nixstor
07-11 11:53 AM
In my opinion, the most likely reason why EB2 India dates have been advanced to June 2006 is to help consular posts. CP filers can get their interviews now.
IMO, This along with the max utilization of ideal 100% is what DOS got at by moving EB2 to 06/01/2006.
It appears like DOS wants to get each and every visa number allocated and given how USCIS have their files across the country, moving it well beyond gives USCIS a chance to pick the files that are handy.
In other words, Some on with Jan 06 PD can get out if their file is handy. Some one with Jan 04 (there are still who dont have a GC with 03 and 034 PD's) might still be waiting come dec 08., if their file is rotting some where.
IMO, OCT bulletin will start EB-2 India some where around APR 04.
IMO, This along with the max utilization of ideal 100% is what DOS got at by moving EB2 to 06/01/2006.
It appears like DOS wants to get each and every visa number allocated and given how USCIS have their files across the country, moving it well beyond gives USCIS a chance to pick the files that are handy.
In other words, Some on with Jan 06 PD can get out if their file is handy. Some one with Jan 04 (there are still who dont have a GC with 03 and 034 PD's) might still be waiting come dec 08., if their file is rotting some where.
IMO, OCT bulletin will start EB-2 India some where around APR 04.
wallpaper TIMESHIFT - PS3
chanduv23
08-03 11:16 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Please navigate to the following threads and do the action items
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11694&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11962
Please navigate to the following threads and do the action items
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11694&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11962
needhelp!
05-28 11:10 AM
Seems like there are so many threads about EAD renewals right now, are we going to be content with renewing EADs for the next 5,6,8 years? While there are no restrictions on discussing individual issues, lets not lose sight of the real cause of our group.
Contribute so that IV can assign more resources to work on fixing this whole mess!
Contribute so that IV can assign more resources to work on fixing this whole mess!
2011 dresses timeshift ps3.
willwin
06-10 01:57 PM
That is true and IV core member Nixtor had given details about this visa movement more than a month ago in the all state chapter conference call. This call was strictly for state chapter members of all states. IV core has been meeting DOS and USCIS regularly to find solution to the problems our members have been facing.
Pls take part in the call campaign and contribute funds to be able to find relief.
I don't follow. Are you saying that DOS is disclosing VISA bulletin to IV (core members) even before the actual date of bulletin???
Pls take part in the call campaign and contribute funds to be able to find relief.
I don't follow. Are you saying that DOS is disclosing VISA bulletin to IV (core members) even before the actual date of bulletin???
more...
JunRN
08-11 12:11 AM
I think they just pick it, check it, and receive it. No need for them to sort the papers according to the 'time received'.
gc_on_demand
04-30 03:03 PM
Aytes is talking about transformation program...
Any idea on transformation program ??:confused::confused:
Any idea on transformation program ??:confused::confused:
more...
ANGEL
07-29 08:26 PM
Hello,
I am just showing you my ignorance but what is it about.My wife works in DC right now and very active in fighting for our cause,she is a nurse.She has few correspondence with few senators and congressman but it will be great if there is a bigger force behind it all.please let me know how we can help.I too am tired of waiting in a limbo,the uncertainty is too much and by the day I get so discouraged and sometimes on the verge of giving up.
I am just showing you my ignorance but what is it about.My wife works in DC right now and very active in fighting for our cause,she is a nurse.She has few correspondence with few senators and congressman but it will be great if there is a bigger force behind it all.please let me know how we can help.I too am tired of waiting in a limbo,the uncertainty is too much and by the day I get so discouraged and sometimes on the verge of giving up.
2010 TimeShift
RNGC
06-24 03:04 PM
Thanks...
Here is an article on contribution of Legal Immigrants to Social Security:
http://www.nfap.net/researchactivities/studies/SocialSecurityStudy2005.pdf
RNGC, excellent thread, looks like pessimistic folks have taking this thread for a ride.
America stands to loose in many ways. Here is why..
A study by Kauffman Foundation shows that "an average 13.25-year lag between a key founder�s arrival in the United States and firm formation" - source : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991327#PaperDownload
Loosing well trained individuals due to frustration with the immigration system or due to expired visa duration is equivalent to outsourcing. impact of outsourcing to the US economy is very well debated these days.
Another Kauffman report shows Immigrants were involved in 25% of the US patents approved in 2006 - Source : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008366#PaperDownload
This leads to reverse-brain drain phenomena who's effects to the economy are well documented.
Here is couple of NFAP study about
The impact of immigrant Entrepreneurs and professionals on the US competitiveness:
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
Driving Jobs and innovation offshore:
http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf
Stalling the career path through GC backlogs will impede the creativity of the individuals and hence dampen their entrepreneurial spirit. It also kills the innovative spirits in the individuals.
