piyu7444
04-01 02:37 PM
Hi Vinnysuru
Case is approvable but my question is - will I have to wait till Visa bulletin has PD date showing NOV 2006 or beyond or Current or they can just get a visa number now (say April 08) and send it for card prodcution ?
Case is approvable but my question is - will I have to wait till Visa bulletin has PD date showing NOV 2006 or beyond or Current or they can just get a visa number now (say April 08) and send it for card prodcution ?
wallpaper File photo of Pippa Middleton,
arihant
10-26 09:37 AM
I am not referring to the receipt notice. I am talking about the actual approval notice. I need to know this so that I can plan for Visa appointments.
AK01
03-26 10:48 PM
Don't listen to those who would tell you that you need 5 years after your degree was awarded. TALK TO A FREAKING LAWYER.
Simply untrue.. The magic word is: progressive, progressive, progressive...
From horse's mouth:
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news215.htm
(see example from the above link below). If you file EB-2 without MS and your 5-years of experience is not post Bachelor's (or the underlying job doesn't require 5-years of post Bachelor's experience), your I-140 will be denied. If you file it, and it doesn't get denied, then the adjudicator made a mistake and consider yourself lucky.
EB-2 is Masters or BS + 5 years of progressive experience. Both for job requirement and alien qualification.
From the link:
The following are examples of actual statements contained at blocks 14 and 15 of the ETA-750. They are by no means exhaustive. Their inclusion here is intended to simply illustrate concepts discussed in this memorandum.
Position 1: Staff Software Engineer
ETA 750 Item 14:
Education - B.S. (or foreign equiv.) comp. science, elec. eng., or related field.
Experience - 5 years job offered or 5 years related occupation software engineer.
ETA 750 Item 15:
Exp. must include: design & development of major software subsystems; RDBMS internals; operating system internals; complex systems software design; symmetric multiprocessing and large scale network systems.
It is unclear whether this job requires 5 years of experience following receipt of the baccalaureate. For this reason, the adjudicator should request that the petitioner provide a supplemental statement clarifying whether the position requires five years of post-baccalaureate experience that is truly progressive in nature. If the supplemental statement establishes that the minimum qualifications for the position require a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and, assuming the beneficiary possesses these qualifications, the petition should be approved.
Simply untrue.. The magic word is: progressive, progressive, progressive...
From horse's mouth:
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news215.htm
(see example from the above link below). If you file EB-2 without MS and your 5-years of experience is not post Bachelor's (or the underlying job doesn't require 5-years of post Bachelor's experience), your I-140 will be denied. If you file it, and it doesn't get denied, then the adjudicator made a mistake and consider yourself lucky.
EB-2 is Masters or BS + 5 years of progressive experience. Both for job requirement and alien qualification.
From the link:
The following are examples of actual statements contained at blocks 14 and 15 of the ETA-750. They are by no means exhaustive. Their inclusion here is intended to simply illustrate concepts discussed in this memorandum.
Position 1: Staff Software Engineer
ETA 750 Item 14:
Education - B.S. (or foreign equiv.) comp. science, elec. eng., or related field.
Experience - 5 years job offered or 5 years related occupation software engineer.
ETA 750 Item 15:
Exp. must include: design & development of major software subsystems; RDBMS internals; operating system internals; complex systems software design; symmetric multiprocessing and large scale network systems.
It is unclear whether this job requires 5 years of experience following receipt of the baccalaureate. For this reason, the adjudicator should request that the petitioner provide a supplemental statement clarifying whether the position requires five years of post-baccalaureate experience that is truly progressive in nature. If the supplemental statement establishes that the minimum qualifications for the position require a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and, assuming the beneficiary possesses these qualifications, the petition should be approved.
