needhelp!
05-28 11:10 AM
Seems like there are so many threads about EAD renewals right now, are we going to be content with renewing EADs for the next 5,6,8 years? While there are no restrictions on discussing individual issues, lets not lose sight of the real cause of our group.
Contribute so that IV can assign more resources to work on fixing this whole mess!
Contribute so that IV can assign more resources to work on fixing this whole mess!
wallpaper Dress: Vivienne Westwood
user2005
01-05 05:26 PM
It tracks the statuses of around 1800 people....
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=1392408#post1392408
This seems to be very extensive tracker. Based on this data, we can make a close analysis of Philadelphia BPC.
In RIR queue, they are currently certifying applications with PD of Sep 2004. We can find some cases with PD later than Sep 04 with status Certified. Those are either lucky ones or those who already reached from SWA to DOL before ended up in BPC. We can find many cases with PD earlier than Sep 04 with status Letter Received. I do not have strong explanation. Those could be either pending in data review or ones who did not care to update their tracking info after being certified or unlucky ones :confused:
In Regular (TR) queue, they are still certifying ones that came from DOL.:mad:
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?p=1392408#post1392408
This seems to be very extensive tracker. Based on this data, we can make a close analysis of Philadelphia BPC.
In RIR queue, they are currently certifying applications with PD of Sep 2004. We can find some cases with PD later than Sep 04 with status Certified. Those are either lucky ones or those who already reached from SWA to DOL before ended up in BPC. We can find many cases with PD earlier than Sep 04 with status Letter Received. I do not have strong explanation. Those could be either pending in data review or ones who did not care to update their tracking info after being certified or unlucky ones :confused:
In Regular (TR) queue, they are still certifying ones that came from DOL.:mad:
pmb76
09-13 04:54 PM
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
I agree with you gctest. Interfiling EB3-->EB2 is the 2nd biggest scam perpetrated on the EB community after labor substitution. We must stop this dead in its tracks. It will lead to massive retrogressions in EB2 and keep the truly deserving candidates waiting for ever. USCIS just devises new laws on the fly without understanding its impact on the whole. I would call this rule very short-sighted and stupid. Nonetheless we need action at this point to do whatever we can to stop this mindlessness.
I am with you on this campaign. Gave you green.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
I agree with you gctest. Interfiling EB3-->EB2 is the 2nd biggest scam perpetrated on the EB community after labor substitution. We must stop this dead in its tracks. It will lead to massive retrogressions in EB2 and keep the truly deserving candidates waiting for ever. USCIS just devises new laws on the fly without understanding its impact on the whole. I would call this rule very short-sighted and stupid. Nonetheless we need action at this point to do whatever we can to stop this mindlessness.
I am with you on this campaign. Gave you green.
2011 vivienne westwood armor ring. their armour rings.
Milind123
09-14 07:56 PM
Lets have a quick penultimate round. New contributors have, so far, not let us down. They have stepped forward in each and every round and made it a success. They have taken the most difficult step; contribute for the first time. I know, I was there once. Kudos to them.
In this round could I have support from three existing contributors to quickly finish this round. May I have some pledges please? I would like to fire the third round. BTW this pistol has seven shots. Once we finish this round we will move to the last round and it has 14 shots. 21 shots in total.
These 2 rounds is specially dedicates to the core team members; without them there won�t be any shots fired here. Without them Sept18th would be just one ordinary day on the calendar. They have given us a chance to remember Sep18th forever, no matter what the results are after that day. For me personally, Sept 18th will be a defining moment. So lets give a deserving 21 Gun salute to the core team.
We just need three people who have never contributed before.
In this round could I have support from three existing contributors to quickly finish this round. May I have some pledges please? I would like to fire the third round. BTW this pistol has seven shots. Once we finish this round we will move to the last round and it has 14 shots. 21 shots in total.
These 2 rounds is specially dedicates to the core team members; without them there won�t be any shots fired here. Without them Sept18th would be just one ordinary day on the calendar. They have given us a chance to remember Sep18th forever, no matter what the results are after that day. For me personally, Sept 18th will be a defining moment. So lets give a deserving 21 Gun salute to the core team.
