California DOL (Regional) Tracking
- Thread starter gp111
- Start date
- Status
functionalalert
Registered Users (C)
LC approved
finally my LC has been approved after a long and painful waiting period. This process is extremely demanding
approved in CA
Recd in Federal (CA) July 2002 . recd 3 option letter . retested market and sent report. LC approved in 7 days after that.
My suggestion: if you get 3 option letter RETEST market.
Ifg your skills are unique who will do it?
In fact all surplus labor has gone back to wherever they came from
finally my LC has been approved after a long and painful waiting period. This process is extremely demanding
approved in CA
Recd in Federal (CA) July 2002 . recd 3 option letter . retested market and sent report. LC approved in 7 days after that.
My suggestion: if you get 3 option letter RETEST market.
Ifg your skills are unique who will do it?
In fact all surplus labor has gone back to wherever they came from
eb2august01
Registered Users (C)
functionalalert
Hi functionalalert, Congratulations for your labour approval. All the best.
Could you tell me the exact date when your application was received at DOL?. and what is your DOT code, etc.?
Mine was received @ DOL on 07/22/2002, but no news about my case yet. No RFE's nothing so far. It is still in RECEIVED status.
Thanks
eb2august01
Priority Date @SESA 08/28/2001
SESA to DOL Transfer date 07/15/2002
DOL RECEIVED DATE: 07/22/2002
DOT: 999.151-031
STATUS: RECEIVED
Company Location: CERRITOS, CA
Hi functionalalert, Congratulations for your labour approval. All the best.
Could you tell me the exact date when your application was received at DOL?. and what is your DOT code, etc.?
Mine was received @ DOL on 07/22/2002, but no news about my case yet. No RFE's nothing so far. It is still in RECEIVED status.
Thanks
eb2august01
Priority Date @SESA 08/28/2001
SESA to DOL Transfer date 07/15/2002
DOL RECEIVED DATE: 07/22/2002
DOT: 999.151-031
STATUS: RECEIVED
Company Location: CERRITOS, CA
RD at DOL vs Remand
Looks like if your RD date at DOL is prior or in July /2002 then most of the cases got a NOF with 3 Option. I agree with the previous post saying that if option given, then the only positive way is to RETEST the market.
For people like me who are after July 2002(RD @ DOL) Remand to State is most likely certain unless the policy changes comes to place.
Looks like if your RD date at DOL is prior or in July /2002 then most of the cases got a NOF with 3 Option. I agree with the previous post saying that if option given, then the only positive way is to RETEST the market.
For people like me who are after July 2002(RD @ DOL) Remand to State is most likely certain unless the policy changes comes to place.
hara_kagaz
Registered Users (C)
Hi ,
I checked tone-talker today morning ,and tried to check few numbers in random near to my case no. with RD @ DOL 15th Oct 2002 ...
Cases received till Oct 7th has been processed (ROS).
But October 8th cases still shows in received status. So guess will be either they are processing Oct 8th 2002 , or tone-talker is not updated on regular basis.
H_K
dates
Hi,
Any news about the latest approvals from DOL in this week?
Any one knows about the dates that are currently being processed for October 2002 ?
Any information is appreciated.
Thanks.
I checked tone-talker today morning ,and tried to check few numbers in random near to my case no. with RD @ DOL 15th Oct 2002 ...
Cases received till Oct 7th has been processed (ROS).
But October 8th cases still shows in received status. So guess will be either they are processing Oct 8th 2002 , or tone-talker is not updated on regular basis.
H_K
dates
Hi,
Any news about the latest approvals from DOL in this week?
Any one knows about the dates that are currently being processed for October 2002 ?
Any information is appreciated.
Thanks.
hara_kagaz
Registered Users (C)
Hi Lovy,
In case you know your case number or Employers Telephone number You can try Tone -Talker viz .. Phone Information Retrieval System (415-975-4617).
Keep Cool .
World is big enough ...
H_K
In case you know your case number or Employers Telephone number You can try Tone -Talker viz .. Phone Information Retrieval System (415-975-4617).
Keep Cool .
World is big enough ...
H_K
hara_kagaz
Registered Users (C)
Hi Lovy,
In case you know your case number or Employers Telephone number You can try Tone -Talker viz .. Phone Information Retrieval System (415-975-4617).
Keep Cool .
World is big enough ...
H_K
In case you know your case number or Employers Telephone number You can try Tone -Talker viz .. Phone Information Retrieval System (415-975-4617).
Keep Cool .
World is big enough ...
H_K
To masti25
Hi masti25,
I don't know how to make inquiry to DOL. I think you can ask your lawyer to do it. Also I checked about 30 cases near (before and after) my case number. All computer related cases have the same RD 5/20/2002 and all of these cases are still pending. Could you check yours. Thanks.
heha
Hi masti25,
I don't know how to make inquiry to DOL. I think you can ask your lawyer to do it. Also I checked about 30 cases near (before and after) my case number. All computer related cases have the same RD 5/20/2002 and all of these cases are still pending. Could you check yours. Thanks.
heha
needluck4GC
Registered Users (C)
DOL not moving/updating?
I checked the AVM this morning and a lot of cases received on oct. 8, 02 are still pending. Their last updated date is July 19, 03. I don't know if DOL is not moving or just the AVM is not updatd? Anyone heard any cases processed after July 19, 03?
I checked the AVM this morning and a lot of cases received on oct. 8, 02 are still pending. Their last updated date is July 19, 03. I don't know if DOL is not moving or just the AVM is not updatd? Anyone heard any cases processed after July 19, 03?
FightUnjustLC
Registered Users (C)
Unjustly treating future immigrants.
Mexicans expelled in 30s ask for justice
Gary Younge in New York
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian
Hundreds of thousands of Hispanics, many of them US citizens, were rounded up in Los Angeles and forcibly deported to Mexico during the Depression to protect white people's jobs, according to a civil case being brought in the city.
The Mexican American Legal Defence and Education Fund and the law firm Kiesel, Boucher and Larson are seeking class-action status for the suit, brought on behalf of an estimated 400,000 people of Mexican descent.
It claims that local officials working with the federal immigration authorities carried out a "coordinated, aggressive campaign to remove people of Mexican ancestry from California in large numbers", in violation of their constitutional rights.
"This lawsuit goes to the essence of who we are as a state and the dignity of a people," Raymond Boucher told the Los Angeles Times.
"We have to recognise that in the 1930s we used the Mexican population as a scapegoat. Until we take an honest look in the mirror, none of us is truly safe."
One of the plaintiffs, Emilia Castaneda, said she was nine when she was forced to leave her home in 1935. She was loaded on to a train and sent to Mexico after her father was put out of work by the campaign against foreign labour. "We cried and cried," she said. "I had never been to Mexico. We were leaving everything behind."
They returned to her father's home state, Durango, where they were referred to as repatriadas.
Her Spanish was weak and her family was initially passed between relatives until they found somewhere to stay.
Only when her godmother in Los Angeles obtained a copy of her birth certificate and sent it to her could she return, after presenting it to the US immigration authorities.
"As an American, I didn't deserve to be deported," she said. "All Americans should know this is part of our history so we don't have to experience this again.
"Somebody could say: "We were wrong for the injustices committed to you, and apologise for what was done. Maybe other people who are still in Mexico would hear about this and would come back."
An estimated 60% of those forcibly removed were US citizens.
Mexican immigration became a national issue in the 1920s when the pool of cheap labour Mexicans provided in the west became a source of contention with the rural south, which felt it was being undercut.
By 1930, with unemployment and demands for state welfare growing, President Herbert Hoover began a "repatriation" programme.
The plaintiffs are hoping for the kind of compensation package given by the Reagan administration to Japanese Americans interned during the second world war, settled by the threat of a class-action case.
Joseph Dunn, a Californian state senator who has been building up a case for the Mexicans for the past year, presided over a hearing yesterday to examine the forced removal.
"The deportation programme of the 1930s is not a proud chapter in American history," he said.
"Hopefully, by acknowledging this, we can minimise the likelihood of unjustly treating future immigrants to this great nation."
Mr Dunn has brought together a number of scholars who have studied the era, who testified in favour of the plaintiffs. Francisco Balderrama, professor of history and Chicano studies at Cal State University Los Angeles, said the forced removals "became a model for the rest of the United States".
A lawyer for the city, Rocky Delgadillo, said he had not yet seen the case, which was lodged on Tuesday, and so could not comment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,999531,00.html
Mexicans expelled in 30s ask for justice
Gary Younge in New York
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian
Hundreds of thousands of Hispanics, many of them US citizens, were rounded up in Los Angeles and forcibly deported to Mexico during the Depression to protect white people's jobs, according to a civil case being brought in the city.
The Mexican American Legal Defence and Education Fund and the law firm Kiesel, Boucher and Larson are seeking class-action status for the suit, brought on behalf of an estimated 400,000 people of Mexican descent.
It claims that local officials working with the federal immigration authorities carried out a "coordinated, aggressive campaign to remove people of Mexican ancestry from California in large numbers", in violation of their constitutional rights.
