From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan  1 14:06:17 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA26286); Sat, 1 Jan 94 14:06:17 CST
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 94 14:06:17 CST
Message-Id: <01H765RJXLZ6A8D14R@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: PHILL MAHH <PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LAD list from Phil, New Year's Day
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi friends,

	Since the first mail to this net after I got back. I received 
several letters speaking agiast my opinion. I was told to keep them 
confidential, but I want say something on the net for your reference.

	First of all, I agree with the reminding that we are not
here to fight with each other. We'd had too much back home. But second, I still
don't agree with the saying that that what we deserve to know is something
we cannot do anything about, now. Maybe it is right that the INS's are 
really caring about us: look at the YES's under W.P. and INTERVIEW, 
and even some pinky YES's under APPROVAL. But isn't all this what 
we worked very hard for just not too long ago(not fighting with our 
fellow Chinese, but people who don't like the CPSA law)?
 
	I agree very much that this net isn't a Political Org. of any sort. 
Nobody has to do anything whatsoever for the waiting and worrying LAD's. But I
wanted to because I care about LAD's as an LAD. Just do what I can do for us. 

	But no matter how well things are going, and no matter who want to help
and who doesn't, I believe there are people like me who just wanted an answer
and that is why so many people replied my mail, provided information. Again, 
we should never fight each other becasue we are having such a strong 
common interest to work together for. Thanks for all of you who cares. 
I like the spirit because we don't just wait. 
		
							Phil.     



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	Thanks to all the people who provided the following info. Your help
will be appreciated by other LAD's. The following info. was from individuals,
so noly FYR. Happy Christmas and New Year. 


	"Let's do something instead of waiting!!"
	      "Good luck to us all!!" 


			Interview	Work Permit	G.C.(approaved)

??? INS, Alaska		  NO		  YES		   NO
Albany INS, NY		  NO	          YES       YES?(passport stamped)
Arlington INS		  NO		  YES	    	   NO	
Atlanta INS		  NO 	          YES              NO
Baltimore INS		  !!waived!!	  YES		   NO	
Boston INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Bufflo INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Charrolte INS, NC	  YES		  YES		   NO
Chicago INS		  YES		  YES		   YES	
Cincinnati INS		  YES		  YES		   ?
Cleveland INS             YES		  YES		   NO
Dallas INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Denver INS    		  NO		  YES		   NO
Detroit INS		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Indianapolis INS          NO		  YES		   NO
Helena INS, MT	    Scheduled Jan. 94	  NO(some)  	   NO
Honolulu INS 		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Houston INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Jacksonville INS, FL      YES	   	  YES		   YES?
Kansas City INS           NO		  YES		   NO
Kentucky INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
L.A. INS                  NO              YES              NO
(Westminter INS, L.A.)	Scheduling May 94 YES		   NO
Memphis INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Miami INS		  YES		  YES	           NO
Milwaukee INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Newark	INS		  YES		  YES	         wait:quote
New Orleans INS		  NO		  YES		   NO		
New York INS              NO		  YES		   NO
Oklahoma City INS	  YES		  YES		   ?
Omaha INS                 NO	          YES              NO
Orlando INS Fl		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Philadephia INS           YES             YES	           NO
Phoenix INS		  YES		  YES		   NO
Pittsburg INS             NO		  YES		   NO
Portland INS		  NO		  YES	           NO
Salt Lake City INS	  YES		  YES		  !!yes!!
San Antonio INS   	  YES		  YES		   NO		
San Diago INS		  NO(maybe waived)YES		   NO
St. Louis INS	          YES		  YES	   	   NO
Seattle INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Spokane INS, WA		  NO		  YES		   NO
Twin Citis INS            NO		  YES		   NO
_________________________________________________________________________
total: 	41 INS's    18  Y's + 2 waived	 almost ALL	 3 for sure!
_________________________________________________________________________

Here are comments that came from the LAD's who provided the above info.:

Comments on              		Comments
------------            ---------------------------------------------------
Albany INS, NY		"...my friend got their passports stamped for both his
			wife and his son without their appearance..."

Chicago INS		"those who filed before 10/1 and have priority date 6/
			30 have gotten approved..."

Baltimore INS		"...interview waived, and result will be in in 60
			to 90 days."

Boston INS		"...they asked us to file in person and the filing
			process looked like an interview. They asked a lot
			questions and checked doc.'s carefully..."

Chicago INS		"...the only thing they said in the interview was it
			takes time for processing...I didnot get anything 
			thereafter..."

Jacksonville INS, FL	"...LAD's who filed before 8/05 got interviews and 
			even approved...it turned out that the INS didn't know
			how to handle LAD's by then. All applc.'s are pending
			now..."

Memphis INS 		"no interview, but they sent me a letter, asked me 
			for new f.p...."

Miami INS               "...after a friendly interview, the officer told me 
			to wait for 60 day FBI check...I think most LAD's 
			here have been intrvw'd..."

Newark INS		"..after interview, the officer told me that my
			application has been approaved. However, I had to 
			wait for quota. He gave a phone number for quota..."

New Orleans INS		"...turned out that the lady who is in charge of f.p.
			is having a surgery, but no substitution for her..."
			(My thought: God bless you well, the lady!?)

Philadephia INS		"...the interviewing officer finally told me that I
			am ELIGIBLE for status adjustment, but gave me no
			formal aprroaval..."

Salt Lake City INS	"Yes, I got an interview, and I know that some LAD
			here has already received real G.C.!!...however, there
			are people that I know that are waiting for nothing,
			but their priority dates are usually late..."(My first 
			thought in mind: Happy New Year, my friend!)

San Antonio INS		"Yes, interviewed, but...no quota, waiting for it..." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

	If you want to add more info. to the list, please send your mail to
PHILKU@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU, or simply reply this mail. Your help will be
appreciated by all of your peer LAD's.    
						Yours, Phil.                       	    	  	

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan  1 20:21:37 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA26978); Sat, 1 Jan 94 20:21:37 CST
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 94 20:21:37 CST
Message-Id: <199401020217.VAA07119@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: dajhe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Dajiang He <dajhe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: birth certificate
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi everybody, happy new year!

could you guys whose lads have been interviewed tell me your experience 
regarding the requirment of birth certificate? my concern is that whether the
INSs ask the notarized, official certificate by notary offices, or other forms 
of it, such as
residence card, affidevits, or certificates by local branches of the burear of
public safety, are OK?   Please give me the information if you have, and i
appreciate it very much!

D.J.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan  1 23:49:23 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA27646); Sat, 1 Jan 94 23:49:23 CST
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 94 23:49:23 CST
Message-Id: <9401020539.AA25606@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Happy New Year!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi, all of our dear lads-l netters! As the E. O. 12711 finally 
expired last night, we are now entering a new era. We are now no 
longer fearing of, or, awaiting for our fates to be decided. We 
are being able to dream, to plan, to build our future instead. 
What a difference it is! Last year this time, everyone was 
anxious about the fate of the CSPA. Now, the majority of CSPAers 
are holding their real plastic cards, and enjoying the first New 
Year Celebration in this new, adopted homeland. 

Still, it is not the end of the task of this net. Our lads 
problems are far away from being solved. As Mi Mi Jr. is settling 
down again in her new home and new school, many of our lads are 
organized to start the new task, hoping to speed up the process 
of the lads application. Well, the spirit of this net is truly 
voluntarism. This net was organized, operated, and maintained by 
all the volunteers from all over the country. It is delightful to 
see that the task is aimed at and carried on by new volunteers, 
or, fresh blood. Everyone of us contribute a little bit of our 
energy, and all of us together than can make a truly big 
difference. 

The new task, as Mi Mi Sr. sees it, is much more difficult to 
achieve. First of all, there is no such a term as lad in INS' 
vocabulary. LADs is created , used by the netters of this lads-l 
only. To INS, there is only CSPAers and ordinary PR cases. One of 
our original purposes is, to put lads into CSPA itself. After the 
tedious long petition drive, we failed to achieve that goal. 
Then, all of our lads are categorized as ordinary PR cases. It is 
almost impossible to separated lads cases from all the other 
applications around the world in all the local INS offices even 
INS HQ decides to do so, which, is quite negative as we had 
learnt from the letter from the INS HQ replying to our lads net 
Committee's petition letter. Various local offices have different 
paces to handle the PR applications, there is national quota cap 
on the EB-3 and FB-2 applications. Since there are so many 
restrict conditions, we can not expect our lads problem be solved 
as what we wanted. However, this net will serve the purpose for 
the information exchange, as long as there is an interest and 
system support. 

Finally, Mi Mi Sr. salutes to the recent effort by some netters 
to compile a national review of the lads application progress. 
This impressive list does provide us a clear picture of how our 
netter's applications are being handled. Please keep on good 
working, and God bless us lad all.

Mi Mi Sr., in New York City

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun Jan  2 11:03:50 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA29174); Sun, 2 Jan 94 11:03:50 CST
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 94 11:03:50 CST
Message-Id: <9401021653.AA25836@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Subject: EB-3 for Depedents in China


Hi, everyone! Some netters raised th question that if dependents in China
can be included in the EB-3 category. As far as my understanding, you can do it per CSPA and INA. The only problem is, if there is any advantages 
to take from EB-3, since no body can file EB-3 now when the priority date
is July first (or you may consult your lawyer for that), and this date may 
even retrogress to an earlier date. As I urged you guys many times before,
once you have your approval letter, do FB-2 for your dependents as soon as
possible. When the window for EB-3 opens for you, file EB-3 AGAIN as soon as 
possible. There is NO PENALTY for filing both, only the advantage of
taking whichever is faster for your dependents. So, do it now.

Good luck to us all,

Mi Mi Sr.



From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan  3 19:35:11 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA03137); Mon, 3 Jan 94 19:35:11 CST
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 19:35:11 CST
Message-Id: <9401040130.AA01126@mace.Princeton.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: yudezhao@math.princeton.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Yude Zhao" <yudezhao@math.princeton.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Final INS Regulation on the Implementation of CSPA
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Dear Fellows:

I wonder whether the final CSPA Regulation has been out. 
We had INS Regulation called "interim rule". Now
almost half year has gone since the "interim rule" was out.
I never heard about Final INS Regulation on the Implementation of CSPA.
There are still many people who are either waiting or whose applications
are still pending because various reasons such as 90-day problem,
illegal entry problems, ... etc. 
I appreciate if anyone keeps us informed. Thanks.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan  3 22:06:32 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA03538); Mon, 3 Jan 94 22:06:32 CST
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 22:06:32 CST
Message-Id: <01H79F4R5WGIA8DRUM@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: PHILL MAHH <PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LAD list from Phil, 1/3/94.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	Thanks to all the people who provided the following info. Your help
will be appreciated by other LAD's. The following info. was from individuals,
so noly FYR.  


	"Let's do something instead of waiting!!"
	      "Good luck to us all!!" 


			Interview	Work Permit	G.C.(approaved)

??? INS, Alaska		  NO		  YES		   NO
Albany INS, NY		  NO	          YES       YES?(passport stamped)
Arlington INS		  NO		  YES	    	   NO	
Atlanta INS		  NO 	          YES              NO
Baltimore INS		  !!waived!!	  YES		   NO	
Boston INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Bufflo INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Charrolte INS, NC	  YES		  YES		   NO
Chicago INS		  YES		  YES		   YES	
Cincinnati INS		  YES		  YES		   ?
Cleveland INS             YES		  YES		   NO
Dallas INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Denver INS    		  NO		  YES		   NO
Detroit INS		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Indianapolis INS          NO		  YES		   NO
Helena INS, MT	    Scheduled Jan. 94	  NO(some)  	   NO
Honolulu INS 		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Houston INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Jacksonville INS, FL      YES	   	  YES		   YES?
Kansas City INS           NO		  YES		   NO
Kentucky INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
L.A. INS                  NO              YES              NO
(Westminter INS, L.A.)	Scheduling May 94 YES		   NO
Memphis INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Miami INS		  YES		  YES	           NO
Milwaukee INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Newark	INS		  YES		  YES	         wait:quote
New Orleans INS		  NO		  YES		   NO		
New York INS              NO		  YES		   NO
Norfolk INS, VA		  YES		  YES		   NO
Oklahoma City INS	  YES		  YES		   ?
Omaha INS                 NO	          YES              NO
Orlando INS Fl		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Philadephia INS           YES             YES	           NO
Phoenix INS		  YES		  YES		   NO
Pittsburg INS             NO		  YES		   NO
Portland INS		  NO		  YES	           NO
Sacramento INS, CA	  NO 		  YES		   NO
Salt Lake City INS	  YES		  YES		  !!yes!!
San Antonio INS   	  YES		  YES		   NO		
San Diago INS		  NO(maybe waived)YES		   NO
St. Louis INS	          YES		  YES	   	   NO
Seattle INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Spokane INS, WA		  NO		  YES		   NO
Twin Citis INS            NO		  YES		   NO
_________________________________________________________________________
total: 	43 INS's    19  Y's + 2 waived	 almost ALL	 3 for sure!
_________________________________________________________________________

Here are comments that came from the LAD's who provided the above info.:

Comments on              		Comments
------------            ---------------------------------------------------
Albany INS, NY		"...my friend got their passports stamped for both his
			wife and his son without their appearance..."

Chicago INS		"those who filed before 10/1 and have priority date 6/
			30 have gotten approved..."

Baltimore INS		"...interview waived, and result will be in in 60
			to 90 days."

Boston INS		"...they asked us to file in person and the filing
			process looked like an interview. They asked a lot
			questions and checked doc.'s carefully..."

Chicago INS		"...the only thing they said in the interview was it
			takes time for processing...I didnot get anything 
			thereafter..."

Jacksonville INS, FL	"...LAD's who filed before 8/05 got interviews and 
			even approved...it turned out that the INS didn't know
			how to handle LAD's by then. All applc.'s are pending
			now..."

Memphis INS 		"no interview, but they sent me a letter, asked me 
			for new f.p...."

Miami INS               "...after a friendly interview, the officer told me 
			to wait for 60 day FBI check...I think most LAD's 
			here have been intrvw'd..."

Newark INS		"..after interview, the officer told me that my
			application has been approaved. However, I had to 
			wait for quota. He gave a phone number for quota..."

New Orleans INS		"...turned out that the lady who is in charge of f.p.
			is having a surgery, but no substitution for her..."
			(My thought: God bless you well, the lady!?)

Philadephia INS		"...the interviewing officer finally told me that I
			am ELIGIBLE for status adjustment, but gave me no
			formal aprroaval..."

Salt Lake City INS	"Yes, I got an interview, and I know that some LAD
			here has already received real G.C.!!...however, there
			are people that I know that are waiting for nothing,
			but their priority dates are usually late..."(My first 
			thought in mind: Happy New Year, my friend!)

San Antonio INS		"Yes, interviewed, but...no quota, waiting for it..." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

	If you want to add more info. to the list, please send your mail to
PHILKU@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU, or simply reply this mail. Your help will be
appreciated by all of your peer LAD's.    
						Yours, Phil.                       	    	  	

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue Jan  4 08:23:00 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA04867); Tue, 4 Jan 94 08:23:00 CST
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 08:23:00 CST
Message-Id: <244F9507282@shocker.ee.twsu.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: YUE.HC@shocker.ee.twsu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: HY <YUE.HC@shocker.ee.twsu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LADs' applications
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi Dear friends:

I just came back from my holiday vocation and found lots of mails here.

I respect Mr. Phil's excellent work.  I also value Mi Mi Sr.'s info.

It has become pretty quiet in LAD net recently. I am not blaming anybody
here as nobody owes anything to us just as somebody said that even the LAD
net was set up and managed by the volunteers.

But, the thing is as more than half of the local INS offices still hold LADs'
applications for almost five months without the interview or any response.
We, the LADs, deserve an answer what's going to happen to these cases. We
have the right.

I don't agree with the opinion that INS treat all PR applicants as either
CSPAer or ordinary PR applicant.  as an CSPAer, he/she will not take the
interview generally; as an ordinary PR applicant, the local INS will schedule
an interview for him/her within 90-120 days.  Since more than half of the LADs
have been waiting for a response from the local INS for more than 5 months,
so they do treat the LADs as a special group.  The info. I got from INS also
shows this point.

