sumagiri
04-30 04:57 PM
look here at
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=71f24d6c52c99110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications. "
It means they have used 90K Visa out of 140-150K ..it means 50K visa left for next 5 month..not sure how much visa dates wlll be moved.
For calculation purpose, I think they used up 140,000 * 85% * 65% = 77,000 (approx). Look at page 3 (last but one para) "According to DOS, applicants for adjustment of status currently account for 25% of annual family-based visa allocations and 85% of annual employment-based visa allocations."
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=71f24d6c52c99110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Though we still have challenges to overcome, USCIS is currently showing improvements as a result of process improvements. As of April 25, 2008, USCIS had adjudicated over 65 percent of its FY 2008 target for employment-based visas. With five months to go in FY 2008, this is a strong start. We plan to continue implementing process improvements and new reporting mechanisms for managing these important applications. "
It means they have used 90K Visa out of 140-150K ..it means 50K visa left for next 5 month..not sure how much visa dates wlll be moved.
For calculation purpose, I think they used up 140,000 * 85% * 65% = 77,000 (approx). Look at page 3 (last but one para) "According to DOS, applicants for adjustment of status currently account for 25% of annual family-based visa allocations and 85% of annual employment-based visa allocations."
wallpaper A 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown
red200
12-10 07:31 PM
IV can you please shed the light on this. EAD is a step closer Greencard. One will eventually get one. Even when some one is waiting on EAD he/she almost have all the benefits of GC except to renew each time
evalle
05-10 02:57 PM
August 2002. Got the 45 days later but not the approval.:confused:
2011 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown Coupe. Chrysler Imperial Crown Coupe 65 1965
tapukakababa
03-10 01:33 PM
I have some questions?
1. Can you work for your wife and also get paid in check? or I will have to go for cash payment?
2. Can I have a second job in my wife's company and retain the original job?
3. Can I have a different occupation in my wife's company which is totally not related to my original job role? and then can I get paid in check or cash?
4. Can I work for my wife's company and instead of me my wife gets the check? Is that legal?
Thanks.
For all those who have sent PM.... Please note I am not an attorney or accountant... But then I had consulted my account and few attorney's ( paid the required fees to get them answered)... So please use your own judgement/caution.
1. Yes you can open a LLC singly or jointly with your wife/friend/anyone.
2. You can start the LLC even when you are on H1B but it is better that you wait till you get your EAD to get oprationalized. reason very very conservative view is that you cannot even write a check for your company or deposit a check... but this is a very conservative view....
3. To open a LLC you can use an accountant ( if you have one, it will be cheaper by a couple of hundred dollars) or use agencies like www.legalzoom.com/legalzip/LLCs/llc_procedure.html .... I have used both in the past....
4. Intially you can just form LLC as single or joint partnership and then elect as S corporations for taxing.... I forget within which period it is to be done, if I correctly remember when you file your first tax return or within 6 months you need to elect as filing as single person entity( then it becomes like your personal income) or you could elect as S corp....
5. You will a tax id for the LLC, business license and other documents when you form a LLC, You will need to maintain book and tax records for 3 years... best to have it managed by an accountant
6. You/ your spouse can work for your LLC.... Some of you if you want to after 180 days change employers can move into your LLC and maintain that you are employed in same occupational duties for your own LLC...
Hope I have been able to answer your questions....:cool:
1. Can you work for your wife and also get paid in check? or I will have to go for cash payment?
2. Can I have a second job in my wife's company and retain the original job?
3. Can I have a different occupation in my wife's company which is totally not related to my original job role? and then can I get paid in check or cash?
4. Can I work for my wife's company and instead of me my wife gets the check? Is that legal?
Thanks.
For all those who have sent PM.... Please note I am not an attorney or accountant... But then I had consulted my account and few attorney's ( paid the required fees to get them answered)... So please use your own judgement/caution.
1. Yes you can open a LLC singly or jointly with your wife/friend/anyone.
2. You can start the LLC even when you are on H1B but it is better that you wait till you get your EAD to get oprationalized. reason very very conservative view is that you cannot even write a check for your company or deposit a check... but this is a very conservative view....
3. To open a LLC you can use an accountant ( if you have one, it will be cheaper by a couple of hundred dollars) or use agencies like www.legalzoom.com/legalzip/LLCs/llc_procedure.html .... I have used both in the past....