Those who feel that "grass is greener on the other side" will jump to the other side irrespective of their GC backlog issues, their criteria is different. But there are many who believes that the American system cultivates innovation and entrepreneurial skills, for them the GC backlog is a drag on their growth.
EB1/2/3 is not a delimiter to innovation, innovation happens at all levels. All EB1's aren't PhD's, there are quite a few PhD's in EB2 and similarly there are quite a few MS folks in EB3 too. By saying US just wants EB1 is utter disrespect to fellow professionals who are not on EB1.
Here is an article on contribution of Legal Immigrants to Social Security:
http://www.nfap.net/researchactivities/studies/SocialSecurityStudy2005.pdf
RNGC, excellent thread, looks like pessimistic folks have taking this thread for a ride.
America stands to loose in many ways. Here is why..
A study by Kauffman Foundation shows that "an average 13.25-year lag between a key founder�s arrival in the United States and firm formation" - source : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991327#PaperDownload
Loosing well trained individuals due to frustration with the immigration system or due to expired visa duration is equivalent to outsourcing. impact of outsourcing to the US economy is very well debated these days.
Another Kauffman report shows Immigrants were involved in 25% of the US patents approved in 2006 - Source : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008366#PaperDownload
This leads to reverse-brain drain phenomena who's effects to the economy are well documented.
Here is couple of NFAP study about
The impact of immigrant Entrepreneurs and professionals on the US competitiveness:
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
Driving Jobs and innovation offshore:
http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf
Stalling the career path through GC backlogs will impede the creativity of the individuals and hence dampen their entrepreneurial spirit. It also kills the innovative spirits in the individuals.
Those who feel that "grass is greener on the other side" will jump to the other side irrespective of their GC backlog issues, their criteria is different. But there are many who believes that the American system cultivates innovation and entrepreneurial skills, for them the GC backlog is a drag on their growth.
EB1/2/3 is not a delimiter to innovation, innovation happens at all levels. All EB1's aren't PhD's, there are quite a few PhD's in EB2 and similarly there are quite a few MS folks in EB3 too. By saying US just wants EB1 is utter disrespect to fellow professionals who are not on EB1.
more...
va_dude
03-04 10:06 AM
I don't think this is a pattern, its probably specific just to the lender you were working with.
Frankly speaking the lender has the right to deny you the loan for whatever reason they feel is risky. So no point arguing with them.
Try another lender and hope it works.
-va_dude
Frankly speaking the lender has the right to deny you the loan for whatever reason they feel is risky. So no point arguing with them.
Try another lender and hope it works.
-va_dude
hair timeshift ps3. TIMESHIFT PS3
jonty_11
07-06 01:25 PM
I never saw this roumer any where..
well its a few posts above on this thread..
BTW, I am wondering why DOS keeps posting updates to July VB, rather than justmaking everything "U" instead of "C".....This is confusing.
well its a few posts above on this thread..
BTW, I am wondering why DOS keeps posting updates to July VB, rather than justmaking everything "U" instead of "C".....This is confusing.
more...
kingkon_2000
07-11 10:22 AM
My guess is that they moved the dates so that any one missed the train in jul 2007 will be able to file 485 and/or add spouses to the existing applications. Looks like it will remain there for some time atleast, may be till the year end.
NJOY Eb2 guys.
Now the Jul/07 filers will not receive 2 yrs EAD since the PD is current and there is very less chance that they will receive GC. So USCIS plays a good game.. they will have more chance next year to milk money from Jul07 filers as they will have to renew EAD/AP again next year...
NJOY Eb2 guys.
Now the Jul/07 filers will not receive 2 yrs EAD since the PD is current and there is very less chance that they will receive GC. So USCIS plays a good game.. they will have more chance next year to milk money from Jul07 filers as they will have to renew EAD/AP again next year...
hot Jogos PS3 Timeshift PS3
bluekayal
08-23 04:54 PM
Rest easy folks:
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
Mayorkas said he was determined to “get it right and get it fast.” “The community deserves consistency,” he said. “These are our customers, and we are committed to improving customer service.”
The latest example of the changes wrought by Director Mayorkas is an opportunity to allow the public to comment on interim guidance memorandums before they becomes effective in final form. This type of pre-effective-date chance to comment never happened before with the old INS or the pre-Mayorkas USCIS. The early-peek opportunity for comment allows the agency to withdraw with dignity intact from a position that stakeholders may show is contrary to law or legitimate business practices. For example, USCIS is now accepting comments on a guidance memo with a dry title but a topic of great significance to many prospective green-card applicants with high levels of accomplishment: “Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions.”
