed it out) makes me think they will go ahead and introduce in house for voting. What happens in the house is upto your speculation. Lets cross the fingers and wait for updates.
by the way they have 5 business days to ask any questions or clarifications which will end on Wednesday, So until then lets sit tight.
hot ANNE KLEIN AK Christa Heels
Jimi_Hendrix
08-09 01:37 PM
Why you need to support legal immigration reforms?
I am a legal immigrant to United States and my permanent residency application is pending because of the backlogs in the current immigration system. There is a combination of factors leading to the current backlog in the legal immigration system. Periodic legalization of illegal aliens, lack of sufficient resources to process applications, procedural inefficiencies and poor understanding of legal immigration problems by congressional representatives are some of the contributory factors.
Current immigration reform is primarily focused on illegal immigration reform. Typically, legal immigration is folded into a bill/Act which primarily supports illegal immigration. It is crucial that the contributions of legal immigrants be appreciated. Highly skilled, legal immigration adds to scarce skills and training in the American workforce. They improve productivity and quality of work to keep America competitive. These immigrants also pay taxes at higher rates. Further they are not entitled to most of their social security benefits unless they have worked for a certain number of years in USA. Legal immigrants act as role models by respecting the law and playing the role of responsible citizens. They act as safe anchors to curb outsourcing by providing foreign talent locally. An average legal immigrant integrates easily into the American social cauldron, is law abiding and is favorable towards charity and social participation.
Now that you have a decent appreciation of legal immigrant contributions, let us take a look at the problems faced by them. It takes anywhere between 6-8 years on an average to process permanent residency applications of legal immigrants. During majority of this 6-8 year period,
1) Legal immigrants cannot change employers and/or job title
2) Spouses of legal immigrants cannot work unless they have separate work authorization
3) All major financial and career decisions are on a hold
4) Children of legal immigrants are unable to earn certain education benefits available to permanent residents/citizens
5) Immigrants are reluctant to visit their home countries because of increased scrutiny at the border due to the lack of permanent residency/citizenship privileges. There is no assurance that the immigrant will be able to re-enter USA
6) Work and Travel Permits need to be renewed every year i.e. new fees are charged by USCIS each year for renewal. This step not only involves financial cost but also induces fresh anxiety about whether the permits will be approved without problems and on time.
Due to lack of sufficient visa availability, legal immigrant applications are backed up solid. An important factor responsible for current backlogs is inefficient processing of applications. USCIS, FBI and Department of Labor are trying their best to cope with the huge immigration backlog work. However, some processes move faster while others take unreasonably long time. Efficiency in one process is compensated by complete lack of efficiency in some other processes. The cumulative effect of these factors is tremendous frustration among legal immigrants. Many of these immigrants are actively looking for work in other countries where immigration laws are favorable to legal immigration and advanced skills are in demand. Compared to USA, time taken for obtaining permanent residency in some countries is approximately 75-80 percent shorter.
Lately, an awareness campaign has been launched by Immigration Voice (a 5,500 member group representing highly skilled, legal immigrants). Immigration Voice represents more than 500,000 bright and innovative minds in the country. As a result of Immigration Voice’s campaign and the ongoing immigration debate, some politicians have a better understanding and appreciation of legal immigration issues. Accordingly, the SKIL bill was introduced by Senator Cornyn and Kyl in the Senate and recently this bill was also introduced in the House of Representatives. The SKIL bill supports reform in the legal immigration system. Due to the current deadlock in the senate and house over Comprehensive Immigration Reform, relief for legal immigrants is nowhere in sight. Will the average American citizen stand up and support this law abiding means of immigration? Or will the average legal immigrant fall victim to the vicious campaign of anti-immigrant extremism? The American public must take a stand and defend the American dream.
Best Regards,
JH
I am a legal immigrant to United States and my permanent residency application is pending because of the backlogs in the current immigration system. There is a combination of factors leading to the current backlog in the legal immigration system. Periodic legalization of illegal aliens, lack of sufficient resources to process applications, procedural inefficiencies and poor understanding of legal immigration problems by congressional representatives are some of the contributory factors.
Current immigration reform is primarily focused on illegal immigration reform. Typically, legal immigration is folded into a bill/Act which primarily supports illegal immigration. It is crucial that the contributions of legal immigrants be appreciated. Highly skilled, legal immigration adds to scarce skills and training in the American workforce. They improve productivity and quality of work to keep America competitive. These immigrants also pay taxes at higher rates. Further they are not entitled to most of their social security benefits unless they have worked for a certain number of years in USA. Legal immigrants act as role models by respecting the law and playing the role of responsible citizens. They act as safe anchors to curb outsourcing by providing foreign talent locally. An average legal immigrant integrates easily into the American social cauldron, is law abiding and is favorable towards charity and social participation.
Now that you have a decent appreciation of legal immigrant contributions, let us take a look at the problems faced by them. It takes anywhere between 6-8 years on an average to process permanent residency applications of legal immigrants. During majority of this 6-8 year period,
1) Legal immigrants cannot change employers and/or job title
2) Spouses of legal immigrants cannot work unless they have separate work authorization
3) All major financial and career decisions are on a hold
4) Children of legal immigrants are unable to earn certain education benefits available to permanent residents/citizens
5) Immigrants are reluctant to visit their home countries because of increased scrutiny at the border due to the lack of permanent residency/citizenship privileges. There is no assurance that the immigrant will be able to re-enter USA
6) Work and Travel Permits need to be renewed every year i.e. new fees are charged by USCIS each year for renewal. This step not only involves financial cost but also induces fresh anxiety about whether the permits will be approved without problems and on time.
Due to lack of sufficient visa availability, legal immigrant applications are backed up solid. An important factor responsible for current backlogs is inefficient processing of applications. USCIS, FBI and Department of Labor are trying their best to cope with the huge immigration backlog work. However, some processes move faster while others take unreasonably long time. Efficiency in one process is compensated by complete lack of efficiency in some other processes. The cumulative effect of these factors is tremendous frustration among legal immigrants. Many of these immigrants are actively looking for work in other countries where immigration laws are favorable to legal immigration and advanced skills are in demand. Compared to USA, time taken for obtaining permanent residency in some countries is approximately 75-80 percent shorter.
Lately, an awareness campaign has been launched by Immigration Voice (a 5,500 member group representing highly skilled, legal immigrants). Immigration Voice represents more than 500,000 bright and innovative minds in the country. As a result of Immigration Voice’s campaign and the ongoing immigration debate, some politicians have a better understanding and appreciation of legal immigration issues. Accordingly, the SKIL bill was introduced by Senator Cornyn and Kyl in the Senate and recently this bill was also introduced in the House of Representatives. The SKIL bill supports reform in the legal immigration system. Due to the current deadlock in the senate and house over Comprehensive Immigration Reform, relief for legal immigrants is nowhere in sight. Will the average American citizen stand up and support this law abiding means of immigration? Or will the average legal immigrant fall victim to the vicious campaign of anti-immigrant extremism? The American public must take a stand and defend the American dream.
Best Regards,
JH
more...
house Ak Anne Klein Christa Designer
prinive
07-06 01:28 PM
it seems they are planning to honor the July VB and make chanes in Aug VB. So I guess they will accept the applications in July. :rolleyes:
tattoo AK Anne Klein Shoes Dugan
santb1975
05-22 01:31 AM
We have several bills that are being discussed to provide releif for all of us stuck in the Green Card process. We have very few dedicated volunteers working very hard and knocking the doors of representatives across the country seeking support for our bills. We need to lobby hard to get releif for all of us in this election year and lobbying is not cheap. We need dollars to keep up our lobbying efforts. We need help with raising dollars that are needed to keep working for our cause. We do not have Star Players and/or Star Athletes raising funds to support our cause. We need to do it ourselves. We all need to come together as a dedicated team with a mission to raise the targeted dollar amount. Can we do it?. Can we all step up and raise the dollars we need for our cause?.
Yes we can. Let's do it
Click on Contribute Now (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=44) to make a contribution
Want to donate an amount not listed on the contributions page?. Login to paypal and send in your desired contribution to donations@immigrationvoice.org
Made a contribution already?. Get your friends to make a contribution as well
Yes we can. Let's do it
Click on Contribute Now (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=44) to make a contribution
Want to donate an amount not listed on the contributions page?. Login to paypal and send in your desired contribution to donations@immigrationvoice.org
Made a contribution already?. Get your friends to make a contribution as well
more...
pictures AK Anne Klein - Shoes
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:02 PM
California U.S. House results by county
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
dresses AK Anne Klein Shoes,
laborman
04-26 12:38 PM
As per the latest update provided by the DOL to the AILA, of the 363,000 backlog cases pending 108,000 have been completed; 50,000 Certifications have been issued and 255,000 cases remain pending. The DOL further advises that they are on track to issue 45 day letters on all remaining cases by end of June 2006.
My PD is Sept 2003 and I haven't yet got my 45 - day letter. :(
My PD is Sept 2003 and I haven't yet got my 45 - day letter. :(
more...
makeup AK Anne Klein
amits
07-19 12:25 AM
Thank you for contribution, friend!!
Paid one time of Payment of $100 through Paypal (confirmation Number: 46W44575JB938171V), more to come.
Thanks to IV Team:)
Paid one time of Payment of $100 through Paypal (confirmation Number: 46W44575JB938171V), more to come.
Thanks to IV Team:)
girlfriend Ak Anne Klein High Heel Lloyd
paskal
09-10 01:56 AM
Greg Siskind's blog on ILW
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/09/immigration-voi.html
Thanks to Greg for posting about the rally a second time!
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/09/immigration-voi.html
Thanks to Greg for posting about the rally a second time!
hairstyles AK Anne Klein Women#39;s Lyndsy
add78
06-11 09:41 AM
Even if one member donates $100 in one calendar year to IV, it will make a huge impact in your own cause. And that just comes to 27 cents a day!!!!. Think about how much you spend on a cup of coffee or that vending machine at work or tipping at restaurants or a hair salon, folks, I am sure you can set aside 27 cents a day to help your own cause. Please donate at least $100 in a year to IV. As you have already seen, this small investment does pay handily in rewards like July visa bulletin, Admin fixes, EADs and other numerous bills/fixes/reliefs.
Donate generously, and get others to join IV.
Thank You.
Donate generously, and get others to join IV.
Thank You.
hebron
10-29 08:29 AM
Hi Guys,
Could anybody let me know what job code is used for labor certification. Is it DOT or SOC?
Could anybody let me know what job code is used for labor certification. Is it DOT or SOC?
susie
07-06 12:01 AM
Ref cspa and age outs
I have a lawsuit filed for cspa and awaiting outcome
Suing Attorney General, Goeff Gorsky head of VO opinions section at dept of state, Evelyn Upchurh of TSC
They have 60 day to reply from end March 07, then requested additonal 30 days which my immigration attorney agreed to for professional ethics.
So we were at 90 at end Jun 07 and the day before the lawyer for attorney engeral called my lawyer,
Apparently my case file is very thin and as of that Date Geoff Gorsky had not replied to his own attorney!! Their attorney has requesed yet another 30 days and stated on the phone to my lawyer that he wants a resolution to my sons case. For more info go to www.expatsvoice.org
But will update here when I get any news
I have a lawsuit filed for cspa and awaiting outcome
Suing Attorney General, Goeff Gorsky head of VO opinions section at dept of state, Evelyn Upchurh of TSC
They have 60 day to reply from end March 07, then requested additonal 30 days which my immigration attorney agreed to for professional ethics.
So we were at 90 at end Jun 07 and the day before the lawyer for attorney engeral called my lawyer,
Apparently my case file is very thin and as of that Date Geoff Gorsky had not replied to his own attorney!! Their attorney has requesed yet another 30 days and stated on the phone to my lawyer that he wants a resolution to my sons case. For more info go to www.expatsvoice.org
But will update here when I get any news
No comments:
Post a Comment