4. Intially you can just form LLC as single or joint partnership and then elect as S corporations for taxing.... I forget within which period it is to be done, if I correctly remember when you file your first tax return or within 6 months you need to elect as filing as single person entity( then it becomes like your personal income) or you could elect as S corp....
5. You will a tax id for the LLC, business license and other documents when you form a LLC, You will need to maintain book and tax records for 3 years... best to have it managed by an accountant
6. You/ your spouse can work for your LLC.... Some of you if you want to after 180 days change employers can move into your LLC and maintain that you are employed in same occupational duties for your own LLC...
Hope I have been able to answer your questions....:cool:
more...
new_horizon
07-17 11:49 PM
What is this Receipt date? Is it the date when your AOS petition reaches USCIS?
franklin
04-26 10:43 AM
Will post on Nor Cal chapter group
more...
GCBy3000
07-24 06:05 PM
If they are such smart to calculate numbers like you said, which is theoritically possible, they would not be creating mess like this for years.
Yes, it is easy for them to know how many applications are filed and from which country and how many are in which category etc etc. Based on visa numbers availability, they could very well process the applications are request the visa numbers from DHS. When USCIS handles all the 485 processing, then how come DHS is responsible for moving the dates in VB. It is insane and ridiculous for DHS to have this functionality when they do not have any idea on 485 apps with USCIS. They are scewing up immigrants deliberately without transparency between them.
People are jumping into conclusion with a few approvals from 2004/2005, but what you are not considering is the number of people with 2001/2002 priority dates who just applied for 485 in June. There might be a lot of them (I am one of those). If there are not too many of them, it is good for everyone, but its very tough to predict.
From what I heard from my lawfirm, they expect the oct bulletin to go back to 2001 or early 2002. But with everyone filing 485, USCIS should be able to predict the number of applicants and move dates better compared to earlier when they were shooting in the dark and wasting visas.
Anyway, good luck to all
Yes, it is easy for them to know how many applications are filed and from which country and how many are in which category etc etc. Based on visa numbers availability, they could very well process the applications are request the visa numbers from DHS. When USCIS handles all the 485 processing, then how come DHS is responsible for moving the dates in VB. It is insane and ridiculous for DHS to have this functionality when they do not have any idea on 485 apps with USCIS. They are scewing up immigrants deliberately without transparency between them.
People are jumping into conclusion with a few approvals from 2004/2005, but what you are not considering is the number of people with 2001/2002 priority dates who just applied for 485 in June. There might be a lot of them (I am one of those). If there are not too many of them, it is good for everyone, but its very tough to predict.
From what I heard from my lawfirm, they expect the oct bulletin to go back to 2001 or early 2002. But with everyone filing 485, USCIS should be able to predict the number of applicants and move dates better compared to earlier when they were shooting in the dark and wasting visas.
Anyway, good luck to all
2010 1965 Chrysler Imperial
mirage
08-03 11:45 PM
Pani,
Thanks for Drafting this letter. I would add Rep. Zoe Logfren(Chairwoman of the immigartion subcommittee in the house & Senator John Cornyn Chairman of the immigartion subcommittee in the Senate) officials usually respond when things are addressed to Lawmakers too..
Guys please send out this letter.
I will appreciate if you could add these 2 in your 'Copy to' section...
Senator John Cornyn
Chairman - United States Senate Judiciary subCommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Chairwoman - United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
102 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone (202) 225-3072
Thanks
Thanks for Drafting this letter. I would add Rep. Zoe Logfren(Chairwoman of the immigartion subcommittee in the house & Senator John Cornyn Chairman of the immigartion subcommittee in the Senate) officials usually respond when things are addressed to Lawmakers too..
Guys please send out this letter.
I will appreciate if you could add these 2 in your 'Copy to' section...
Senator John Cornyn
Chairman - United States Senate Judiciary subCommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
Chairwoman - United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
102 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone (202) 225-3072
Thanks
more...
new_gc_guy
09-11 03:48 PM
second 100$ contribution...
GO IV
Order Details - Sep 11, 2007 4:10 PM EDT
Google Order #655717973031323
GO IV
Order Details - Sep 11, 2007 4:10 PM EDT
Google Order #655717973031323
hair 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown
EB3gcwanted
09-01 09:47 AM
Arrived here in Apr 2001.. Labor filed in Mar 2005 EB3-I
more...
eb3_nepa
07-14 01:33 PM
Subway sandwich and that too a FOOTLONG.....so get going to mail those checks.
$5 gives you:
1 subway sandwich FOOT long but may also give you
1 Green Card LIFE long
$5 gives you:
1 subway sandwich FOOT long but may also give you
1 Green Card LIFE long
hot A 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown. 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown
gav_sharma
04-24 05:44 PM
My First Post :
Initial EB3 - 07/2003 with fortune 200 company, got laid off in 10/2010 after working with them for 11 years.
Joined small company in 11/2010, Perm EB2 - 12/22/2010 - Approved on 01/06/2011
I140 Premium - 03/02/2011. Both 140 and 485 approved on 03/15/2011 - Current Law Firm received 140 approval notice on 03/18/2011, Previous company's law firm received 485 approval on the same day.
How can you join a company on 11/2010 and apply for Perm EB2 on 12/22/2010 ?
I thought they needed to place an ad and do interviews and pre-Perm process takes about 6 months.
I am in 6th year of H1 and I am changing jobs. The new employer will file for GC but since the new H1 will be extended for only 1.5 yrs I was wondering if I will have enough time to get thru to the I-140 stage in that time.
Any Opinion/Suggestion ?
Initial EB3 - 07/2003 with fortune 200 company, got laid off in 10/2010 after working with them for 11 years.
Joined small company in 11/2010, Perm EB2 - 12/22/2010 - Approved on 01/06/2011
I140 Premium - 03/02/2011. Both 140 and 485 approved on 03/15/2011 - Current Law Firm received 140 approval notice on 03/18/2011, Previous company's law firm received 485 approval on the same day.
How can you join a company on 11/2010 and apply for Perm EB2 on 12/22/2010 ?
I thought they needed to place an ad and do interviews and pre-Perm process takes about 6 months.
I am in 6th year of H1 and I am changing jobs. The new employer will file for GC but since the new H1 will be extended for only 1.5 yrs I was wondering if I will have enough time to get thru to the I-140 stage in that time.
Any Opinion/Suggestion ?
more...
house As you can see Black Beauty
akhilmahajan
09-10 09:51 AM
Please call congressmen to support HR5882.
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
GO IV GO.
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
GO IV GO.
tattoo 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown
orangutan
09-30 10:04 PM
Probably those cars are of the people (GC applicants) who came to count the TSC employees cars.:D:D:D
Yea..I saw many at parking lot but all junk cars.:p
Yea..I saw many at parking lot but all junk cars.:p
more...
pictures 1965 Chrysler Crown
susie
07-15 11:19 AM
APPENDIX: REFORM SOLUTIONS
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
Solutions
Subsection (3) should be reworded to clarify its application to derivative beneficiaries as follows
�(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older,
(A) for the purposes of subsections (a)(4), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition, and
(B) for the purposes of subsections (d), the petition on which the alien was a derivative beneficiary shall automatically be converted to a new petition with the appropriate category once their Parent has permanent resident status and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the alien parent�s original petition. This is without prejudice to a Parent�s right to object to such converted petition. �
This new division into (A) and (B) makes a more appropriate distinction between principal beneficiaries and derivative beneficiaries. (B) also clarifies a Parent who does not want to petition their over 21 unmarried son or daughter, is permitted to oppose the automatic conversion of the application.
In addition, after four and half years since its enactment, the USCIS has still failed to issue implementing rules and a private bill should be introduced requiring the USCIS to perform its statutory duty to provide rules.
If the new points system is implemented, INA, section 203(h), becomes redundant in relation to future applicants. In this case a new provision should be added permitting all derivative beneficiaries to be considered as a child regardless of when they age out and when the petition becomes current. This would be a temporary relief measure for any derivative beneficiary currently subject to the family-based petitions so they do not age out while the remaining petitions are being cleared.
Removal of Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (CSPA), section 8
Section 8 of the CSPA provides provisions preventing the retroactive application of the legislation. As a result many beneficiaries have to wait in excess of 30 years for an immigrant visa. Derivative beneficiaries that were subject to wait times and aged out cannot apply the benefits of the CSPA if their parent�s petition was processed before August 2002. This means they are forced to back of the line; after already having waited up to 20 years, they are forced to wait for another lengthy period up to 20 years in the F2B category.
Therefore, section 8 has to be repealed to enable retroactive applicability. It cannot be right that if these same people had not abided with US immigration laws and entered illegally, they would be able to get status to remain and work in the USA under the proposed Z visa. However, by abiding by the law, they are instead forced to wait outside the USA for over 30 years in total since the start of the original immigrant visa application because they were ejected out of one line due to aging out as a result of the prolonged wait times, only to be forced to the back of a new immigrant visa line.
Dream Act
This is currently incorporated within the STRIVE Act (sections 621 et seq.) and presumably will be brought forward in the upcoming Bill subject to final agreement by the Senators. However, there is ambiguity as to whether children in the USA who enter legally benefit from its provisions. This has to be clarified to ensure it applies not only to children who entered the USA illegally, but also to those who entered legally, such as in derivative status on an E2 visa of their Parent. The ambiguity is made worse because the STRIVE Bill includes the Dream Act in subtitle B of Title VI Legalization of Undocumented Individuals. It is an absurd situation if legal nonimmigrant children are not given at least the same equal treatment as illegal children. The future Bill should incorporate the DREAM Act into a separate Title so does not give the appearance it applies to illegal migrant children only.
E2 Investors and Rep. Heather Wilson�s Proposed E2 Nonimmigrant Investor Adjustment Act of 2007
We strongly reiterate our support for this proposed legislation and urge you to do same. However, we urge you to go further by removing the proposed 3,000 cap or, at the very least, increase the proposed 3,000 annual cap to a more reasonable number such as 20,000 and/or provide annual increases to meet market demand to avoid backlogs and to avoid having to revisit the issue in future. Aside from our own members, E2 investors provide billions of dollars of investment in the US economy and much needed employment. They should be provided with a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship for their dedication and commitment to this country. It is undoubtedly very odd that illegal immigrants are receiving a pathway to permanent residency whereas E2 investors are not. It sends a clear message that entering the USA illegally is preferable because it provides a path to citizenship, whereas entering legally and working hard, investing substantial amounts of capital and employing US citizens for the benefit of the US economy does not (unless you are the extremely rare exception that qualifies under the EB5 investment visa).
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
Solutions
Subsection (3) should be reworded to clarify its application to derivative beneficiaries as follows
�(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older,
(A) for the purposes of subsections (a)(4), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition, and
(B) for the purposes of subsections (d), the petition on which the alien was a derivative beneficiary shall automatically be converted to a new petition with the appropriate category once their Parent has permanent resident status and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the alien parent�s original petition. This is without prejudice to a Parent�s right to object to such converted petition. �
This new division into (A) and (B) makes a more appropriate distinction between principal beneficiaries and derivative beneficiaries. (B) also clarifies a Parent who does not want to petition their over 21 unmarried son or daughter, is permitted to oppose the automatic conversion of the application.
In addition, after four and half years since its enactment, the USCIS has still failed to issue implementing rules and a private bill should be introduced requiring the USCIS to perform its statutory duty to provide rules.
If the new points system is implemented, INA, section 203(h), becomes redundant in relation to future applicants. In this case a new provision should be added permitting all derivative beneficiaries to be considered as a child regardless of when they age out and when the petition becomes current. This would be a temporary relief measure for any derivative beneficiary currently subject to the family-based petitions so they do not age out while the remaining petitions are being cleared.
Removal of Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (CSPA), section 8
Section 8 of the CSPA provides provisions preventing the retroactive application of the legislation. As a result many beneficiaries have to wait in excess of 30 years for an immigrant visa. Derivative beneficiaries that were subject to wait times and aged out cannot apply the benefits of the CSPA if their parent�s petition was processed before August 2002. This means they are forced to back of the line; after already having waited up to 20 years, they are forced to wait for another lengthy period up to 20 years in the F2B category.
Therefore, section 8 has to be repealed to enable retroactive applicability. It cannot be right that if these same people had not abided with US immigration laws and entered illegally, they would be able to get status to remain and work in the USA under the proposed Z visa. However, by abiding by the law, they are instead forced to wait outside the USA for over 30 years in total since the start of the original immigrant visa application because they were ejected out of one line due to aging out as a result of the prolonged wait times, only to be forced to the back of a new immigrant visa line.
