sunny1000
07-23 06:53 PM
we are EB3 India---
Congrats! What are you doing in this forum arguing over dates?? Go out and enjoy your Permanent Residency with Champagne!!!:D :D :D Good luck:)
Congrats! What are you doing in this forum arguing over dates?? Go out and enjoy your Permanent Residency with Champagne!!!:D :D :D Good luck:)
wallpaper public in Jane Fonda movie
p_kumar
09-30 04:19 PM
My EB3 PD is Oct 2003. I-140 approved and I-485 ND is July24th.when can i expect to get the green card?. thanks in advance.
chanduv23
09-12 10:34 AM
For those who are still thinking - just do it - you will be very happy that you did it.
2011 jane fonda medium spikey
mpadapa
07-11 08:40 AM
Great news for EB2 folks.
If EB2-I moves to June 2006 then EB2 C will almost be in the same or better position. So June 2007 bulletin folks aka EB2-C (Jan 2006) will be the main beneficiary. EB2 I folks who are lucky with RD before the current processing dates (mid July) can expect surprise mails. Good luck
If EB2-I moves to June 2006 then EB2 C will almost be in the same or better position. So June 2007 bulletin folks aka EB2-C (Jan 2006) will be the main beneficiary. EB2 I folks who are lucky with RD before the current processing dates (mid July) can expect surprise mails. Good luck
more...
satyachowdary
09-12 08:53 AM
Hi Milind123,
I just contributed $100, here are my order details :
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 09:12 GMT-04:00
Google Order #131954606924512
Thanks
Satya Chowdary
I just contributed $100, here are my order details :
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 09:12 GMT-04:00
Google Order #131954606924512
Thanks
Satya Chowdary
meridiani.planum
12-13 11:41 PM
What are the chances for the PD moving to Mid 2007 by end of 2010 ? :(
are you referring to EB2-India? Without any legislative or administrative changes the chances of reaching 2007 next year are pretty much zero IMO.
If I were to play the prediction game, based on the stats that USCIS released and their own statements in this months VB, this is what I would guess [Q1 meaning Jan-Feb-March: calendar quarter, not USCIS quarter which runs from Sept]:
- Q1 2010 : EB2-I reaches Feb and or early March
>> Reasoning: its already at Jan-end and there are tons of cases in March. because PERM was about to start from April 2005, lots and lots of companies pushed and filed for labor in March. So Jan will be crossed and most likely Feb also. But March is a big hump to cross.
- Q2 2010 : EB2-I goes "unavailable". Probably in May, or in June
>> EB2-India should exhaust its annual quota for the quarter well within the cases from Jan/Feb/early-March. So now the VB would go unavailable.
- Q3 2010 : EB2-I goes to April/May/June-2005 in July, then Dec 2005 by Sept VB.
>> the big spillover of visa starts. Note that spillover has not yet happened. THere is speculation at this point, but traditionally whenever there is spillover (look at last 3 years VB) India and China have the same PD because thats how the visas can spill over equally to both of them. The state dept's own prediction is dates will reach December and thats likely. Note that in their prediction (in the VB) dates for India and China are identical as is expected when spillover takes place. This is the time when the big bump of cases at March should get levelled out.
- Q4 2010 : EB2-I goes to Oct 2005
>> 6 months past PERM the number of filings had picked up again, so based on the EB-I pending cases stats come October 2010 the date should roll back to October 2005. Spillover wont be in effect and India will be back to its annual 7% limit.
- Q1 2011 : EB2-I goes to Dec 2005
>> dates will creep along slowly/
- Q2 2011 : Dec-2005 or 'U'.
>> same story: India quickly exhausts its annual quota, and must now wait for spillover.
- Q3 2011 : EB2-I goes to March/June 2006
>> spillover happens, but unlike earlier there are lots and lots of cases from 2005-end to first half of 2006. So even with spillover the dates are unlikely to go past June 2006.
are you referring to EB2-India? Without any legislative or administrative changes the chances of reaching 2007 next year are pretty much zero IMO.
If I were to play the prediction game, based on the stats that USCIS released and their own statements in this months VB, this is what I would guess [Q1 meaning Jan-Feb-March: calendar quarter, not USCIS quarter which runs from Sept]:
- Q1 2010 : EB2-I reaches Feb and or early March
>> Reasoning: its already at Jan-end and there are tons of cases in March. because PERM was about to start from April 2005, lots and lots of companies pushed and filed for labor in March. So Jan will be crossed and most likely Feb also. But March is a big hump to cross.
- Q2 2010 : EB2-I goes "unavailable". Probably in May, or in June
>> EB2-India should exhaust its annual quota for the quarter well within the cases from Jan/Feb/early-March. So now the VB would go unavailable.
- Q3 2010 : EB2-I goes to April/May/June-2005 in July, then Dec 2005 by Sept VB.
>> the big spillover of visa starts. Note that spillover has not yet happened. THere is speculation at this point, but traditionally whenever there is spillover (look at last 3 years VB) India and China have the same PD because thats how the visas can spill over equally to both of them. The state dept's own prediction is dates will reach December and thats likely. Note that in their prediction (in the VB) dates for India and China are identical as is expected when spillover takes place. This is the time when the big bump of cases at March should get levelled out.
- Q4 2010 : EB2-I goes to Oct 2005
>> 6 months past PERM the number of filings had picked up again, so based on the EB-I pending cases stats come October 2010 the date should roll back to October 2005. Spillover wont be in effect and India will be back to its annual 7% limit.
- Q1 2011 : EB2-I goes to Dec 2005
>> dates will creep along slowly/
- Q2 2011 : Dec-2005 or 'U'.
>> same story: India quickly exhausts its annual quota, and must now wait for spillover.
- Q3 2011 : EB2-I goes to March/June 2006
>> spillover happens, but unlike earlier there are lots and lots of cases from 2005-end to first half of 2006. So even with spillover the dates are unlikely to go past June 2006.
more...
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 04:41 PM
It is tricky. The intent can be proved only by how long the employee has worked for sponsor. If he/she worked considerable period (lets say for 2-3 years in non-immigrant visa (H.L,E) before filing 485 and worked for about 1 year after filing 485) then, it is very easy for the employee to prove his/her intent to have a permanent employment relationship with sponser, if employer try to revoke 140 based on the fact that employee does not have intent. The longivity of the employment relationship with sponser is a great proof. Some people are abusing (by misguidence of few lawyers, as they claim GC is for future job) AC21, without even working for single day with sponser, trying to get GC. USCIS may be controlling that kind of abuse.
One historical background reason for AC21 is that, in 2000, even though all catagories are "current", INS was very slow in approving 485. The delay for approval of 485 in year 2000 is caused by USCIS poor customer service. It took atleast 2 years for 485 approval, though the visa numbers were continously available for the entire 2 years. Therefore, the AC21 is an incentive for USCIS delay.
Now, if the visa numbers are continously available (for example EB1, EB2-ROW) USCIS is approving 485 within 6 months, except july 07 fiasco surge. So now AC21 users are only those who suffers in retrogression, not by USCIS administartive delay. That may be the another reason why USCIS becoming hard on AC21.
I understand what you say but interpretation differs from IO to IO. It still goes to chances....
One historical background reason for AC21 is that, in 2000, even though all catagories are "current", INS was very slow in approving 485. The delay for approval of 485 in year 2000 is caused by USCIS poor customer service. It took atleast 2 years for 485 approval, though the visa numbers were continously available for the entire 2 years. Therefore, the AC21 is an incentive for USCIS delay.
Now, if the visa numbers are continously available (for example EB1, EB2-ROW) USCIS is approving 485 within 6 months, except july 07 fiasco surge. So now AC21 users are only those who suffers in retrogression, not by USCIS administartive delay. That may be the another reason why USCIS becoming hard on AC21.
I understand what you say but interpretation differs from IO to IO. It still goes to chances....
2010 cute hairstyles
rsayed
09-10 10:38 AM
I don't what how you define "most" but I am EB2 with US masters with PD 2006 and I am still waiting. Many of my friends with US masters are still waiting.
Same here - Masters from US, with PD 2006....Stilllllllllllllllll waiting!!!!!
I was reading an article handed over by my Lawyer sometime back - the whole GC process was designed to be completed in 6 mos. end-to-end.
This goes to show how outdated the process is, plus the resource crunch they may be facing at USCIS.
All in all - it's a black hole...only your 'karma' can get you out of it:)
Same here - Masters from US, with PD 2006....Stilllllllllllllllll waiting!!!!!
I was reading an article handed over by my Lawyer sometime back - the whole GC process was designed to be completed in 6 mos. end-to-end.
This goes to show how outdated the process is, plus the resource crunch they may be facing at USCIS.
All in all - it's a black hole...only your 'karma' can get you out of it:)
more...
nixstor
07-06 10:10 AM
Can you please change the headling in Digg to:
Homeland security compromised in mad rush to process Green Cards
Shyt! This is what I call shooting in one's own foot. C mon, Fcuk it up so bad that we will dig a big hole that we won't ever come out again. Please read my other post and think for a minute before you do this again and again
Diptam & Saim,
Please change these security lapses thing. You might be hurting yourselves in the long run. If You are thinking that this is not a big issue in DOS/USCIS, You are mistaken. This is a hot button issue in both agencies. Focus on quality of life issues and other losses incurred. Do not play with security. Its going to come back and hurt us. Please Go ahead and change these security lapse crap.
Homeland security compromised in mad rush to process Green Cards
Shyt! This is what I call shooting in one's own foot. C mon, Fcuk it up so bad that we will dig a big hole that we won't ever come out again. Please read my other post and think for a minute before you do this again and again
Diptam & Saim,
Please change these security lapses thing. You might be hurting yourselves in the long run. If You are thinking that this is not a big issue in DOS/USCIS, You are mistaken. This is a hot button issue in both agencies. Focus on quality of life issues and other losses incurred. Do not play with security. Its going to come back and hurt us. Please Go ahead and change these security lapse crap.
hair more.
sri1309
03-13 01:28 PM
While we work in different directions for the same goal, please write to Zoe and others that we can help reduce the housing crisis, create jobs.
Please find addresses at the bottom who to send.
Sub: Legal immigrants Quota Problem: Employment based EB2, EB3
Dear XXXX,
This is to once again thank you for your continuous efforts in making things move in the legal immigration front.
We would request you to bring HR 5882 to the table and hence help people waiting for so long get immediate relief. We think this is the best time to do it as there are so many waiting in long queues for so long and are unable to buy houses though they are at rock bottom prices now, or change companies as some of us would also like to, and start new companies and jobs. There are very much needed in this time of economic crisis. Applicants in EB3 and EB2 Employment based greencard category are severly backlogged.
The problem is mainly due to country based quotas and wastage of many greencards due to administrative delays over the years, as you know. This can easily be fixed with a simple administrative action and need not need to be done as part of the bigger comprehensive immigration bill. We too need a change.
Below are some statistics and details of the problem, just in case you missed a point.
1. High technology H1-B visas allowed into US = 85,000 H1B per year.
2. H1B quota limit per country = None, quota limits.
3. Greencard eligible candidates = All H1B holders
4. Total Employment Greencards = 145,000 per year.
5. Quota limits for greencards = 7% per country and each family member is counted as 1 visa.
6. H1 holders from India = 30,000 to 40,000 per year.
7. Greencards available for India by quota limits = 2000 � 3000 per year.
8. People waiting in Queues = 37,000 � 38,000 per year.
9. Estimated wait = 10- 15 years per life.
10. Estimated loss of productivity = unlimited.
11. Loss of health and health related issues due to these worries = incalculable.
Consequences:
1. EB3 Employment based category from India is severely backlogged,
2. Number of applicants in Queues waiting to buy house = 300,000
3. Number of applicants in Queues buying a house now = 0.
4. Money spent by applicants on rent per year = $6 billion
5. Number of applicants having Citizen children born in US = 80%
6. Number of applicants unable to start own companies(as they are tied to employer all the time due to greencard sponsorship)
= 30-40%
7. Applicants disappointed and leaving US = 10-15%
8. Applicants planning to come back after retirement who take with them US Citizens who will sponsor them = everybody who is leaving US right now with Citizen kids
9. Burden on social security and healthcare by applicants in point 7 = billions of dollars.
10. Severe pain for everyone wasting time on worries and uncertainity.
11. Many people thinking of returning back, very disappointed.
Solution
Please provide immediate relief. We are still holding our bags in hands even after 5-10 years of playing it by law after applying for greencards. Please respect liberty and freedom and let that happen to legal applicants.
1. Please remove country quotas for greencards immediately to make waiting less for legal employer based EB2/EB3 applicants from India in long queues ALREADY in US for years.
2. This needs No new jobs or Visas. It�s just a simple fix to help bring joy to some legal immigrants and give them freedom to contribute more.
3. Please provide greencards for any legal employment based applicant who lived in US for atleast 5 years and is waiting for more than 5 years and paid taxes and live like a good American Citizen.
4. Please provide Citizenship for anyone who lived in US for 10 years and played by the rules all the time and paid taxes.
5. This will help people buy houses that are so cheap now which will pump in $40 billion even if 50% people buy houses.
6. Construction jobs increase as people start buying houses.
7. Manufacturing and auto industry improves as people start buying cars again due to renewed confidence. Else they continue to adjust with their old cars for now.
8. A fee of $1000-$3000 can be applied for premium processing which can generate $1.5 billion instantly.
9. Stop the distribution of 50000 diversity greencards lottery per year immediately. This is bad in the current times, when people are waiting in legal queues for ever.
10. Issue greencards immediately to anyone who did PhD in US and to Masters Students.. They will be more productive if you help here.
11. Please don�t wait for CIR to have these. This is a small admin fix, no new visas or jobs.
Please let us feel respected for playing by the rules. It will come back to the American people in full gratitude in the form of jobs and renewed vigor.
WE TOO NEED A CHANGE NOW.
A positive action in this regard will be very highly appreciated.
God Bless America!
Thank you very much for your kind attention,
XXXXX,
Category : Employment based EB3 greencard category from India.
Priority Date : xx/xx/xxxx
To President its on change.gov site under Agenda-->Immigration.
Zoe' Lofgren's addresses are:
Priority Date : xx/xx/xxxx
District Office
635 North 1st Street, Suite B
San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone (408) 271-8700
Washington, D.C. Office
102 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone (202) 225-3072
Please find addresses at the bottom who to send.
Sub: Legal immigrants Quota Problem: Employment based EB2, EB3
Dear XXXX,
This is to once again thank you for your continuous efforts in making things move in the legal immigration front.
We would request you to bring HR 5882 to the table and hence help people waiting for so long get immediate relief. We think this is the best time to do it as there are so many waiting in long queues for so long and are unable to buy houses though they are at rock bottom prices now, or change companies as some of us would also like to, and start new companies and jobs. There are very much needed in this time of economic crisis. Applicants in EB3 and EB2 Employment based greencard category are severly backlogged.
The problem is mainly due to country based quotas and wastage of many greencards due to administrative delays over the years, as you know. This can easily be fixed with a simple administrative action and need not need to be done as part of the bigger comprehensive immigration bill. We too need a change.
Below are some statistics and details of the problem, just in case you missed a point.
1. High technology H1-B visas allowed into US = 85,000 H1B per year.
2. H1B quota limit per country = None, quota limits.
3. Greencard eligible candidates = All H1B holders
4. Total Employment Greencards = 145,000 per year.
5. Quota limits for greencards = 7% per country and each family member is counted as 1 visa.
6. H1 holders from India = 30,000 to 40,000 per year.
7. Greencards available for India by quota limits = 2000 � 3000 per year.
8. People waiting in Queues = 37,000 � 38,000 per year.
9. Estimated wait = 10- 15 years per life.
10. Estimated loss of productivity = unlimited.
11. Loss of health and health related issues due to these worries = incalculable.
Consequences:
1. EB3 Employment based category from India is severely backlogged,
2. Number of applicants in Queues waiting to buy house = 300,000
3. Number of applicants in Queues buying a house now = 0.
4. Money spent by applicants on rent per year = $6 billion
5. Number of applicants having Citizen children born in US = 80%
6. Number of applicants unable to start own companies(as they are tied to employer all the time due to greencard sponsorship)
= 30-40%
7. Applicants disappointed and leaving US = 10-15%
8. Applicants planning to come back after retirement who take with them US Citizens who will sponsor them = everybody who is leaving US right now with Citizen kids
9. Burden on social security and healthcare by applicants in point 7 = billions of dollars.
10. Severe pain for everyone wasting time on worries and uncertainity.
11. Many people thinking of returning back, very disappointed.
Solution
Please provide immediate relief. We are still holding our bags in hands even after 5-10 years of playing it by law after applying for greencards. Please respect liberty and freedom and let that happen to legal applicants.
1. Please remove country quotas for greencards immediately to make waiting less for legal employer based EB2/EB3 applicants from India in long queues ALREADY in US for years.
2. This needs No new jobs or Visas. It�s just a simple fix to help bring joy to some legal immigrants and give them freedom to contribute more.
3. Please provide greencards for any legal employment based applicant who lived in US for atleast 5 years and is waiting for more than 5 years and paid taxes and live like a good American Citizen.
4. Please provide Citizenship for anyone who lived in US for 10 years and played by the rules all the time and paid taxes.
5. This will help people buy houses that are so cheap now which will pump in $40 billion even if 50% people buy houses.
6. Construction jobs increase as people start buying houses.
7. Manufacturing and auto industry improves as people start buying cars again due to renewed confidence. Else they continue to adjust with their old cars for now.
8. A fee of $1000-$3000 can be applied for premium processing which can generate $1.5 billion instantly.
9. Stop the distribution of 50000 diversity greencards lottery per year immediately. This is bad in the current times, when people are waiting in legal queues for ever.
10. Issue greencards immediately to anyone who did PhD in US and to Masters Students.. They will be more productive if you help here.
11. Please don�t wait for CIR to have these. This is a small admin fix, no new visas or jobs.
Please let us feel respected for playing by the rules. It will come back to the American people in full gratitude in the form of jobs and renewed vigor.
WE TOO NEED A CHANGE NOW.
A positive action in this regard will be very highly appreciated.
God Bless America!
Thank you very much for your kind attention,
XXXXX,
Category : Employment based EB3 greencard category from India.
Priority Date : xx/xx/xxxx
To President its on change.gov site under Agenda-->Immigration.
Zoe' Lofgren's addresses are:
Priority Date : xx/xx/xxxx
District Office
635 North 1st Street, Suite B
San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone (408) 271-8700
Washington, D.C. Office
102 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone (202) 225-3072
more...
alterego
10-01 09:51 PM
I think there will not much visa numbers unused. If at all, it may be in few hundreds. We are thinking our point of view, even wasting one visa number is ridiculus based on number peoples are waiting. However, the INA states that every year "not more than 140,000 EB visas should be issued".It sets only upper limit not the lower limit. Therefore DOS has be more vigilant in not exceding 140K. By doing so, there may be a few wastage of numbers. If they issue 120K instead of 140K, it is not the violation of law. Insted if they issue 141K it is vialotion of law.
However, if the wastage is more than few hundreds it is definitly not acceptable.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
However, if the wastage is more than few hundreds it is definitly not acceptable.
Last year they "wasted" about 10K visa numbers. It is absolutely up to them. However congress has authorized 140k a year and there are huge backlogs for AOS and CP. So when you put that together, leaving about 10K unapproved is clearly not enforcing congressional mandates. The ombudsman blasted them for this in his report, then we had the VB fiasco. None of this sounds like great management of the benefits. There clearly is room for improvement.
We (us and our employers) as the recipients of the benefits are complaining about this, and it is perfectly legitimate.
If any visa numbers are left unused, I definitely think we ought to take up this issue with congressional leaders like Zoe Lofgren. Even just a visa recapture legislation alone would help us tremendously until 2009(about the earliest they might get back to this issue more fully).
hot began with Jane Fonda who
GCwaitforever
05-02 10:10 AM
Not everybody on this forum earns 144,000 a year. What world are you living in my friend? Do you not get out that often?
Absulutely agree. Also $144,000 in some areas translate to $90,000 in some other areas depending on cost of living, taxation etc... Not all spouses work. So for them, every bit of Government stimulus is needed.
Absulutely agree. Also $144,000 in some areas translate to $90,000 in some other areas depending on cost of living, taxation etc... Not all spouses work. So for them, every bit of Government stimulus is needed.
more...
house meaning Jane fonda great
unseenguy
06-11 07:56 PM
I am happy for following things in life:
1) I still have a job, or atleast pay.
2) I have an EAD, those in PERM, 140, do not have that option.
3) I am better placed than those seeking immigration as brothers and sisters of US citizens :-d or as married children of US citizens.
I am not happy about:
1) Don't have the plastic that says, I can stay on even if I don't have a job.
2) Those from other countries getting "lottery" visa instead of hard work.
Who said "hard work" pays off? It just takes LUCK in life for things to fall in place. From tomorrow, I am just going to buy lottery and do NO work.
1) I still have a job, or atleast pay.
2) I have an EAD, those in PERM, 140, do not have that option.
3) I am better placed than those seeking immigration as brothers and sisters of US citizens :-d or as married children of US citizens.
I am not happy about:
1) Don't have the plastic that says, I can stay on even if I don't have a job.
2) Those from other countries getting "lottery" visa instead of hard work.
Who said "hard work" pays off? It just takes LUCK in life for things to fall in place. From tomorrow, I am just going to buy lottery and do NO work.
tattoo jane fonda photo
chanduv23
09-12 02:02 PM
I totally agree with "bsbawa10" , Not many people will involve if its a matter of spending 30-50$ and for sure stuff like Calculators and clock will go to the Kids of USCIS officers and their friends as Thanksgiving "Gifts". I think we should send mass letters to all the involved agencies with posters. Not only all the people will be involved, it will be difficult for USCIS to redirect the stuff to some orphanage/veterans Hospitals etc. Just my 2 cents.
Flower campaign had similar fate - 2 to 3 truck loads of flowers just went into hospital. it was more of Lofgren involvement that helped us.
We need to think with cool heads and execute things properly - first organize ourselves - gain support - consult our counsel - come out with proper plan of execution.
Flower campaign had similar fate - 2 to 3 truck loads of flowers just went into hospital. it was more of Lofgren involvement that helped us.
We need to think with cool heads and execute things properly - first organize ourselves - gain support - consult our counsel - come out with proper plan of execution.
more...
pictures Jane Fonda Jane Leeves
ragz4u
03-08 02:02 PM
what`s happening....
Please be more specific when you ask a question
Please be more specific when you ask a question
dresses +taylor+and+jane+fonda
texanmom
09-12 04:11 PM
Or do you need us to write to each of them?
more...
makeup Jane Fonda →
jonty_11
07-18 12:36 PM
Where are the new members whom I see on other 485 related forums?
We can only hope they join..and pitch in...
We can only hope they join..and pitch in...
girlfriend Jane Fonda vs Sara Gilbert
spicy_guy
11-08 08:43 PM
No, this is only the processing time for labor application, the whole process took a lot longer than this. I first submitted my document to the lawyer in the last week of January this year. Lawyer prepared my case, wages approval etc. it took around 1+ month to get preventing wages. then advertisement, recruitment process etc.
almost 8 month to finish all the requirements before the company could actually file the labor application.
I hope this answers your question.
Thanks for the reply. 8 or 10 months. Its still worth it. You did the right thing. Congrats and good luck!
almost 8 month to finish all the requirements before the company could actually file the labor application.
I hope this answers your question.
Thanks for the reply. 8 or 10 months. Its still worth it. You did the right thing. Congrats and good luck!
hairstyles image - jane fonda haircut
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:03 PM
Los Angeles - District 36 100.0% of 399 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jane Harman (I)
Dem 92,222 63.5%
Brian Gibson
GOP 46,312 31.9%
James Smith PFP 3,979 2.7%
Mike Binkley Lib 2,757 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 37 100.0% of 333 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Juanita Millender-McDonald (I)
Dem 69,901 82.4%
Herb Peters Lib 14,925 17.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 38 100.0% of 294 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Grace Napolitano (I)
Dem 66,442 75.5%
Sidney Street
GOP 21,606 24.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 39 100.0% of 305 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Linda Sanchez (I)
Dem 64,274 66.0%
James Andion
GOP 33,138 34.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 46 100.0% of 147 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 30,319 54.1%
Jim Brandt
Dem 23,743 42.3%
Dennis Chang Lib 2,007 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 190 62.3%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 115 37.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 19 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 16,049 64.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 8,739 35.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Marin - District 6 100.0% of 210 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 52,217 71.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 18,872 25.7%
Richard Friesen Lib 2,423 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mariposa - District 19 100.0% of 21 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 4,185 59.1%
TJ Cox
Dem 2,901 40.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mendocino - District 1 100.0% of 208 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 12,185 68.1%
John Jones
GOP 4,653 26.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 688 3.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 364 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Merced - District 18 100.0% of 114 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 23,752 64.5%
John Kanno
GOP 13,078 35.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Modoc - District 4 100.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 2,174 59.3%
Charlie Brown
Dem 1,230 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 262 7.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mono - District 25 100.0% of 13 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 1,935 52.6%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,600 43.5%
David Erickson Lib 147 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Monterey - District 17 100.0% of 184 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 40,157 72.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 15,612 28.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Napa - District 1 100.0% of 115 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 20,225 68.4%
John Jones
GOP 8,280 28.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 661 2.2%
Timothy Stock PFP 403 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Nevada - District 4 100.0% of 101 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Charlie Brown
Dem 17,026 54.0%
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 12,840 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 1,649 5.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 40 100.0% of 443 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ed Royce (I)
GOP 76,250 66.3%
Florice Hoffman
Dem 35,744 31.1%
Philip Inman Lib 2,993 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 44 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 17,129 67.8%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 7,510 29.7%
Kevin Akin PFP 632 2.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 46 100.0% of 390 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 60,490 61.7%
Jim Brandt
Dem 33,907 34.6%
Dennis Chang Lib 3,693 3.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 47 100.0% of 256 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Loretta Sanchez (I)
Dem 31,656 61.9%
Tan Nguyen
GOP 19,525 38.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 48 100.0% of 575 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Campbell (I)
GOP 86,479 59.0%
Steve Young
Dem 55,839 38.1%
Bruce Cohen Lib 4,264 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Placer - District 4 100.0% of 365 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 44,469 48.9%
Charlie Brown
Dem 42,387 46.6%
Dan Warren Lib 4,153 4.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Plumas - District 4 100.0% of 29 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,161 50.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,645 44.5%
Dan Warren Lib 393 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 41 100.0% of 188 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 11,802 61.3%
Louie Contreras
Dem 7,445 38.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 44 100.0% of 329 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 46,465 56.0%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 33,849 40.8%
Kevin Akin PFP 2,664 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 45 100.0% of 559 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mary Bono (I)
GOP 62,007 59.4%
David Roth
Dem 42,384 40.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 49 100.0% of 206 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 24,100 61.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 13,624 34.8%
Lars Grossmith Lib 1,389 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 3 100.0% of 522 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 75,352 58.8%
Bill Durston
Dem 49,473 38.6%
Douglas Tuma Lib 2,013 1.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 1,330 1.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 4 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,255 54.6%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,174 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 371 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 5 100.0% of 410 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Doris Matsui (I)
Dem 76,013 70.9%
Claire Yan
GOP 25,028 23.3%
Jeff Kravitz Grn 4,728 4.4%
John Reiger PFP 1,483 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 10 100.0% of 11 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 275 58.1%
Darcy Linn
GOP 198 41.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Benito - District 17 100.0% of 57 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 6,506 69.9%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 2,808 30.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 25 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 12,506 53.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 9,692 41.4%
David Erickson Lib 1,189 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 26 100.0% of 148 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 27,333 56.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 18,452 37.8%
Ted Brown Lib 1,803 3.7%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,185 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 41 100.0% of 372 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 70,209 67.8%
Louie Contreras
Dem 33,332 32.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 43 100.0% of 287 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Joe Baca (I)
Dem 43,571 65.0%
Scott Folkens
GOP 23,432 35.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jane Harman (I)
Dem 92,222 63.5%
Brian Gibson
GOP 46,312 31.9%
James Smith PFP 3,979 2.7%
Mike Binkley Lib 2,757 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 37 100.0% of 333 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Juanita Millender-McDonald (I)
Dem 69,901 82.4%
Herb Peters Lib 14,925 17.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 38 100.0% of 294 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Grace Napolitano (I)
Dem 66,442 75.5%
Sidney Street
GOP 21,606 24.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 39 100.0% of 305 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Linda Sanchez (I)
Dem 64,274 66.0%
James Andion
GOP 33,138 34.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 46 100.0% of 147 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 30,319 54.1%
Jim Brandt
Dem 23,743 42.3%
Dennis Chang Lib 2,007 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 190 62.3%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 115 37.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Madera - District 19 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 16,049 64.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 8,739 35.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Marin - District 6 100.0% of 210 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lynn Woolsey (I)
Dem 52,217 71.0%
Todd Hooper
GOP 18,872 25.7%
Richard Friesen Lib 2,423 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mariposa - District 19 100.0% of 21 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 4,185 59.1%
TJ Cox
Dem 2,901 40.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mendocino - District 1 100.0% of 208 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 12,185 68.1%
John Jones
GOP 4,653 26.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 688 3.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 364 2.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Merced - District 18 100.0% of 114 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 23,752 64.5%
John Kanno
GOP 13,078 35.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Modoc - District 4 100.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 2,174 59.3%
Charlie Brown
Dem 1,230 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 262 7.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Mono - District 25 100.0% of 13 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 1,935 52.6%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,600 43.5%
David Erickson Lib 147 4.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Monterey - District 17 100.0% of 184 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 40,157 72.0%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 15,612 28.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Napa - District 1 100.0% of 115 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 20,225 68.4%
John Jones
GOP 8,280 28.0%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 661 2.2%
Timothy Stock PFP 403 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Nevada - District 4 100.0% of 101 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Charlie Brown
Dem 17,026 54.0%
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 12,840 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 1,649 5.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 40 100.0% of 443 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ed Royce (I)
GOP 76,250 66.3%
Florice Hoffman
Dem 35,744 31.1%
Philip Inman Lib 2,993 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 44 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 17,129 67.8%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 7,510 29.7%
Kevin Akin PFP 632 2.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 46 100.0% of 390 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dana Rohrabacher (I)
GOP 60,490 61.7%
Jim Brandt
Dem 33,907 34.6%
Dennis Chang Lib 3,693 3.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 47 100.0% of 256 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Loretta Sanchez (I)
Dem 31,656 61.9%
Tan Nguyen
GOP 19,525 38.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Orange - District 48 100.0% of 575 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Campbell (I)
GOP 86,479 59.0%
Steve Young
Dem 55,839 38.1%
Bruce Cohen Lib 4,264 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Placer - District 4 100.0% of 365 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 44,469 48.9%
Charlie Brown
Dem 42,387 46.6%
Dan Warren Lib 4,153 4.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Plumas - District 4 100.0% of 29 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,161 50.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,645 44.5%
Dan Warren Lib 393 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 41 100.0% of 188 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 11,802 61.3%
Louie Contreras
Dem 7,445 38.7%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 44 100.0% of 329 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ken Calvert (I)
GOP 46,465 56.0%
Louis Vandenberg
Dem 33,849 40.8%
Kevin Akin PFP 2,664 3.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 45 100.0% of 559 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mary Bono (I)
GOP 62,007 59.4%
David Roth
Dem 42,384 40.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Riverside - District 49 100.0% of 206 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Darrell Issa (I)
GOP 24,100 61.6%
Jeeni Criscenzo
Dem 13,624 34.8%
Lars Grossmith Lib 1,389 3.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 3 100.0% of 522 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 75,352 58.8%
Bill Durston
Dem 49,473 38.6%
Douglas Tuma Lib 2,013 1.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 1,330 1.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 4 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,255 54.6%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,174 40.7%
Dan Warren Lib 371 4.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 5 100.0% of 410 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Doris Matsui (I)
Dem 76,013 70.9%
Claire Yan
GOP 25,028 23.3%
Jeff Kravitz Grn 4,728 4.4%
John Reiger PFP 1,483 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Sacramento - District 10 100.0% of 11 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 275 58.1%
Darcy Linn
GOP 198 41.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Benito - District 17 100.0% of 57 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Sam Farr (I)
Dem 6,506 69.9%
Anthony De Maio
GOP 2,808 30.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 25 100.0% of 97 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 12,506 53.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 9,692 41.4%
David Erickson Lib 1,189 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 26 100.0% of 148 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 27,333 56.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 18,452 37.8%
Ted Brown Lib 1,803 3.7%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,185 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 41 100.0% of 372 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry Lewis (I)
GOP 70,209 67.8%
Louie Contreras
Dem 33,332 32.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
San Bernardino - District 43 100.0% of 287 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Joe Baca (I)
Dem 43,571 65.0%
Scott Folkens
GOP 23,432 35.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
swo
07-23 10:58 AM
Show me the law that says they MUST use 140,000. Sadly, I think you're wrong.
Enforce EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY - USCIS to consume unused EB Numbers
Firstly, the executive branch agency USCIS failed to UPHOLD the law by not fully issuing 140,000 numbers when there was hugh backlog.
Secondly, Change the following:
1. Allow USCIS to use previous unused EB numbers since 2000.
2. Change the way the Dept. of State allocates the EB numbers throughout the Fiscal Year. The Dept. of State should allocate the EB numbers UNIFORMLY across the 4 QUARTERS.
Enforce EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY - USCIS to consume unused EB Numbers
Firstly, the executive branch agency USCIS failed to UPHOLD the law by not fully issuing 140,000 numbers when there was hugh backlog.
Secondly, Change the following:
1. Allow USCIS to use previous unused EB numbers since 2000.
2. Change the way the Dept. of State allocates the EB numbers throughout the Fiscal Year. The Dept. of State should allocate the EB numbers UNIFORMLY across the 4 QUARTERS.
immivjj
09-09 10:41 PM
Just contributed $200.
Google order: #752574347294392
Google order: #752574347294392
No comments:
Post a Comment