GCNirvana007
09-03 10:57 AM
I am going crazy ... ever since an email from CRIS popped up. I GOT IT !!!!! :D
You were crazy before as well :p
You were crazy before as well :p
wallpaper Space and Earth - Solar System
nsethi
08-05 01:29 PM
For both my husband and me. TSC is the center and PD is Oct 2005
jonty_11
06-14 02:06 PM
There are no 2 ways to this.. it is injustice and screwed up process of DOL and USCIS.....but the situation (DOL) is no different than 1 day ago. it should not warrant you to start this thread.
2011 Nasa started the Space Launch
indianabacklog
10-18 07:22 PM
I do not know if I am doing something against the rules of this forum, please excuse if I am. I am just a father trying to do something to protect his daughter; but I know that there are many other children who are or were under similar circunstances. I am not a lawyer. My wife, my daughter and I went to talk to our Representative Moran and our Senator Webb, but they are interested in numbers, cases, especially Virginia residents; but I think that this is something national. We (my family, I and anyone who wants to join us) can go to the office of the Leader of the Senate Majority or the House or to the office of any other committe leader and give them a letter showing numbers and cases, real families that are suffering and requiring them to do something about it. If you agree, I would suggest to prepare a small database with all the cases that we know, then prepare a letter and send it to the Congress leaders.
I think that we would need the following information:
1. Your Contact Information: (Email at least; First, Last Name and Phone Number ideally)
2. State Where You Live
3. Your Employment-Based Category (EB1, EB2, EB3, Other Worker, EB4, EB5)
4. Your Country of Origin (CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, PHILIPPINES or OTHER)
5. Your Child's Date of Birth
6. Your Case Priority Date
7. Date Visa was available
8. Date DOL approved your Labor Certification
9. Date I-140 was sent
10. Date I-140 was approved
11. Anything Else You may Want to Add: (like current status of your case)
Please let me know if that is ok for you, we can use this forum to collect the info or I can provide my email account or phone number, either way is ok for me. Thanks for your understanding.
I have sent you a PM. Please let us all get to work on this surely if a senator wants to give green cards to the children of illegal aliens (DREAM act) we can make someone see that what we are asking for is really no more than our children deserve.
I think that we would need the following information:
1. Your Contact Information: (Email at least; First, Last Name and Phone Number ideally)
2. State Where You Live
3. Your Employment-Based Category (EB1, EB2, EB3, Other Worker, EB4, EB5)
4. Your Country of Origin (CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, PHILIPPINES or OTHER)
5. Your Child's Date of Birth
6. Your Case Priority Date
7. Date Visa was available
8. Date DOL approved your Labor Certification
9. Date I-140 was sent
10. Date I-140 was approved
11. Anything Else You may Want to Add: (like current status of your case)
Please let me know if that is ok for you, we can use this forum to collect the info or I can provide my email account or phone number, either way is ok for me. Thanks for your understanding.
I have sent you a PM. Please let us all get to work on this surely if a senator wants to give green cards to the children of illegal aliens (DREAM act) we can make someone see that what we are asking for is really no more than our children deserve.
more...
susie
06-22 10:43 PM
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION LAW FIRM FILES CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT AGAINST USCIS ON BEHALF OF IMMIGRANTS
Posted on: 6/20/2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Los Angeles � Reeves & Associates, A Professional Law Corporation filed a class action lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court, Central District CA, Case Number SACV08-688 JVX (SHx) on behalf of tens of thousands of immigrant families whose adult children have been wrongfully denied of visas. Attorneys for the families are seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (�USCIS�) to act in accordance with the provision of Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) that enables children to reunite with their families more quickly.
Prior to CSPA children who reached the age of 21 were no longer eligible to obtain an immigrant visa with the rest of their family. These children became known as �age-outs.� However, Congress enacted Section 3 of CSPA, codified as INA � 203(h)(3), to keep children together with their parents. Specifically, this provision allowed children to automatically convert the visa petition and retain the original filing date � known as the priority date � after the child had aged out. As such, an aged-out child, who is a derivative beneficiary of the visa petition of his parent, can reunite with their family faster by utilizing their parent�s earlier priority date. As of today, USCIS has not only failed to comply with INA � 203(h)(3), but has also failed to promulgate regulations or issue policy memorandum regarding this provision of law.
�This case affects tens of thousands of immigrant families,� said Robert L. Reeves, founder and Managing Attorney of Reeves & Associates, APLC. �A child abroad who aged-out is eligible under CSPA for an immigrant visa, and if the child is in the United States, he or she will be able to adjust to legal resident status,� explained Mr. Reeves.
The class action lawsuit presents two different classes of aggrieved individuals. Nancy Miller, a partner with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, describes the two classes as �those who filed petitions with requests for retention of the parent�s original priority date whose petitions were denied and those who have received no response at all to their requests for retention of the original priority date.� In both cases parents remain separated from their children.
Although USCIS has granted some visa petitions and permitted retention of the earlier priority dates pursuant to INA � 203(h)(3) to some, there appears to be no uniform policy from USCIS as a whole. Jeremiah Johnson, a partner with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, said �the lack of any regulations or even policy memorandum has lead to arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making affecting thousands on a global level.� Joyce Komanapalli, an associate with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, added �USCIS�s refusal to issue visa petitions with the original priority date is at odds with the language, structure, history and purpose of the Child Status Protection Act.�
�It is incomprehensible why USCIS would deny these requests given the plain language of the statute and the Congressional history of CSPA.� said Mr. Reeves.
The class action lawsuit is seeking to compel USCIS to properly adjudicate all cases filed under CSPA, or INA � 203(h)(3), and comply with the requirements of retaining the parent�s original priority date in subsequent petitions filed by the parent.
Posted on: 6/20/2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Los Angeles � Reeves & Associates, A Professional Law Corporation filed a class action lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court, Central District CA, Case Number SACV08-688 JVX (SHx) on behalf of tens of thousands of immigrant families whose adult children have been wrongfully denied of visas. Attorneys for the families are seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (�USCIS�) to act in accordance with the provision of Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) that enables children to reunite with their families more quickly.
Prior to CSPA children who reached the age of 21 were no longer eligible to obtain an immigrant visa with the rest of their family. These children became known as �age-outs.� However, Congress enacted Section 3 of CSPA, codified as INA � 203(h)(3), to keep children together with their parents. Specifically, this provision allowed children to automatically convert the visa petition and retain the original filing date � known as the priority date � after the child had aged out. As such, an aged-out child, who is a derivative beneficiary of the visa petition of his parent, can reunite with their family faster by utilizing their parent�s earlier priority date. As of today, USCIS has not only failed to comply with INA � 203(h)(3), but has also failed to promulgate regulations or issue policy memorandum regarding this provision of law.
�This case affects tens of thousands of immigrant families,� said Robert L. Reeves, founder and Managing Attorney of Reeves & Associates, APLC. �A child abroad who aged-out is eligible under CSPA for an immigrant visa, and if the child is in the United States, he or she will be able to adjust to legal resident status,� explained Mr. Reeves.
The class action lawsuit presents two different classes of aggrieved individuals. Nancy Miller, a partner with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, describes the two classes as �those who filed petitions with requests for retention of the parent�s original priority date whose petitions were denied and those who have received no response at all to their requests for retention of the original priority date.� In both cases parents remain separated from their children.
Although USCIS has granted some visa petitions and permitted retention of the earlier priority dates pursuant to INA � 203(h)(3) to some, there appears to be no uniform policy from USCIS as a whole. Jeremiah Johnson, a partner with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, said �the lack of any regulations or even policy memorandum has lead to arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making affecting thousands on a global level.� Joyce Komanapalli, an associate with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, added �USCIS�s refusal to issue visa petitions with the original priority date is at odds with the language, structure, history and purpose of the Child Status Protection Act.�
�It is incomprehensible why USCIS would deny these requests given the plain language of the statute and the Congressional history of CSPA.� said Mr. Reeves.
The class action lawsuit is seeking to compel USCIS to properly adjudicate all cases filed under CSPA, or INA � 203(h)(3), and comply with the requirements of retaining the parent�s original priority date in subsequent petitions filed by the parent.
glus
02-02 07:36 AM
I apologize for this mistake to everyone .....I changed the header to reflect my error.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I may be completely wrong but this is what I see on thomas.loc.gov
Appended to the Minimum wage bill was SA187 which amends SA112 sponsored by John Kerry and consponsored by Sununu, Snowe, Landrieu and Lieberman.
Senate Amendment SA 187 seems to have passed with unanimous consent. This is what it apparently contains among a lot of other stuff... Please correct me if I am wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE VI--FAMILY UNITY AND BACKLOG REDUCTION
SEC. 1601. ELIMINATION OF EXISTING BACKLOGS.
.............................
(b) Employment-Based Immigrants.--Section 201(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants.--The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
``(1) 290,000;
``(2) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year; and
``(3) the difference between--
``(A) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and the number of visa numbers issued under this subsection during those years; and
``(B) the number of visas described in subparagraph (A) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.''.
SEC. 1602. COUNTRY LIMITS.
Section 202(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``, (4), and (5)'' and inserting ``and (4)''; and
(B) by striking ``7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent'' and inserting ``10 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 5 percent''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5).
...............................
(b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants.--Section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``28.6 percent'' and inserting ``20 percent'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``28.6 percent'' and inserting ``20 percent'';
(3) in paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) by striking ``28.6 percent'' and inserting ``35 percent''; and
(B) by striking clause (iii);
(4) by striking paragraph (4);
(5) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4);
(6) in paragraph (4)(A), as redesignated, by striking ``7.1 percent'' and inserting ``5 percent'';
(7) by inserting after paragraph (4), as redesignated, the following:
----------------------------------------------------------
If you read closely, it appears like the 290,000 immigrant visas would be true for years from now on and for years 2001-2005 (the diffrence between current limit and this section). If that's the case and if that becomes a law, there is possibility there will be no backlog after that for some time...short time probably. Please correct me if I am wrongly reading this section. But for me, it appears it applies retroactively and will add the diffrence (150k a year) between years 2001-2005. If my calculation and understanding is correct, once this act becomes a law, the first year there would be 290k + 600k from years 2001-2005 ......I am not sure if my understanding is correct. I prey it is..
-------------------------------------------------------------
I may be completely wrong but this is what I see on thomas.loc.gov
Appended to the Minimum wage bill was SA187 which amends SA112 sponsored by John Kerry and consponsored by Sununu, Snowe, Landrieu and Lieberman.
Senate Amendment SA 187 seems to have passed with unanimous consent. This is what it apparently contains among a lot of other stuff... Please correct me if I am wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE VI--FAMILY UNITY AND BACKLOG REDUCTION
SEC. 1601. ELIMINATION OF EXISTING BACKLOGS.
.............................
(b) Employment-Based Immigrants.--Section 201(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants.--The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
``(1) 290,000;
``(2) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year; and
``(3) the difference between--
``(A) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and the number of visa numbers issued under this subsection during those years; and
``(B) the number of visas described in subparagraph (A) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.''.
SEC. 1602. COUNTRY LIMITS.
Section 202(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``, (4), and (5)'' and inserting ``and (4)''; and
(B) by striking ``7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent'' and inserting ``10 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 5 percent''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5).
...............................
(b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants.--Section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``28.6 percent'' and inserting ``20 percent'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``28.6 percent'' and inserting ``20 percent'';
(3) in paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) by striking ``28.6 percent'' and inserting ``35 percent''; and
(B) by striking clause (iii);
(4) by striking paragraph (4);
(5) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4);
(6) in paragraph (4)(A), as redesignated, by striking ``7.1 percent'' and inserting ``5 percent'';
(7) by inserting after paragraph (4), as redesignated, the following:
----------------------------------------------------------
If you read closely, it appears like the 290,000 immigrant visas would be true for years from now on and for years 2001-2005 (the diffrence between current limit and this section). If that's the case and if that becomes a law, there is possibility there will be no backlog after that for some time...short time probably. Please correct me if I am wrongly reading this section. But for me, it appears it applies retroactively and will add the diffrence (150k a year) between years 2001-2005. If my calculation and understanding is correct, once this act becomes a law, the first year there would be 290k + 600k from years 2001-2005 ......I am not sure if my understanding is correct. I prey it is..
more...
sps1
07-23 12:15 PM
I am currently in 6th year of my H1 Visa. I had applied for labor certification (Atlanta center) in Dec 2006. In May 2007 I got the denial and my attorney requested for review/appeal. In case if they deny it again, then i need to re-apply. Since i am in 6th year of H1 and if I re-apply do I get the H1 extension? Please help.
2010 Aircraft - Space Pictures
skotra
01-17 05:49 PM
Hey Guys!
Can anyone please help me with this.I'm on H-4 and need to change my name,maiden to married.I called the Houston office and they said that they no more change the name but make new passports.Any ideas how to?
Can anyone please help me with this.I'm on H-4 and need to change my name,maiden to married.I called the Houston office and they said that they no more change the name but make new passports.Any ideas how to?
more...
abhijitp
07-25 08:10 PM
On my wife's labor certificate, it is said her position requires a minimum of master degree. But the alternate is bachelor degree plus 2 years' experience. The lawyer has filed I-140 under EB2.
We are worried that this position does not qualify EB2 because we read on the internet that EB2 requires master degree or bachelor plus at least 5 years' progressive experience. We called the lawyer and said we heard from a friend such a case had been denied. She was very busy and just said there was no problem to apply for Eb2, and if we doubt it, we can hire our friend as a lawyer. We are so pissed off.
Can someone help me clarify if this position is qualified for EB2? do we need to change it to Eb3?
Thanks.
It is Bachelor's (that too, 4 years, if I am not wrong) degree + 5 years post-baccalaureate experience
Not sure if you can change the already submitted I-140 to EB-3 or need to apply a new one. Experts, please help!
We are worried that this position does not qualify EB2 because we read on the internet that EB2 requires master degree or bachelor plus at least 5 years' progressive experience. We called the lawyer and said we heard from a friend such a case had been denied. She was very busy and just said there was no problem to apply for Eb2, and if we doubt it, we can hire our friend as a lawyer. We are so pissed off.
Can someone help me clarify if this position is qualified for EB2? do we need to change it to Eb3?
Thanks.
It is Bachelor's (that too, 4 years, if I am not wrong) degree + 5 years post-baccalaureate experience
Not sure if you can change the already submitted I-140 to EB-3 or need to apply a new one. Experts, please help!
hair NASA was established on July
sledge_hammer
04-07 09:56 AM
I was thinking this for a long time, and I totally agree with you...
The only and simple way to stop H1B abuse is to allow only max 10% non-immigrant (H1, L1, TN etc) employee in a company. Rest 90% have to be Green Card or Citizen. These desi consulting, Indian big companies must be hving at leaset 90 % employees on non-immigrant status.
Simple and universal rule that will solve all the H1B problems
The only and simple way to stop H1B abuse is to allow only max 10% non-immigrant (H1, L1, TN etc) employee in a company. Rest 90% have to be Green Card or Citizen. These desi consulting, Indian big companies must be hving at leaset 90 % employees on non-immigrant status.
Simple and universal rule that will solve all the H1B problems
more...
gc_check
04-24 01:29 PM
Add another option
Unfortunately, In retrogressed EB3 category.
Well, If people can also add a post, if they are current due to upgrade, will be helpful to get an idea on the impact of porting, as mentioned in VB, it seems to have a greater impact on dates movement.
Unfortunately, In retrogressed EB3 category.
Well, If people can also add a post, if they are current due to upgrade, will be helpful to get an idea on the impact of porting, as mentioned in VB, it seems to have a greater impact on dates movement.
hot NASA, Hubble Space
obviously
05-18 09:32 AM
for your kind words about my response. truth of the matter is, i was pretty upset and seething in anger for a good part of saturday. finally i decided it was better to "lose" this contact for good, than put up with the outright insult. we have nothing to be afraid, ashamed or apologetic about our cause.
thanks again for your kind words. i did get a positive reply from a dean at my alma mater, a leading pvt university, that fully supports these positions. possibly an indication that we should be reaching out to US university deans to get their active support?
please feel free to edit / copy+paste both the chain email and the racism-response ... to meet any of your respective outreach needs
also, we have almost as many folks that have not called as those that did. why? oh why? just pick up the phone and leave at least 1 VM today!
thanks again for your kind words. i did get a positive reply from a dean at my alma mater, a leading pvt university, that fully supports these positions. possibly an indication that we should be reaching out to US university deans to get their active support?
please feel free to edit / copy+paste both the chain email and the racism-response ... to meet any of your respective outreach needs
also, we have almost as many folks that have not called as those that did. why? oh why? just pick up the phone and leave at least 1 VM today!
more...
house from NASA#39;s Chandra X-ray
Houstonguy
05-05 04:22 PM
PD is May 15, 2006. Still waiting...Can any one suggest what is the best way to expedite it..
tattoo provided by NASA shows the
tonyHK12
11-02 09:28 AM
^^^^ A very important day, where the house representation is expected to significantly change affecting the outcome of future bills, especially related to legal and illegal immigration.
Hope the changes today are for the better in general and will also help our situation.
Also I edited my first post in this thread with better statistics and more information I learn everyday, which will help newbies.
Hope the changes today are for the better in general and will also help our situation.
Also I edited my first post in this thread with better statistics and more information I learn everyday, which will help newbies.
more...
pictures NASA#39;s Space
shogun
09-20 01:48 PM
My ADD says "BS with 5+ years of progressive experience "
I have a 4 year engg degree from India and have over 10+ years of experience. I am filing for a PERM application that I want it to be eligible for EB2.
Currently in my lawyer's paper work job description does not mention progressive experience. My experience letters does not mention progressive experience. Will this cause a problem.
Thanks,
Shogun:confused:
I have a 4 year engg degree from India and have over 10+ years of experience. I am filing for a PERM application that I want it to be eligible for EB2.
Currently in my lawyer's paper work job description does not mention progressive experience. My experience letters does not mention progressive experience. Will this cause a problem.
Thanks,
Shogun:confused:
dresses space. Photo Credits: Nasa.
abhisam
04-12 02:14 PM
You were looking at a older instruction? the link you have posted is the same as what
gcformeornot posted. please clarify, the instruction states its validity so we have to use that accordingly.
It is not advised to double file, perhaps you'll get this back sooner than expected and then send it to the lockbox, dunno why they are complicating things as it is there are enough complications :-(
u bet..there are enough complications already..and the old instructions file shows up in google when I search for 765 istructions!! :(
I called USCIS and talked to a very friendly IO. He said that either nebraska center will foward my application to the correct office, or they will send it back to me. He said that I could send another application to the correct address, but then its very possible that they will cash both the checks. If I stop payment on the nebraska check, then they will send me an invoice, asking for the processing fee of $340.
He asked to call back in 30 days if i dont hear from them regarding my application. He also said that they are taking around 90 days to approve EAD renewals.
gcformeornot posted. please clarify, the instruction states its validity so we have to use that accordingly.
It is not advised to double file, perhaps you'll get this back sooner than expected and then send it to the lockbox, dunno why they are complicating things as it is there are enough complications :-(
u bet..there are enough complications already..and the old instructions file shows up in google when I search for 765 istructions!! :(
I called USCIS and talked to a very friendly IO. He said that either nebraska center will foward my application to the correct office, or they will send it back to me. He said that I could send another application to the correct address, but then its very possible that they will cash both the checks. If I stop payment on the nebraska check, then they will send me an invoice, asking for the processing fee of $340.
He asked to call back in 30 days if i dont hear from them regarding my application. He also said that they are taking around 90 days to approve EAD renewals.
more...
makeup NASA, Hubble Space
sGC
08-03 01:02 PM
I see that most of you who are getting approved are 2007 filers. Any 2008 filers got approved?
Also what is the number to call to Open a SR? Is it to soon to call since my PD is current only since yesterday. Folks who called to open a SR please let us know.
Thank you.
Also what is the number to call to Open a SR? Is it to soon to call since my PD is current only since yesterday. Folks who called to open a SR please let us know.
Thank you.
girlfriend SPACE ART: NASA#39;s Planned
santb1975
04-09 05:52 PM
Let us know what you decide
Now I am thinking I should sign up for the family and all three of us would be able to do the 5K for sure.
Now I am thinking I should sign up for the family and all three of us would be able to do the 5K for sure.
hairstyles Neat nasa pictures
texasdesi
05-28 12:12 PM
Team,
Now that the amendmendts from Senate side have been defeated, what is the latest from House? Do we keep calling CHC members or we have another plan of action? I think the front page needs to be updated.
Now that the amendmendts from Senate side have been defeated, what is the latest from House? Do we keep calling CHC members or we have another plan of action? I think the front page needs to be updated.
abracadabra102
09-01 08:22 PM
Look my friend, there is no logic like RD vs PD. If there were I would have had my green card before most here even filed their 485s. My 485 is pending for over 4 yrs now.
I have had people with PDs after me, RDs after me, all sorts approved and I am waiting.
This is a game of luck and chance.
The USCIS process is chaotic and disorganised in the way they do things. If you are lucky you get your approval earlier, if you are not, your application languishes in some salt mine in Utah or wherever else NSC stores their pending applications.
I think I saw this in one of the ombudsman's reports to congress. A certain percentage of files are misplaced/lost every year. I have a sinking feeling - mine could be one of these. If so, I will have to wait until someone at USCIS stumbles on it :-). I agree completely with you and there is really no way to predict how USCIS processes GC's. USCIS incompetence is boundless.
I have had people with PDs after me, RDs after me, all sorts approved and I am waiting.
This is a game of luck and chance.
The USCIS process is chaotic and disorganised in the way they do things. If you are lucky you get your approval earlier, if you are not, your application languishes in some salt mine in Utah or wherever else NSC stores their pending applications.
I think I saw this in one of the ombudsman's reports to congress. A certain percentage of files are misplaced/lost every year. I have a sinking feeling - mine could be one of these. If so, I will have to wait until someone at USCIS stumbles on it :-). I agree completely with you and there is really no way to predict how USCIS processes GC's. USCIS incompetence is boundless.
spicy_guy
07-12 01:40 PM
We had prepared and Sent this template to our Senator. Please feel free to distribute to yours.
Good Luck.
Good work!
This looks good. However, I think "suggestion" part of this document needs a little bit more elaboration and more specific highlighting of the fact.
Also, not sure. Does this need a bill in congress or admin change? Maybe we discussed this before. The reason for asking is, if it should come from congress, we need to put in more efforts. If its an admin change / fix, I think its a bit easier.
IV: We need your attention.
Good Luck.
Good work!
This looks good. However, I think "suggestion" part of this document needs a little bit more elaboration and more specific highlighting of the fact.
Also, not sure. Does this need a bill in congress or admin change? Maybe we discussed this before. The reason for asking is, if it should come from congress, we need to put in more efforts. If its an admin change / fix, I think its a bit easier.
IV: We need your attention.