2011 Kate Middleton#39;s #39;Something
h1-b forever
04-22 08:33 AM
small correction:
president is not a member of the congress and neither are the judges (separation of powers)
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
president is not a member of the congress and neither are the judges (separation of powers)
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
more...
abe1
12-27 12:07 AM
Hope some of you might have seen the Wall Street Journal story this weekend on visas/Green Cards for owners of start-up businesses. (Foreign Entrepreneurs Eye StartUp Visa Act - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704694004576020001550357580-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html) )
According to the story there is broad consensus for a program to offer green card to foreign nationals who can bring in as low as $100,000 to start a new business in U.S. While this may not be an option for most of the folks in this forum, the premise of the proposed law has something in common with all of us.
The law is proposed by senators John Kerry (D) and Richard Lugar (R) on the principle that immigrants are more willing to be entrepreneurial and hence offering permanent residency to foreigners who will open a small business will increase the employment opportunities in U.S. Endorsing the entrepreneurial mind of new immigrants WSJ sights that; “Immigrants are nearly 30% more likely to start a business than non-immigrants ” and “about a third of Silicon Valley technology firms were started by Indian or Chinese entrepreneurs” . If the proposed bill is attempting to attract skilled and entrepreneurial minded immigrants into U.S. as a means to increase employment why not U.S. look into the pool of highly skilled and eager folks waiting for a green card for many years? Wouldn’t these folks be highly likely to open a new small business than someone from outside of the U.S. with no U.S. business background? If we are to take cues from the one third of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs wouldn’t a good number of these people waiting for green card open up the starts up businesses that senators Kerry and Lugar are hoping to .
Would it be worth writing on behalf of Immigration Voice to senators Kerry and Lugar to consider the pool of potential entrepreneurs minded people already in U.S. and have been waiting for an opportunity to realize their entrepreneurial dreams? I don’t have the actual numbers. Aren’t there about 30 or 40,000 people who have been in U.S. with an approved immigration petition but waiting for a green card for many years? Could IV put forward a win-win propositions for everyone?
According to the story there is broad consensus for a program to offer green card to foreign nationals who can bring in as low as $100,000 to start a new business in U.S. While this may not be an option for most of the folks in this forum, the premise of the proposed law has something in common with all of us.
The law is proposed by senators John Kerry (D) and Richard Lugar (R) on the principle that immigrants are more willing to be entrepreneurial and hence offering permanent residency to foreigners who will open a small business will increase the employment opportunities in U.S. Endorsing the entrepreneurial mind of new immigrants WSJ sights that; “Immigrants are nearly 30% more likely to start a business than non-immigrants ” and “about a third of Silicon Valley technology firms were started by Indian or Chinese entrepreneurs” . If the proposed bill is attempting to attract skilled and entrepreneurial minded immigrants into U.S. as a means to increase employment why not U.S. look into the pool of highly skilled and eager folks waiting for a green card for many years? Wouldn’t these folks be highly likely to open a new small business than someone from outside of the U.S. with no U.S. business background? If we are to take cues from the one third of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs wouldn’t a good number of these people waiting for green card open up the starts up businesses that senators Kerry and Lugar are hoping to .
Would it be worth writing on behalf of Immigration Voice to senators Kerry and Lugar to consider the pool of potential entrepreneurs minded people already in U.S. and have been waiting for an opportunity to realize their entrepreneurial dreams? I don’t have the actual numbers. Aren’t there about 30 or 40,000 people who have been in U.S. with an approved immigration petition but waiting for a green card for many years? Could IV put forward a win-win propositions for everyone?
grupak
11-26 04:42 PM
To all IV members (and others), who have decided not to participate in the rally due to various reasons, I request you to give a very serious thought, and consideration, before reaching the final decision.
WD, I will either participate in the rally if my schedule allows it (I teach) or contribute towards it.
WD, I will either participate in the rally if my schedule allows it (I teach) or contribute towards it.
more...
ajay
04-05 09:54 AM
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
The last updated date is 04/02/2009. Seems like they have updated something quite recently!!!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
The last updated date is 04/02/2009. Seems like they have updated something quite recently!!!