"This lawsuit goes to the essence of who we are as a state and the dignity of a people," Raymond Boucher told the Los Angeles Times.
"We have to recognise that in the 1930s we used the Mexican population as a scapegoat. Until we take an honest look in the mirror, none of us is truly safe."
One of the plaintiffs, Emilia Castaneda, said she was nine when she was forced to leave her home in 1935. She was loaded on to a train and sent to Mexico after her father was put out of work by the campaign against foreign labour. "We cried and cried," she said. "I had never been to Mexico. We were leaving everything behind."
They returned to her father's home state, Durango, where they were referred to as repatriadas.
Her Spanish was weak and her family was initially passed between relatives until they found somewhere to stay.
Only when her godmother in Los Angeles obtained a copy of her birth certificate and sent it to her could she return, after presenting it to the US immigration authorities.
"As an American, I didn't deserve to be deported," she said. "All Americans should know this is part of our history so we don't have to experience this again.
"Somebody could say: "We were wrong for the injustices committed to you, and apologise for what was done. Maybe other people who are still in Mexico would hear about this and would come back."
An estimated 60% of those forcibly removed were US citizens.
Mexican immigration became a national issue in the 1920s when the pool of cheap labour Mexicans provided in the west became a source of contention with the rural south, which felt it was being undercut.
By 1930, with unemployment and demands for state welfare growing, President Herbert Hoover began a "repatriation" programme.
The plaintiffs are hoping for the kind of compensation package given by the Reagan administration to Japanese Americans interned during the second world war, settled by the threat of a class-action case.
Joseph Dunn, a Californian state senator who has been building up a case for the Mexicans for the past year, presided over a hearing yesterday to examine the forced removal.
"The deportation programme of the 1930s is not a proud chapter in American history," he said.
"Hopefully, by acknowledging this, we can minimise the likelihood of unjustly treating future immigrants to this great nation."
Mr Dunn has brought together a number of scholars who have studied the era, who testified in favour of the plaintiffs. Francisco Balderrama, professor of history and Chicano studies at Cal State University Los Angeles, said the forced removals "became a model for the rest of the United States".
A lawyer for the city, Rocky Delgadillo, said he had not yet seen the case, which was lodged on Tuesday, and so could not comment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,999531,00.html
WaitingInHell
Registered Users (C)
DOL got approved 4 days back
NeedLuck..,
Here is the latest I have for all of you.
A friend of a friend mine got his DOL got approved 4 days back (I mean after DOL-AILA meeting). His details are...
He is working for a consultancy comany in LA...around 200 employees...you know how they lay-off.
- His DOL PD is Oct 17th 2002.
- A software Engineer (Mainframes), but currently don't have a project (off the project for the past three months).
Hope these details are enough...I don't have any more details as such
-WaitingInHell
NeedLuck..,
Here is the latest I have for all of you.
A friend of a friend mine got his DOL got approved 4 days back (I mean after DOL-AILA meeting). His details are...
He is working for a consultancy comany in LA...around 200 employees...you know how they lay-off.
- His DOL PD is Oct 17th 2002.
- A software Engineer (Mainframes), but currently don't have a project (off the project for the past three months).
Hope these details are enough...I don't have any more details as such
-WaitingInHell
Last edited by a moderator:
functionalalert
Registered Users (C)
regarding cases in recd in jul 02
as suggested i am saying if you get the 3 option letter,
you could consider risking retest as i did
in 7 days after submitting reportthe case was certified
he dot code was 991.151,032 computer engineers system software
good luck
as suggested i am saying if you get the 3 option letter,
you could consider risking retest as i did
in 7 days after submitting reportthe case was certified
he dot code was 991.151,032 computer engineers system software
good luck
needluck4GC
Registered Users (C)
Re: DOL got approved 4 days back
WaitingInHell,
Thanx for the information.
If I don't remember wrong, DOL-AILA's meeting held on July 16, do you mean your friend got approval sometime aroung July 20?
Humm..that's kinda good to know ppl got approved. But, what makes me confused is DOL seems not working strictly by RD dates(though they insist they do) cuz there are still lots of cases pending b4 your friend's RD date.
WaitingInHell,
Thanx for the information.
If I don't remember wrong, DOL-AILA's meeting held on July 16, do you mean your friend got approval sometime aroung July 20?
Humm..that's kinda good to know ppl got approved. But, what makes me confused is DOL seems not working strictly by RD dates(though they insist they do) cuz there are still lots of cases pending b4 your friend's RD date.
- Status