The local INS offices do have a special instruction to deal with this
special group of applicants, which is the INS cable.  The LADs' applications
should be considered as the EB-3 applications.  It should not take so much
time to get the interview for EB-3 applicants.  I have tried to contact
some INS officers as well as somebody in our society, but so far no positive
answer has come up yet.

PS. Happy New Year everybody!

LX


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue Jan  4 10:09:27 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA05310); Tue, 4 Jan 94 10:09:27 CST
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 10:09:27 CST
Message-Id: <9401041616.AA02118@biomech.mech.utah.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: cheng@biomech.mech.utah.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: cheng@biomech.mech.utah.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re:  LADs' applications
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 



/Hi Dear friends:
/
/I just came back from my holiday vocation and found lots of mails here.
/
/I respect Mr. Phil's excellent work.  I also value Mi Mi Sr.'s info.
/
/It has become pretty quiet in LAD net recently. I am not blaming anybody
/here as nobody owes anything to us just as somebody said that even the LAD
/net was set up and managed by the volunteers.
/
/But, the thing is as more than half of the local INS offices still hold LADs'
/applications for almost five months without the interview or any response.
/We, the LADs, deserve an answer what's going to happen to these cases. We
/have the right.
/
/I don't agree with the opinion that INS treat all PR applicants as either
/CSPAer or ordinary PR applicant.  as an CSPAer, he/she will not take the
/interview generally; as an ordinary PR applicant, the local INS will schedule
/an interview for him/her within 90-120 days.  Since more than half of the LADs
/have been waiting for a response from the local INS for more than 5 months,
/so they do treat the LADs as a special group.  The info. I got from INS also
/shows this point.
/
/The local INS offices do have a special instruction to deal with this
/special group of applicants, which is the INS cable.  The LADs' applications
/should be considered as the EB-3 applications.  It should not take so much
/time to get the interview for EB-3 applicants.  I have tried to contact
/some INS officers as well as somebody in our society, but so far no positive
/answer has come up yet.
/
/PS. Happy New Year everybody!
/
/LX


Good point!  Does it mean that INS either will let us wait for much longer
time or they will treat our cases as a special group in a snap time soon?


GC

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue Jan  4 12:00:09 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA05818); Tue, 4 Jan 94 12:00:09 CST
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 12:00:09 CST
Message-Id: <9401041750.AA26935@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re:  LADs' applications
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

As LX pointed out, "as an ordinary PR applicant, the local INS will
schedule an interview for him/her within 90-120 days". If this is true,
then because most lads filed in August-September, then now is time for them to 
get an interview. I remembered many LADs had posted info for interviewing
during October and November, and some were granted GC already. We can not
get a clear picture on how many percentage are being interviewed, and how
many are not, since the tendency of staying in this netland for almost 
every netter is need based, that is, if there is no problem and
interest, almost everyone will leave without notice. Based such
assumption, any survey will have a strong bias. The list does give us a
clear picture on where some LAD are still waiting, but you can not tell if 
ALL of them are waiting. 

On the list, we can see the WP is granted almost everywhere. That is not
a problem since any pending application should have a WP. The wait for
quota under GC column is nothing unussual since the priority date now is
July 1, and every body should wait if there is no quota. The local INS
can not grant you a visa if they do not have any themselves. The only thing
we worry is the NO under interview and we should investigate what is
happening. 

As the CSPA lad, I must say it is not a different category from all the
other EB-3 applicants. Worse, since the CSPA does not cover lad, many
lad were not allowed to adjust status just because their principals
filed I-485. This was corrected later by the INS HQ because the strong 
pressure from concerned parties. But, any farther special treatment IS
denied by the INS, based on the law CSPA and INA themselves (please
refer to the letter from INS to this net). So, I do not think there is
any room left for us to push INS in general. Any guys want to try again
of course are welcomed, and I suggest that another working committee 
be set up and run by a group of volunteers. The only problem for the net
is that our system manager is getting a new position other than spike,
so we might lose our system prety soon. So, we must arrange another host
if spike is no more. One possibility is, we might be able to move this net to
IFCSS.ORG, but we are not sure at this time. If any one has the
potential to host this net, please let us know.

Mi Mi Sr.

:wq

.

  



 

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue Jan  4 19:49:43 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07013); Tue, 4 Jan 94 19:49:43 CST
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 19:49:42 CST
Message-Id: <9401050139.AA27137@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re:  LADs' applications
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

>From DINGRU@MSUVX1.MEMST.EDU Tue Jan  4 15:17:30 1994
Received: from MSUVX1.MEMST.EDU by MSUVX1.MEMST.EDU (PMDF V4.2-14 #3869) id
 <01H7ADDMO38K8WZBAK@MSUVX1.MEMST.EDU>; Tue, 4 Jan 1994 14:22:25 CST
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 1994 14:22:25 -0600 (CST)
>From: DINGRU@MSUVX1.MEMST.EDU
Subject: Re:  LADs' applications
To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Message-Id: <01H7ADDMO38M8WZBAK@MSUVX1.MEMST.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Status: R

Dear friends:
Do we need to donate money to hire a good lawyer to push INS for Lads ?
In my point view most lads will NOT be granted "GC" , or get approved in
years. Everyone is waiting for INS's favor and do nothing.
Since Ladnet was created , Nothing is done except the petition letter and the
response of this petition letter was expected and no surprise.
We need look into the INS ACT carefully and fight with INS if they violated
the regulations. We need to somthing and not jost collecting information.
WE need a good lawyer to help us and do a full time job for us.
I am not sure how much cost for hiring a lawyer , but at least we can explore
this matter.
I am sort of disappointed with our ladnet has done, hut as matter of fact
there are not many things we can do.
We need a lawyer for all lads.

R.Ding


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue Jan  4 22:11:02 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07371); Tue, 4 Jan 94 22:11:02 CST
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 22:11:02 CST
Message-Id: <9401050400.AA27197@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re Lad list from Phi;l
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


??? INS, Alaska           
Albany INS, NY            
Arlington INS (az,co,fl,ga,ia,il,in,ks,ky,ma,mn,ms,ne,ny,oh,ok,or,sd,tn,tx,va,vt,wa,wy) 
Atlanta INS               ar,ga,id,il,ks,la,mi,mo,ms,ne,oh,tx
Baltimore INS             md
Boston INS                ga,in,ky,ma,ny,oh,tn,tx,va,
Bufflo INS                al,ia,il,in,ks,ky,mn,mo,mt,nd,ne,ny,ok,sd,tn.tx,wv,wy
Chicago INS               YES             YES              YES  
Cincinnati INS            YES             YES              ?
Cleveland INS             YES             YES              NO
Dallas INS                YES             YES            wait:quote
Denver INS                NO              YES              NO
Detroit INS               YES             YES            Wait:quote
Indianapolis INS          NO              YES              NO
Helena INS, MT      Scheduled Jan. 94     NO(some)         NO
Honolulu INS              YES             YES            wait:quote
Houston INS               YES             YES            wait:quote
Jacksonville INS, FL      YES             YES              YES?
Kansas City INS           NO              YES              NO
Kentucky INS              NO              YES              NO
L.A. INS                  NO              YES              NO
(Westminter INS, L.A.)  Scheduling May 94 YES              NO
Memphis INS               NO              YES              NO
Miami INS                 YES             YES              NO
Milwaukee INS             NO              YES              NO
Newark  INS               YES             YES            wait:quote
New Orleans INS           NO              YES              NO           
New York INS              NO              YES              NO
Norfolk INS, VA           YES             YES              NO
Oklahoma City INS         YES             YES              ?
Omaha INS                 NO              YES              NO
Orlando INS Fl            YES             YES            Wait:quote
Philadephia INS           YES             YES              NO
Phoenix INS               YES             YES              NO
Pittsburg INS             NO              YES              NO
Portland INS              ar,co,ct,l,ia,il,in,ks,me,mi,mo,nd,ny,oh,or,tn,tx,wi
Sacramento INS, CA        
Salt Lake City INS        ut 
San Antonio INS           co,fl,mx,nm,tx,nm     
San Diago INS             ca,tx         
St. Louis INS             mn,mo,ok,sk         
Seattle INS               wa 
Spokane INS, WA           
Twin Citis INS            ga 
_________________________________________________________________________
total:  43 INS's    19  Y's + 2 waived   almost ALL      3 for sure!
_________________________________________________________________________
Checked 12 of the 43 INS locations, only 4 INS can be pinned down on the 
Road Atlas. The rest 8 each has up to 24 different state locations. (Arlington)
If anyone from those INS offices wanted to ask something, they realy need to 
give the clear state location. Besides, many states are missing in the list.

Just a reminder.

Mi Mi Sr.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Wed Jan  5 15:45:22 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09653); Wed, 5 Jan 94 15:45:22 CST
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 15:45:22 CST
Message-Id: <264582A2721@shocker.ee.twsu.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: YUE.HC@shocker.ee.twsu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: HY <YUE.HC@shocker.ee.twsu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LADs' problem
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi dear friends:

I sent out a mail yesterday concerning the LADs' problem, mainly the group
of unlucky LADs who are still waiting for the interview or a response from
the local INS offices.

I personally believe that Mi Mi Sr. and the LAD committee has been doing
excellent job since the net was set up, and there is no necessary to make
another working committee.  Most LADs, I think, have the same feeling as I do.
If I said something wrong in my mail, I apologize to Mi Mi Sr. and the
LAD working committee here.  The reason we are still here, as Mi Mi Sr. said,
is that we have the common interest, so we should work together like the
old chinese phrase said: "san1 ge4 chou4 pi2 jiang4 he2 cheng2 yi2 ge4 zhu1
ge3 lian4."

Now I'd like to discuss something with you guys:

1. In our chinese society, it's very unlikely for a few LADs got the interview
   without knowing by the rest LADs in the same area.  In another word, since
   the info. from the individual LADs shows that more than half of local INS
   offices haven't started interviewing LAD, it's very likely that these INS
   offices haven't started interviewing any single LAD at all.

2. In order to get GC, the LADs have to go through the interview first unless
   the INS waives it explicitly.  As some lucky LADs said that they got some
   kind of notice from the local INS after passing the interview. It said
   "the visa location requirement has been sent out (to State of Department?)."
   This means the local INS could require a visa for the LAD (the same for
   the ordinary PR applicant) only if s/he could pass the interview.  It makes
   no sense for those unlucky LADs to wait for a so called visa quota without
   taking and passing the interview first.  So we got to let INS interview
   all LADs first.

3. Now, it's very clear that we can hardly push INS or some other US agencies
   further to consider LADs as the CSPA principals.  Fine, we only ask the
   local INS offices to treat the LADs as the ordinary EB-3 applicants, just
   like the instruction in INS HQ cables said.  As an ordinary EB-3 applicant,
   s/he should have got an interview appointment from the local INS by now if
   the application was sent out in Aug, 1993.  But unfortunately... ...,

I think every LAD should be involved in and contribute the idea to our LAD
society.  We just shouldn't let Mi. Mi. Sr. and the LAD committee work for
us alone.

Any comments will be appreciated.  You may send your idea to the LAD net
(LADS-L@SPIKE.RICE.EDU), so everybody could share it.

LX

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Wed Jan  5 20:44:17 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA10186); Wed, 5 Jan 94 20:44:17 CST
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 94 20:44:17 CST
Message-Id: <9401060239.AA08363@ginger.princeton.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: yudezhao@math.princeton.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Yude Zhao" <yudezhao@math.princeton.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Final INS Regulation on the Implementation
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

of CSPA

Dear Fellows:

I wonder whether the final CSPA Regulation has been
out.
We had INS Regulation called "interim rule". Now
almost half year has gone since the "interim rule"
was out.
I never heard about Final INS Regulation on the
Implementation of CSPA.
There are still many people who are either waiting or
whose applications
are still pending because various reasons such as
90-day problem,
illegal entry problems, ... etc.
I appreciate if anyone keeps us informed. Thanks.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan  6 08:11:47 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA11937); Thu, 6 Jan 94 08:11:47 CST
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 08:11:47 CST
Message-Id: <9401061401.AA27803@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Lad net needs new host, new committee, and probably new Mi Mi Sr.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi, just had LX' messages. First of all, as LADs in a whole, 
we can not expect any single person or committee to work for
us from start to end. We need to add new, fresh blood to carry on
the taskes. Either a new Committee or a group of new volunteers
are needed, whatever the name is. Otherwise, nobody can meet the 
expectations. Although I spent a lot of time on the lads problem,
this net, or this problem, is not mine only. I am very very glad
to see new people to join in, to contribute. So, if there is any
ideas, questions, contributions, please feel free to contribute
to the net.

I would raise several problems as the following:

1) The net probably needs a future host. The system manager got
a new job, and it is very likely we will lose this machine soon.

2) Many Committee members are leaving for their new jobs, 
schools, or family needs, so we need new "blood". As Mi Mi Jr.
has arrived, I have to spend a lot of time on her homework. Since
she missed 1.5 years of English, and I have put her again in
a talented and gifted program, her workload is rather heavy. That
is why I can not spend much time on the network. So, probably 
we need a new host, a new committee, and a new Mi Mi Sr. as well.

3) We need to collect more accurate information first. (1)As I 
posted before, in the list, Arlington INS has probably 
24 different state locations. Maybe there is only one Arlington
INS office in the world, but, who knows? We need City, State, if
not the street address and zip code, to identify the INS offices.
(2) Also, we need a clear assessment of how many lads are 
interviewed, and how many are not. (3) We need to know how soon
at each INS office a interview can be scheduled. If everybody 
has to wait two years (it is not unussual, as I remembered 
some knowledgable person posted some typical waiting
time for an interview on the net before), then your requests to
shorten the waiting period can only make your situation worse.
(4) How many quota are available each year? and how many lads
are granted GC? If, as we had estimated from various sourses, 
there are 8,000 or more lads, and, there are only 2500 quota 
available each year, then the "waiting for quota" column will
not disappear in many years to come (please do not forget that 
all the late comers who are going to take a share in this pool). 
That was why we committee pushed so hard for the "world quota for 
lads".

When our work dealing with INS HQ has failed, the new task
dealing with each individual INS will be much, much complicated
and difficult. Keep on good working, and God bless us all.

Mi Mi Sr.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan  6 09:43:50 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA12072); Thu, 6 Jan 94 09:43:50 CST
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 09:43:50 CST
Message-Id: <940106093915.22c052a3@D0SF24.FNAL.GOV>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: ZHU@d0sf24.fnal.gov
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Q.Zhu from NYU at Fermilab (708)840-8383" <ZHU@d0sf24.fnal.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Is there a good immigration book about GC holder
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 



	Hi, everybody:

	Since we all have one /or expecting one GC and we are all new
	to this status, it would be nice if someone knowledgeable 
	could point out a good immigration book about various things
	we have to pay attention to as a GC holder. The issues in my mind
	now are:
		o  Travel aborad for a long period. 
		o  Working on a foreign(outside US) assignment alone,
		   Working on a foreign assignment with a LAD.
		o  Work for a non-US company in U.S, outside U.S.  
		o  Income tax.
		o  Any rights/responsibilities we aren't commonly aware 
		   of.
	You may have other concerns also. 
	
	Of course, a discussion is equally welcome --- if no body
	is object to it, not viewing it as an abuse of the 'lad-net'

	In any case, I would be glad to receive your private mail and
	be willing to exchange information with you. 
	
	Happy New Year!

	Best regards,
	Q.Zhu	
			
	

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan  6 11:19:29 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA12222); Thu, 6 Jan 94 11:19:29 CST
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 11:19:29 CST
Message-Id: <Pine.3.85.9401061012.A12899-0100000-0100000@acc.wuacc.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: zzsu@acc.wuacc.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: J Su <zzsu@acc.wuacc.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Is there a good immigration book about GC holder
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Check the book_Immigration and Nationality Law Handbook_ by American 
Immigration Lawyers Association, you may find the answer there.

On Thu, 6 Jan 1994, Q.Zhu from NYU at Fermilab (708)840-8383 wrote:

> 		o  Travel aborad for a long period. 
> 		o  Working on a foreign(outside US) assignment alone,
> 		   Working on a foreign assignment with a LAD.
> 		o  Work for a non-US company in U.S, outside U.S.  

You have to stay in U.S. more than half of the time of each year, otherwise 
any immigration officer would suspect that you had abandoned your status, and 
withhold your "card".  You may get a temporary replacement card, which 
allow you to work until the matter is resolved.  However, you may get the 
permission to work and remain outside U.S. and maintain your permanent 
residence status, but you have to pay the tax no matter where you earned 
your income.

> 		o  Income tax.
> 		o  Any rights/responsibilities we aren't commonly aware 
> 		   of.

Permanent residents get the same treatment under the federal income tax 
laws as citizens, and are responsible for filing yearly income returns.
see 26 CFR 1.871-1,2 and 26 CFR 301.7701(b)-1(b)(2),(3)


Jie



From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan  6 12:10:23 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA12346); Thu, 6 Jan 94 12:10:23 CST
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 12:10:23 CST
Message-Id: <940106120545.22c052a3@D0SF24.FNAL.GOV>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: ZHU@d0sf24.fnal.gov
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Q.Zhu from NYU at Fermilab (708)840-8383" <ZHU@d0sf24.fnal.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Is there a good immigration book about GC holder
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Jie Su <zzsu@acc.wuacc.edu> Wrote:
>You have to stay in U.S. more than half of the time of each year, otherwise 
>any immigration officer would suspect that you had abandoned your status, and 
>withhold your "card".  You may get a temporary replacement card, which 
>allow you to work until the matter is resolved.  However, you may get the 
>permission to work and remain outside U.S. and maintain your permanent 
>residence status, but you have to pay the tax no matter where you earned 
>your income.

	I talked to a lawyer. I heard a different version with much
	relaxed restrictions. Basically an immigration officer wants to 
	determine if you have the attention to abandon/or have abandoned 
	your permanent resident status. Usually, if you come back to visit
	U.S. within one year, it's okay provided there are other evidences
	to show you are still in the status. But one visit within half year
	is recommended. There are other tricks/costs such as paying U.S. tax
	even you are not in U.S., showing your properties in U.S. to keep 
	your 'intention' clear: you want the immigration officer to think that
	you are still a U.S. permanent resident. If you want to leave U.S. 
	for more than one year, it is recommended to get advance permission
	from INS before you go. 

	However, if you want to become a U.S. citizen, you'd better not to
	leave U.S. for more than 6 months each time. Otherwise, the time counter
	towards the five year requirement will be reset( Actually I heard
	two versions: the other version says that this year won't be counted
	in the five year requirement, but you can still keep the other
	time accumulated. If you leave U.S. more tan 1 year, the time counted
	will be reset.) And the total time you stay in U.S. should be more 
	than 2.5 years for the five years.

	Does anyone know of any experiences of friends? It should reveal how
	immigration officers interpret the regulation. 

	Q.Zhu 	
	

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan  6 12:48:44 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA12468); Thu, 6 Jan 94 12:48:44 CST
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 12:48:43 CST
Message-Id: <9401061848.AA12457@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: Guobao.Guo@koala.aero.ufl.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Guobao.Guo@koala.aero.ufl.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: J-2 LADs
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi, LADs:

My wife, a CSPA LAQ (J-2), filed I-485 with Jacksonville INS (Florida) at the
end of August 1993.  She also applied for work permit at the end of Nov., 1993
(note, seperately).  Yesterday, she received a letter from the INS office
concerning the work permit.  It is written in the letter,
"Reason for appointment: Address and discuss your current immigration status."
This doesn't sound good (any thing wrong with J-2), does it?

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan  6 15:56:02 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA12766); Thu, 6 Jan 94 15:56:02 CST
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 15:56:02 CST
Message-Id: <9401062151.AA29422@apl.washington.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: mao@apl.washington.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: mao@apl.washington.edu (mao)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: please use a specific subject for your posting
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, everyone:

Since sometimes I am busy and can not go through all your posting, a
specific subject is more welcome. Some of you uses subject "INS
Regulation", for example, but it turns out to be a reguest some answers on
ins regulation. You would better use a subject such as "question on INS
Regulation. In this way, I can skip the article if I have no idea about it.
Some posting is even worse and without a subject. Time is precious.

Thanks

mao




From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan  6 16:53:10 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA12913); Thu, 6 Jan 94 16:53:10 CST
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 16:53:10 CST
Message-Id: <9401062220.AA02133@cel.cummins.com>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: zhang@cel.cummins.com
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: zhang@cel.cummins.com (Zhang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi friends:

Does any body know what exact difference and relationship between I-130 and I-824
because I wrote a letter to ask the American consulate in Beijing China why they
could not give my daughter an non-immigrant visa. They did not answer me directly,
instead they submitted the letter to consulate general in Guang Zhuo China, so
I got response from there finally. They recmmended me to file I-130 at local INS
office, but they did not mention me about I-824 form. I was told to file I-824
for my daughter as soon as possible right here ( I already did last year). Could
any body give an idea what I should do next.

Thank you very much.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan  8 19:53:35 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA18864); Sat, 8 Jan 94 19:53:35 CST
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 19:53:35 CST
Message-Id: <9401082202.AA13792@ginger.princeton.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: yudezhao@math.princeton.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Yude Zhao" <yudezhao@math.princeton.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Has Final INS Regulation on the Implementation of CSPA been out??
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 



Dear Fellows:

I wonder whether the final CSPA Regulation has been
out.
We had INS Regulation called "interim rule". Now
almost half year has gone since the "interim rule"
was out.
I never heard about Final INS Regulation on the
Implementation of CSPA.
There are still many people who are either waiting or
whose applications
are still pending because various reasons such as
90-day problem,
illegal entry problems, ... etc.
I appreciate if anyone keeps us informed. Thanks.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan  8 20:47:58 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA19069); Sat, 8 Jan 94 20:47:58 CST
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 20:47:57 CST
Message-Id: <9401090238.AA29459@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Final vs Interim Rule?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Everybody cares the final regulation, I mean, those who have
not gotten their PR or their lads' PR.

But I doubt there will be any significant difference between the two,
if there is any. Lads problem, as we pushed, and as INS HQ replied, is 
knocked down already. 90-day problem, is restricted by the law itself.
Any other issues? Not much room to move. To enact an law is a very 
serious bussiness in USA. It must be proposed, argued, debated, passed
by Congress, sign by President. There is not much room left for alternation.
Explanation? Implementation? Sure! But all of those must be done within
the law itself.

Another interesting fact. When I looked the St. Alban INS, the Eastern 
Center in VT, I found it was so small a town with only 7300+ population.
Consider its size and the INS office's task: more than one fourth of the
CSPA applicants, this town's bussiness is immigration only! Everybody is
engaged in INS related bussiness? Of course one possiblity is, it is not
a residential area, and those INS officers are commuting.

Mi Mi Sr.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun Jan  9 12:17:41 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA21427); Sun, 9 Jan 94 12:17:41 CST
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 94 12:17:41 CST
Message-Id: <01H7H8C59RTUAJM93F@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: PHILL MAHH <PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Lad List from Phil, 1/9/93
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	Thanks to all the people who provided the following info. Your help
will be appreciated by other LAD's. The following info. was from individuals,
so noly FYR.  


	"Let's do something instead of waiting!!"
	      "Good luck to us all!!" 


			Interview	Work Permit	G.C.(approaved)

Albany INS, NY		  NO	          YES       YES?(passport stamped)
Anchorage INS, Alska	  NO		  YES		   NO
Arlington INS		  NO		  YES	    	   NO	
Atlanta INS		  NO 	          YES              NO
Baltimore INS		  !!waived!!	  YES		   NO	
Boston INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Bufflo INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Charrolte INS, NC	  YES		  YES		   NO
Chicago INS		  YES		  YES		   YES	
Cincinnati INS		  YES		  YES		   ?
Cleveland INS             YES		  YES		   NO
Dallas INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Denver INS    		  NO		  YES		   NO
Detroit INS		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Indianapolis INS          NO		  YES		   NO
Helena INS, MT	    Scheduled Jan. 94	  NO(some)  	   NO
Honolulu INS 		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Houston INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Jacksonville INS, FL      YES	   	  YES		   YES?
Kansas City INS           NO		  YES		   NO
Kentucky INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
L.A. INS                  NO              YES              NO
(Westminter INS, L.A.)	Scheduling May 94 YES		   NO
Memphis INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Miami INS		  YES		  YES	           NO
Milwaukee INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Newark	INS		  YES		  YES	         wait:quote
New Orleans INS		  NO		  YES		   NO		
New York INS              NO		  YES		   NO
Norfolk INS, VA		  YES		  YES		   NO
Oklahoma City INS	  YES		  YES		   ?
Omaha INS                 NO	          YES              NO
Orlando INS Fl		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Philadephia INS           YES             YES	           NO
Phoenix INS		  YES		  YES		   NO
Pittsburg INS             NO		  YES		   NO
Portland INS		  NO		  YES	           NO
Sacramento INS, CA	  NO 		  YES		   NO
Salt Lake City INS	  YES		  YES		  !!yes!!
San Antonio INS   	  YES		  YES		   NO		
San Diago INS		  NO(maybe waived)YES		   NO
St. Louis INS	          YES		  YES	   	   NO
Seattle INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Spokane INS, WA		  NO		  YES		   NO
Twin Citis INS            NO		  YES		   NO
_________________________________________________________________________
total: 	43 INS's    19  Y's + 2 waived	 almost ALL	 3 for sure!
_________________________________________________________________________

Here are comments that came from the LAD's who provided the above info.:

Comments on              		Comments
------------            ---------------------------------------------------
Albany INS, NY		"...my friend got their passports stamped for both his
			wife and his son without their appearance..."

Chicago INS		"those who filed before 10/1 and have priority date 6/
			30 have gotten approved..."

Baltimore INS		"...interview waived, and result will be in in 60
			to 90 days."

Boston INS		"...they asked us to file in person and the filing
			process looked like an interview. They asked a lot
			questions and checked doc.'s carefully..."

Chicago INS		"...the only thing they said in the interview was it
			takes time for processing...I didnot get anything 
			thereafter..."

Jacksonville INS, FL	"...LAD's who filed before 8/05 got interviews and 
			even approved...it turned out that the INS didn't know
			how to handle LAD's by then. All applc.'s are pending
			now..."

Memphis INS 		"no interview, but they sent me a letter, asked me 
			for new f.p...."

Miami INS               "...after a friendly interview, the officer told me 
			to wait for 60 day FBI check...I think most LAD's 
			here have been intrvw'd..."

Newark INS		"..after interview, the officer told me that my
			application has been approaved. However, I had to 
			wait for quota. He gave a phone number for quota..."

New Orleans INS		"...turned out that the lady who is in charge of f.p.
			is having a surgery, but no substitution for her..."
			(My thought: God bless you well, the lady!?)

Philadephia INS		"...the interviewing officer finally told me that I
			am ELIGIBLE for status adjustment, but gave me no
			formal aprroaval..."

Salt Lake City INS	"Yes, I got an interview, and I know that some LAD
			here has already received real G.C.!!...however, there
			are people that I know that are waiting for nothing,
			but their priority dates are usually late..."(My first 
			thought in mind: Happy New Year, my friend!)

San Antonio INS		"Yes, interviewed, but...no quota, waiting for it..." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

	If you want to add more info. to the list, please send your mail to
PHILKU@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU, or simply reply this mail. Your help will be
appreciated by all of your peer LAD's.    
						Yours, Phil.                       	    	  	

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun Jan  9 12:26:30 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA21470); Sun, 9 Jan 94 12:26:30 CST
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 94 12:26:30 CST
Message-Id: <9401091808.AA29751@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re Lad list from Phil
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

>From: "Best regards, Mr. Ma" <FFZM@acad3.alaska.edu>
Subject: Re: Re Lad list from Phi;l
To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Message-Id: <01H7H1AT8MAU8WYUVG@mr.alaska.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X400-Mts-Identifier: [;35158090104991/2416796@ACAD3A]
Hop-Count: 0
Status: R

anchorage, alaska
IV no, WP yes, GC no

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 10 09:53:08 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA24619); Mon, 10 Jan 94 09:53:08 CST
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 09:53:08 CST
Message-Id: <9401101552.AA24608@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: BSEN055@unlvm.unl.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Heng Li <BSEN055@unlvm.unl.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject:      sign off
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Please take my E-mail off from your E-mail net. Many thanks.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 10 11:23:24 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA24900); Mon, 10 Jan 94 11:23:24 CST
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 11:23:24 CST
Message-Id: <9401101719.AA19251@vishnu.tc.cat.com>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: huangsx@vishnu.tc.cat.com
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: huangsx@vishnu.tc.cat.com (Shaun X Huang 8-2312)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Chicago lads got approaved???
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Dear netters,
	From Phili's information list I found Chicago INS APPROVED
some lads.  I applied at Chicago INS at early Sep. and immideatly
had an interview (you can file and interview together if you live
out of Chicago).  Since then, I don't get any response.  My 
principal's priority date is July 1.  My question is: Does any lad
whose priority is July 1 get any response from Chicago INS?

	your information would be great appreciated!


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 10 14:36:44 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA25172); Mon, 10 Jan 94 14:36:44 CST
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 14:36:44 CST
Message-Id: <01H7IRFZZGTEAJMWQK@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: PHILL MAHH <PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LAD List, 1/10/94
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	Thanks to all the people who provided the following info. Your help
will be appreciated by other LAD's. The following info. was from individuals,
so noly FYR.  


	"Let's do something instead of waiting!!"
	      "Good luck to us all!!" 


			Interview	Work Permit	G.C.(approaved)

Albany INS, NY		  NO	          YES       YES?(passport stamped)
Anchorage INS, Alska	  NO		  YES		   NO
Arlington INS		  NO		  YES	    	   NO	
Atlanta INS		  NO 	          YES              NO
Baltimore INS		  !!waived!!	  YES		   NO	
Boston INS, MA		  NO		  YES		   NO
Bufflo INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Charrolte INS, NC	  YES		  YES		   NO
Chicago INS		  YES		  YES		   YES	
Cincinnati INS		  YES		  YES		   ?
Cleveland INS             YES		  YES		   NO
Dallas INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Denver INS    		  NO		  YES		   NO
Detroit INS		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Indianapolis INS          NO		  YES		   NO
Helena INS, MT	    Scheduled Jan. 94	  NO(some)  	   NO
Honolulu INS 		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Houston INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Jacksonville INS, FL      YES	   	  YES		   YES?
Kansas City INS           NO		  YES		   NO
Kentucky INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
L.A. INS                  NO              YES              NO
(Westminter INS, L.A.)	Scheduling May 94 YES		   NO
Memphis INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Miami INS		  YES		  YES	           NO
Milwaukee INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Newark	INS		  YES		  YES	         wait:quote
New Orleans INS		  NO		  YES		   NO		
New York INS              NO		  YES		   NO
Norfolk INS, VA		  YES		  YES		   NO
Oklahoma City INS	  YES		  YES		   ?
Omaha INS                 NO	          YES              NO
Orlando INS Fl		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Philadephia INS           YES             YES	           NO
Phoenix INS		  YES		  YES		   NO
Pittsburg INS             NO		  YES		   NO
Portland INS		  NO		  YES	           NO
Sacramento INS, CA	  NO 		  YES		   NO
Salt Lake City INS	  YES		  YES		  !!yes!!
San Antonio INS   	  YES		  YES		   NO		
San Diago INS		  NO(maybe waived)YES		   NO
St. Louis INS	          YES		  YES	   	   NO
Seattle INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Spokane INS, WA		  NO		  YES		   NO
Tampa City INS, FL	  YES		  YES		  wait:q
Twin Citis INS            NO		  YES		   NO
_________________________________________________________________________
total: 	44 INS's    20  Y's + 2 waived	 almost ALL	 3 for sure!
_________________________________________________________________________

Here are comments that came from the LAD's who provided the above info.:

Comments on              		Comments
------------            ---------------------------------------------------
Albany INS, NY		"...my friend got their passports stamped for both his
			wife and his son without their appearance..."

Chicago INS		"those who filed before 10/1 and have priority date 6/
			30 have gotten approved..."

Baltimore INS		"...interview waived, and result will be in in 60
			to 90 days."

Boston INS		"...they asked us to file in person and the filing
			process looked like an interview. They asked a lot
			questions and checked doc.'s carefully..."

Chicago INS		"...the only thing they said in the interview was it
			takes time for processing...I didnot get anything 
			thereafter..."

Jacksonville INS, FL	"...LAD's who filed before 8/05 got interviews and 
			even approved...it turned out that the INS didn't know
			how to handle LAD's by then. All applc.'s are pending
			now..."

Memphis INS 		"no interview, but they sent me a letter, asked me 
			for new f.p...."

Miami INS               "...after a friendly interview, the officer told me 
			to wait for 60 day FBI check...I think most LAD's 
			here have been intrvw'd..."

Newark INS		"..after interview, the officer told me that my
			application has been approaved. However, I had to 
			wait for quota. He gave a phone number for quota..."

New Orleans INS		"...turned out that the lady who is in charge of f.p.
			is having a surgery, but no substitution for her..."
			(My thought: God bless you well, the lady!?)

Philadephia INS		"...the interviewing officer finally told me that I
			am ELIGIBLE for status adjustment, but gave me no
			formal aprroaval..."

Salt Lake City INS	"Yes, I got an interview, and I know that some LAD
			here has already received real G.C.!!...however, there
			are people that I know that are waiting for nothing,
			but their priority dates are usually late..."(My first 
			thought in mind: Happy New Year, my friend!)

San Antonio INS		"Yes, interviewed, but...no quota, waiting for it..." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

	If you want to add more info. to the list, please send your mail to
PHILKU@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU, or simply reply this mail. Your help will be
appreciated by all of your peer LAD's.    
						Yours, Phil.                       	    	  	

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 10 15:05:37 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA25294); Mon, 10 Jan 94 15:05:37 CST
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 15:05:37 CST
Message-Id: <9401102058.AA32957@orion.it.luc.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xqin@orion.it.luc.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: xqin@orion.it.luc.edu (Xi Qin)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: lads as B-2
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi,
    Does any one have the same situation as the following, if you do,
I would appreciate any infomation from you and thank you in advance.
    I have PR through CSPA.  My daughter came from China in November.
I would like to keep her here with me, and I already filed I-824 before
she came, but I only got a receipt in September, no further actions so
far as I know.
    My question is what would be appropriate further step which I should
take to get her PR process start going?
    Any comments or suggestions are very welcome!!

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 10 16:58:56 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA25564); Mon, 10 Jan 94 16:58:56 CST
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 16:58:56 CST
Message-Id: <01H7IY9TKSOI8Y5RFK@neu.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: KUIJIONG@neu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: KUIJIONG@neu.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Jobs
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

A joint-venture project is looking for a pharmacologist or chemist who has knowledge of pharmaceutical production. Please contact me by E-mail.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 10 18:33:27 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA25773); Mon, 10 Jan 94 18:33:27 CST
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 18:33:27 CST
Message-Id: <9401110029.AA11543@vincent1.iastate.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: jlu@iastate.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jirong Lu <jlu@iastate.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


I could not sign off by sending mail to listserv , why?
Oh, please!


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue Jan 11 12:02:12 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA28159); Tue, 11 Jan 94 12:02:12 CST
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 12:02:12 CST
Message-Id: <9401111754.AA33199@orion.it.luc.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xqin@orion.it.luc.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: xqin@orion.it.luc.edu (Xi Qin)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: I-151
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi,
    Does any one know what is form I-151 or I-551 and where to get them?
Your reply will be very much appreciated!!

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Wed Jan 12 10:15:30 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA01164); Wed, 12 Jan 94 10:15:30 CST
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 10:15:30 CST
Message-Id: <9401121613.AA23491@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: dt@dxo003.il10.honeywell.com
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Derek Trang <dt@dxo003.il10.honeywell.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

I am a CSPA Principal.  My daughter is a LAD.  I filed an I-130
petition for my daughter to INS Northern Service Center two months
ago.  I am just notified that the petition has been approved, and
my daughter should go to local INS to file an I-485 for herself.
Can anyone tell if this is normal?  I heard some other lads have
got approved after they filed I-130 (without going to local INS
to file another I-485).  I am not sure if this is true.  Can
anyone clarify it for me?  Thanks.


Derek


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Wed Jan 12 16:21:06 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA01841); Wed, 12 Jan 94 16:21:06 CST
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 16:21:06 CST
Message-Id: <9401122219.AA01831@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: YILIN3@ua1vm.ua.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: YILIN3@ua1vm.ua.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject:      Atlanta starts interviewing Lads
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, Folks:

    I got a letter from Atlanta INS today. It says my application for PR
    has been retained for processing and my interview is scheduled on
    Feb. 14. Good news, isn't it?

    Good luck everybody!

A friend

--------

a test sig













From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Wed Jan 12 17:25:23 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA02035); Wed, 12 Jan 94 17:25:23 CST
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 17:25:23 CST
Message-Id: <9401122318.AA15949@orion.it.luc.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xqin@orion.it.luc.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: xqin@orion.it.luc.edu (Xi Qin)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: i-130
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi,
    Does anyone have experience filling I-130?  I have the following
questions:
    1.  Does we really have to submit the origional greed card
and the original birth certificate?  It seems that the form ask
for all the original documentation.
    2.  Do we need to submit I-134 as we did for I-485 or I-824?


Any comments will be highly appreciated!

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Wed Jan 12 22:24:05 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA02819); Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:24:05 CST
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 22:24:05 CST
Message-Id: <9401130419.AA03281@laser.Berkeley.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xzhang@laser.berkeley.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: xzhang@laser.berkeley.edu (Xiang Zhang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, there, 

   I am writting for my friend for related issures regarding lad in           
China. His wife is still in China. He'd like exchange ideas and         
information on how to help those lad to come over to U.S. He is also
like to form a small group who has the same interest of lad in China.
Please direct mail to xzhang@laser.berkeley.edu so I can forward it
to him.  Any latest news on this issure is welcome.

Thanks.

xzhang@laser.berkeley.edu

p.s.  please title your mail with "Lad in China" when you send it to me.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 13 07:03:31 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA04256); Thu, 13 Jan 94 07:03:31 CST
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 07:03:30 CST
Message-Id: <199401131258.HAA06215@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: liawang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Lianqing Wang <liawang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Lad net needs new host, new committee, and probably new Mi Mi Sr.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Dear Mi Mi Sr.

When you say that "the work together with INS has failed", do you mean that our
group no long work with INS any more?  Another question is is that possible to 
have Dr. Zhao Haiqing and IFCSS to work for this LAD isuue?

I hope IFCSS have not forgot the issue.

L. Wang

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 13 08:39:26 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA04491); Thu, 13 Jan 94 08:39:26 CST
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 08:39:26 CST
Message-Id: <9401131435.AA08405@csgrad.cs.vt.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: liu@csgrad.cs.vt.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Xiangdong Liu <liu@csgrad.cs.vt.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: How to renew work permit?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi everyone!  Now that my LAD is still waiting for reply from INS after
submitting GC application in August, 1993, she needs to renew her work 
permit because the local INS only gave 6 month WP.  Does anyone know
the procedure to renew WP?  Is it possible to write to INS?  How soon
would they reply this kind of request?  Or it's much better to show
up in INS in person?
 

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 13 08:46:35 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA04534); Thu, 13 Jan 94 08:46:35 CST
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 08:46:35 CST
Message-Id: <9401131434.AA02195@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

For filing I-130, you CAN COPY your GC. It is legal now to send in photocopies.
Mi Mi Sr.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 13 19:58:33 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA05635); Thu, 13 Jan 94 19:58:33 CST
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 19:58:33 CST
Message-Id: <199401140145.RAA29837@stanclinpharm.Stanford.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: tang@stanclinpharm.stanford.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: tang@stanclinpharm.stanford.edu (Jian-ping Tang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: LAD in China
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

I got a mssg this morning. Someone in Berkeley like to group a network for the
person who has LAD in China.  I think that is a good idear.  However, 
accidentally I deleted that infor. by hitting a wrong key.  Could someone who 
still has that mssg can provide me some information about how to contact the 
gentleman in Berkeley.  

Many thanks.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri Jan 14 12:37:57 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08133); Fri, 14 Jan 94 12:37:57 CST
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 94 12:37:57 CST
Message-Id: <01H7O8HFDA4IANC494@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: PHILL MAHH <PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LAD LIST, 1/14/94.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	Thanks to all the people who provided the following info. Your help
will be appreciated by other LAD's. The following info. was from individuals,
so noly FYR.  


	"Let's do something instead of waiting!!"
	      "Good luck to us all!!" 


			Interview	Work Permit	G.C.(approaved)

Albany INS, NY		  NO	          YES       YES?(passport stamped)
Anchorage INS, Alska	  NO		  YES		   NO
Arlington INS		  NO		  YES	    	   NO	
Atlanta INS		Sched. Feb.14     YES              NO
Baltimore INS		  !!waived!!	  YES		   NO	
Boston INS, MA		  NO		  YES		   NO
Bufflo INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Charrolte INS, NC	  YES		  YES		   NO
Chicago INS		  YES		  YES		   YES	
Cincinnati INS		  YES		  YES		   ?
Cleveland INS             YES		  YES		   NO
Dallas INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Denver INS    		  NO		  YES		   NO
Detroit INS		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Indianapolis INS          NO		  YES		   NO
Helena INS, MT	    Scheduled Jan. 94	  NO(some)  	   NO
Honolulu INS 		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Houston INS		  YES		  YES		 wait:quote
Jacksonville INS, FL      YES	   	  YES		   YES?
Kansas City INS           NO		  YES		   NO
Kentucky INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
L.A. INS                  NO              YES              NO
(Westminter INS, L.A.)	Scheduling May 94 YES		   NO
Memphis INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Miami INS		  YES		  YES	           NO
Milwaukee INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Newark	INS		  YES		  YES	         wait:quote
New Orleans INS		  NO		  YES		   NO		
New York INS              NO		  YES		   NO
Norfolk INS, VA		  YES		  YES		   NO
Oklahoma City INS	  YES		  YES		   ?
Omaha INS                 NO	          YES              NO
Orlando INS Fl		  YES		  YES		 Wait:quote
Philadephia INS           YES             YES	           NO
Phoenix INS		  YES		  YES		   NO
Pittsburg INS             NO		  YES		   NO
Portland INS		  NO		  YES	           NO
Sacramento INS, CA	  NO 		  YES		   NO
Salt Lake City INS	  YES		  YES		  !!yes!!
San Antonio INS   	  YES		  YES		   NO		
San Diago INS		  NO(maybe waived)YES		   NO
St. Louis INS	          YES		  YES	   	   NO
Seattle INS		  NO		  YES		   NO
Spokane INS, WA		  NO		  YES		   NO
Tampa City INS, FL	  YES		  YES		  wait:q
Twin Citis INS            NO		  YES		   NO
_________________________________________________________________________
total: 	44 INS's    21  Y's + 2 waived	 almost ALL	 3 for sure!
_________________________________________________________________________

Here are comments that came from the LAD's who provided the above info.:

Comments on              		Comments
------------            ---------------------------------------------------
Albany INS, NY		"...my friend got their passports stamped for both his
			wife and his son without their appearance..."

Chicago INS		"those who filed before 10/1 and have priority date 6/
			30 have gotten approved..."

Baltimore INS		"...interview waived, and result will be in in 60
			to 90 days."

Boston INS		"...they asked us to file in person and the filing
			process looked like an interview. They asked a lot
			questions and checked doc.'s carefully..."

Chicago INS		"...the only thing they said in the interview was it
			takes time for processing...I didnot get anything 
			thereafter..."

Jacksonville INS, FL	"...LAD's who filed before 8/05 got interviews and 
			even approved...it turned out that the INS didn't know
			how to handle LAD's by then. All applc.'s are pending
			now..."

Memphis INS 		"no interview, but they sent me a letter, asked me 
			for new f.p...."

Miami INS               "...after a friendly interview, the officer told me 
			to wait for 60 day FBI check...I think most LAD's 
			here have been intrvw'd..."

Newark INS		"..after interview, the officer told me that my
			application has been approaved. However, I had to 
			wait for quota. He gave a phone number for quota..."

New Orleans INS		"...turned out that the lady who is in charge of f.p.
			is having a surgery, but no substitution for her..."
			(My thought: God bless you well, the lady!?)

Philadephia INS		"...the interviewing officer finally told me that I
			am ELIGIBLE for status adjustment, but gave me no
			formal aprroaval..."

Salt Lake City INS	"Yes, I got an interview, and I know that some LAD
			here has already received real G.C.!!...however, there
			are people that I know that are waiting for nothing,
			but their priority dates are usually late..."(My first 
			thought in mind: Happy New Year, my friend!)

San Antonio INS		"Yes, interviewed, but...no quota, waiting for it..." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

	If you want to add more info. to the list, please send your mail to
PHILKU@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU, or simply reply this mail. Your help will be
appreciated by all of your peer LAD's.    
						Yours, Phil.                       	    	  	

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan 15 00:16:56 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09607); Sat, 15 Jan 94 00:16:56 CST
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 00:16:56 CST
Message-Id: <01H7OUNM4J36006IG4@NAUVAX.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: RUIZHONG@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: RUIZHONG@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Visa Number
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Does anyone know the visa number for next month. It should have been out
by now (usually released on the tenth of the previous month), but I have
not seen it posted on the net so far. I'll appreciate if someone can post
it.
                                                   R. Wang

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue Jan 18 22:01:05 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA20311); Tue, 18 Jan 94 22:01:05 CST
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 22:01:05 CST
Message-Id: <9401190401.AA18320@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: snow@lucerne.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jun Wu <snow@lucerne.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: NCCA: REPORT ON CSPA IMPLEMENTATION (fwd)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

*******************************************************************

     NCCA:     REPORT ON CSPA IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPIRATION OF
                    THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

*******************************************************************

          DATE:     January 18,  1994

          TO:       Chinese Nationals Nationwide

          FROM:     Dr. Haiching Zhao
                    National Council on Chinese Affairs

     In the last few months, we have worked extensively on the
issue of CSPA interim rules.  The following is a summary of the
current situation regarding CSPA implementation.

     (I) OUR LOBBYING ACTIVITIES

     On September 7, 1993, NCCA sent a letter to the Department of
Justice once again raising our concerns regarding the interim
regulations.  The issues we raised included:
     (1) CSPA dependents should be under the worldwide quota
         instead of the China quota;
     (2) DED dependents eligible to adjust status in the U.S.;
     (3) 90-Day applicants eligible for case-by-case review;
     (4) Dependents over 21-year be judged at the time of filing;
     (5) Waiver of birth certificate evidence for dependents.

     Subsequently, we had a series of conversations with high level
administration officials regarding CSPA implementation.

     On December 7, 1993, NCCA received a response letter from
Phyllis Coven, Assistant to Attorney General from the Justice
Department.  In that letter, it was stated that the Justice
Department and the INS were still unwilling to put CSPA dependents
under the worldwide quota.  As a result, dependents will have to
wait under China country quota and some children may be over 21-
year by the time they can adjust.

     We also strongly feel that DED dependents should not be deemed
to have lost legal status.  However, INS maintains that DED
dependents are not directly covered by CSPA and therefore will have
to go to a third country for immigrant visa processing.

     Finally, the Justice Department letter refused to consider 90-
day applications on a case-by-case basis even if the applicant has
a legitimate reason for delaying.

     NCCA was dissatisfied with the letter from the Justice
Department.  In addition, there is another problem resulted from
the expiration of the Executive Order.  Many principal pending
applicants had their previous work authorization through Executive
Order.  When they filed CSPA applications back in July, they did
not anticipate a long delay and therefore did not file a separate
work permit application.  Upon expiration of the DED by January 1,
1994, many people would not have a legal work permit, some had
their pay-roll suspended.  In addition, many people have
encountered a variety of difficulties due to the lack of the
approval notices, such as inability to travel, to enroll into
school properly, etc.

     Therefore, on December 22, 1993, we had a meeting with
officials in the White House in charge of Multinational Affairs and
Domestic Affairs.  We emphasized on particularly two issues.  One
is the improvement of CSPA interim rule.  The other is about the
fact that many CSPA's principal applications are still pending.
Upon expiration of the Executive Order as of January 1,  1994.
Many people would have no legal work authorization.  And all 90-day
people would lose status before we could resolve the matter with
the Administration.  We proposed an extension of the Executive
Order until June 30, 1994, so that there would be enough time for
the final regulations to issue and for all to apply for CSPA
benefits.

     In response to our request, the Administration arranged what
they termed "a super tele-conference" on December 29, 1993.
Present were Phyllis Coven from the Justice Department; Paul
Virtue, Acting General Counsel of the INS; Larry Weinig, INS
Associate Commissioner for Examinations; Laura Reiff, Elaine Budd
and myself.  We reviewed all our concerns once again about the
expiration of the Executive Order as well as the work authorization
problem and other problems related to CSPA implementation.
Subsequently, we were told that according to INS, there are about
4,000 pending CSPA principal applicants in the East Regional Center
alone who have not received their approval notices.  Most of these
cases were due to request for additional information such as
resubmitting of finger print card, and also due to the fact that
since last October, the INS regional center has put CSPA pending
applicants into lower priority in their processing and instead has
concentrated on other non-CSPA cases.

     On December 30th, we were told by the Administration officials
that they have decided to direct INS Regional Service Centers to
put CSPA pending principal cases as priority and expedite all CSPA
principal applications.  The Regional Centers were directed to
complete all CSPA adjudication in the month of January.  This will
certainly help those whose Executive Order work authorization
expired on 1/1/94.  In addition, for those that qualify for CSPA
but were in DED and have not yet filed, if you run into any
problems with INS you will be allowed to file your CSPA application
before any deportation actions are taken against you.

     We believed that this is an acceptable compromise.  On one
hand, it solves the problems of many pending CSPA applications; on
the other hand, it solves the major problems such as work
authorization resulted from expiration of the DED without actually
extending the DED program which INS has a hard time to set a
precedent.

     (II) CURRENT SITUATION

     In regard to the CSPA dependent issue, we have encountered
increasing difficulties in achieving satisfactory results.  The
reasons are:

     1) In the U.S. domestic political arena, we have been against
a strong anti-immigration tide.  There are members of Congress,
officials and different interest groups fighting against us from
including any more people into CSPA.  All these make the
Administration very reluctant to make decision in our favor that
may offend other groups.

     2) We have lost tremendous momentum since July 1, 1993, when
the interim rule issued and a large number of principals were
covered.  Before the interim rule was issued, the pressure was on
the Administration to satisfy our need as a whole community in
order to ensure smooth implementation of CSPA.  Now, that pressure
has been released from the Administration and it is upon us to
appeal to the Administration to give us more.

     3) Our own voice has been dramatically weaker.  The total
number of late-arriving dependents is somewhere from 6,000 to
10,000.  This force can not be compared with close to 80,000
principals, and consequently draws a lot less attention from U.S.
policy makers.  In addition, this dependent group tend to be less
organized, less active and consequently with less power to make a
difference.

     Currently, the INS is drafting the final regulations which
supposed to be issued sometimes in February.  This would be the
only hope, if any, for the dependent issue to be resolved.

     What we have accomplished this time is the solution related to
the expiration of the Executive Order, such as pending applications
and work authorization.

     (III) FUTURE PROSPECTS AND COMMENTS

     We continue to believe that the best solution regarding the
late-arriving dependent issue is to lobby the Administration to
change in the final regulations 1) to cover the dependents under
the worldwide quota; 2) to maintain legal status for DED dependents
and 3) to grant case-by-case review policy for 90-Day cases, as
well as waiving birth certificate for dependents and the issue of
21-year children.  Even though these are our goals, as stated above
of the difficulties, we advise people to be prepared for not so
perfect results.

     We are now working closely with members of Congress and the
Administration in hopes of resolving these issues.  We will keep
you informed.  Many people have realized the importance of getting
organized and maintain a strong voice for the interest of our own
community.  Many have participated and contributed by continuing
donation to NCCA.  We want to take this opportunity to thank those
who have supported us in the past.  You can also help our effort by
making your donation or pledge to: NCCA and send to:

     National Council on Chinese Affairs
     P.O. Box 77418
     Washington, D.C. 20013-7418

     Two additional comments:

     (1) Some people have asked the distinction between NCCA and
the NCS Corporation.  NCCA is a non-profit organization, conducting
lobbying activities for the political interest of the Chinese
nationals in the U.S.  It operates on public donations and grants.

     NCS Corporation (National Chinese Service Corporation) was
formed out of the tremendous need from the Chinese community to
provide a variety of high-quality professional services.  It was in
comply to U.S. Tax code and organized as a professional private
enterprise.  Its goal is to create economic opportunities for the
Chinese community in the U.S.  It has continued to provide
immigration related legal services.  Recently, with its great
resources, it obtained a favorable contract with Northwest Airlines
to provide Chinese nationals with flexible travel programs to/from
Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong.  The discounted prices for
Northwest Airlines tickets to China are up to 40%. It is the best
price and best service in the current travel market.  For more
information regarding NCS travel program and other NCS services,
please call (202) 434-8187.

     (2) Some people also have asked the distinction between NCCA
and IFCSS.  Since 1989, many of us, myself included, have been very
active in the first three years of IFCSS activities.  Since then,
many have moved on in their career from students to become
professionals.  However, the need to maintain a strong voice on
public policy has not diminished, but rather becoming increasingly
stronger.  Out of this context, NCCA (National Council on Chinese
Affairs) was formed to reach out for a broader Chinese nationals
community.  It is an independent non-profit organization.  The
basic goals of NCCA are mainly threefold:
     (1) To promote human rights improvements and political reform
in China;
     (2) To encourage and facilitate the development of a free
market economy in China;
     (3)To protect the rights and interests of the Chinese
community which includes Chinese nationals and overseas Chinese in
the U.S.

/end


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 20 16:25:38 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA25244); Thu, 20 Jan 94 16:25:38 CST
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 16:25:38 CST
Message-Id: <9401202224.AA25234@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "b" <C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi: Does anyone know the result of the out-state-tuition for LADs? Is possible
 for LAD to waive the out-state-tuition? Is possible for them to get the refund
 from 4/11/90? Your response will be greatly appreciated.   1/20/94

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan 22 08:03:08 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA00107); Sat, 22 Jan 94 08:03:08 CST
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 08:03:08 CST
Message-Id: <9401220858.tn92787@aol.com>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: huy@aol.com
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: huy@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LAD in Boston
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Has any LAD in Boston area got a receipt notice for his/her application (the
blue I-797 form) with an A number on the notice? reply to HUY@aol.com

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan 22 11:32:45 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA00623); Sat, 22 Jan 94 11:32:45 CST
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 11:32:45 CST
Message-Id: <9401221729.AA24955@hippocrates.ss.uci.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: wlu@hippocrates.ss.uci.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: wlu@hippocrates.ss.uci.edu (Wei Lu)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Subject: Approved for my dependent in China.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, my wife in China got her approvals both in family catergory and in employment catergory after I got my PR approval through CSPA. She was told by the US Consulate in Guangzhou to wait for visa, that is, quota in either catergories whichever comes first

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun Jan 23 18:27:31 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA03766); Sun, 23 Jan 94 18:27:31 CST
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 18:27:31 CST
Message-Id: <01H817ELS5FO9TGEI6@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: RJIN@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: RJIN@vms.cis.pitt.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


My friend who is principle has a child over 21-year-old, who is not marries in 
U.S. now. He is facing to apply a non-immigration visa. Can he apply PR follow
his parent before he get that non-immigration visa? Will this affact his non-
immigration visa applying? Is there any person with the same situation as my 
friend? Any response will be appreciated!!
Thank you for your concerning!!

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 24 06:09:31 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA05555); Mon, 24 Jan 94 06:09:31 CST
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 06:09:31 CST
Message-Id: <A7AF1F6279@CHENNOV1.TAMU.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: W0F6718@chennov1.tamu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: W0F6718@chennov1.tamu.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject:      CSPA immigrant wife
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, I am a CSPAer and already get the Green Card. My priority date
was July 1, 1993. I am going to get married pretty soon. After I get
married, I don't know whether or not my wife can file her application
for adjustment of her status in employment category or family
category? Is the visa number available at present for the above two
categories? If my wife cannot file her application, what can she do
to maintain her status because she is going to graduate very soon?

Thank you for your kind attention. Any response is greately
appreciated.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 24 09:27:25 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06049); Mon, 24 Jan 94 09:27:25 CST
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 09:27:25 CST
Message-Id: <9401241516.AA08039@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


RJIN@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:

My friend who is principle has a child over 21-year-old, who is not marries in
U.S. now. He is facing to apply a non-immigration visa. Can he apply PR follow
his parent before he get that non-immigration visa? Will this affact his non-
immigration visa applying? Is there any person with the same situation as my
friend? Any response will be appreciated!!
Thank you for your concerning!!


Mi Mi Sr writes: As far as I gathered from various sources, if this child
has applied immigrant visa, the consular will deny his/her non-immigration
visa on the base on "immigration intent". Please read CSPA and INA carefuly.
INS does not want to see any potential immigrant to apply non-immigrant
visas.

Mi Mi Sr.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue Jan 25 23:29:10 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09469); Tue, 25 Jan 94 23:29:10 CST
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 23:29:09 CST
Message-Id: <9401260529.AA01502@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: snow@lucerne.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jun Wu <snow@lucerne.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: rice's network outage
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

	Due to hacker's damage, Rice was cutoff from Internet for
the last several days. If you do not see your post and did not receive
any bounce mail yet, please wait for one more day before you
repost. Since your computer was probably queuing up your post and
will deliever it once it finds out network connection to Rice was
resumed. Thanks.


Jun
-- 
                                 ^-^    Owlnet
                                (O O)   School of Engineering Network
                                ( v )
       o o o o o o . . .    __=--m-m--=_T__ ____======_T__ ____========_T_____
     o      _____          ||             | |            | |               |
   .][__n_n_|DD[  ====____  |   Jun  Wu   | |  ECE Rice  | | Snow@Rice.EDU | |
  >(________|__|_[________]_|_____________|_|____________|_|_______________|_|
 __/oo OOOOO oo`  ooo  ooo  'o^o       o^o` 'o^o      o^o` 'o^o         o^o`

From hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu  Wed Jan 26 13:57:57 1994
Received: by spike.rice.edu (AA12178); Wed, 26 Jan 94 13:59:29 CST
Received: from xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu by spike.rice.edu (AA12167); Wed, 26 Jan 94 13:57:57 CST
Received: by xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C)
	id AA09445; Wed, 26 Jan 94 14:46:37 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 14:46:37 -0500
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
Message-Id: <9401261946.AA09445@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
To: lads@spike.rice.edu
X-Delivery-Note: This mail was relayed by LADnet. Authorized posting ONLY.

>From <@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU:owner-ccnl@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU> Wed Jan 26 14:11:17 1994
Received: from UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU by UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 1410; Wed, 26 Jan 94 13:13:55 CST
Received: from UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UTARLVM1) by
 UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6942; Wed,
 26 Jan 1994 13:04:55 -0600
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 1994 13:48:46 EST
Reply-To: Jack Gong <gong@WELBY.DARTMOUTH.EDU>
Sender: Newsletter on Chinese Community <CCNL@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU>
>From: Jack Gong <gong@WELBY.DARTMOUTH.EDU>
Subject:      THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. (fwd
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list CCNL <CCNL@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU>
Status: R