This particular guidance memo arises from a debunking the agency received from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, C.A.9 (Cal.), March 04, 2010 (NO. 07-56774). The Court in Kazarian held that USCIS (in this case the Administrative Appeals Office) may not “unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements” without support in the Immigration and Nationality Act or agency regulations.
While Kazarian dealt with EB-1 (extraordinary ability or achievement) green-card eligibility criteria, the interim agency guidance cited extends this also to the EB-2 immigrant visa category for exceptional ability aliens. In my view, USCIS should have issued a guidance memorandum more broadly. Stakeholder feedback should have been issued on a guidance memorandum (which I’d be happy to craft upon request) entitled “Illegality of Unilaterally Imposing Novel Substantive or Evidentiary Requirements.”
Nation of immigrators - A public policy blog on our dysfunctional immigration system � The Dark Sides of Immigration Fame and Anonymity (http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/?p=349)
more...
house Igrica SONY za PS3 Timeshift, PS3-211780
bindas74
11-29 09:49 PM
Hi All,
This is a nice thread. Found all the answers I was looking for. Still some lingering doubts in my head::)))
So, has anyone started working on EAD for their/or spouse's LLC?
Why cant I work on my H1B instead( for my spouse's company )? That would take away some risk. Wouldnt it??
Do we need to submit any tax docs( for the new company I would be moving to) when we apply for the AC21 or at any later stage??
Can someone please answer?
-Thanks in advance
This is a nice thread. Found all the answers I was looking for. Still some lingering doubts in my head::)))
So, has anyone started working on EAD for their/or spouse's LLC?
Why cant I work on my H1B instead( for my spouse's company )? That would take away some risk. Wouldnt it??
Do we need to submit any tax docs( for the new company I would be moving to) when we apply for the AC21 or at any later stage??
Can someone please answer?
-Thanks in advance
tattoo TimeShift (PS3). View All 4 Videos .
aguy
07-27 03:18 PM
has anyone tried renewing their DL in CA based on a receipt of extension?
more...
pictures Time Shift PS3
vaishnavilakshmi
08-02 05:02 PM
I have talked to a representative and he very patiently explained me about the mess.
He clearly and very clearly told me that they have a deadline to send all receipts for June end and July 2nd filers by friday (tomorrow) or worst case monday.
He mentioned that they are working hard to meet this deadline.
Hope this clears the anxiety.
This is true for NSC only.
Hey vow!,
Thanq so much for the good news!U filled us with lots of hope!
Cheers,
vaishu
He clearly and very clearly told me that they have a deadline to send all receipts for June end and July 2nd filers by friday (tomorrow) or worst case monday.
He mentioned that they are working hard to meet this deadline.
Hope this clears the anxiety.
This is true for NSC only.
Hey vow!,
Thanq so much for the good news!U filled us with lots of hope!
Cheers,
vaishu
dresses timeshift ps3.
rck4evr
09-13 09:09 AM
Contributed $100 through Paypal
Confirmation Number: 24145549BE0457255
Confirmation Number: 24145549BE0457255
more...
makeup TimeShift (Hands On) | PS3
ags123
03-07 01:36 AM
http://www.shusterman.com/
news ticker mentions Eb3 ROW and Eb3 phillipines will Retrogress by 1 year to 2004. (He mentions a phone call from Hillary, not too sure whether to believe it)
Could this be futher indication that the spill over from Eb1 and Eb4 and Eb5 will go to Eb2 India and China?
only Monday will tell... This is one nerve wracking weekend.
news ticker mentions Eb3 ROW and Eb3 phillipines will Retrogress by 1 year to 2004. (He mentions a phone call from Hillary, not too sure whether to believe it)
Could this be futher indication that the spill over from Eb1 and Eb4 and Eb5 will go to Eb2 India and China?
only Monday will tell... This is one nerve wracking weekend.
girlfriend timeshift ps3. TIMESHIFT (PS3
Mygr8life
12-18 02:30 PM
Oops, sorry for the typo in item 1, it should read:
1. How many total employment visas (is it = 140,000/4) are available per quarter?
**********
Kondur...My gut says you are probably right that "they will apply spillover only in the last quarter" but the INA law says "quarterly...". So if "by law" if they are required to utilize the quarterly quota by Dec 2009, how many estimated #s are we talking? Is the estimated spillover visas couple of hundred or 1000 or 10,000-15,000???
Can someone answer the following (I understand IV has crunched the numbers and have predicted dates, but it would also be helpful to see these translated into #s): Does anyone wanna take a shot at crunching the above #s?
Between Oct2009 to Dec2009 (1st quarter):
1. How many total employment visas (is it be 140,000/4) are available per quarter?
2. How many total EB1+EB2Row pending applications?
3. Now the big assumption, How many of these have been adjudicated or have been alloted a visa # or could potentially use a visa #? (gurus...make some assumption).