2010 Society beauty: Kate#39;s
senthil1
05-09 11:58 PM
As for as I knw You can be out of job for any period in EAD. But when they process I485 you need to be in the job. Many unemployed persons are getting GC interview. If you do not get RFE or interview then it is ok even if you are unemployed at the time of receiving gc.
more...
ewana
02-02 11:57 PM
Hi all,
I'm currently on H1B. My wife is on a L1 visa and her company just applied for her I140/I765/I485 concurrent (under EB1). Based on the previous post, it seems that if my wife gets approved for her GC, I can piggy back anytime since we were married before she got her GC.
My question is with regards to the PD if she got approved, do I get the Priority Date for EB1 (meaning little wait) or so I need to wait months/years of delay ? Should I just instead apply for I485 after her I140 is approved so that we get our GC together. What would be the risk in case something wrong happen to her application ? would I lose my H1b? I would like to hold on to my H1B unless I'm sure I can get my GC. My H1b is not IT related so I'm not that confident to find another one in case I lose my H1b. My company is willing to sponsor my greencard, but we thought of trying the EB1 first as it is much much faster.
Thanks for all your insights.
I'm currently on H1B. My wife is on a L1 visa and her company just applied for her I140/I765/I485 concurrent (under EB1). Based on the previous post, it seems that if my wife gets approved for her GC, I can piggy back anytime since we were married before she got her GC.
My question is with regards to the PD if she got approved, do I get the Priority Date for EB1 (meaning little wait) or so I need to wait months/years of delay ? Should I just instead apply for I485 after her I140 is approved so that we get our GC together. What would be the risk in case something wrong happen to her application ? would I lose my H1b? I would like to hold on to my H1B unless I'm sure I can get my GC. My H1b is not IT related so I'm not that confident to find another one in case I lose my H1b. My company is willing to sponsor my greencard, but we thought of trying the EB1 first as it is much much faster.
Thanks for all your insights.
hair Kate Middleton is keen to
guygeek007
07-23 09:25 AM
InspectorFox, Jayant and Tina - Your prompt replies and advice are much appreciated.
more...
Jaime
09-04 10:40 AM
With 100,000 already gone, and with frustrations growing at a boiling point, the pressure being applied upon us will force us onto the path of least resistance. How long before we are all gone? If you are an American reading this, did you know that every other industralized country faces declining population? Do you really want the future population growth of the U.S>to come solely from illegal Salvadorean maids? Do you wnat the high-skilled people to move away to China and India and then see your quality of life deteriorate?
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/23/Business/US_faces_decline_in_s.shtml
U.S. faces decline in skilled workers
New study says the wait for a green card frustrates immigrants.
By Madhusmita Bora, Times Staff Writer
Published August 23, 2007
The only barrier stalling Arun Shanmugam's ascent in the corporate world is a small card that would proclaim him a permanent resident of the United States.
The green card, which isn't green in color, would help him snag the next best opportunity, launch his own company, and enjoy homestead tax rebates.
So, this year the Tampa software engineer joined a queue of more than 300,000 immigrants vying for the coveted card. But a severe backlog is forcing high-skilled workers to question their American dream.
On Wednesday, a Kansas-based private, nonpartisan foundation released a study warning that America could face a sizable reverse brain drain unless the government eases visa restrictions, increases the quota and speeds up the process. The Kauffman Foundation said that there are more than 1-million skilled immigrants including doctors, engineers, and scientists competing for the approximately 120,120 green cards issued each year.
The uncertainty of the process and the imbalance in the demand and supply could trigger a trend of highly trained immigrants returning to their country and moving elsewhere.
"It's the first time in American history that we are faced with the prospect of a reverse brain drain," said Vivek Wadhwa, Wertheim fellow with the Harvard Law School and a co-author of the study.
"There are so many business opportunities in Shanghai and Bangalore, why put up with all the immigration crap?"
Many of the green card applicants are on a six-year H-1 B visa. The non-immigrant work permit keeps them wedded to a single employer. Immigrants who have applied for a green card can continue working on an extended H-1 B visa until the card arrives. But they can't change employers, or start their own companies. Their wait time is open-ended, made longer by a Congress-mandated quota for the visas and severe backlogs in the system.
Frustrated with the system, in the last three to five years, 100,000 highly skilled Chinese and Indian immigrants have returned to their home country, Wadhwa said.
In a fiercely competitive global economy, this is the worst time for such an exodus, experts say.
"Our previous studies document that highly skilled workers accounted for one quarter of all successful high-tech start-ups in the last decade," said Robert Litan, vice president of research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation. "If we send a lot of these people back home, we will lose a disproportionate number of entrepreneurs."
And the ripple affects are already emerging in the Tampa Bay area.
"It's a huge problem," said Ray Weadock, CEO and president of Persystent Technologies. "The guys in Washington don't think much and their initial reaction is this will impact Cisco and Microsoft."
But smaller companies take a bigger hit, because they don't often have the capital to send jobs to where the labor is, Weadock said. Weadock's company, which employs Shanmugam, is toying with the idea of setting up a subsidiary in India.
Companies aren't the only ones chasing the labor market. Schools and universities are also jumping into the wagon. The population of international students in MBA programs across the country continues to dwindle, said Bob Forsythe, dean of the College of Business at University of South Florida.
"And the demand for American business schools to go deliver programs in other countries have increased," he said.
Harvard University and Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management are among a growing number of schools that have a presence in India. At USF, Forsythe's team is negotiating a venture in Romania.
The visa problems here have encouraged governments worldwide to ease visa restrictions in their countries and nab the high skilled workforce.
"There's a lot of mention of Canada," said Chandra Mitchell, an immigration attorney with Tampa-based Neil F. Lewis.
Amar Nayegandhi, a USF graduate and a contract employee with the U.S. Geological Survey, has been waiting for his green card since 2002.
He may soon give up, he said. The long wait has cost him job opportunities, forced upon him a commuter marriage and restricted his economic mobility. His H1-B visa runs out in February, and even though he can extend it and continue awaiting the green card, he's contemplating leaving the country.
"I have friends who have gone back simply frustrated with the setup," he said. "I am asking myself if this is really worth it."
Shanmugam of Persystent Technologies says he, too, will only wait for about a year before considering giving up his spot in the line and heading back to his native India.
"This is not the only place to be anymore," he said. "You can find better opportunities everywhere."
By the numbers
200,000: Employment-based applicants waiting for labor certification in 2006 - the first step in the U.S. immigration process.
50,132: Pending I-140 applications - the second step of the immigration process. That's seven times the total in 1996 of 6,743.
125,421: Estimated applicants residing abroad who were waiting for permanent residency status.
100,000: Estimated number of highly skilled Chinese and Indian immigrants who have returned to their home country in recent years.
Highlights of Kauffman Foundation reports
- Foreign nationals are contributing to one out of four of all the global patents filed in the United States.
- One quarter of all tech companies nationwide and 52 percent of tech companies in the Silicon Valley were founded by immigrants.
- More than 1-million skilled workers and their families (scientists, doctors, engineers, Ph.D. researchers) are waiting for green cards. About 120,0000 green cards are issued each year with a 7 percent limit per country.
-Hundreds of thousands of skilled immigrant workers may get frustrated with the waiting process that could be 6 to 10 years and leave the United States. The reverse brain drain could be critical to Americans corporations and hurt the country's competitiveness in a global economy.
- Immigrant-founded companies produced $52-billion in revenues and employed 450,000 workers in 2006.
Madhusmita Bora can be reached at mbora@sptimes.com or (813) 225-3112.
[Last modified August 22, 2007, 23:19:43]
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/23/Business/US_faces_decline_in_s.shtml
U.S. faces decline in skilled workers
New study says the wait for a green card frustrates immigrants.
By Madhusmita Bora, Times Staff Writer
Published August 23, 2007
The only barrier stalling Arun Shanmugam's ascent in the corporate world is a small card that would proclaim him a permanent resident of the United States.
The green card, which isn't green in color, would help him snag the next best opportunity, launch his own company, and enjoy homestead tax rebates.
So, this year the Tampa software engineer joined a queue of more than 300,000 immigrants vying for the coveted card. But a severe backlog is forcing high-skilled workers to question their American dream.
On Wednesday, a Kansas-based private, nonpartisan foundation released a study warning that America could face a sizable reverse brain drain unless the government eases visa restrictions, increases the quota and speeds up the process. The Kauffman Foundation said that there are more than 1-million skilled immigrants including doctors, engineers, and scientists competing for the approximately 120,120 green cards issued each year.
The uncertainty of the process and the imbalance in the demand and supply could trigger a trend of highly trained immigrants returning to their country and moving elsewhere.
"It's the first time in American history that we are faced with the prospect of a reverse brain drain," said Vivek Wadhwa, Wertheim fellow with the Harvard Law School and a co-author of the study.
"There are so many business opportunities in Shanghai and Bangalore, why put up with all the immigration crap?"
Many of the green card applicants are on a six-year H-1 B visa. The non-immigrant work permit keeps them wedded to a single employer. Immigrants who have applied for a green card can continue working on an extended H-1 B visa until the card arrives. But they can't change employers, or start their own companies. Their wait time is open-ended, made longer by a Congress-mandated quota for the visas and severe backlogs in the system.
Frustrated with the system, in the last three to five years, 100,000 highly skilled Chinese and Indian immigrants have returned to their home country, Wadhwa said.
In a fiercely competitive global economy, this is the worst time for such an exodus, experts say.
"Our previous studies document that highly skilled workers accounted for one quarter of all successful high-tech start-ups in the last decade," said Robert Litan, vice president of research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation. "If we send a lot of these people back home, we will lose a disproportionate number of entrepreneurs."
And the ripple affects are already emerging in the Tampa Bay area.
"It's a huge problem," said Ray Weadock, CEO and president of Persystent Technologies. "The guys in Washington don't think much and their initial reaction is this will impact Cisco and Microsoft."
But smaller companies take a bigger hit, because they don't often have the capital to send jobs to where the labor is, Weadock said. Weadock's company, which employs Shanmugam, is toying with the idea of setting up a subsidiary in India.
Companies aren't the only ones chasing the labor market. Schools and universities are also jumping into the wagon. The population of international students in MBA programs across the country continues to dwindle, said Bob Forsythe, dean of the College of Business at University of South Florida.
"And the demand for American business schools to go deliver programs in other countries have increased," he said.
Harvard University and Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management are among a growing number of schools that have a presence in India. At USF, Forsythe's team is negotiating a venture in Romania.
The visa problems here have encouraged governments worldwide to ease visa restrictions in their countries and nab the high skilled workforce.
"There's a lot of mention of Canada," said Chandra Mitchell, an immigration attorney with Tampa-based Neil F. Lewis.
Amar Nayegandhi, a USF graduate and a contract employee with the U.S. Geological Survey, has been waiting for his green card since 2002.
He may soon give up, he said. The long wait has cost him job opportunities, forced upon him a commuter marriage and restricted his economic mobility. His H1-B visa runs out in February, and even though he can extend it and continue awaiting the green card, he's contemplating leaving the country.
"I have friends who have gone back simply frustrated with the setup," he said. "I am asking myself if this is really worth it."
Shanmugam of Persystent Technologies says he, too, will only wait for about a year before considering giving up his spot in the line and heading back to his native India.
"This is not the only place to be anymore," he said. "You can find better opportunities everywhere."
By the numbers
200,000: Employment-based applicants waiting for labor certification in 2006 - the first step in the U.S. immigration process.
50,132: Pending I-140 applications - the second step of the immigration process. That's seven times the total in 1996 of 6,743.
125,421: Estimated applicants residing abroad who were waiting for permanent residency status.
100,000: Estimated number of highly skilled Chinese and Indian immigrants who have returned to their home country in recent years.
Highlights of Kauffman Foundation reports
- Foreign nationals are contributing to one out of four of all the global patents filed in the United States.
- One quarter of all tech companies nationwide and 52 percent of tech companies in the Silicon Valley were founded by immigrants.
- More than 1-million skilled workers and their families (scientists, doctors, engineers, Ph.D. researchers) are waiting for green cards. About 120,0000 green cards are issued each year with a 7 percent limit per country.
-Hundreds of thousands of skilled immigrant workers may get frustrated with the waiting process that could be 6 to 10 years and leave the United States. The reverse brain drain could be critical to Americans corporations and hurt the country's competitiveness in a global economy.
- Immigrant-founded companies produced $52-billion in revenues and employed 450,000 workers in 2006.
Madhusmita Bora can be reached at mbora@sptimes.com or (813) 225-3112.
[Last modified August 22, 2007, 23:19:43]
hot Kate Middleton: Family History
minimalist
08-13 02:15 PM
Come on guys, give him a break.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
No malicious intent. All praise for VLDRao.
His analysis was accurate, if any of you came across the September 08 bulletin, EB2 advanced by two months. Which equates to what vldrao analyzed in the past, the use of 20,000 visas in September.
We all IV members stand united and lets not adverse someone on the basis of his righteousness. Even if a IV member is wrong, let's all correct him.
Thanks
No malicious intent. All praise for VLDRao.
more...
house But it#39;s just basic family-tree stuff. The incest aspect makes it a . Kate
immigrationvoice1
02-27 02:23 PM
Hope this documents appears in the sites run by the "anti-employment based immigrants" supporters.
tattoo Middleton#39;s unsubstantiated
sobers
04-07 08:33 PM
Folks, I know you all are probably as deeply disappointed with the stalling of the Senate Immigration Bill as I am. But I guess i'm getting used to it now:mad: - had similar experience after S. 1932 relief was stripped out in December.
But instead of despairing, i'm now thinking of alternative ways to broaden our message and reach out to key lawmakers.
As you all may know, House Judiciary Committe Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner is going to be the Key House Negotiator on any Immigration Bill this year ....
Whether we like it or not, this is the hard truth.
The good news is that per se Sensenbrenner is not a restricionist. He is also not part of Tancredo Anti-Immigrant Caucus. However Sensenbrenner is against Illegal Immigration and Amnesty.
The bad news is that because of recent events (including attacks against him by latino/church activists, etc) he has decidedly moved to the right. He has probably hardened against his views to immigration, not just the illegal kind.
Since he is going to the point man on this issue, no doubts there, we ought to have a campaign to reveal the plight of legal immigrants to him. I'm convinced he's currently beseiged by restrictionist NumbersUSA, FAIR and CIS.org and being fed all his facts on immigration by these folks. We pay taxes, we obey laws, we wait in line patiently, we serve our local community here (for instance I've done many years of community work in the U.S. here and have been recognized for it), we enhance the compeititveness of this country by bringing our much needed skills to work for US business, and we do all this without taking a dime of public benefit. When restrictionists talk of how amnesty will be unfair to people waiting in long lines (that is Us Folks!), have they ever considered what to do to shorten these lines? Illegal immigration is unfair, but the legal immigration system is also broken - and unfair! We folks have the longest waits in the histroy of the US immigration system. If the (legal) system is not working properly, and here it is not, then people will have less incentive to follow it. Why should people follow the rules when it is much easier to get in without following the rules? So to deter illegal immigration ,you also have to show them the LEGAL immigration system works, and give prospective immigrants a good example.
Anyway, the point of all this rambling is this: I think we should have a campaign to bring some sense to sensenbrenner. I do not think he is a bad person per se. But he needs to be shown the light here- the genuine problems we are facing. We should have a webfax campaign now. Once the conference committee process starts, thousands of faxes start pouring in and staffers just count them and throw them in the bin. No one has time to read them.
But instead of despairing, i'm now thinking of alternative ways to broaden our message and reach out to key lawmakers.
As you all may know, House Judiciary Committe Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner is going to be the Key House Negotiator on any Immigration Bill this year ....
Whether we like it or not, this is the hard truth.
The good news is that per se Sensenbrenner is not a restricionist. He is also not part of Tancredo Anti-Immigrant Caucus. However Sensenbrenner is against Illegal Immigration and Amnesty.
The bad news is that because of recent events (including attacks against him by latino/church activists, etc) he has decidedly moved to the right. He has probably hardened against his views to immigration, not just the illegal kind.
Since he is going to the point man on this issue, no doubts there, we ought to have a campaign to reveal the plight of legal immigrants to him. I'm convinced he's currently beseiged by restrictionist NumbersUSA, FAIR and CIS.org and being fed all his facts on immigration by these folks. We pay taxes, we obey laws, we wait in line patiently, we serve our local community here (for instance I've done many years of community work in the U.S. here and have been recognized for it), we enhance the compeititveness of this country by bringing our much needed skills to work for US business, and we do all this without taking a dime of public benefit. When restrictionists talk of how amnesty will be unfair to people waiting in long lines (that is Us Folks!), have they ever considered what to do to shorten these lines? Illegal immigration is unfair, but the legal immigration system is also broken - and unfair! We folks have the longest waits in the histroy of the US immigration system. If the (legal) system is not working properly, and here it is not, then people will have less incentive to follow it. Why should people follow the rules when it is much easier to get in without following the rules? So to deter illegal immigration ,you also have to show them the LEGAL immigration system works, and give prospective immigrants a good example.
Anyway, the point of all this rambling is this: I think we should have a campaign to bring some sense to sensenbrenner. I do not think he is a bad person per se. But he needs to be shown the light here- the genuine problems we are facing. We should have a webfax campaign now. Once the conference committee process starts, thousands of faxes start pouring in and staffers just count them and throw them in the bin. No one has time to read them.
more...
pictures Kate Middleton The Royal
gccovet
05-08 03:47 PM
Thank you senk1s & gccovet. Have added some Green's to both of you !
Good luck, I am in the same boat as you are. Hence was reading more on this topic.
Regards,
Good luck, I am in the same boat as you are. Hence was reading more on this topic.
Regards,
dresses Kate Middleton
mchundi
02-16 05:04 PM
I did some research on murthy.com and found that AC21 did abolish 'per country of birth quota' on recycled numbers. I am posting a link to this murthy.com article of Oct 6, 2000 which clarifies the issue.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
Good work jungalee32,
It is also part of our resource data base that sandeep compiled, where all these issues are clearly explained. That is why once we have the unused numbers it is like increasing the per country quota. It will bring the priority date to current for a couple of years(even if there are more cases than unused numbers with them. Just because they cannot process that faster)
--MC
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
Good work jungalee32,
It is also part of our resource data base that sandeep compiled, where all these issues are clearly explained. That is why once we have the unused numbers it is like increasing the per country quota. It will bring the priority date to current for a couple of years(even if there are more cases than unused numbers with them. Just because they cannot process that faster)
--MC
more...
makeup Wales and Kate Middleton
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (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.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (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.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
girlfriend Kate Middleton (L) is seen
iamlost
07-24 10:37 PM
HI,
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
I am wondering if this has anything to do with the erroneous 140 approvals from TSC. So, they revised all the approvals to pending status ... and my 2.5 old approved case also got in midst of it ... Hmmm !!! This is killing man .... No peace even after GC !
TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases
�MurthyDotCom
The Texas Service Center (TSC) advised in late July 2009 that eMail notifications have incorrectly been sent, which indicate approvals of Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140) cases. These eMails are originating from the Premium Processing Unit due to a technical problem. The system is issuing these eMails in error shortly after the transmission of the eMail receipt.
�MurthyDotCom
Erroneous I-140 Approval eMails do not have a Priority Date
�MurthyDotCom
The erroneous eMail does not contain a priority date or EB classification for the case. TSC is working to address the technical problem. Employers who are unsure about any such communication received from the TSC Premium Processing Unit can contact that unit at the eMail address or phone number provided on the I-140 receipt notice.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
This likely is annoying and frustrating to individuals who believed their I-140 approvals were received in record time, only to find out that the approval eMail notification was erroneous. Although not specifically stated in the information released by TSC, it appears that this problem has been limited to eMail notifications. There was no indication that any hard-copy approval notices have been issued in error. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers will be advised of any further information on this topic, when it is made available.
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
I am wondering if this has anything to do with the erroneous 140 approvals from TSC. So, they revised all the approvals to pending status ... and my 2.5 old approved case also got in midst of it ... Hmmm !!! This is killing man .... No peace even after GC !
TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases
�MurthyDotCom
The Texas Service Center (TSC) advised in late July 2009 that eMail notifications have incorrectly been sent, which indicate approvals of Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140) cases. These eMails are originating from the Premium Processing Unit due to a technical problem. The system is issuing these eMails in error shortly after the transmission of the eMail receipt.
�MurthyDotCom
Erroneous I-140 Approval eMails do not have a Priority Date
�MurthyDotCom
The erroneous eMail does not contain a priority date or EB classification for the case. TSC is working to address the technical problem. Employers who are unsure about any such communication received from the TSC Premium Processing Unit can contact that unit at the eMail address or phone number provided on the I-140 receipt notice.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
This likely is annoying and frustrating to individuals who believed their I-140 approvals were received in record time, only to find out that the approval eMail notification was erroneous. Although not specifically stated in the information released by TSC, it appears that this problem has been limited to eMail notifications. There was no indication that any hard-copy approval notices have been issued in error. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers will be advised of any further information on this topic, when it is made available.
hairstyles Kate Middleton
h1bemployee
02-25 06:25 PM
You need to provide more details on bold words from your post. If you really need pointers from IV members.
when my employer replied to the RFE, they came with more questions and doubts...and USCIS asked submit their tax documents
what I understood ..my employer don't want to appeal against it ..because USCIS may come back with more doubts abt the consultancy itself...
when my employer replied to the RFE, they came with more questions and doubts...and USCIS asked submit their tax documents
what I understood ..my employer don't want to appeal against it ..because USCIS may come back with more doubts abt the consultancy itself...
GSingh
07-13 10:44 AM
Its a good idea but make sure you guyz are comfortable. It must be hot out there.
pitha
07-08 03:11 PM
I was one of the people who bashed Oh when he "sympathizes" with USCIS workers, I could not figure out what he was thinking sympathizing with USCIS workers.
In this case he is helping publicize the flower campaign. Why are you guys bashing him instead of thanking him? IV core has clearly stated the flower campaign and some other initiatives are member initiatives and not IV initiatives so I can understand why Mathew Oh might have left out IV. Let�s not make an enemy out of a friend who is trying to help us in this particular situation.
In this case he is helping publicize the flower campaign. Why are you guys bashing him instead of thanking him? IV core has clearly stated the flower campaign and some other initiatives are member initiatives and not IV initiatives so I can understand why Mathew Oh might have left out IV. Let�s not make an enemy out of a friend who is trying to help us in this particular situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment