mirage
03-14 10:22 AM
I have met my rep. He took the letter etc but nothing happens after that. Starting a new campaign to the USCIS director doesn't dilute the issue, rather it makes our case stronger, this way we are telling them we are really really troubled...
Please don't dilute the admin fix effort by starting another letter campaign.
IV just finished a letter campaign in which one of the items were 3 yr EAD/AP. Why do we need another letter campaign? There is still lot of work going on related to the Admin fixes, please do work with your state chapters to setup meetings with lawmakers to seek their support for the Admin fix effort.
Please don't dilute the admin fix effort by starting another letter campaign.
IV just finished a letter campaign in which one of the items were 3 yr EAD/AP. Why do we need another letter campaign? There is still lot of work going on related to the Admin fixes, please do work with your state chapters to setup meetings with lawmakers to seek their support for the Admin fix effort.
wallpaper Osama Bin Laden Documents: U.S. Tracking Possible New Terror Targets, Stepping Up Surveillance. Osama bin Laden is seen in this image broadcast Wednesday
Berkeleybee
03-06 06:28 PM
All,
In every campaign, every battle, there is a bunch of people who move the agenda forward, and there is a bunch of people who sit on the sidelines predicting the worst. Gnashing their teeth, ruing their fate, wondering if the people who are working are working hard enough.
Sound familiar? Is this trend beginning to develop even in IV's own forums forget about The Other forum?
IV is a profoundly realistic group - we *know* we are fighting a hard battle. Which side would you rather be on? The side that says I'll only do something constructive when victory is almost in sight/certain or the side that makes victory happen step by step, day by day, member by member, task by task?
This forum is no place for the Doom and Gloom crew. We know the size of the battle, and we need all the optimism and drive we can get to fight it.
So cut the wailing (or take it to that other therapy forum) and instead of asking what IV is doing for you, ask what you can do to help yourself and all of us in this mess! Channel your rage and despair.
You've contributed. Fabulous. Reach out and recruit other members. Have them contribute. Join one of our volunteer teams get involved in some activity -- alliance building, media, web design, ad design, membership drive.
Read our basic documents and educate yourselves. I'm continually shocked by the number of people caught in this jam who can't be bothered to read about the mess they are in. If you are wondering which documents -- go to the Resources for lawmaker meetings page -- that has a list of 5 with links.
best,
Berkeleybee
In every campaign, every battle, there is a bunch of people who move the agenda forward, and there is a bunch of people who sit on the sidelines predicting the worst. Gnashing their teeth, ruing their fate, wondering if the people who are working are working hard enough.
Sound familiar? Is this trend beginning to develop even in IV's own forums forget about The Other forum?
IV is a profoundly realistic group - we *know* we are fighting a hard battle. Which side would you rather be on? The side that says I'll only do something constructive when victory is almost in sight/certain or the side that makes victory happen step by step, day by day, member by member, task by task?
This forum is no place for the Doom and Gloom crew. We know the size of the battle, and we need all the optimism and drive we can get to fight it.
So cut the wailing (or take it to that other therapy forum) and instead of asking what IV is doing for you, ask what you can do to help yourself and all of us in this mess! Channel your rage and despair.
You've contributed. Fabulous. Reach out and recruit other members. Have them contribute. Join one of our volunteer teams get involved in some activity -- alliance building, media, web design, ad design, membership drive.
Read our basic documents and educate yourselves. I'm continually shocked by the number of people caught in this jam who can't be bothered to read about the mess they are in. If you are wondering which documents -- go to the Resources for lawmaker meetings page -- that has a list of 5 with links.
best,
Berkeleybee
trump_gc
07-13 10:57 AM
If she has an EAD she should be fine with the status, if she does not have one, may be u could apply one for her
2011 osama bin laden target
ItIsNotFunny
09-23 10:15 AM
I don't get it - where are the rest of the 2468 members?
Can we send out a blast (through Pappu) to everyone on this forum?
Our need will be felt much more strongly is ALL of us participate - right guys? I'm kind of shocked that the number is only 32!!!!
Those are the people who don't deserve GC!
Can we send out a blast (through Pappu) to everyone on this forum?
Our need will be felt much more strongly is ALL of us participate - right guys? I'm kind of shocked that the number is only 32!!!!
Those are the people who don't deserve GC!
more...
Aah_GC
10-24 09:29 AM
Dear Friends - I have a question and would appreciate your thoughts.
My father visited us for 6 months and I have a copy of his visa and passport notarized. What are the rest of the formalities (W7 form et al) that I should complete so I get some exemption? Or have my assumptions been wrong?
My father visited us for 6 months and I have a copy of his visa and passport notarized. What are the rest of the formalities (W7 form et al) that I should complete so I get some exemption? Or have my assumptions been wrong?
Ramba
05-14 04:27 PM
Guys,
The timing of this visa bulletin is suspicious. Right at the nick of time, when the senate is discussing increasing EB quotas, this news comes in. Plus they are saying that there will be forward movement, in the EB cut-off dates in the coming months to rhyme with the current negotatitions in Congress on CIR/ SKIL.
IV should not step behind in their legislation efforts. Even, if visa bulletin dates are current today, they might retrogress later, when the I-485 application starts to process (Current I-485 processing time shows applications processing as of Sept. 10, 2006, which is 8 months before). No one knows, if eight months from now, the cut-off dates will retrogress further or advance, due to the BEC closing out in Sept. 2007 and PERM applications processed from March 2005 onwards.
This may be a valid suspiecion, we may not ruled out ...
The timing of this visa bulletin is suspicious. Right at the nick of time, when the senate is discussing increasing EB quotas, this news comes in. Plus they are saying that there will be forward movement, in the EB cut-off dates in the coming months to rhyme with the current negotatitions in Congress on CIR/ SKIL.
IV should not step behind in their legislation efforts. Even, if visa bulletin dates are current today, they might retrogress later, when the I-485 application starts to process (Current I-485 processing time shows applications processing as of Sept. 10, 2006, which is 8 months before). No one knows, if eight months from now, the cut-off dates will retrogress further or advance, due to the BEC closing out in Sept. 2007 and PERM applications processed from March 2005 onwards.
This may be a valid suspiecion, we may not ruled out ...
more...
noboundaries78
10-09 06:55 PM
I am not a lawyer, but this is what I can tell (as far as I know):
1. You will get 3 yrs extension of H1B for company B as long as your 140 is not revoked by employer A at the time of adjudication of H1B AND your PD is retrogressed.
2. If company A revokes 140 AFTER your H1B with company B is approved, this will not affect your H visa/status. what I dont know is: will this create any problems in getting a VISA stamped at the consulate in future or not.
3. Once your 140 is approved, PD is urs. No matter what happens to the original I 140, as long as you save a copy of approval notice, you can port the PD any time in future.
4. As you have not filed 485 yet, you are not eligible for AC21. So, once you go to company B (and company A is not ready to co-operate and/or revokes 140); you will have to start your GC process from scratch (new PERM and new 140). However, PD will be urs forever!
Good Luck.
I just went through a job change with an approved I-140 and can tell you that whatever kodur_007 has stated is true from personal experience.
Its a rather big pain though but that's the fate of an immigrant(specially I or C) in the US.
1. You will get 3 yrs extension of H1B for company B as long as your 140 is not revoked by employer A at the time of adjudication of H1B AND your PD is retrogressed.
2. If company A revokes 140 AFTER your H1B with company B is approved, this will not affect your H visa/status. what I dont know is: will this create any problems in getting a VISA stamped at the consulate in future or not.
3. Once your 140 is approved, PD is urs. No matter what happens to the original I 140, as long as you save a copy of approval notice, you can port the PD any time in future.
4. As you have not filed 485 yet, you are not eligible for AC21. So, once you go to company B (and company A is not ready to co-operate and/or revokes 140); you will have to start your GC process from scratch (new PERM and new 140). However, PD will be urs forever!
Good Luck.
I just went through a job change with an approved I-140 and can tell you that whatever kodur_007 has stated is true from personal experience.
Its a rather big pain though but that's the fate of an immigrant(specially I or C) in the US.
2010 Printable shooting targets of armed terrorists, armed silhouettes, Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab. Hp Printable Calendars - al-Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden.
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
The7zen
01-26 07:54 PM
Voted ????? How ? did u get a confirmation ?
Anyone care to answer this ????
Anyone care to answer this ????
hair osama bin laden dead body_08.
chanduv23
01-10 09:13 AM
We need every member in the tri state area to attend this. Please show your support
more...
villamonte6100
09-19 11:04 AM
That's what I am suggesting. Look back the first reply message. One doesn't gain authority and yell on others just because the person attended the rally.
Ras, looking at the photo at the rally, I think you got the point. Not much attended and I don't see any other nationals there.
Ras, looking at the photo at the rally, I think you got the point. Not much attended and I don't see any other nationals there.
hot targets osama bin laden
snathan
02-03 02:22 PM
hello boss...
whoever is replying to my thread...
iam not faking or frauding anything ..and you guys dont have any right to tell me.
I had a very nice job back in my home country and iam well experienced guy..
unfortunately due to some personal reasons nothing strike me in my way.
u guys dont have to be so rude.
thought i will get help from this forum but not a negative response
thanku very much
Mr.Matt krusse, every one knows that you are an dump as& h*le... how we know that. we are smarter than you....and thats why you are begging us,
whoever is replying to my thread...
iam not faking or frauding anything ..and you guys dont have any right to tell me.
I had a very nice job back in my home country and iam well experienced guy..
unfortunately due to some personal reasons nothing strike me in my way.
u guys dont have to be so rude.
thought i will get help from this forum but not a negative response
thanku very much
Mr.Matt krusse, every one knows that you are an dump as& h*le... how we know that. we are smarter than you....and thats why you are begging us,
more...
house osama bin laden target
GCOP
12-08 02:03 PM
Friends, I already have expressed the views regarding Recapturing/ temporarily increasing Employment Based Visa Numbers for Greencard, on change.gov website . I have been getting E-mails from Transition Team. I have pasted this recent E-mail which is about Meeting with Transition Team. I think, IV Core Team members or/and people living around Chicago area should arrange meeting with Transition Team, and express and suggest our ideas regarding Recapture/Temporarily Increase EB greencard Numbers to clear the backlog.
Your seat at the table
From: John D. Podesta, Obama-Biden Transition Project (info@obamabidentransitionproject.org)
Sent: Sat 12/06/08 10:30 AM
Everyday, we meet with organizations that present ideas for the Transition and the incoming Obama-Biden Administration. In past transitions, meetings like this have been held behind closed doors.
Not anymore. Today, every Obama-Biden Transition staff member received a memo outlining the "Seat at the Table" Transparency Policy. I've included a copy of it below.
The policy is pretty simple: the people and groups we're meeting with, the subjects of the meetings, and any documents shared in the meetings will now be made available on Change.gov. Most importantly, the American public can weigh in with comments or their own materials.
Read the memo and watch our "Seat at the Table" video:
This is our latest step toward a more transparent and accessible Transition. We look forward to benefitting from the many more voices that will now be a part of the decision-making process.
Thank you,
John
John D. Podesta
Co-chair
The Obama-Biden Transition Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM
From: John Podesta
To: All Obama-Biden Transition Project Staff
Date: December 4, 2008
Re: "Seat at the Table" Transparency Policy -- EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
Overview:
As an extension of the unprecedented ethics guidelines already in place for the Obama-Biden Transition Project, we take another significant step towards transparency of our efforts for the American people. Every day, we meet with organizations who present ideas for the Transition and the Administration, both orally and in writing. We want to ensure that we give the American people a "seat at the table" and that we receive the benefit of their feedback.
Accordingly, any documents from official meetings with outside organizations will be posted on our website for people to review and comment on. In addition to presenting ideas as individuals at www.change.gov, the American people deserve a "seat at the table" as we receive input from organizations and make decisions. In the interest of protecting the personal privacy of individuals, this policy does not apply to personnel matters and hiring recommendations.
Scope:
The following information will be posted on our website:
1. Documents: All policy documents1 and written policy recommendations from official meetings2 with outside organizations.
2. Meetings: The date and organizations represented at official meetings in the Transition headquarters or agency offices, with any documents presented as noted above.
This scope is a floor, not a ceiling, and all staff are strongly encouraged to include additional materials. Such materials could include documents (recommendations, press releases, etc.) presented in smaller meetings or materials or made public by the outside organization without a connection to an official meeting.
If you have any questions as to whether documents should be included, please email [REDACTED].
Process:
Prior to an official meeting with an outside organization or organizations, Obama-Biden Transition Project staff members will inform attendees that any documents provided will be posted on our "Seat at the Table" website found at www.change.gov. Suggested language for email invitations is: "By presenting or submitting any document at a meeting with the Obama-Biden Transition Project, you agree to allow the document to be made public and posted on www.change.gov." At the completion of each meeting or upon receipt of such documents, Transition staff will provide the documents to [REDACTED] with the date of the meeting, a list of the organizations in attendance, and the topic of the meeting.
Notes:
1) This policy does not apply to non-public or classified information acquired from the Agency Review Process and internal memorandum.
2) An "official meeting" is defined as a meeting with outside organizations or representatives of those organizations to which three or more outside participants attend.
Your seat at the table
From: John D. Podesta, Obama-Biden Transition Project (info@obamabidentransitionproject.org)
Sent: Sat 12/06/08 10:30 AM
Everyday, we meet with organizations that present ideas for the Transition and the incoming Obama-Biden Administration. In past transitions, meetings like this have been held behind closed doors.
Not anymore. Today, every Obama-Biden Transition staff member received a memo outlining the "Seat at the Table" Transparency Policy. I've included a copy of it below.
The policy is pretty simple: the people and groups we're meeting with, the subjects of the meetings, and any documents shared in the meetings will now be made available on Change.gov. Most importantly, the American public can weigh in with comments or their own materials.
Read the memo and watch our "Seat at the Table" video:
This is our latest step toward a more transparent and accessible Transition. We look forward to benefitting from the many more voices that will now be a part of the decision-making process.
Thank you,
John
John D. Podesta
Co-chair
The Obama-Biden Transition Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM
From: John Podesta
To: All Obama-Biden Transition Project Staff
Date: December 4, 2008
Re: "Seat at the Table" Transparency Policy -- EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
Overview:
As an extension of the unprecedented ethics guidelines already in place for the Obama-Biden Transition Project, we take another significant step towards transparency of our efforts for the American people. Every day, we meet with organizations who present ideas for the Transition and the Administration, both orally and in writing. We want to ensure that we give the American people a "seat at the table" and that we receive the benefit of their feedback.
Accordingly, any documents from official meetings with outside organizations will be posted on our website for people to review and comment on. In addition to presenting ideas as individuals at www.change.gov, the American people deserve a "seat at the table" as we receive input from organizations and make decisions. In the interest of protecting the personal privacy of individuals, this policy does not apply to personnel matters and hiring recommendations.
Scope:
The following information will be posted on our website:
1. Documents: All policy documents1 and written policy recommendations from official meetings2 with outside organizations.
2. Meetings: The date and organizations represented at official meetings in the Transition headquarters or agency offices, with any documents presented as noted above.
This scope is a floor, not a ceiling, and all staff are strongly encouraged to include additional materials. Such materials could include documents (recommendations, press releases, etc.) presented in smaller meetings or materials or made public by the outside organization without a connection to an official meeting.
If you have any questions as to whether documents should be included, please email [REDACTED].
Process:
Prior to an official meeting with an outside organization or organizations, Obama-Biden Transition Project staff members will inform attendees that any documents provided will be posted on our "Seat at the Table" website found at www.change.gov. Suggested language for email invitations is: "By presenting or submitting any document at a meeting with the Obama-Biden Transition Project, you agree to allow the document to be made public and posted on www.change.gov." At the completion of each meeting or upon receipt of such documents, Transition staff will provide the documents to [REDACTED] with the date of the meeting, a list of the organizations in attendance, and the topic of the meeting.
Notes:
1) This policy does not apply to non-public or classified information acquired from the Agency Review Process and internal memorandum.
2) An "official meeting" is defined as a meeting with outside organizations or representatives of those organizations to which three or more outside participants attend.
tattoo Free Al Qaeda Leader Osama Bin
fatboysam
05-17 01:05 PM
IfYouSeekAmy,
Can you please share your experience with them?
Thanks
Can you please share your experience with them?
Thanks
more...
pictures al-Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden
prabhu07
05-21 12:42 AM
(a) I am currently in L1 and have a priority date of May 2004 and I am in EB3 category
(b) I have an approved I-140
(c) My 485 has not been filed yet
(d) I just got my H1 approved and it would be effective from Oct 1 2008
So, if I change my current job from Employer A to Employer B and if Employer B agrees to take over my Green Card Process,
1) Should I re-file my I-140? (I presume the answer is Yes, but don't want to be a smart a**, wanted to get it clarified to the maximum extent possible)
2) Will my current Priority Date be carried over? That is, can I re-file my I-140 with my new Employer B with the same priority date of May 2004?
3) If I can move from Employer A to Employer B and file my new I-140, should this be done asap and before Employer A revokes my current approved I-140?
4) How much time does it take when I file I-140 with premium processing? (I can probably find this from USCIS website, but wanted to know real-time experiences)
5) Within how many days of joining my new Employer B should I file my new I-140?
6) I understand that the Employer A can revoke my I-140 and use my approved labor for any other viable applicant, but I also know that the Labor Substitution concept ceased to exist from July 2007. What is the benefit for my Employer A to revoke the I-140?
7) Last, but not the least - Should I file for a new labor where I will get a new Priority date and go back to that (god forsaken) square 1?
Thanks in advance for your time and I am finding it difficult to assimilate the answers from various posts.
(b) I have an approved I-140
(c) My 485 has not been filed yet
(d) I just got my H1 approved and it would be effective from Oct 1 2008
So, if I change my current job from Employer A to Employer B and if Employer B agrees to take over my Green Card Process,
1) Should I re-file my I-140? (I presume the answer is Yes, but don't want to be a smart a**, wanted to get it clarified to the maximum extent possible)
2) Will my current Priority Date be carried over? That is, can I re-file my I-140 with my new Employer B with the same priority date of May 2004?
3) If I can move from Employer A to Employer B and file my new I-140, should this be done asap and before Employer A revokes my current approved I-140?
4) How much time does it take when I file I-140 with premium processing? (I can probably find this from USCIS website, but wanted to know real-time experiences)
5) Within how many days of joining my new Employer B should I file my new I-140?
6) I understand that the Employer A can revoke my I-140 and use my approved labor for any other viable applicant, but I also know that the Labor Substitution concept ceased to exist from July 2007. What is the benefit for my Employer A to revoke the I-140?
7) Last, but not the least - Should I file for a new labor where I will get a new Priority date and go back to that (god forsaken) square 1?
Thanks in advance for your time and I am finding it difficult to assimilate the answers from various posts.
dresses Osama Bin Laden
webm
12-15 04:35 PM
I had filed for my 485 during the July 2007 time frame .
PD - July 2006.
I got my FP notice and got the FP notice stamped in FEB 2008
The stamp reads
Biometrics Processing Stamp
ASC Side Code: __________XTESANJOSE
Biometrics QA Review by ________ (officer's signature)
Tenprints QA Reivew (officer's signature)
Does this mean that I have security clearance ?
Basically, what does the stamping mean ?
Thanks in Advance !!
When did your last FP was done?? is that in Feb'08??
PD - July 2006.
I got my FP notice and got the FP notice stamped in FEB 2008
The stamp reads
Biometrics Processing Stamp
ASC Side Code: __________XTESANJOSE
Biometrics QA Review by ________ (officer's signature)
Tenprints QA Reivew (officer's signature)
Does this mean that I have security clearance ?
Basically, what does the stamping mean ?
Thanks in Advance !!
When did your last FP was done?? is that in Feb'08??
more...
makeup osama bin laden 2pac in laden.
swamy
12-18 10:47 PM
Hi All,
Me and my wife are traveling to India. We are going for visa re-stamping (consular processing).
Based on the information provided below, can you provide lists of forms/docs that we're supposed to carry with us when we visit the consulate for stamping?
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
- Amit
My visa:
- I entered on H1B. Then I had to change employer so visa was transfered (And they extended it for another 2.5years). So now I have a H1B visa which is valid till June 2009, and passport with expired H1B stamp.
- With the new employer - I've an approved PERM. I140 is pending. I485 is filed. EAD received. Do I need to take approval notices and/or receipt notices of any/all of these stages?
My Wife's visa:
- she entered on H4. Now she has a H1B visa which is valid up 2010, and passport with expired H4 stamp.
Is she required to take approval notices and/or receipt notices of i485.. or my PERM or i140?
I would say just have all the receipt notices handy. They are not required and they didn't ask me for it when I got my visa restamped but you could carry a copy on the day of interview just to play it safe.
Me and my wife are traveling to India. We are going for visa re-stamping (consular processing).
Based on the information provided below, can you provide lists of forms/docs that we're supposed to carry with us when we visit the consulate for stamping?
THANKS IN ADVANCE!
- Amit
My visa:
- I entered on H1B. Then I had to change employer so visa was transfered (And they extended it for another 2.5years). So now I have a H1B visa which is valid till June 2009, and passport with expired H1B stamp.
- With the new employer - I've an approved PERM. I140 is pending. I485 is filed. EAD received. Do I need to take approval notices and/or receipt notices of any/all of these stages?
My Wife's visa:
- she entered on H4. Now she has a H1B visa which is valid up 2010, and passport with expired H4 stamp.
Is she required to take approval notices and/or receipt notices of i485.. or my PERM or i140?
I would say just have all the receipt notices handy. They are not required and they didn't ask me for it when I got my visa restamped but you could carry a copy on the day of interview just to play it safe.
girlfriend Osama Bin Laden Is Dead FREE!
fatjoe
09-05 10:16 AM
Same here. All filed at NSC. Filed for EAD and AP on Aug 10th. Checks got cleared on Aug 24th. But did not get the reciept notice yet. Why is it taking so long a time to get the REceipt notices for EAD/AP, where my checks were cleared a couple of weeks ago.
Filed for 485 on July 18th, checks not cleared yet. Already my LC that was filed in July-2002 was denied due to the careless mistake of the attorney/employer. So, Keeping my fingers crossed.
BTW: Do, you know what # should I dial to contact USCIS to get info on I485/EAD/AP.
Thanks.
Filed for 485 on July 18th, checks not cleared yet. Already my LC that was filed in July-2002 was denied due to the careless mistake of the attorney/employer. So, Keeping my fingers crossed.
BTW: Do, you know what # should I dial to contact USCIS to get info on I485/EAD/AP.
Thanks.
hairstyles US Codename for Osama Target:
Pineapple
02-09 01:51 PM
That's a good one :)
..
PS: You know that Power = IV right? = )
..
PS: You know that Power = IV right? = )
ImmiRam
09-13 02:39 PM
You can always fight....so long u have cash to burn.
I am talking about Class Action Lawsuites (not sure if it applies to Fefderal agencies).
btw, I dont get why I am already 'infamous' :)
I am talking about Class Action Lawsuites (not sure if it applies to Fefderal agencies).
btw, I dont get why I am already 'infamous' :)
krish2005
04-15 01:00 AM
Jet airways is good. My parents are coming in May with Jet Airways. Lot of my friends has told that Jet is good with leg space and very good service. They specifically said about how friendly they are with elderly people coming travelling from India. The only issue is - they fly till Newark only. But when you book they can take to any city in US.
I just want to let you know that everyone who have used Jet airways has told very good about their international service. Opinions may differ with different people
Hi,
Jet airways is good. But they have discontinued service to bay area recently. But if you choose them, they fly only from east coast. The cost works out same with jet+local to east coast. Only thing you could avoid is long lay off. Service is excellent and indian food. In fact they have the indian spout in the toilets which is useful for elderly patients who require water in toilets for cleaning purposes.
I just want to let you know that everyone who have used Jet airways has told very good about their international service. Opinions may differ with different people
Hi,
Jet airways is good. But they have discontinued service to bay area recently. But if you choose them, they fly only from east coast. The cost works out same with jet+local to east coast. Only thing you could avoid is long lay off. Service is excellent and indian food. In fact they have the indian spout in the toilets which is useful for elderly patients who require water in toilets for cleaning purposes.
No comments:
Post a Comment