Dream Act
This is currently incorporated within the STRIVE Act (sections 621 et seq.) and presumably will be brought forward in the upcoming Bill subject to final agreement by the Senators. However, there is ambiguity as to whether children in the USA who enter legally benefit from its provisions. This has to be clarified to ensure it applies not only to children who entered the USA illegally, but also to those who entered legally, such as in derivative status on an E2 visa of their Parent. The ambiguity is made worse because the STRIVE Bill includes the Dream Act in subtitle B of Title VI Legalization of Undocumented Individuals. It is an absurd situation if legal nonimmigrant children are not given at least the same equal treatment as illegal children. The future Bill should incorporate the DREAM Act into a separate Title so does not give the appearance it applies to illegal migrant children only.
E2 Investors and Rep. Heather Wilson�s Proposed E2 Nonimmigrant Investor Adjustment Act of 2007
We strongly reiterate our support for this proposed legislation and urge you to do same. However, we urge you to go further by removing the proposed 3,000 cap or, at the very least, increase the proposed 3,000 annual cap to a more reasonable number such as 20,000 and/or provide annual increases to meet market demand to avoid backlogs and to avoid having to revisit the issue in future. Aside from our own members, E2 investors provide billions of dollars of investment in the US economy and much needed employment. They should be provided with a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship for their dedication and commitment to this country. It is undoubtedly very odd that illegal immigrants are receiving a pathway to permanent residency whereas E2 investors are not. It sends a clear message that entering the USA illegally is preferable because it provides a path to citizenship, whereas entering legally and working hard, investing substantial amounts of capital and employing US citizens for the benefit of the US economy does not (unless you are the extremely rare exception that qualifies under the EB5 investment visa).
dresses A 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown. 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown
NolaIndian32
07-11 10:37 AM
I second yabadaba's sentiment! :):):):):):):):):):):):)
wooohooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo
wooohooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo
more...
makeup 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown Coupe. Make chrysler imperial autabuy
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.
girlfriend 1965 Chrysler Imperial Crown.
joydiptac
03-13 02:44 PM
Hi guys,
In my college days, I was returning to Varanasi(ITBHU) after spending Holi at my Aunts place in Delhi. It was warm, so I tried with all my might to open the stuck glass window next to me. I tried and tried, gave up... only to try again, to open the damned window. Finally, with help from my neighbours I was able to get the window open. Nice cool air came in. Everything was perfect. Then suddenly it happened. The train was entering Ghaziabad, there were these slumdogs aiming cow dung at the train. Needless to say, I got hit and totally covered with shit literally. :eek:
Here I am again trying hard to open the window of opportunity... GC, for the fresh air of freedom to enter my life.
Is all this delay a blessing in disguise? Food 4 thought.
n'
Joy
B'Happy... B'Informed...B'Khush
www.bkhush.com
In my college days, I was returning to Varanasi(ITBHU) after spending Holi at my Aunts place in Delhi. It was warm, so I tried with all my might to open the stuck glass window next to me. I tried and tried, gave up... only to try again, to open the damned window. Finally, with help from my neighbours I was able to get the window open. Nice cool air came in. Everything was perfect. Then suddenly it happened. The train was entering Ghaziabad, there were these slumdogs aiming cow dung at the train. Needless to say, I got hit and totally covered with shit literally. :eek:
Here I am again trying hard to open the window of opportunity... GC, for the fresh air of freedom to enter my life.
Is all this delay a blessing in disguise? Food 4 thought.
n'
Joy
B'Happy... B'Informed...B'Khush
www.bkhush.com
hairstyles 1965 chrysler imperial crown
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
10-23 12:34 AM
They are proposing to recapture 61,000 unused visa for Schedule A. Keep praying everyone!
garika
07-20 09:12 AM
Voting seems to be on political lines. Democrats probably didn't want to yield any ground because of their dear CIR failure. We need a targeted campaign (strategy) on the Democrats - Hillary spoke very favourably to the Indian student community recently about H-1B and immigrant visas but her vote is not in line with her statements
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
No comments:
Post a Comment