We just need three people who have never contributed before.
more...
technolover76
09-17 08:31 PM
we are planning to start an LLC as a group of three here......one of them being in india.i was wondering about the tax issues for a member of an LLC if he is based in India.Can he get an tax identification number.thank you.
GCBy3000
07-20 10:19 AM
Its all politics my dear. Dont take the votes as it is. All these are eyewash and most of it were decided even before they vote. Why you think they have minority and majoirty leader. Those are the key people along with certain key senators / congressmens.
Election is the major event which affects everyone in the senate or congress. First eveyone wants to please their constituents and win and retain their seat. This is the first and foremost priority than passing the SKIL bill at this time. Be practical and I myself will do the same if I were a politician.
Election is the major event which affects everyone in the senate or congress. First eveyone wants to please their constituents and win and retain their seat. This is the first and foremost priority than passing the SKIL bill at this time. Be practical and I myself will do the same if I were a politician.
more...
vallabhu
01-05 02:38 PM
Looks like it is random, it may also depend on the service where it is applied from, Mine is from vermont, Nov 2003 received the 45 letter, I have another one from Atlanta June 2004 did not receive the 45 day letter.
2010 vivienne westwood armor
shantanup
06-25 12:03 PM
This is what I think America loses due to delay in green card process. I can say this from my own experience. People with advanced degrees in Science and Technology have to keep doing same job to maintain status for 8 - 10 years since changing job / company reset's their GC process. When a guy comes to US for education the average age is around 23 - 24 years. MS completed by 25. Most guys at that time have burning desire to do something new and innovative (either in job or starting own business). But the most fortune 100 companies do not sponsor H1B or GC (Example Raytheon, Toyota, Lexmark .... based on my personal experience as electrical engineer) so you end up compromising with career to maintain status and work for companies that sponsor H1B ( future career prospects take a backseat). Then after 8 - 10 years when you get GC you already are married and possibly kids to look after you are already burnt out and want to keep working in the same desk/ clerical job that you have been doing for so many years. So its a lose lose situation to all neither government gains from the GC (by which they hope to make US a more innovative place) nor the immigrants since by then all they can think is a full time job, home and 401K.
Fully agree with you.
A thought comes to mind on reading your post.
Is that what the average Amrican wants us to do? Do they want us immigrants to be kept away from participating in innovation? Do they want us to keep working mundane jobs? Do they want us to lag behind them?
This is just a speculation no hard proofs but only a thought.
Fully agree with you.
A thought comes to mind on reading your post.
Is that what the average Amrican wants us to do? Do they want us immigrants to be kept away from participating in innovation? Do they want us to keep working mundane jobs? Do they want us to lag behind them?
This is just a speculation no hard proofs but only a thought.
more...
abhisam
07-27 10:00 PM
can you please publish the agenda of the meeting on the yahoo group? Thanks!
hair (l-r: Silver Armour Ring by
Administrator2
03-12 06:26 PM
All,
Please understand few basic facts.
Much of the work that we do is not on the website but behind the scene.
We need resources to carry the message to the lawmakers.
Resources are contributed by the members.
All members do not contribute, and then there are those who contribute.
We have created a specific area on the website where more serious members who are willing to open their wallets, could actively participate, and that will enable us to enlist more active members for the work that we do behind the scene.
Its just one way for us to recruit serious members to help us with more active work and at the same time help to continue with the organizational goals.
From time to time, we will also seek advice from the contributing members. And when we need more help, we will reach out to everybody on the website.
Rest of the area on the forum will continue to be the way that it is right now and every member will continue to access it the way you access it right now.
We are soon going to introduce new and more helpful features for everyone.
Which part of this is not fair? Why can't we all get along? Why do we have to argue and fight over everything?
Please, its not helping this way.
Please understand few basic facts.
Much of the work that we do is not on the website but behind the scene.
We need resources to carry the message to the lawmakers.
Resources are contributed by the members.
All members do not contribute, and then there are those who contribute.