4. So this current quarter how many visa #s are leftover for spillover to EB2-nonRow? (theortically should/could be or must be/allocated or "used up" by Dec2009, i.e. within the next 13 days)?
So in plain english: The answer could be as simple as "This quarter, which ends on Dec31, 2009, there could be .... visas available for spillover".
This might be unreasonable to expect but could be useful information...Whether spillover happens this quarter or not? thats a different story:confused:
Thanks.
1. How many total employment visas (is it = 140,000/4) are available per quarter?
**********
Kondur...My gut says you are probably right that "they will apply spillover only in the last quarter" but the INA law says "quarterly...". So if "by law" if they are required to utilize the quarterly quota by Dec 2009, how many estimated #s are we talking? Is the estimated spillover visas couple of hundred or 1000 or 10,000-15,000???
Can someone answer the following (I understand IV has crunched the numbers and have predicted dates, but it would also be helpful to see these translated into #s): Does anyone wanna take a shot at crunching the above #s?
Between Oct2009 to Dec2009 (1st quarter):
1. How many total employment visas (is it be 140,000/4) are available per quarter?
2. How many total EB1+EB2Row pending applications?
3. Now the big assumption, How many of these have been adjudicated or have been alloted a visa # or could potentially use a visa #? (gurus...make some assumption).
4. So this current quarter how many visa #s are leftover for spillover to EB2-nonRow? (theortically should/could be or must be/allocated or "used up" by Dec2009, i.e. within the next 13 days)?
So in plain english: The answer could be as simple as "This quarter, which ends on Dec31, 2009, there could be .... visas available for spillover".
This might be unreasonable to expect but could be useful information...Whether spillover happens this quarter or not? thats a different story:confused:
Thanks.
hairstyles PS3 : TIME SHIFT
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
gumpena
07-20 03:11 PM
Kennedy, Clinton voted against this... I dont know what they are thinking..
vdlrao
06-10 10:56 AM
The July 2008 Visa Bulletin has said Exactly the same, but in different words, what I have been saying for the past few months about the EB2-India and EB3-India Movements.
EB2 India will move very fast till 01 JAN 06 as because based on June 2007 bulletin, just before the july fiasco,( http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3236.html ) the PD for China is 01 JAN 06. That means in EB2 Category except India and China every other country is current. So till India reaches 01 JAN 06 PD in EB2, all the spill overs will be moved to EB2 India,because the spill overs will be alloted based on the priority of old PD(Priority Date). By the time India EB2 reaches 01 JAN 06, China PD in EB2 will move further from 01 JAN 06 by using its 7% quota. So Inidia PD for EB2 again moves fast till that changed China PD using the spill overs. After that India and China will share the spill overs based on the PD priority. All this happens if and only if the USCIS works effectively and uses all the available visa numbers for the present fiscal year. My prediction for EB2 India PD is it touch 2005 /even cross few months in 2005 by the end of this year if USCIS works effectively.
For all Eb3s along with EB2s with PD after April 2005, the movement in the coming visa bulletins wont be much encoraging unless the new Obama government does something significant about employent based category or immigrationvoice does a fruitful lobbying. The doings of something by obama government to employment based category is not in our hands. The only thing we could do is to help IV and help ourrselves by contributing to it to reach its financial target for better lobbying. Or else wait for the Visa Bulletin every month with great hopes, sorry dreams, for your PD to become current, and satisfy with your EADs for years ahead.
EB2 India will move very fast till 01 JAN 06 as because based on June 2007 bulletin, just before the july fiasco,( http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3236.html ) the PD for China is 01 JAN 06. That means in EB2 Category except India and China every other country is current. So till India reaches 01 JAN 06 PD in EB2, all the spill overs will be moved to EB2 India,because the spill overs will be alloted based on the priority of old PD(Priority Date). By the time India EB2 reaches 01 JAN 06, China PD in EB2 will move further from 01 JAN 06 by using its 7% quota. So Inidia PD for EB2 again moves fast till that changed China PD using the spill overs. After that India and China will share the spill overs based on the PD priority. All this happens if and only if the USCIS works effectively and uses all the available visa numbers for the present fiscal year. My prediction for EB2 India PD is it touch 2005 /even cross few months in 2005 by the end of this year if USCIS works effectively.
For all Eb3s along with EB2s with PD after April 2005, the movement in the coming visa bulletins wont be much encoraging unless the new Obama government does something significant about employent based category or immigrationvoice does a fruitful lobbying. The doings of something by obama government to employment based category is not in our hands. The only thing we could do is to help IV and help ourrselves by contributing to it to reach its financial target for better lobbying. Or else wait for the Visa Bulletin every month with great hopes, sorry dreams, for your PD to become current, and satisfy with your EADs for years ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment