mihird
09-13 11:20 PM
Several people on the forum seem to be getting fingerprint notices, EAD, AP etc. in mail.
I am one of the few July 2nd filer who has not seen any activity on my case yet..no checks cashed, no 485 receipt, no EAD etc. etc.
I am just trying to guage as to how many of us July 2nd filers are in this boat.... my 140 was approved from TSC, 485 was mailed to NSC..
Application received by J. Barrett 10.25 am July 2nd
I am one of the few July 2nd filer who has not seen any activity on my case yet..no checks cashed, no 485 receipt, no EAD etc. etc.
I am just trying to guage as to how many of us July 2nd filers are in this boat.... my 140 was approved from TSC, 485 was mailed to NSC..
Application received by J. Barrett 10.25 am July 2nd
wallpaper dresses the new Kmart logo, 1990 kmart logo 2011. tattoo super kmart logo,
PD_Dec2002
06-28 09:59 PM
My attorney is planning to send out the paperwork on June 29 to reach by monday july 2nd , is there any problem to this, is there any risk involved in sending on 29th, is anybody else doing this ? Please respond, this is urgent.
So long as you make sure that USPS or the courier does not deliver it before July 2nd, I don't see any problem.
Thanks,
Jayant
So long as you make sure that USPS or the courier does not deliver it before July 2nd, I don't see any problem.
Thanks,
Jayant
eb3retro
06-29 07:56 PM
what if someone sent out the documents today 28th june..???
thanks.
thanks.
2011 2011 Kmart Distribution Centre
wantgc23
08-20 02:20 PM
Since it is a question of Interpretation of the law, It would be nice if someone in IV who has connections with AILA makes an inquiry with USCIS through AILA.
That is true. USCIS behaviour no longer (or never has) assumes the meaning of EB1&EB2 wording in the law text.
Previously a lot of visas flowed into EB3 because USCIS misinterpreted ( rather did not take into account) the AC21 change, which suggests that the per-category spill over numbers must be used within the category before flowing out of the category.
Unfortunately, when they realized it, they seem to now ignore (or have always ignored) the wording of EB1&EB2 numbers flowing in EB3. A lot of people here don't agree with this interpretation, but I am very sure that USCIS is misreading the law and is shafting EB3 big time.
I dont know how to word a letter to USCIS that shows them their oversight, and yet word it in a positive (or a non-confrontational) manner. If you have any idea's, lets work on a letter campaign to make USCIS aware of this. However, let us do this through personal PMs while we work out the details, as this is a very contentious issue and you will spend a lot of time responding to distracting arguments.
That is true. USCIS behaviour no longer (or never has) assumes the meaning of EB1&EB2 wording in the law text.
Previously a lot of visas flowed into EB3 because USCIS misinterpreted ( rather did not take into account) the AC21 change, which suggests that the per-category spill over numbers must be used within the category before flowing out of the category.
Unfortunately, when they realized it, they seem to now ignore (or have always ignored) the wording of EB1&EB2 numbers flowing in EB3. A lot of people here don't agree with this interpretation, but I am very sure that USCIS is misreading the law and is shafting EB3 big time.
I dont know how to word a letter to USCIS that shows them their oversight, and yet word it in a positive (or a non-confrontational) manner. If you have any idea's, lets work on a letter campaign to make USCIS aware of this. However, let us do this through personal PMs while we work out the details, as this is a very contentious issue and you will spend a lot of time responding to distracting arguments.
more...
jthomas
05-09 01:11 PM
Guys,
This is one of the key reasons why we are not successful in our mission. All we can do is "lets kill H1/L1 so I can get GC", "lets not worry about EB3 as long as my EB2 is fine!". The only way we can make any progress is to stay united. Lets not try to find carrots that would really be sticks on people who are also part of this cause.
EB3-I and EB2-I are both the same. EB3-I can port to EB2-I when the PD comes near. This is a normal human tendency and anybody would like to do it. The present EB3 guys are just waiting for the EB2 PD's to progress and they would move to EB2. I don't see anything wrong in that.
Lets come up with some action plan. Maybe we can draw the media's attention or send letters to our lawmakers and white house.
This is one of the key reasons why we are not successful in our mission. All we can do is "lets kill H1/L1 so I can get GC", "lets not worry about EB3 as long as my EB2 is fine!". The only way we can make any progress is to stay united. Lets not try to find carrots that would really be sticks on people who are also part of this cause.
EB3-I and EB2-I are both the same. EB3-I can port to EB2-I when the PD comes near. This is a normal human tendency and anybody would like to do it. The present EB3 guys are just waiting for the EB2 PD's to progress and they would move to EB2. I don't see anything wrong in that.
Lets come up with some action plan. Maybe we can draw the media's attention or send letters to our lawmakers and white house.
mohican
12-31 04:44 PM
NEED HELP!!! what are my options?
I485 denied on Oct 24th 2008. I did not get the letter and realized only when I checked on the USCIS website. My attorney also did not get the letter of denial or even the NOID.
I changed jobs in June 2006 by invoking AC21 (Priority Date - Oct 2002, I140 and I485 filed concurrently, I140 approved in Feb 2005).
The fact is that on all forums there is talk about revocation by previous employer. However please note that approved I140 could either be revoked or substituted. While those AC21 memos talk about revoked I140, the law is not clear when previous employer substitutes the approved I140. I know the substitution process is no longer legal since June 2007, however, it has been abused in the past. My questions to forum members:
1. Is any one in similar situation?
2. I have H1B only until June 2009, Can I work until then assuming MTR is resolved in 2 months (per some optimistic posts on IV)
3. if my employer were to file a PERM labor application--can I port my previous priority date?
Mohican
Ron Gotcher Latest ' ImmInfo Newsletter' states clearly 485 denial is illegal
***********
CIS issuing illegal AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
Recently, the CIS has been issuing denials ofadjustment of status applications in cases where the applicant has an approved I-140, and an AOS application pending for more than 180 days, but the petitioning employer has attempted to revoke the approved I-140.
These denials are patently illegal. They violate both CIS policy and statutory law. Both statutory law and explicit CIS policy are clear on this subject: An employer may not revoke an approved I-140 petition after an adjustment of status application has
been pending for at least 180 days. While we have not seen denials of any of our cases, we have seen a number of such denials by applicants who have contacted our office to assist them with filing motions to reconsider. It is shocking that the CIS
continues to issue denials even after the first MTRs were submitted. They are issuing these denials with full knowledge that there is no legal basis for what they are doing and that their actions violate existing law.
Anyone who receives such a denial must file a motion to reconsider immediately. The CIS has said that they are processing MTRs within 60 days. If the MTR does not result in a reversal of the denial within 60 days, the applicant should proceed in US District Court immediately to see a reversal. Immediate action is necessary to prevent the accumulation of unlawful presence following the denial.
I485 denied on Oct 24th 2008. I did not get the letter and realized only when I checked on the USCIS website. My attorney also did not get the letter of denial or even the NOID.
I changed jobs in June 2006 by invoking AC21 (Priority Date - Oct 2002, I140 and I485 filed concurrently, I140 approved in Feb 2005).
The fact is that on all forums there is talk about revocation by previous employer. However please note that approved I140 could either be revoked or substituted. While those AC21 memos talk about revoked I140, the law is not clear when previous employer substitutes the approved I140. I know the substitution process is no longer legal since June 2007, however, it has been abused in the past. My questions to forum members:
1. Is any one in similar situation?
2. I have H1B only until June 2009, Can I work until then assuming MTR is resolved in 2 months (per some optimistic posts on IV)
3. if my employer were to file a PERM labor application--can I port my previous priority date?
Mohican
Ron Gotcher Latest ' ImmInfo Newsletter' states clearly 485 denial is illegal
***********
CIS issuing illegal AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
Recently, the CIS has been issuing denials ofadjustment of status applications in cases where the applicant has an approved I-140, and an AOS application pending for more than 180 days, but the petitioning employer has attempted to revoke the approved I-140.