We have created a specific area on the website where more serious members who are willing to open their wallets, could actively participate, and that will enable us to enlist more active members for the work that we do behind the scene.
Its just one way for us to recruit serious members to help us with more active work and at the same time help to continue with the organizational goals.
From time to time, we will also seek advice from the contributing members. And when we need more help, we will reach out to everybody on the website.
Rest of the area on the forum will continue to be the way that it is right now and every member will continue to access it the way you access it right now.
We are soon going to introduce new and more helpful features for everyone.
Which part of this is not fair? Why can't we all get along? Why do we have to argue and fight over everything?
Please, its not helping this way.
more...
nixstor
06-10 12:24 PM
Just to summarize what's going to happen with VB in final Quarter.
Two words: Nothing Positive
CIS and DOS officials are meeting every week after July 07 fiasco. They have a better handle on the visa number utilization than they ever had in the past years. As a result they have max utilization of visa numbers and don't be surprised if DOS decides to move EB2 India and China a month or two back. Neither India EB2 nor China EB2 is going to move past Oct 2004 before Oct 08 bulletin.
Two words: Nothing Positive
CIS and DOS officials are meeting every week after July 07 fiasco. They have a better handle on the visa number utilization than they ever had in the past years. As a result they have max utilization of visa numbers and don't be surprised if DOS decides to move EB2 India and China a month or two back. Neither India EB2 nor China EB2 is going to move past Oct 2004 before Oct 08 bulletin.
hot Vivienne Westwood armor ring
snathan
02-13 10:38 PM
What are you waiting for
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseenguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by snathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseenguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by snathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseenguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by snathan
I am still waiting to see your contribution. Do you need any help to write the check.
I have contributed more than $500 to IV. I am not sure I want green card anymore. Thanks.
It shows what kind of person you are...when did you contributed more than $500. It seems like you are new here with only 14 posts. And why did you promise 'I will'.
Are you just another junk in IV...?
You are being mean to me and untrustworthy. I have no time for kids.
i dont need to be trustworthy for ur million $$$...you are just another junk for IV
A kid does not need to tell me my worth. I know it better than you do. I have lived more than you have and I like IVs mission and agenda but I dont like people who label others as junk when they are not contributing more. This represents selfish attitude. First you contribute $500 like I have done and then tell me to contribute more. Otherwise just lie down peacefully.
I dont have time for stingy junks...get lost in to
Vacuum
So what ?????????????
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseenguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by snathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseenguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by snathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by unseenguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by snathan
I am still waiting to see your contribution. Do you need any help to write the check.
I have contributed more than $500 to IV. I am not sure I want green card anymore. Thanks.
It shows what kind of person you are...when did you contributed more than $500. It seems like you are new here with only 14 posts. And why did you promise 'I will'.
Are you just another junk in IV...?
You are being mean to me and untrustworthy. I have no time for kids.
i dont need to be trustworthy for ur million $$$...you are just another junk for IV
A kid does not need to tell me my worth. I know it better than you do. I have lived more than you have and I like IVs mission and agenda but I dont like people who label others as junk when they are not contributing more. This represents selfish attitude. First you contribute $500 like I have done and then tell me to contribute more. Otherwise just lie down peacefully.
I dont have time for stingy junks...get lost in to
Vacuum
So what ?????????????
more...
house armour ring from Vivienne
seahawks
07-23 11:46 PM
Dont mean to dampen your spirits, happy for the poster of this thread. Could have been lucky to get approved while people like me ( Sep 2003) PD waiting 485 filed 3 yrs ago.
anyway cheers -- go partying
mine too PD March 21 2003.... phew.. got stuck in BEC and then retrogression.. long wait.. and now 485 filed with long wait for EAD:)may be But hey, life is always that way, who knows what is next:)
anyway cheers -- go partying
mine too PD March 21 2003.... phew.. got stuck in BEC and then retrogression.. long wait.. and now 485 filed with long wait for EAD:)may be But hey, life is always that way, who knows what is next:)
tattoo images Vivienne Westwood Rings
yoda
09-13 04:59 PM
Sent it to the Indian Embassy. They have a monthly newsletter. Hope to see this in the Oct. newsletter.
more...
pictures tattoo vivienne westwood armor
Ramba
10-21 06:18 PM
Thanks Ramba for your insights.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
dresses GOLD ARMOR RING. , VIVIENNE
zappy
09-15 01:15 AM
This email confirms that you have paid Immigration Voice (donations@immigrationvoice.org) $300.00 USD using PayPal.
This credit card transaction will appear on your bill as "PAYPAL *IMMIGRATION".
This credit card transaction will appear on your bill as "PAYPAL *IMMIGRATION".
more...
makeup Rakuten: Vivienne Westwood
p_aluri
09-10 03:53 PM
Contributed $200.00.
Here is google order number : 775559432259797
So far I have contributed $400.00
Great work guys..
thank you sxm101, nosightfgc for contributions.
Here is google order number : 775559432259797
So far I have contributed $400.00
Great work guys..
thank you sxm101, nosightfgc for contributions.
girlfriend westwood armour ring,
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:02 PM
California U.S. House results by county
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 9 100.0% of 548 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Barbara Lee (I)
Dem 117,157 85.6%
John den Dulk
GOP 15,647 11.4%
James Eyer Lib 4,001 2.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 10 100.0% of 88 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 12,005 60.6%
Darcy Linn
GOP 7,792 39.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 11 100.0% of 99 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 15,385 62.2%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 9,348 37.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alameda - District 13 100.0% of 484 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Fortney Stark (I)
Dem 83,777 74.2%
George Bruno
GOP 29,127 25.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Alpine - District 3 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bill Durston
Dem 258 49.8%
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 243 46.9%
Douglas Tuma Lib 14 2.7%
Michael Roskey PFP 3 0.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Amador - District 3 100.0% of 59 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 8,408 62.6%
Bill Durston
Dem 4,633 34.5%
Douglas Tuma Lib 277 2.1%
Michael Roskey PFP 121 0.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 2 100.0% of 139 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 23,958 56.0%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 17,053 39.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 1,743 4.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Butte - District 4 100.0% of 36 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 5,380 54.8%
Charlie Brown
Dem 3,830 39.0%
Dan Warren Lib 605 6.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Calaveras - District 3 100.0% of 30 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Dan Lungren (I)
GOP 9,092 60.4%
Bill Durston
Dem 5,332 35.4%
Douglas Tuma Lib 392 2.6%
Michael Roskey PFP 229 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Colusa - District 2 100.0% of 17 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 3,208 71.2%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,211 26.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 87 1.9%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 7 100.0% of 325 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Miller (I)
Dem 60,515 86.2%
Camden McConnell Lib 9,681 13.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 10 100.0% of 566 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Ellen Tauscher (I)
Dem 78,029 68.2%
Darcy Linn
GOP 36,436 31.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Contra Costa - District 11 100.0% of 141 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Jerry McNerney
Dem 22,853 54.0%
Richard Pombo (I)
GOP 19,459 46.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Del Norte - District 1 90.0% of 20 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 3,439 57.1%
John Jones
GOP 2,398 39.8%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 106 1.8%
Timothy Stock PFP 85 1.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
El Dorado - District 4 100.0% of 150 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 25,650 50.5%
Charlie Brown
Dem 22,582 44.4%
Dan Warren Lib 2,590 5.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 18 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Kanno
GOP 317 56.7%
Dennis Cardoza (I)
Dem 242 43.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 19 100.0% of 220 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
George Radanovich (I)
GOP 28,106 58.7%
TJ Cox
Dem 19,783 41.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Fresno - District 21 100.0% of 265 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Devin Nunes (I)
GOP 37,210 65.8%
Steven Haze
Dem 17,353 30.7%
John Miller Grn 1,989 3.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Glenn - District 2 100.0% of 33 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Wally Herger (I)
GOP 5,299 71.7%
A. J. Sekhon
Dem 1,915 25.9%
E. Kent Hinesley Lib 178 2.4%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Humboldt - District 1 100.0% of 152 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 26,617 65.8%
John Jones
GOP 11,910 29.4%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 1,327 3.3%
Timothy Stock PFP 611 1.5%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Imperial - District 51 100.0% of 146 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Bob Filner (I)
Dem 11,338 66.5%
Blake Miles
GOP 5,270 30.9%
Dan Litwin Lib 435 2.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Inyo - District 25 100.0% of 27 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 3,244 61.3%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 1,821 34.4%
David Erickson Lib 225 4.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Kern - District 22 100.0% of 442 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 81,725 74.4%
Sharon Beery
Dem 28,059 25.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lake - District 1 100.0% of 52 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Thompson (I)
Dem 9,546 62.8%
John Jones
GOP 4,959 32.6%
Pamela Elizondo Grn 362 2.4%
Timothy Stock PFP 335 2.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Lassen - District 4 100.0% of 35 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
John Doolittle (I)
GOP 4,546 60.1%
Charlie Brown
Dem 2,544 33.6%
Dan Warren Lib 479 6.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 22 100.0% of 42 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Kevin McCarthy
GOP 8,577 63.2%
Sharon Beery
Dem 5,001 36.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 25 100.0% of 299 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Buck McKeon (I)
GOP 61,696 61.5%
Robert Rodriguez
Dem 34,403 34.3%
David Erickson Lib 4,210 4.2%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 26 100.0% of 271 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
David Dreier (I)
GOP 59,108 57.0%
Cynthia Matthews
Dem 39,770 38.4%
Ted Brown Lib 3,098 3.0%
Elliott Graham AIP 1,646 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 27 100.0% of 348 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Brad Sherman (I)
Dem 82,571 69.0%
Peter Hankwitz
GOP 37,163 31.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 28 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Howard Berman (I)
Dem 70,560 74.0%
Stanley Kesselman
GOP 18,210 19.1%
Byron De Lear Grn 3,340 3.5%
Kelley Ross Lib 3,190 3.3%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 29 100.0% of 369 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Adam Schiff (I)
Dem 79,001 63.6%
William Bodell
GOP 34,184 27.5%
William Paparian Grn 6,821 5.5%
Lynda Llamas PFP 2,244 1.8%
Jim Keller Lib 1,933 1.6%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 30 100.0% of 504 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Henry Waxman (I)
Dem 130,787 71.4%
David Jones
GOP 48,614 26.5%
Adele Cannon PFP 3,895 2.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 32 100.0% of 277 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Hilda Solis (I)
Dem 67,453 83.0%
Leland Faegre Lib 13,824 17.0%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 34 100.0% of 222 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Lucille Roybal-Allard (I)
Dem 50,961 76.9%
Wayne Miller
GOP 15,272 23.1%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
Los Angeles - District 35 100.0% of 295 precincts reporting
Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Maxine Waters (I)
Dem 72,114 83.7%
Gordon Mego AIP 7,314 8.5%
Paul Ireland Lib 6,761 7.8%
Updated: 11/8/2006 7:43 PM ET
hairstyles wallpaper vivienne westwood
la6470
03-07 12:44 PM
Everyone feel like giving up but none of us give up :)
I think all of us gave up - i.e gave up on our home country when we decided to settle here- there is nothing more to give up .. we are all just waiting passively for whatever destiny (USCIS and the economoy) has to hand it to us........... there is nothing to give up because nothing was yours from the beginning and nothing you will take with you when it is time to go.
I think all of us gave up - i.e gave up on our home country when we decided to settle here- there is nothing more to give up .. we are all just waiting passively for whatever destiny (USCIS and the economoy) has to hand it to us........... there is nothing to give up because nothing was yours from the beginning and nothing you will take with you when it is time to go.
dilvahabilyeha
07-20 10:11 AM
He did not voted
Absent! mean 'NAY', that's what earlier post says to me!
Absent! mean 'NAY', that's what earlier post says to me!
JDV
07-19 02:29 PM
Hi Folks,
I just contributeD $100. I am very glad to be part of IV. Keep up the good work!!
Regards,
I just contributeD $100. I am very glad to be part of IV. Keep up the good work!!
Regards,
No comments:
Post a Comment