>
>
>
> Dear friends,                                        (Jan. 24, 1994)
>
> Thank you very much for your support.
>
> We have legislations from both the Senate (legislation S. 618, see CND-US
> issues on Dec.12, 1993 and Dec.18, 1993) and the House of Representatives
> (legislation H.R. 3182). They are in the Judiciary Committees. Only after
> committees vote for it, other congress people have a chance to vote.
> Letters/phones to those committee members are the most important thing to do
> at the moment. Names and addresses are listed in the following paragraphs.
> CND did not distribute the following message last December. I think that is
> because of it length. I made some modifications now.
> Please make changes before sending your letters out.
> One thing I didn't mention in my sample letters is that the law should stop
> illegal immigrants and help legal resident-family. Remember we also pay lots
> of taxes.
> Of course, the simplest letter would be just state
> "please support legislations S.618 and H.R. 3182",
> but it would be more effective
> to tell them more information so that it's more likely you can get reply.
> All the information I released are the results of my 30 letters and 10 phone
> calls. Every single person can make a difference.
>
> Besides the 4 states I mentioned in my text, there are people from other
> 7 states pledged their support by the 5pm Jan.24. Please let me know if
> I got your state wrong. I will try to reply some messages individually.
>
> I will still try to persuade CND-US to distribute the long message. Suggestion
s
> are welcome.
>
> If you know how to distribute message to CCNL, USENET, TALK.POLITICS.CHINA
> and SOC.CULTURE.CHINA, please let me know.
>
> I will keep you informed of any news regarding the family reunion legislations
.  
>
> Fei Xiang, Ph.D
> Connecticut
>
> ******************************************************************************
*
> Re: Help needed for pushing the legislation S.618 through the
>       U.S. Senate
> From: FEI@BNLDAG.AGS.BNL.GOV
>
> My article about a family unity bill S.618 pending in the U.S. Senate
> was published in the Dec.12/93 issue of China News Digest -U.S.
> Regional (CND-US). The Dec.18/93 issue disclosed the text of the
> legislation which would make it easier for spouses and children of
> permanent residents to enter the United States on visitor or student
> visas while they await their permanent residency.
> A somewhat similar legislation is also proposed in the House (H.R. 3182).
>
> The bill S.618 is in the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate. A staff
> member of Senator Kennedy felt that the bill would not have a chance
> if they could not get public support. After some discussions with
> concerned people, it is clear that we have to form our network to
> support congress passing the bill. The bill H.R. 3182 is in the Judiciary
> Committee of the House. I will take the responsibility of
> organizing the activity. Some people have expressed their willingness
> to work on this issue. We need to have coordinators in every state to
> help the lobby effort. If you want to work on this, please send
> me an e-mail message.
> Currently we have coordinators in the following states:
> Connecticut, Massachusetts, California and New Mexico.
> Clearly we need much more people to get involved, especially those
> who are in the states with senators and representatives in the immigration
> (sub)committees and judiciary committees.
>
> We should let people know the situation and ask all the interested
> people to lobby senators and representatives and get a new
> law like S. 618. I drafted some short letters for your convenience.
> Please        make a few changes before sending out. Also please let me
> know any errors in name, address and telephone numbers.
>
> *****: To those senators who introduced the bill S.618, we
>       say thanks and give them our support:
>            RIEGLE, KENNEDY, SIMON, DECONCINI, HATFIELD, GLENN, ROBB, and LEVIN
.  
>
> Sample letter 1.
>
> The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
> U.S. Senator
> SR-315 Russell Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC 20510
>
> Dear Mr. Kennedy:
>
> Thank you very much for introducing the bill S. 618
> (with Mr. Riegle, Mr. Simon, Mr. DeConcini, Mr.Hatfield, Mr. Glenn,
> Mr. Robb, and Mr. Levin in the Senate) to amend the Immigration and
> Nationality Act to permit the admission to the United States of
> nonimmigrant students and visitors who are the spouses and children
> of United States permanent resident aliens, and for other purposes.
>
> According to the Visa Bulletin of the U.S. State Department,
> spouses and children of permanent
> residents have to wait for more than 2.5 years to obtain  immigration
> visas. We should note that the actual waiting time
> is much longer despite the plan of increasing visa numbers in the
> future.       At the same time, they could not get nonimmigration visas to
> visit this country because the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad
> will deny them visas on the ground of the "immigration intent".
> A separation of family members for a such long period creates
> hardships......
> For the sake of millions of family members (and future U.S.
> citizens) involved, it is of great importance to pass this bill with
> your help.
>
> Thank you again for your consideration of this issue. Your effort will
> be greatly appreciated.
>
>                               Sincerely,
>                               Signature
>
> *****: Letters write to members of the Judiciary Committee of the
>       Senate (other than the above mentioned senators): ask for
>       their support.
>       Address: Senator *****
>                Committee on the Judiciary
>                United States Senate
>                Washington, DC 20510-6275
> Full list of the members:
>       Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman
> Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts   Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
> Howard M. Metzenbaum, Ohio         Strom Thurmond, South Carolina
> Dennis DeConcini, Arizona          Alan. K. Simpson, Wyoming
> Patrick K. Leahy, Vermont          Charles E. Grassley, Iowa
> Howell Heflin, Alabama             Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
> Paul Simon, Illinois               Hank Brown, Colorado
> Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin            William S. Cohen, Maine
> Deanne Feinstein, California       Larry Pressler, South Dakota
> Carol Moseley-Braun, Illinois
>
> Sample letter 2.
>
> The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
> U.S. Senator
> Committee on the Judiciary
> United State Senate
> Washington, DC 20510-6275
>
> Dear Mr. Biden:
>
> I am writing in regard to  the family unity issue for some permanent
> residents in this country.
>
> According to the Visa Bulletin of the U.S. State Department,
> spouses and children of permanent
> residents have to wait for more than 2.5 years to obtain  immigration
> visas. We should note that the actual waiting time is much longer since
> the quota date moves only two weeks for every month. As a result, the
> 2.5 years waiting period at the present time could mean 5 years or
> more despite the plan of increasing visa numbers in the future.
> At the same time, they could not get nonimmigration visas to visit
> this country because the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad will
> deny them visas on the ground of the "immigration intent". A separation
> of family members for a such long period creates  hardships.
> It is of great importance to have  a new rule to speed up family
> unity with your help. You are not only helping the family members of
> the permanent residents, but also future U.S. citizens.
>
> In the Senate of the United States,
> Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.
> HATFIELD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. ROBB, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the bill
> S. 618 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the
> admission to the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors
> who are the spouses and children of United States permanent resident
> aliens, and for other purposes.
>
> This bill addresses the concern many people raised. We ask your support
> for the bill.......
>
>       Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
>
>                               Sincerely,
>                               Signature
>
> *****: Write to members of the House in the immigration subcommittee:
> Should ask :Please support legislation H.R. 3182.
>
> Sample letter 3.
>
> The Honorable Romano L. Mazzoli
> Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
> U.S. House of Representatives
> Washington, DC 20515
>
> Dear Mr. Mazzoli:
>
> I am writing in regard to  the family unity issue for some permanent
> residents in this country.
>
> According to the Visa Bulletin of the U.S. State Department,
> spouses and children of permanent
> residents have to wait for more than 2.5 years to obtain  immigration
> visas. We should note that the actual waiting time is much longer since
> the quota date moves only two weeks for every month. As a result, the
> 2.5 years waiting period at the present time could mean 5 years or
> more despite the plan of increasing visa numbers in the future.
> At the same time, they could not get nonimmigration visas to visit
> this country because the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad will
> deny them visas on the ground of the "immigration intent". A separation
> of family members for a such long period creates  hardships.
> It is of great importance to have  a new rule to speed up family
> unity with your help. You are not only helping the family members of
> the permanent residents, but also future U.S. citizens.
>
> H.R. 3182 seeks to address this problem by designating a special "nonimmigrant
"
> status for the spouse and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal residents.
> The spouse would not be automatically granted permanent resident status, but
> the family would be able to enter the United States. In the interest of
> protecting American jobs, the bill prohibits the spouse from working in the
> U.S. and states that if the marriage ends, so does the special status.
> This bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it has bee
n
> the subject of hearings in the Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration,
> and Refugees.
>
> I would like to suggest that spouses of U.S. residents should be allowed to
> go to schools in the U.S. so that they can contribute greatly to the society
> in the future.
>
> In the Senate of the United States,
> Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.
> HATFIELD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. ROBB, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the bill
> S. 618 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the
> admission to the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors
> who are the spouses and children of United States permanent resident
> aliens, and for other purposes.
>
> Please support the family unity legislations...
>
>       Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
>
>                               Sincerely,
>                               Signature
>
> House subcommittee on international law, immigration and refugees
> Washington, DC 20515
>
> Romano L. Mazzoli, D-KY, Chair  (202) 225-5401
> 2246 Rayburn House Office Building
>
> Charles E. Schumer, D-NY     (202) 225-6616
> 2412 Rayburn House Office Building
>
> John Bryant, D-TX   (202) 225-2231
> 205 Cannon House Office Building
>
> George E. Sangemeister, D-IL   (202) 225-3635
> 1032 Longworth House Office Building
>
> Jerrold Nadler, D-NY   (202) 225-5635
> 424 Cannon House Office Building
>
> Xavier Becerra, D-CA   (202) 225-6235
> 1710 Longworth House Office Building
>
> Bill McCollum, R-FL (202) 225-2176
> 2266 Rayburn House Office Building
>
> Lamar Smith, R-TX   (202) 225-4236
> 2443  Rayburn House Office Building
>
> Elton Gallegly, R-CA (202) 225-5811
> 2443  Rayburn House Office Building
>
> Charles T. Canady, R-FL (202) 225-1252
> 1107 Longworth House Office Building
>
> *****Write to U.S. Senators and Representatives in your state.
> Names, addresses and phone numbers are available in your local
> telephone book under the section Government & Municipal Guide.
>
> One week after you send out letters, please call them in your state
> and ask their reactions, and also urge them for help again.
> I would like  to collect information in the next 2 weeks and prepare
> for further action when Congress is in session.
> We will also need U.S. citizens' support (we need to collect their
> signatures), which shall be dealt with soon.
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
>
>


From hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu  Wed Jan 26 13:59:16 1994
Received: by spike.rice.edu (AA12189); Wed, 26 Jan 94 14:00:43 CST
Received: from xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu by spike.rice.edu (AA12170); Wed, 26 Jan 94 13:59:16 CST
Received: by xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C)
	id AA09449; Wed, 26 Jan 94 14:46:54 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 14:46:54 -0500
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
Message-Id: <9401261946.AA09449@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
To: lads@spike.rice.edu
X-Delivery-Note: This mail was relayed by LADnet. Authorized posting ONLY.

>From <@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU:owner-ccnl@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU> Wed Jan 26 14:11:17 1994
Received: from UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU by UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 1410; Wed, 26 Jan 94 13:13:55 CST
Received: from UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UTARLVM1) by
 UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6942; Wed,
 26 Jan 1994 13:04:55 -0600
Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 1994 13:48:46 EST
Reply-To: Jack Gong <gong@WELBY.DARTMOUTH.EDU>
Sender: Newsletter on Chinese Community <CCNL@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU>
>From: Jack Gong <gong@WELBY.DARTMOUTH.EDU>
Subject:      THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. (fwd
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list CCNL <CCNL@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU>
Status: R

>
>
>
> Dear friends,                                        (Jan. 24, 1994)
>
> Thank you very much for your support.
>
> We have legislations from both the Senate (legislation S. 618, see CND-US
> issues on Dec.12, 1993 and Dec.18, 1993) and the House of Representatives
> (legislation H.R. 3182). They are in the Judiciary Committees. Only after
> committees vote for it, other congress people have a chance to vote.
> Letters/phones to those committee members are the most important thing to do
> at the moment. Names and addresses are listed in the following paragraphs.
> CND did not distribute the following message last December. I think that is
> because of it length. I made some modifications now.
> Please make changes before sending your letters out.
> One thing I didn't mention in my sample letters is that the law should stop
> illegal immigrants and help legal resident-family. Remember we also pay lots
> of taxes.
> Of course, the simplest letter would be just state
> "please support legislations S.618 and H.R. 3182",
> but it would be more effective
> to tell them more information so that it's more likely you can get reply.
> All the information I released are the results of my 30 letters and 10 phone
> calls. Every single person can make a difference.
>
> Besides the 4 states I mentioned in my text, there are people from other
> 7 states pledged their support by the 5pm Jan.24. Please let me know if
> I got your state wrong. I will try to reply some messages individually.
>
> I will still try to persuade CND-US to distribute the long message. Suggestion
s
> are welcome.
>
> If you know how to distribute message to CCNL, USENET, TALK.POLITICS.CHINA
> and SOC.CULTURE.CHINA, please let me know.
>
> I will keep you informed of any news regarding the family reunion legislations
.  
>
> Fei Xiang, Ph.D
> Connecticut
>
> ******************************************************************************
*
> Re: Help needed for pushing the legislation S.618 through the
>       U.S. Senate
> From: FEI@BNLDAG.AGS.BNL.GOV
>
> My article about a family unity bill S.618 pending in the U.S. Senate
> was published in the Dec.12/93 issue of China News Digest -U.S.
> Regional (CND-US). The Dec.18/93 issue disclosed the text of the
> legislation which would make it easier for spouses and children of
> permanent residents to enter the United States on visitor or student
> visas while they await their permanent residency.
> A somewhat similar legislation is also proposed in the House (H.R. 3182).
>
> The bill S.618 is in the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate. A staff
> member of Senator Kennedy felt that the bill would not have a chance
> if they could not get public support. After some discussions with
> concerned people, it is clear that we have to form our network to
> support congress passing the bill. The bill H.R. 3182 is in the Judiciary
> Committee of the House. I will take the responsibility of
> organizing the activity. Some people have expressed their willingness
> to work on this issue. We need to have coordinators in every state to
> help the lobby effort. If you want to work on this, please send
> me an e-mail message.
> Currently we have coordinators in the following states:
> Connecticut, Massachusetts, California and New Mexico.
> Clearly we need much more people to get involved, especially those
> who are in the states with senators and representatives in the immigration
> (sub)committees and judiciary committees.
>
> We should let people know the situation and ask all the interested
> people to lobby senators and representatives and get a new
> law like S. 618. I drafted some short letters for your convenience.
> Please        make a few changes before sending out. Also please let me
> know any errors in name, address and telephone numbers.
>
> *****: To those senators who introduced the bill S.618, we
>       say thanks and give them our support:
>            RIEGLE, KENNEDY, SIMON, DECONCINI, HATFIELD, GLENN, ROBB, and LEVIN
.  
>
> Sample letter 1.
>
> The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
> U.S. Senator
> SR-315 Russell Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC 20510
>
> Dear Mr. Kennedy:
>
> Thank you very much for introducing the bill S. 618
> (with Mr. Riegle, Mr. Simon, Mr. DeConcini, Mr.Hatfield, Mr. Glenn,
> Mr. Robb, and Mr. Levin in the Senate) to amend the Immigration and
> Nationality Act to permit the admission to the United States of
> nonimmigrant students and visitors who are the spouses and children
> of United States permanent resident aliens, and for other purposes.
>
> According to the Visa Bulletin of the U.S. State Department,
> spouses and children of permanent
> residents have to wait for more than 2.5 years to obtain  immigration
> visas. We should note that the actual waiting time
> is much longer despite the plan of increasing visa numbers in the
> future.       At the same time, they could not get nonimmigration visas to
> visit this country because the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad
> will deny them visas on the ground of the "immigration intent".
> A separation of family members for a such long period creates
> hardships......
> For the sake of millions of family members (and future U.S.
> citizens) involved, it is of great importance to pass this bill with
> your help.
>
> Thank you again for your consideration of this issue. Your effort will
> be greatly appreciated.
>
>                               Sincerely,
>                               Signature
>
> *****: Letters write to members of the Judiciary Committee of the
>       Senate (other than the above mentioned senators): ask for
>       their support.
>       Address: Senator *****
>                Committee on the Judiciary
>                United States Senate
>                Washington, DC 20510-6275
> Full list of the members:
>       Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman
> Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts   Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
> Howard M. Metzenbaum, Ohio         Strom Thurmond, South Carolina
> Dennis DeConcini, Arizona          Alan. K. Simpson, Wyoming
> Patrick K. Leahy, Vermont          Charles E. Grassley, Iowa
> Howell Heflin, Alabama             Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
> Paul Simon, Illinois               Hank Brown, Colorado
> Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin            William S. Cohen, Maine
> Deanne Feinstein, California       Larry Pressler, South Dakota
> Carol Moseley-Braun, Illinois
>
> Sample letter 2.
>
> The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
> U.S. Senator
> Committee on the Judiciary
> United State Senate
> Washington, DC 20510-6275
>
> Dear Mr. Biden:
>
> I am writing in regard to  the family unity issue for some permanent
> residents in this country.
>
> According to the Visa Bulletin of the U.S. State Department,
> spouses and children of permanent
> residents have to wait for more than 2.5 years to obtain  immigration
> visas. We should note that the actual waiting time is much longer since
> the quota date moves only two weeks for every month. As a result, the
> 2.5 years waiting period at the present time could mean 5 years or
> more despite the plan of increasing visa numbers in the future.
> At the same time, they could not get nonimmigration visas to visit
> this country because the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad will
> deny them visas on the ground of the "immigration intent". A separation
> of family members for a such long period creates  hardships.
> It is of great importance to have  a new rule to speed up family
> unity with your help. You are not only helping the family members of
> the permanent residents, but also future U.S. citizens.
>
> In the Senate of the United States,
> Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.
> HATFIELD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. ROBB, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the bill
> S. 618 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the
> admission to the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors
> who are the spouses and children of United States permanent resident
> aliens, and for other purposes.
>
> This bill addresses the concern many people raised. We ask your support
> for the bill.......
>
>       Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
>
>                               Sincerely,
>                               Signature
>
> *****: Write to members of the House in the immigration subcommittee:
> Should ask :Please support legislation H.R. 3182.
>
> Sample letter 3.
>
> The Honorable Romano L. Mazzoli
> Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
> U.S. House of Representatives
> Washington, DC 20515
>
> Dear Mr. Mazzoli:
>
> I am writing in regard to  the family unity issue for some permanent
> residents in this country.
>
> According to the Visa Bulletin of the U.S. State Department,
> spouses and children of permanent
> residents have to wait for more than 2.5 years to obtain  immigration
> visas. We should note that the actual waiting time is much longer since
> the quota date moves only two weeks for every month. As a result, the
> 2.5 years waiting period at the present time could mean 5 years or
> more despite the plan of increasing visa numbers in the future.
> At the same time, they could not get nonimmigration visas to visit
> this country because the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad will
> deny them visas on the ground of the "immigration intent". A separation
> of family members for a such long period creates  hardships.
> It is of great importance to have  a new rule to speed up family
> unity with your help. You are not only helping the family members of
> the permanent residents, but also future U.S. citizens.
>
> H.R. 3182 seeks to address this problem by designating a special "nonimmigrant
"
> status for the spouse and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal residents.
> The spouse would not be automatically granted permanent resident status, but
> the family would be able to enter the United States. In the interest of
> protecting American jobs, the bill prohibits the spouse from working in the
> U.S. and states that if the marriage ends, so does the special status.
> This bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it has bee
n
> the subject of hearings in the Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration,
> and Refugees.
>
> I would like to suggest that spouses of U.S. residents should be allowed to
> go to schools in the U.S. so that they can contribute greatly to the society
> in the future.
>
> In the Senate of the United States,
> Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.
> HATFIELD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. ROBB, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the bill
> S. 618 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the
> admission to the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors
> who are the spouses and children of United States permanent resident
> aliens, and for other purposes.
>
> Please support the family unity legislations...
>
>       Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
>
>                               Sincerely,
>                               Signature
>
> House subcommittee on international law, immigration and refugees
> Washington, DC 20515
>
> Romano L. Mazzoli, D-KY, Chair  (202) 225-5401
> 2246 Rayburn House Office Building
>
> Charles E. Schumer, D-NY     (202) 225-6616
> 2412 Rayburn House Office Building
>
> John Bryant, D-TX   (202) 225-2231
> 205 Cannon House Office Building
>
> George E. Sangemeister, D-IL   (202) 225-3635
> 1032 Longworth House Office Building
>
> Jerrold Nadler, D-NY   (202) 225-5635
> 424 Cannon House Office Building
>
> Xavier Becerra, D-CA   (202) 225-6235
> 1710 Longworth House Office Building
>
> Bill McCollum, R-FL (202) 225-2176
> 2266 Rayburn House Office Building
>
> Lamar Smith, R-TX   (202) 225-4236
> 2443  Rayburn House Office Building
>
> Elton Gallegly, R-CA (202) 225-5811
> 2443  Rayburn House Office Building
>
> Charles T. Canady, R-FL (202) 225-1252
> 1107 Longworth House Office Building
>
> *****Write to U.S. Senators and Representatives in your state.
> Names, addresses and phone numbers are available in your local
> telephone book under the section Government & Municipal Guide.
>
> One week after you send out letters, please call them in your state
> and ask their reactions, and also urge them for help again.
> I would like  to collect information in the next 2 weeks and prepare
> for further action when Congress is in session.
> We will also need U.S. citizens' support (we need to collect their
> signatures), which shall be dealt with soon.
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
>
>


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 27 12:37:54 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA14645); Thu, 27 Jan 94 12:37:54 CST
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 12:37:54 CST
Message-Id: <01H86G6LV89C9X5QF9@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: RJIN@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: RJIN@vms.cis.pitt.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi. Could anybody please give me the details about how to file a I-130 form for
my husband in china?
I am a principle of CSPA. I don't know what kinds of document I should file for
a I-130 form:
1. A copy of I-797 form is OK? (approval notice form about my PR from INS)
2. A marriage certificate. 
3. A color photopicture of my husband? to be mailed U.S. from China?
4. What is the G-325A form which he should complete?
5. How will the Guangzhou consulate inform him? How long will it take for 
Guangzhou Consulate to inform the person in China?
6. Is there any other U.S. consulate that can process the procedure except the 
Guangzhou one?
Any response will be appreciated very much.
Thanks in advance!!!

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 27 15:07:02 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA14945); Thu, 27 Jan 94 15:07:02 CST
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 15:07:02 CST
Message-Id: <9401272102.AA25333@oddjob.uchicago.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: shi6@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Xiangdong Shi" <shi6@oddjob.uchicago.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Need you wisedom
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi, netters,

I am a CSPA and my wife is a LAD. Here I have questions about going to Canada:

I got an job offer in Canada. If I go there, and come back briefly every year,
I don't lose my PR, right? 

A more serious questions is that how this is going to affect my wife who is
waiting for her approval of PR.

Any info are welcomed. Thanks a million.

Xiangdong

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 27 16:25:45 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA15110); Thu, 27 Jan 94 16:25:45 CST
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 16:25:44 CST
Message-Id: <9401272220.AA09865@us0.mayo.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xlx@us0.mayo.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: xlx@us0.mayo.edu (Xiao-Liang Xu)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Need you wisedom
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


The new US immigration law says that a GC holder should stay in the US
not less than 6 months every calendar year, or he/she loses the PR status.

There might be some exemptions; you can consult a lawyer.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 27 17:13:41 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA00197); Thu, 27 Jan 94 17:13:41 CST
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 17:13:41 CST
Message-Id: <9401272309.AA18164@aris.ss.uci.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: wlu@aris.ss.uci.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: wlu@aris.ss.uci.edu (Wei Lu)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Keep GC while leaving
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

If I am not wrong, a GC holder could keep the status while living in the other country by coming back to the US once a year. With "Reentry Permit" you could do that once two years. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 27 17:25:11 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA00258); Thu, 27 Jan 94 17:25:11 CST
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 17:25:11 CST
Message-Id: <9401272306.AA10594@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Need you wisedom
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

For your GC's sake, you should think it twice before going to Canada.
Even a lawyer can not make sure you will keep your GC! 

Mi Mi Sr.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 27 19:33:35 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA00511); Thu, 27 Jan 94 19:33:35 CST
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 19:33:35 CST
Message-Id: <9401280133.AA00501@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "b" <C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: need your help
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi: Does anybody know how to get 2-year waive by filling I-612? If I can not
 get a any letter from the former working unit in China? any information ,
 suggestion, and references will be greatly appreciated.   1/27/94 7:30pm

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 27 19:57:43 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA00608); Thu, 27 Jan 94 19:57:43 CST
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 19:57:43 CST
Message-Id: <9401280132.AA28495@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: zhang@unlinfo.unl.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: zhang@unlinfo.unl.edu (xiaohua zhang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Documents for visit
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, everyone

after becoming a permenat risident, what documents do I need in order 
for relatives in Chine (e.g Mother, mother-in-law) to visit USA.

Any suggestion, comments, experience is welcomed

Thanks in advance

X. Zhang


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu Jan 27 20:49:15 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA00826); Thu, 27 Jan 94 20:49:15 CST
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 20:49:15 CST
Message-Id: <9401280237.AA10728@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject:  in-state residency
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Messages forwarded bellow:

==========================================================
Dear Mi Mi Sir:
Would you forward this letter to ladnet for me since I have troubls to post it.

Dear Folks:
My wife is a Lad. and her request for in-state residency status was 
denied by the admission  officer and president in a public college.
The reason is that her application of PR is not granted. Now she like
to appeal to State Board of Education which provided the in-state
policy and if denied again we will bring this to the court.

My main argument is following.
In 1978 for the Case Elkins v. Moreno , 435 U.S. 647
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the University 's 
in-states policy should apply to those aliens who can seek their
permanent domiciles in the United States , (i.e. who are exempt from
having a foreign permanet residence requirement by the Congress , in this
particular case G-4 visa holders do not have such requirement set by 
Congress ) .

I am not quite clear the difference between ordinary lawsuit and 
class action lawsuit? Any comment on this subject, such as legal
fee, qualified lawyers, which court ( small claim
court ? ), are wellcome.

Thank for your attention.

R.DING
dingru@msuvx1.memst.edu

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri Jan 28 10:08:14 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA02670); Fri, 28 Jan 94 10:08:14 CST
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 10:08:14 CST
Message-Id: <9401281602.AA16071@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xzwang@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: xzwang@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Xiaozhong Wang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: in-state residency 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


> Dear Mi Mi Sir:
> Would you forward this letter to ladnet for me since I have troubls to post it.
> 
> Dear Folks:
> My wife is a Lad. and her request for in-state residency status was 
> denied by the admission  officer and president in a public college.
> The reason is that her application of PR is not granted. Now she like
> to appeal to State Board of Education which provided the in-state
> policy and if denied again we will bring this to the court.
> 
> My main argument is following.
> In 1978 for the Case Elkins v. Moreno , 435 U.S. 647
> The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the University 's 
> in-states policy should apply to those aliens who can seek their
> permanent domiciles in the United States , (i.e. who are exempt from
> having a foreign permanet residence requirement by the Congress , in this
> particular case G-4 visa holders do not have such requirement set by 
> Congress ) .
> 

I think a more strong argument is residency by marriage.  Depending on the
public college's policy, most of them have a special provision on this.  The
root of this policy is, again the 1976? decision of the supreme court
against University of Conn.  Some of them may still require the spouse be a
permanent resident, but most of them don't.  I have seen a catology of a
public University in Illinois state that the spouse of a state resident,
regardless of nationality, will be considered as in-state resident for the
purpose of tuition determination.

> I am not quite clear the difference between ordinary lawsuit and 
> class action lawsuit? Any comment on this subject, such as legal
> fee, qualified lawyers, which court ( small claim
> court ? ), are wellcome.
> 
Don't know much of the process, but it will definately not be in a small
claim court. 

> Thank for your attention.
> 
> R.DING
> dingru@msuvx1.memst.edu
> 


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri Jan 28 16:28:20 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA03203); Fri, 28 Jan 94 16:28:20 CST
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 16:28:20 CST
Message-Id: <9401242135.AA14252@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: zhang@unlinfo.unl.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: zhang@unlinfo.unl.edu (xiaohua zhang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Documents for Visit
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, everyone

After becoming a permenant resident, what documents do I need in order
to invite a relative in China ( e.g. mother, or mother-in-law) to 
visit U.S.  I got a invitation letter from Foreign Student Advisor, 
and filled Form I-134 (Affidavit of Support).
Any comments, suggestions, or experience are velcome.

Thanks in Advance

X. Zhang


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri Jan 28 16:43:00 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA03286); Fri, 28 Jan 94 16:43:00 CST
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 16:43:00 CST
Message-Id: <9401242205.AA27707@gumedlib.dml.Georgetown.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: sshang01@gumedlib.dml.georgetown.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: SHI-ZHANG SHANG <sshang01@gumedlib.dml.georgetown.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: replying the question
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

I receive and read your letter today (1/24/94). I do not know to anwser
your question exactly. From my knowledge, I know that must of LAD in USA does
 not like to return back to china to wait the visa number. I do not know if
the LAD can or can not waive the out-state-tuition and can or can not get the
 refund from 4/11/90. My wife is a LAD, too. She just wait in USA for the
visa number and does not know how long she needs for that. If you have any
news about that, could you let me know, too? Thank you.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri Jan 28 16:56:07 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA03374); Fri, 28 Jan 94 16:56:07 CST
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 16:56:07 CST
Message-Id: <9401282254.AA15026@galsun.igpp.ucla.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: cchen@igpp.ucla.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: cchen@igpp.ucla.edu (Xinmin Chen)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi,

Could anyone tell me some more information about refund of out-state-tuition since 4/11/90?

Thank you very much!



Chen XinMin

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri Jan 28 21:08:27 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA03925); Fri, 28 Jan 94 21:08:27 CST
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 94 21:08:26 CST
Message-Id: <9401290257.AA11187@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (lin huang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

>From: Feng Jiang <fjiang@hsc.usc.edu>
To: hua7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Subject: Re: in-state residency
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 27 Jan 94 20:51:11 CST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.759781066.fjiang@hsc.usc.edu>
Status: RO


  My wife is also LAD, when she talked to the school officer(also public

  school), she was told only after one years green card holder can benifit

  for in state tuition. Any netter has any experience good or bad on this

  issue?


  by the way, we are in Pasedena, CA.


  F. Jiang

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan 29 12:51:40 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA05950); Sat, 29 Jan 94 12:51:40 CST
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 12:51:40 CST
Message-Id: <9401291847.AA12566@hippocrates.ss.uci.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: wlu@hippocrates.ss.uci.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: wlu@hippocrates.ss.uci.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Keep PR while leaving US
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, there. There was an article about this issue in the local Chinese
newpaper by a lawyer. In this two pages article it was said: you could 
come back to the US after one year or two and even more if you could 
show your intention of staying the US forever. 
Anyone who need this information could contact me by sending me a
letter including a stamped envolope back to you. You could email me to
obtain my address. Thanks.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan 29 15:44:13 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06233); Sat, 29 Jan 94 15:44:13 CST
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 15:44:13 CST
Message-Id: <9401292143.AA06222@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: R3PR%AKRONVM.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: ruth <R3PR%AKRONVM.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject:      renawl of work permit
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

I am a lad and is waiting for my visa number.  does anybody know that
if I go to different state, do I have to go back to the original state
to get my work permit renewed?  Thank you for the information.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat Jan 29 17:18:09 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06389); Sat, 29 Jan 94 17:18:09 CST
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 17:18:09 CST
Message-Id: <Pine.3.07.9401291630.A24415-c100000@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hnchen@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Heshun Chen <hnchen@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: in-state residency 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 



On Fri, 28 Jan 1994, Xiaozhong Wang wrote:

> 
> > Dear Mi Mi Sir:
> > Would you forward this letter to ladnet for me since I have troubls to post it.
> > 
> > Dear Folks:
> > My wife is a Lad. and her request for in-state residency status was 
> > denied by the admission  officer and president in a public college.
> > The reason is that her application of PR is not granted. Now she like
> > to appeal to State Board of Education which provided the in-state
> > policy and if denied again we will bring this to the court.
> > 
> > My main argument is following.
> > In 1978 for the Case Elkins v. Moreno , 435 U.S. 647
> > The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the University 's 
> > in-states policy should apply to those aliens who can seek their
> > permanent domiciles in the United States , (i.e. who are exempt from
> > having a foreign permanet residence requirement by the Congress , in this
> > particular case G-4 visa holders do not have such requirement set by 
> > Congress ) .
> > 
> 
> I think a more strong argument is residency by marriage.  Depending on the
> public college's policy, most of them have a special provision on this.  The
> root of this policy is, again the 1976? decision of the supreme court
> against University of Conn.  Some of them may still require the spouse be a
> permanent resident, but most of them don't.  I have seen a catology of a
> public University in Illinois state that the spouse of a state resident,
> regardless of nationality, will be considered as in-state resident for the
> purpose of tuition determination.
> 
> > I am not quite clear the difference between ordinary lawsuit and 
> > class action lawsuit? Any comment on this subject, such as legal
> > fee, qualified lawyers, which court ( small claim
> > court ? ), are wellcome.
> > 
> Don't know much of the process, but it will definately not be in a small
> claim court. 
> 
> > Thank for your attention.
> > 
> > R.DING
> > dingru@msuvx1.memst.edu
> > 
> 

It seems to me different state (maybe state-university) has totally
different policy on in-state residency tuition determination.  I know The
University of Kansas can allow in-state tuition to spouse of foreign
TAs, RAs. While the University of Iowa require a granted permenant resident
have lived in Iowa for more than 1 year without being a full-time student. I
have interest to pursue this issue (LAD in-state tuition) in Iowa later this
year. Anyone has any experiense, advise, or willing to work together will
be appreciated very much.   
Thanks a lot. 
H.C.

   



From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun Jan 30 00:40:52 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07530); Sun, 30 Jan 94 00:40:52 CST
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 00:40:52 CST
Message-Id: <9401300635.AA24936@stein1.u.washington.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: pnj@u.washington.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: JnP <pnj@u.washington.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LAD
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


	My friend is a LAD.  She asked me to post this for her.
She talked to a very GOOD immigration lawyer in Seattle regarding to the
LAD issue.  The lawyer said according to the immigration law, the cutting
date for 3rd employment-based immigration, which is July 1st, 1993, does NOT
include July 1st.  Because the earliest priority date for CSPA is July 1st,
1993, technically there should be no LAD application processed and interviewed/.
.  Can anyone please to confirm this?

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun Jan 30 09:45:14 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09141); Sun, 30 Jan 94 09:45:14 CST
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 09:45:14 CST
Message-Id: <01H8AGDGZ4AQ91VRJ5@yalph2.physics.yale.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: FEI@yalph2.physics.yale.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: FEI@yalph2.physics.yale.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: FAMILY REUNION LEGISLATIONS. THANKS TO MI MI SR. FOR INVITING ME TO
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


NETWORK1.DIS
*******************************************************************************
Help needed for pushing the legislations S.618 and H.R.3182 through the 
U.S. Congress.
>From: FEI@BNLDAG.AGS.BNL.GOV 
(PLEASE USE THE ABOVE E-MAIL ADDRESS  FOR THIS WORK) 
*******************************************************************************

Original date: 12/22/93 (with minor changes)

My article about a family unity bill S.618 pending in the U.S. Senate
was published in the Dec.12/93 issue of China News Digest -U.S. 
Regional (CND-US). The Dec.18/93 issue disclosed the text of the 
legislation which would make it easier for spouses and children of 
permanent residents to enter the United States on visitor or student 
visas while they await their permanent residency.
A somewhat similar legislation is also proposed in the House (H.R. 3182).

The bill S.618 is in the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate. A staff 
member of Senator Kennedy felt that the bill would not have a chance
if they could not get public support. After some discussions with
concerned people, it is clear that we have to form our network to
support congress passing the bill. The bill H.R. 3182 is in the Judiciary 
Committee of the House. I will take the responsibility of
organizing the activity. Some people have expressed their willingness
to work on this issue. We need to have coordinators in every state to
help the lobby effort. If you want to work on this, please send
me an e-mail message.
We need lots of people to get involved, especially those 
who are in the states with senators and representatives in the immigration 
(sub)committees and judiciary committees.
	
We should let people know the situation and ask all the interested 
people to lobby senators and representatives and get a new 
law like S. 618 and HR.3182. I drafted some short letters for your convenience. 
Please	make a few changes before sending out. Also please let me
know any errors in name, address and telephone numbers.

************IMPORTANT:  Sample letters are not standard letters---Please 
reword for your own case--DO NOT COPY************
	
*****: To those senators who introduced the bill S.618, we
	say thanks and give them our support:
           RIEGLE, KENNEDY, SIMON, DECONCINI, HATFIELD, GLENN, ROBB, and LEVIN.

Sample letter 1.

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
U.S. Senator
SR-315 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator:

Thank you very much for introducing the bill S. 618
(with Mr. Riegle, Mr. Simon, Mr. DeConcini, Mr.Hatfield, Mr. Glenn, 
Mr. Robb, and Mr. Levin in the Senate) to amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to permit the admission to the United States of 
nonimmigrant students and visitors who are the spouses and children 
of United States permanent resident aliens.

According to the Visa Bulletin of the U.S. State Department, 
spouses and children of permanent 
residents have to wait for more than 2.5 years to obtain  immigrant 
visas. One should note that the actual waiting time 
is much longer despite the plan of increasing visa numbers in the 
future.	At the same time, they cannot get nonimmigrant visas to 
visit their families because the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad 
deny spouses and children temporary visas on the ground of 
their intent to immigrate. 
A separation of family members for a such long period results in great hardship.
For the sake of many families involved, it is of great importance to pass 
this bill with your help. 

Thank you again for your consideration of this issue. Your effort will
be greatly appreciated.

				Sincerely,	
				Signature

*****: Letters write to members of the Judiciary Committee of the 
	Senate (other than the above mentioned senators): ask for
	their support.
	Address: Senator *****
		 Committee on the Judiciary
		 United States Senate
		 Washington, DC 20510-6275
Full list of the members:
	Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman
Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts   Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Howard M. Metzenbaum, Ohio         Strom Thurmond, South Carolina
Dennis DeConcini, Arizona          Alan. K. Simpson, Wyoming
Patrick K. Leahy, Vermont          Charles E. Grassley, Iowa
Howell Heflin, Alabama             Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
Paul Simon, Illinois               Hank Brown, Colorado
Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin            William S. Cohen, Maine
Deanne Feinstein, California       Larry Pressler, South Dakota
Carol Moseley-Braun, Illinois

Sample letter 2.

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
U.S. Senator
Committee on the Judiciary
United State Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6275

Dear Mr. Biden:

I am writing in regard to  the family unity issue for some permanent 
residents in this country.
	
According to the Visa Bulletin of the U.S. State Department, 
spouses and children of permanent 
residents have to wait for more than 2.5 years to obtain  immigration 
visas. We should note that the actual waiting time is much longer since
the quota date moves only two weeks for every month. As a result, the 
2.5 years waiting period at the present time could mean 5 years or 
more despite the plan of increasing visa numbers in the future.	
At the same time, they cannot get nonimmigrant visas to visit 
their families because the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad 
deny spouses and children temporary visas on the ground of 
their intent to immigrate. A separation
of family members for a such long period results in great hardship. 
It is of great importance to have  a new rule to speed up family 
unity with your help. You are not only helping the family members of
the permanent residents, but also future U.S. citizens.

In the Senate of the United States,
Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.
HATFIELD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. ROBB, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the bill
S. 618 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the 
admission to the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors 
who are the spouses and children of United States permanent resident 
aliens.

This bill addresses the concern many people raised. We ask your support
for the bill.......

	Thank you for your consideration of this issue.

				Sincerely,	
				Signature

*****: Write to members of the House in the immigration subcommittee:
Should ask :Please support legislation H.R. 3182.

Sample letter 3.

The Honorable Romano L. Mazzoli
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Mazzoli:

I am writing in regard to  the family unity issue for some permanent 
residents in this country.
	
According to the Visa Bulletin of the U.S. State Department, 
spouses and children of permanent 
residents have to wait for more than 2.5 years to obtain  immigrant 
visas. One should note that the actual waiting time is much longer since
the quota date moves only two weeks for every month. As a result, the 
2.5 years waiting period at the present time could mean 5 years or 
more despite the plan of increasing visa numbers in the future.	
At the same time, they cannot get nonimmigrant visas to visit 
this country because the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad 
deny their spouses and children temporary visas on the ground of 
their intent to immigrate. A separation
of family members for a such long period results in great  hardship. 
It is of great importance to have  a new rule to speed up family 
unity with your help. You are not only helping the family members of
the permanent residents.

H.R. 3182 seeks to address this problem by designating a special "nonimmigrant"
status for the spouse and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal residents.
The spouse would not be automatically granted permanent resident status, but
the family would be able to enter the United States. In the interest of
protecting American jobs, the bill prohibits the spouse from working in the
U.S. and states that if the marriage ends, so does the special status.
This bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it has been
the subject of hearings in the Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration,
and Refugees. 

I would like to suggest that spouses of U.S. residents should be allowed to 
go to schools in the U.S. so that they can contribute greatly to the society
in the future.
 
In the Senate of the United States,
Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr.
HATFIELD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. ROBB, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the bill
S. 618 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the 
admission to the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors 
who are the spouses and children of United States permanent resident 
aliens. 

Please support the family unity legislations... 

	Thank you for your consideration of this issue.

				Sincerely,	
				Signature

House subcommittee on international law, immigration and refugees 
Washington, DC 20515

Romano L. Mazzoli, D-KY, Chair  (202) 225-5401
2246 Rayburn House Office Building

Charles E. Schumer, D-NY     (202) 225-6616
2412 Rayburn House Office Building

John Bryant, D-TX   (202) 225-2231
205 Cannon House Office Building

George E. Sangemeister, D-IL   (202) 225-3635
1032 Longworth House Office Building

Jerrold Nadler, D-NY   (202) 225-5635
424 Cannon House Office Building

Xavier Becerra, D-CA   (202) 225-6235
1710 Longworth House Office Building

Bill McCollum, R-FL (202) 225-2176
2266 Rayburn House Office Building	
	
Lamar Smith, R-TX   (202) 225-4236
2443  Rayburn House Office Building

Elton Gallegly, R-CA (202) 225-5811
2443  Rayburn House Office Building

Charles T. Canady, R-FL (202) 225-1252
1107 Longworth House Office Building
	
*****Write to U.S. Senators and Representatives in your state.
Names, addresses and phone numbers are available in your local
telephone book under the section Government & Municipal Guide.

One week after you send out letters, please call them in your state
and ask their reactions, and also urge them for help again.
I would like  to collect information in the next 2 weeks and prepare
for further action when Congress is in session.
We will also need U.S. citizens' support (we need to collect their
signatures), which shall be dealt with soon.

***********************************************************************
A BRIEF MESSAGE TO THOSE WHO ARE SUPPORTING AND WORKING ON THE BILLS 

Dear friends,                                        (Jan. 26, 1994)

Thank you very much for your support.

We have legislations from both the Senate (legislation S. 618, see CND-US
issues on Dec.12, 1993 and Dec.18, 1993) and the House of Representatives 
(legislation H.R. 3182). They are in the Judiciary Committees. Only after
committees vote for it, other congress people have a chance to vote.
Letters/phones to those committee members are the most important thing to do 
at the moment. Names and addresses are listed in the following paragraphs.
CND did not distribute the above long message last December. I think that 
is because of it length. I am very grateful to CND editors for allowing me
to distribute those 3 short messages in CND-US.
I will still try to persuade CND-US to distribute the long message. 

I made some modifications now. 
Please make changes before sending your letters out.
One thing I didn't mention in my sample letters is that the law should stop
illegal immigrants and help legal resident-family. Remember we also pay lots
of taxes.
Of course, the simplest letter would be just state 
"please support legislations S.618 and H.R. 3182", 
but it would be more effective
to tell them more information so that it's more likely you can get reply.  
All the information I released are the results of my 30 letters and 10 phone
calls. Every single person can make a difference.

We have people from nearly 20 states pledged their support by the 5pm Jan.26. 
Please let me know if
I got your state wrong. I will try to reply some messages individually.

I will keep you informed of any news regarding the family reunion legislations.
*******************************************************************************	


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun Jan 30 10:30:22 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09279); Sun, 30 Jan 94 10:30:22 CST
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 10:30:22 CST
Message-Id: <9401301629.AA25591@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: snow@lucerne.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jun Wu <snow@lucerne.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: LAD
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

> 	My friend is a LAD.  She asked me to post this for her.
> She talked to a very GOOD immigration lawyer in Seattle regarding to the
> LAD issue.  The lawyer said according to the immigration law, the cutting
> date for 3rd employment-based immigration, which is July 1st, 1993, does NOT
> include July 1st.  Because the earliest priority date for CSPA is July 1st,
> 1993, technically there should be no LAD application processed and interviewed/.
> .  Can anyone please to confirm this?
> 

That's right. But remember, 3rd employment-based was advancing to August and
Sept (and may be Oct?). So at those months, lads were able to apply for
adjustment. But because too many people applied (ie, far exceed the quota),
the cutoff date went back to July 1st. So now technically, no lad can apply
for adjustment for status until the cutoff date advances to July 2nd. So
if you did not apply in Aug or Sept or Oct(?), then you lost the chance and
have to wait.


Jun

BTW: However, I did remember I saw a post at Houston INS window, that CSPA
     LAD can apply in December. I think that's just an excemption since they
     want to finish up this case and let LAD wait for quota. This may be
     differ from one local INS to another, and may no long be true in January.
-- 
                                 ^-^    Owlnet
                                (O O)   School of Engineering Network
                                ( v )
       o o o o o o . . .    __=--m-m--=_T__ ____======_T__ ____========_T_____
     o      _____          ||             | |            | |               |
   .][__n_n_|DD[  ====____  |   Jun  Wu   | |  ECE Rice  | | Snow@Rice.EDU | |
  >(________|__|_[________]_|_____________|_|____________|_|_______________|_|
 __/oo OOOOO oo`  ooo  ooo  'o^o       o^o` 'o^o      o^o` 'o^o         o^o`

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun Jan 30 21:17:17 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA10037); Sun, 30 Jan 94 21:17:17 CST
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 21:17:17 CST
Message-Id: <9401310316.AA10027@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "b" <C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: thanks
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Dear friends: first I'd like to thank all of you, dear friends, for your help:
information, suggestion, and experiences. I am a CSPA and got the GC last Decem
ber. My LAD is a J-1 and J-2 holders. Althrough My Lad did not spend any penny
from China or working unit in China, we have no way to get a letter from the
working unit in China. We tried very hard although. Now my LAD's J-1 visa will
expire 2/14/94, will out of status, and have no way to renew the IAP-66. WE
really do not know what to do next. My LAD has to plan go back to china. But my
 daughter will stay here (She is a college student now). Dear friends: Do you
think this is the only way we have to go? any other possible ways? My daughter'
s J-2 will face trouble? Does she have to change to J-1 student? (she was told
can not change to F-1 student, her J-2 visa will expire on 2/14/94 too, just 14
 days left)
   Your response will be greatly appreciated.       1/30/94  9:15pm

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 31 10:50:48 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA11904); Mon, 31 Jan 94 10:50:48 CST
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 10:50:48 CST
Message-Id: <940131104547.21a00cb2@D0SF24.FNAL.GOV>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: ZHU@d0sf24.fnal.gov
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Q.Zhu from NYU at Fermilab (708)840-8383" <ZHU@d0sf24.fnal.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Look for a good immigration lawyer
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 




	Hi, Everybody:

	I'm looking for answers of some questions regarding to work aboard
	for a GC holder with a LAD. The typical questions are:
		
		o	How long can a GC holder work aborad? 
		o	Can the LAD go with the GC holder?		
			Generally speaking , the answer is no. Is there
			any exceptions we are not aware of?

	I would like to look for definite, thorough answers. They are very 
	important for me now --- I got offers to work aboard. I have to 
	decide to accept or turn down it shortly. So I'd like to 	
	find a good lawyer --- not just a paper filing clerk. Could someone
	help me on it? I perfer to find one in Chicago area, but not 
	necessaryly limited by it. I'm sure those questions are of interest
	to a lot of people in this net. I'll try to post the answers if 
	it turns out to be interesting and different.
	Thanks in advance.

	Best regards,
	Q.Zhu
	

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 31 11:28:26 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA12017); Mon, 31 Jan 94 11:28:26 CST
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 11:28:26 CST
Message-Id: <9401311727.AA12007@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "b" <C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: thanks
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Dear friends: yesterday I sent a E-mail to the lads-l@spike.rice.edu. Today I
 received some response, thanks your response very much. I think I did not
 expain clearly something. I was a F-1 holder before I got my GC. My spouse and
 my daughter tried very hard to join me as F-2 visa. But they were not allowed
 to come as F-2, and forced to come as J-1 and J-2. In 1993, we tried very hard
 to ask the working unit to give us a letter to certisfy that my J-1 LAD did
 not spent any money from China (it is true fact), if we can get the letter, we
 can apply to waive the 2-year requirement. But we faied to get it. In Aug.1993
, when my Lads to apply for the PR in local INS, my spouse's application was
rejected due to not get the 2-year waive, but they accepted my daugher's. So
now my spouse's J-1 will be out of state on 2/14/93. He seems has no any other
choice, and has to go back to china. He seems has no way stay here, so he wrote
 several letters to his working unit in China and education minister and tell
 them he will go back to the former working unit after his J-1 expiring on 2/14
, however still no any responses from the former working unit and education uni
t. My daughter's application for PR was accepted but no interview, no receipt
notice, no any further information , we don't know what will happen. because
her J-2 visa will expire on 2/14/94 too.  Dear friends: we are so sad for this
situation, we don't know what we should do. We need your suggestions, expirence
s and any information. Thanks again for your kind help.   1/31/94

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 31 14:44:42 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA12237); Mon, 31 Jan 94 14:44:42 CST
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 14:44:42 CST
Message-Id: <9401312039.AA19675@media.mit.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: eddavid@media.mit.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Ed David <eddavid@media.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LAD application for adjustment of status
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi!

A New York-based immigration lawyer published a series of articles 
on CSPA in World Journal in early January.  
In one of the articles about LADs on January 7, 1994, he 
said that LADs can still apply for adjustment of status at their local INS 
offices although there are no visa numbers available.  According to 
the current INS methods of dealing with the applications for adjustment 
of status, as long as an applicant's priority date of July 1, 1993 and the 
date of visa quota (for that category, issued by the State Department) 
are the same, the applicant can file the application.  However, 
the application can be approved only when the visa quota date 
progresses one day than the applicant'spriority date.

I hope that the above is useful.

Jane

>       My friend is a LAD.  She asked me to post this for her.
> She talked to a very GOOD immigration lawyer in Seattle regarding to the
> LAD issue.  The lawyer said according to the immigration law, the cutting
> date for 3rd employment-based immigration, which is July 1st, 1993, does NOT
> include July 1st.  Because the earliest priority date for CSPA is July 1st,
> 1993, technically there should be no LAD application processed and interviewed/.
> .  Can anyone please to confirm this?
> 

>That's right. But remember, 3rd employment-based was advancing to August and
>Sept (and may be Oct?). So at those months, lads were able to apply for
>adjustment. But because too many people applied (ie, far exceed the quota),
>the cutoff date went back to July 1st. So now technically, no lad can apply
>for adjustment for status until the cutoff date advances to July 2nd. So
>if you did not apply in Aug or Sept or Oct(?), then you lost the chance and
>have to wait.


Jun

>BTW: However, I did remember I saw a post at Houston INS window, that CSPA
>     LAD can apply in December. I think that's just an excemption since they
>     want to finish up this case and let LAD wait for quota. This may be
>     differ from one local INS to another, and may no long be true in January.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon Jan 31 14:56:24 1994
Received: from  (localhost.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA12302); Mon, 31 Jan 94 14:56:24 CST
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 14:56:24 CST
Message-Id: <9401312038.AA23937@gumedlib.dml.Georgetown.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: sshang01@gumedlib.dml.georgetown.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: SHI-ZHANG SHANG <sshang01@gumedlib.dml.georgetown.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: responsing b's question
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Dear friend: I received your letters and questions two times. Under my
understanding, I think your lad. as J-1 is difficult to get the waiving of 2
years until the working unit or the Ambassy of China gives you an agreement
letter because the USA and China have the agreement paper. But I do not know
what is the future if this your lad still stay here with you after the
expiring date. Your another lad, daughter, as J-2 is not problem in staying
and waiting here for her visa number withot getting the answer from INS
because my wife as a lad is the same treatment as your lad's. So I think your
 daughter just needs to wait for some time. If she is under 21 old years may
be she can get the visa quickly or if she over 21 may be get it slowly. That
is all and please do not worry about her application. Finally, if your first
lad as J-1 can change and get the H-1 status under the boss and INS's
agreement I think may be the lad does not need to leave but that is difficult
 to finish. If you can, you can try. Thanks.