These denials are patently illegal. They violate both CIS policy and statutory law. Both statutory law and explicit CIS policy are clear on this subject: An employer may not revoke an approved I-140 petition after an adjustment of status application has
been pending for at least 180 days. While we have not seen denials of any of our cases, we have seen a number of such denials by applicants who have contacted our office to assist them with filing motions to reconsider. It is shocking that the CIS
continues to issue denials even after the first MTRs were submitted. They are issuing these denials with full knowledge that there is no legal basis for what they are doing and that their actions violate existing law.
Anyone who receives such a denial must file a motion to reconsider immediately. The CIS has said that they are processing MTRs within 60 days. If the MTR does not result in a reversal of the denial within 60 days, the applicant should proceed in US District Court immediately to see a reversal. Immediate action is necessary to prevent the accumulation of unlawful presence following the denial.
more...
pro
10-01 12:44 PM
Got 485-approval emails for me and my wife.
2010 kmart australia. hair 2011 the
kaisersose
03-25 03:06 PM
What the employers are doing seems illegal. Govt issues us this card for a lot of money, and now we can't use it for work?
I agree. I was wondering why legal needs to be consulted for EADs.
But then this company is fully aware of of EADs and AC21 requirements. I think legal gets involved to ensure job codes are matching, etc., which would make sense. The applicant may not have completed 180 days, may be applying for a different job code, etc. They do invest a lot of money on an employee during the first year and they obviously do not want to end up losing that investment due to immigration issues, something they can avoid.
But this is something I was not aware of until today. The good thing is most employers are receptive to EADs which is good.
I agree. I was wondering why legal needs to be consulted for EADs.
But then this company is fully aware of of EADs and AC21 requirements. I think legal gets involved to ensure job codes are matching, etc., which would make sense. The applicant may not have completed 180 days, may be applying for a different job code, etc. They do invest a lot of money on an employee during the first year and they obviously do not want to end up losing that investment due to immigration issues, something they can avoid.
But this is something I was not aware of until today. The good thing is most employers are receptive to EADs which is good.
more...
gc28262
10-09 10:55 PM
My interenet setup
Cable internet -> Cable Modem -> Wireless Router
Should I put vonage adapter in wireless router or in cable modem ?
BTB if anyone wants to split 2months referal rent for a new connection please send me a PM
or give number 703 652 4295
thanks
It does not matter where you connect the vonage router. Just make sure none of your internet traffic is routed through vonage router. Vonage router should be be handling voice traffic only.
Cable internet -> Cable Modem -> Wireless Router
Should I put vonage adapter in wireless router or in cable modem ?
BTB if anyone wants to split 2months referal rent for a new connection please send me a PM
or give number 703 652 4295
thanks
It does not matter where you connect the vonage router. Just make sure none of your internet traffic is routed through vonage router. Vonage router should be be handling voice traffic only.
hair Toys Sale 2011 is a great
hope_4_best
05-26 07:27 PM
Thanks reno_john
more...
frostrated
10-01 11:49 PM
I recieved 2 notices in mail today.
One is the welcome notices which says that I-485 is approved.
Another notice which says that they reviewing or reconsidering the decision previously taken.
Called 1-800 # and the infopass. They say that reopened or reconsidering the case as the visa numbers retrogressed.
How can that be when am current in oct as well.
Mine is EB2 and the priority date is Dec 2004.
Any suggestions to have this fixed.
what is the dates of action on the notices? maybe that will clarify a little.
One is the welcome notices which says that I-485 is approved.
Another notice which says that they reviewing or reconsidering the decision previously taken.
Called 1-800 # and the infopass. They say that reopened or reconsidering the case as the visa numbers retrogressed.
How can that be when am current in oct as well.
Mine is EB2 and the priority date is Dec 2004.
Any suggestions to have this fixed.
what is the dates of action on the notices? maybe that will clarify a little.
hot kmart logo pharmacy.
gccovet
08-07 12:23 PM
Good for you..
People yet another case who is going to crossover to the EB2 line...
Sunny ,
What is your PD???
People yet another case who is going to crossover to the EB2 line...
Sunny ,
What is your PD???
more...
house In the latest Kmart catalogue. G1 reissue Optimus Prime for $30.
gc_on_demand
04-01 03:59 PM
When you say "according the our calculations", and you can only come up with years (& not 1 year, 2 year), you have obviously not done a very accurate calculation/guestimation.
I wouldn't put too much stock into it.
There are two years (2006 and 2007 ) from 2006 to 2007 and you know language of all lawyers, so he is not wrong here too. I bet you if you can convince him to say 1-2 or 3 years.
I wouldn't put too much stock into it.
There are two years (2006 and 2007 ) from 2006 to 2007 and you know language of all lawyers, so he is not wrong here too. I bet you if you can convince him to say 1-2 or 3 years.
tattoo Kmart.com.au
abhis0
09-27 04:43 PM
Right now checked my bank account and all 6 checks (for me and wife) cashed. All receipt numbers are at the back of the check. AsI was expecting the package was transferred to Texas.
All receipt numbers start with SRC******
This is the happiest day since July 17 for us....
I am very very hopeful that you guys will get it. Check your bacnk too today.
Do you think USCIS came to know about your "List compilation" activity and hence your receipt......I think I should take over list compilation now :p
Happy for you man...
All receipt numbers start with SRC******
This is the happiest day since July 17 for us....
I am very very hopeful that you guys will get it. Check your bacnk too today.
Do you think USCIS came to know about your "List compilation" activity and hence your receipt......I think I should take over list compilation now :p
Happy for you man...
more...
pictures Kmart Catalogue Pose | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
optimystic
03-24 02:54 PM
That's true actually. They have no business asking you about details of what your work authorization status is. All they need to know is that you are legally allowed to work. Doesn't matter EAD, GC or US citizenship. Sponsoring for H1B might come up during the hiring stage but that doesn't apply here.
Hypothetically in an interview, if directly asked, and if I am planning on using EAD, I would simply tell them that I have authorization from the DHS to work for any employer, and leave it at that. If they persist, I will tell them that I have the required documents for I-9. No need for more details unless some kind of security clearance is required.
Its a little hard to understand how the issue of 'work authorization' cannot be raised during interview or hiring process.
- Say I am an employer who has a critical project that needs a person to be on job for at least few months, to ensure that the project goes smoothly
- The DHS/USICS/DOL or the Fed (or whoever it is) has told me that it is illegal for me to hire anyone without proper work authorization
- I may not have sufficient funds to sponsor H1B
- During the interview process I want to know whether the candidate a) has work authorization b) how long his work authorization is valid for? so that I can prescreen and not trouble candidates with the whole interview process only to tell them later that I can't hire them.
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
I dont think DOL or whatever dept it is, that regulates employment, can force an employer that they have to treat seekers of H1B Visa [and/or EAD people with for example only 1 month validity left] on par with US citizens (On the other hand, it is the vice versa that they are more concerned about :) )....I mean what if the financial position of the employer cannot afford him to sponsor an H1B or take the risk of employing an EAD guy with only 1 month validity and risk financial loss if that guy had to quit after a month due to EAD renewal delay etc.... Would they be forced to sponsor H1B or take a risk by hiring the 1 month EAD guy?
What might be illegal though is rejecting to employ EAD people with reasonable amount of validity left on their card.
Isn't that right? [ I am just curious...I am not supporting the employer here, but just trying to understand the practical enforcement of the legality of such issues]
Regards.
Hypothetically in an interview, if directly asked, and if I am planning on using EAD, I would simply tell them that I have authorization from the DHS to work for any employer, and leave it at that. If they persist, I will tell them that I have the required documents for I-9. No need for more details unless some kind of security clearance is required.
Its a little hard to understand how the issue of 'work authorization' cannot be raised during interview or hiring process.
- Say I am an employer who has a critical project that needs a person to be on job for at least few months, to ensure that the project goes smoothly
- The DHS/USICS/DOL or the Fed (or whoever it is) has told me that it is illegal for me to hire anyone without proper work authorization
- I may not have sufficient funds to sponsor H1B
- During the interview process I want to know whether the candidate a) has work authorization b) how long his work authorization is valid for? so that I can prescreen and not trouble candidates with the whole interview process only to tell them later that I can't hire them.
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
I dont think DOL or whatever dept it is, that regulates employment, can force an employer that they have to treat seekers of H1B Visa [and/or EAD people with for example only 1 month validity left] on par with US citizens (On the other hand, it is the vice versa that they are more concerned about :) )....I mean what if the financial position of the employer cannot afford him to sponsor an H1B or take the risk of employing an EAD guy with only 1 month validity and risk financial loss if that guy had to quit after a month due to EAD renewal delay etc.... Would they be forced to sponsor H1B or take a risk by hiring the 1 month EAD guy?
What might be illegal though is rejecting to employ EAD people with reasonable amount of validity left on their card.
Isn't that right? [ I am just curious...I am not supporting the employer here, but just trying to understand the practical enforcement of the legality of such issues]
Regards.
dresses kmart summer catalogue
kewlchap
10-12 05:06 PM
Folks, it is columbus day today and federal offices are closed.. Relax. You will be able to do POJ tomorrow onwards again.
more...
makeup images card kmart logo
ramus
06-29 07:51 PM
Same with me... my attorney is not responding either. I guess it is done deal now.. Good luck to all who can file even if dates goes back..I think it will be 'U' for India and china..
[QUOTE=makemygc]well i courier-ed it to my attorney to be supposedly mail out by today but now that law firm is not even responding...so even if move my ass or move my other body parts ...its not going to change any darn thing....I know u must definitely be moving all the way from top to bottom...best of luck..[/QUOTE
gud luck to u too!!!!
[QUOTE=makemygc]well i courier-ed it to my attorney to be supposedly mail out by today but now that law firm is not even responding...so even if move my ass or move my other body parts ...its not going to change any darn thing....I know u must definitely be moving all the way from top to bottom...best of luck..[/QUOTE
gud luck to u too!!!!
girlfriend bring Kmart catalogues to
senthil1
05-10 11:30 AM
It is not true that all the H1bs are creating jobs. For one example I worked in a big garment company and they laid off hundreds of people(around 800) 4 years back and did offshoring 90% with 10% H1b and L1 to Infosys. This would have created less than 10 new admin jobs for setting up office here but it displaced 800 jobs plus all the new projects(jobs) go to Infosys and US government lost millions in taxes for a private company to save a few million dollars. But if a H1b is a real innovator or investor then he could create scores of new jobs but those guys are very less. They should be identified and rewarded by faster GC process.
But real intention of H1b when it was created was to fill shortage of skills but not for competing with citizens in rate. If the real intention is to compete globally then that needs to be revealed while lobbying with Senators. There is nothing wrong with immigrants or H1b persons. Most abuses are done and enouraged by employers. Corporations prefers a person always to be in H1b so they want more H1b quota and less gc so that they can exploit people.
Basically H1b numbers and offshoring needs to be increased when demand is high(Really it was needed on 1999 and 2000) and it needs to be decreased when demand is low. Also today also there is shortage of skills in a few areas. System should handle those also.
Hunter, this is the first sensible post from you. Now you agree that abusers of this H1 visa system are corporations not the immigrants on their own. So far you were busy bashing immigrants.
Also if US is a free market and capitalist society, why should corporates employ "whoever" is locally available. Its a private money afterall. Shouldent it be upto them to decide how to spend? Also most US corps, have local presence and as for taking a tax break, I hope companies did not promise to create "ALL" jobs in US. Majority of local jobs go to US citizens. They still create thousands of local jobs and pay H1 visa fees part of which goes to train american workforce. If the wages were equal, its more expensive for a company to hire H1 worker.
But real intention of H1b when it was created was to fill shortage of skills but not for competing with citizens in rate. If the real intention is to compete globally then that needs to be revealed while lobbying with Senators. There is nothing wrong with immigrants or H1b persons. Most abuses are done and enouraged by employers. Corporations prefers a person always to be in H1b so they want more H1b quota and less gc so that they can exploit people.
Basically H1b numbers and offshoring needs to be increased when demand is high(Really it was needed on 1999 and 2000) and it needs to be decreased when demand is low. Also today also there is shortage of skills in a few areas. System should handle those also.
Hunter, this is the first sensible post from you. Now you agree that abusers of this H1 visa system are corporations not the immigrants on their own. So far you were busy bashing immigrants.
Also if US is a free market and capitalist society, why should corporates employ "whoever" is locally available. Its a private money afterall. Shouldent it be upto them to decide how to spend? Also most US corps, have local presence and as for taking a tax break, I hope companies did not promise to create "ALL" jobs in US. Majority of local jobs go to US citizens. They still create thousands of local jobs and pay H1 visa fees part of which goes to train american workforce. If the wages were equal, its more expensive for a company to hire H1 worker.
hairstyles kmart summer catalogue
Macaca
12-05 03:59 PM
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, Lou, you�ve been well known for years now, especially dealing with the issue of American corporations exporting jobs and criticizing that whole process of exporting American jobs overseas.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your�but also the criticism of it, that as I�ve seen it as, oftentimes does not deal with the impact so much of what this globalization on those countries themselves. In other words, you criticize NAFTA for sending so many jobs overseas, but not with the impact so much that it�s having on Mexico and on these other countries that are the other end of this free trade.
LOU DOBBS: Juan, that may be because I�m a television journalist, limited in my intellect, as well as my time.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, on this show, we don�t have commercials, so we have a lot of time to get into the issues.
LOU DOBBS: The reality is that, of course, NAFTA is, in my judgment, at least deleterious to the interests of the Mexican people and to the state of Mexico. One only has to look at the empty villages in particularly southern Mexico to examine the impact of the agricultural policies within NAFTA. One only has to look at the maquiladoras across northern Mexico to see the impact on a society that is already 50% impoverished, education levels still where they were thirty years ago in Mexico.
But my perspective is an American one. And I won�t presume to speak for Mexico, as Felipe Calderon does presume to speak to the United States for Americans on American policy. The reality is that NAFTA doesn�t work for this country. It doesn�t work for Mexico.
But I am not one of those people�as Amy was talking about, my detractors. The suggestion I�m anti-immigrant, for example, is absurd. I would support an increase in lawful immigration and have said so repeatedly and have no problem whatsoever with current levels of immigration, which, by the way, are the highest levels of immigration in the world�in fact, more than the rest of the world combined. We bring in more than two million people. But the issue is one that the United States does not have a foreign policy toward Mexico. We�re paternalistic and condescending toward Mexico in our dealings with Mexico, both corporately and politically. And it�s time for that to change.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your�but also the criticism of it, that as I�ve seen it as, oftentimes does not deal with the impact so much of what this globalization on those countries themselves. In other words, you criticize NAFTA for sending so many jobs overseas, but not with the impact so much that it�s having on Mexico and on these other countries that are the other end of this free trade.
LOU DOBBS: Juan, that may be because I�m a television journalist, limited in my intellect, as well as my time.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, on this show, we don�t have commercials, so we have a lot of time to get into the issues.
LOU DOBBS: The reality is that, of course, NAFTA is, in my judgment, at least deleterious to the interests of the Mexican people and to the state of Mexico. One only has to look at the empty villages in particularly southern Mexico to examine the impact of the agricultural policies within NAFTA. One only has to look at the maquiladoras across northern Mexico to see the impact on a society that is already 50% impoverished, education levels still where they were thirty years ago in Mexico.
But my perspective is an American one. And I won�t presume to speak for Mexico, as Felipe Calderon does presume to speak to the United States for Americans on American policy. The reality is that NAFTA doesn�t work for this country. It doesn�t work for Mexico.
But I am not one of those people�as Amy was talking about, my detractors. The suggestion I�m anti-immigrant, for example, is absurd. I would support an increase in lawful immigration and have said so repeatedly and have no problem whatsoever with current levels of immigration, which, by the way, are the highest levels of immigration in the world�in fact, more than the rest of the world combined. We bring in more than two million people. But the issue is one that the United States does not have a foreign policy toward Mexico. We�re paternalistic and condescending toward Mexico in our dealings with Mexico, both corporately and politically. And it�s time for that to change.
pappu
09-09 11:39 AM
You are not alone. This might help (posted by IV member never_give_up:
To all others like me, who are hesitant and are not sure about the talking points. Below is something that can help.
You would most likely be talking to a person taking messages and not the congressman/woman directly.
And you also dont have to explain them the details of the bill, as they are very well aware of it. All you have to tell them is it is about HR5882.
After one or 2 calls, my message was standardized and this is what I used in all the calls.
Good Morning. I am calling in regards to the bill HR5882. (Pause for the other person to give you a go ahead and then continue). I would like to express my support for the bill and would like to request the support of Congressman/woman for the bill. If you can pass the message to the Congressman/Woman, that will be greatly appreciated.
Thank You and have a Great Day.
Some of the offices will ask you for your phone number and address, go ahead and give it to them. No harm.
And some might ask you where you are calling them from. My reply to them was - I am calling from the state of VA. I also reached out to my district's congressman, but also wanted to request the support of Congressman XXXX and so am calling your office.
I was initially hesitant and was not sure as to how to put it together, but it was real eazy and quick. After some calls, I even called up people who do not suppor this like Steve King, etc. It was only a matter of a call and letting them know our opinion. All that I lost was 2 minutes of my time and no money for my unlimited phone plan.
Not sure how much help it will be, but surely cannot hurt. It would atleast draw their attention due to the large call volume. Yes, some offices told me that they were receiving lot of calls for this bill.
So go on... do your part.
To all others like me, who are hesitant and are not sure about the talking points. Below is something that can help.
You would most likely be talking to a person taking messages and not the congressman/woman directly.
And you also dont have to explain them the details of the bill, as they are very well aware of it. All you have to tell them is it is about HR5882.
After one or 2 calls, my message was standardized and this is what I used in all the calls.
Good Morning. I am calling in regards to the bill HR5882. (Pause for the other person to give you a go ahead and then continue). I would like to express my support for the bill and would like to request the support of Congressman/woman for the bill. If you can pass the message to the Congressman/Woman, that will be greatly appreciated.
Thank You and have a Great Day.
Some of the offices will ask you for your phone number and address, go ahead and give it to them. No harm.
And some might ask you where you are calling them from. My reply to them was - I am calling from the state of VA. I also reached out to my district's congressman, but also wanted to request the support of Congressman XXXX and so am calling your office.
I was initially hesitant and was not sure as to how to put it together, but it was real eazy and quick. After some calls, I even called up people who do not suppor this like Steve King, etc. It was only a matter of a call and letting them know our opinion. All that I lost was 2 minutes of my time and no money for my unlimited phone plan.
Not sure how much help it will be, but surely cannot hurt. It would atleast draw their attention due to the large call volume. Yes, some offices told me that they were receiving lot of calls for this bill.
So go on... do your part.
pointlesswait
09-24 02:57 PM
I thought Eb4 and EB5 categories had expired..>?????
or was that some rumor
Yes , I did see that, but at what point do they consider this as "inventory" -- waiting for visa having pre-adjudicated (gosh, I hope not!) or as we all are thinking -- applications that have reached the agency...
or was that some rumor
Yes , I did see that, but at what point do they consider this as "inventory" -- waiting for visa having pre-adjudicated (gosh, I hope not!) or as we all are thinking -- applications that have reached the agency...
No comments:
Post a Comment