new_horizon
03-17 11:00 AM
the only good thing I see there are families in which both husband and wife filed separate GC petition. When one's gc process goes thru completion, the other petition will be withdrawn from the queue. : )
hope there are more cases like that.
hope there are more cases like that.
wallpaper vintage pinup girl makeup.
GCBy3000
07-24 12:01 PM
You signature with "Saved by IVs efforts" looks good. Could you update your signature with contributions also. Thanks.
I see that USCIS release a press release on 7/20 and it says the time complaince for Nebraska Center is 8/1. Does it mean that July 2nd filers will get receipt by 8/1 ( i know i'm expecting too much from USCIS)... When can we expect the receipt notices.. I guess i'm a bit nervous now..
I see that USCIS release a press release on 7/20 and it says the time complaince for Nebraska Center is 8/1. Does it mean that July 2nd filers will get receipt by 8/1 ( i know i'm expecting too much from USCIS)... When can we expect the receipt notices.. I guess i'm a bit nervous now..
jungalee43
02-06 09:37 AM
Though I am posting very late, I fully agree with the intent of the thread starter. If there is anything that we can convince the "balanced" law makers, it is the discrimination based on country based quota.
A person with certain skill set brings same and equal benefits to this country. S/He is hired because the economy of this country needs him/her. Then why issue green card to one because s/he was born in XYZ country and why ask another to wait almost endlessly because s/he was born in ABC country. This is absurd, unjust, unfair and discriminatory, particularly considering the values that United States respects, believes in and follows.
We can sell only this one point to law makers. Selling an idea on how much benefits we bring to this country, and if we can buy homes with 20% down payment, is like waking up a person who is pretending to be asleep. They have decided not to buy that argument no matter what. And then there is Dick Durbyn, Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Steve King and many like them...............
A person with certain skill set brings same and equal benefits to this country. S/He is hired because the economy of this country needs him/her. Then why issue green card to one because s/he was born in XYZ country and why ask another to wait almost endlessly because s/he was born in ABC country. This is absurd, unjust, unfair and discriminatory, particularly considering the values that United States respects, believes in and follows.
We can sell only this one point to law makers. Selling an idea on how much benefits we bring to this country, and if we can buy homes with 20% down payment, is like waking up a person who is pretending to be asleep. They have decided not to buy that argument no matter what. And then there is Dick Durbyn, Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Steve King and many like them...............
2011 2011 vintage pinup makeup.
pointlesswait
03-11 11:04 PM
kelaaaaaa....re kela..
more...
mygc2006
10-16 02:45 PM
PD is Aug 2002 / EB3 India / I 140 Approved / 485 Pending
akilhere
10-21 02:43 PM
I replied to my RFE last Friday and the status changed to Reponse Review. I got a soft LUD yesterday. Nothing after that!
more...
zuhail
03-10 01:09 PM
Hello,
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
By re-capturing the visa numbers, we are not asking for any change in the immigration laws. We are simply asking to use the visa numbers that had been lost due to inefficient processing by the USCIS.
Let us start preparing a petition and create a dedicated fund to achieve this goal of visa number recapturing.
Thank you.
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
By re-capturing the visa numbers, we are not asking for any change in the immigration laws. We are simply asking to use the visa numbers that had been lost due to inefficient processing by the USCIS.
Let us start preparing a petition and create a dedicated fund to achieve this goal of visa number recapturing.
Thank you.
2010 Pinup and Rockabilly Makeup
msgrewal81
02-19 12:20 PM
well said Jaime...We should support this bill..
Read this carefully before you comment here:
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
Read this carefully before you comment here:
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
more...
psam
02-03 10:52 AM
While your concern is genuine, our experience says it is not that easy to remove country quota with a 2 line bill. IV will advocate for it, but understand that it will not happen in isolation and it is not feasible in an isolated bill.
In the current economic environment, removing country quota seems like the only argument that can fly, since it does not increase actual visas.
In the current economic environment, removing country quota seems like the only argument that can fly, since it does not increase actual visas.
hair I want pin up makeup.
ak27
11-29 09:36 AM
Good Morning Everyone,
Let us setup a time and talk about meeting Law Makers. I can be reached at ajay1857@gmail.com
My no is 732-910-5926.. Please get as many friend you can get signed up for our chapter. We have very few signed up so far. I would think that we have thousands of people like us in this boat.
Thank you
Let us setup a time and talk about meeting Law Makers. I can be reached at ajay1857@gmail.com
My no is 732-910-5926.. Please get as many friend you can get signed up for our chapter. We have very few signed up so far. I would think that we have thousands of people like us in this boat.
Thank you
more...
hpandey
10-15 02:25 PM
I have a doubt about what can be accomplished by the flower campaign. I am totally for it if it would help but just think - it is not in USCIS hands to assign more visas to EB3 or EB2. The number of visas is limited and the number of people waiting for the visas is huge. That is the whole cause of retrogression . If there were as many visas as the people everything would be current.
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
This is a simple matter of demand and supply . The thing that can help is visa recapture but that again USCIS can't do and only the Congress . What we need to do is point our efforts in the right direction .
hot wallpaper classic pin up girl
nixstor
04-04 10:34 AM
The truth is they already know that there are professors and research scientists who are in limbo. Its just unfortunate that every one has to ride the same boat. We need to call lawmakers to tell them how bad the situation is, contribute so that IV can reach the lawmakers through lobbying. If every one does the above two things, we will reach our goal faster.
more...
house Pin Up Makeup
amsgc
07-02 09:36 PM
Regarding your argument on fairness:
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
On the contrary, under the current system immigrants from all nations do not have an equal opportunity to apply for a green card. Immigrants from the retrogressed countries are at an unfair disadvantage.
It is easy to see: A guy from ROW and a guy from India both are equally qualified engineers who have a EB2 PD of Jan 2008. The guy from ROW can apply to adjust status now, but the guy from India cannot apply until five years from now. That doesn't tell me that both immigrants have an equal opportunity.
Both immigrants would have had an equal opportunity if both could apply for GC at the same time. Once you have entered the country, have been gainfully employed, and your immigrant petition has been approved, how does it matter whether you came from India, china or Timbuktu? Your employer needs you for your skills, not your place of birth. Do you resolve your day to day office problems with your birth certificate pasted to your forehead?
Regarding your argument on diversity:
You need to understand that the country cap (set up 50 years ago) was NOT set up to give all countries an equal shot at sending EB immigrants to the US. The cap was based and an already existing xenophobic tendency (formally expressed way back in 1924) and the desire to retain the cultural and racial character of the US of '65. They would do fine with only handful of you if you didn't eat, drink, talk, walk and look like them.
Now, you need to understand another important point - The world has changed by leaps and bounds in the last fifty years, all made possible by advances in technology and a conscientious effort by governments to educate their people. As a result there are highly skilled people all over the world, who bring their own unique character and experience to the work place. And things have changed dramatically in the US too. Among other things, the US has become more accommodating to people of different cultural identities. Economically, the US is in need of more high skilled people than ever before. This is an irreversible trend, where the US of today is more interested in who you are and what you bring to the table than what you look like. If a few thousand Indians or Chinese are given the green card, based on their SKLLS, it will not alter the racial and cultural character of 300000000 Americans (that's 300 followed by six zeros). Rather it will only make it richer.
Usually politicians work in reactionary mode – they will espouse an idea once it is obvious that they can’t do without it. The fact that discussion to remove country caps in EB has come up in the congress means that the American people have already written it off as an absurd idea.
The law will change, whether you like it or not.
Read here and get yourself some education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Services_Act_of_1965
Regarding the agenda:
The agenda of this organization is pretty darn obvious if you care to go through the home page. The idea is to get as close as possible to a system of immigration that appropriately addresses the needs of the US economy and is fair to both Peter and Paul. A system which gives out a green card in a timely fashion, based on skills, job requirements, and the time when the process was started. We need to advocate a change because the current system says to Paul "screw you" and rewards Peter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
tattoo images 2010 Vintage Pin Up Eye
rockstart
07-16 08:46 AM
I hope some lawyer on this forum or on their respective websites can answer this question I think most folks have given their FP's only once some where from Oct - Dec 2007 time frame and USCIS said they do not need more FP's for most cases since they now have the ability to reuse the FP's. My guess is unless you have a criminal record of some kind or perhaps your name appears in the POI list they do not call you for FP again perhaps some random cases as part of Quality checks might be included but thats it.
Does any one remember any statements made by the Ombudsman about preadjudication?
Does any one remember any statements made by the Ombudsman about preadjudication?
more...
pictures images Vintage Pin Up Eye
squishy
03-07 07:45 AM
same here :p:
dresses Pin up-girl hair tutorial
Macaca
07-17 09:24 AM
I am just re-posting something that I had posted elsewhere. I really think that we have to be professional and mature in our response. Does anyone know how one can go about writing an op-ed in the New York Times?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Please send email to reporter Robert Pear (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html). The email should include URL to authentic URL that requires H1B's to pay ALL taxes.
The article: Little-Known Group Claims a Win on Immigration (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/us/politics/15immig.html) By ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) New York Times, July 15, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Please send email to reporter Robert Pear (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html). The email should include URL to authentic URL that requires H1B's to pay ALL taxes.
The article: Little-Known Group Claims a Win on Immigration (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/us/politics/15immig.html) By ROBERT PEAR (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) New York Times, July 15, 2007
more...
makeup vintage pinup makeup. vintage
sbabunle
12-26 07:48 PM
Munna Bhai
I talked to Atty Murthy's office about the same issue. They said that
they had couple of experience where I140 revoked. But USCIS honored
the original PD. But atty says that its kinda grey area. They could insist
that if I140 is revoked, new PD could be your change of employement date.
It depends on the officer . Some of them could honor PD. Some of them insist to the newer PD. Or some other officer may flip a coin and chose one. It will all depend on your luck.
good luck
babu
I talked to Atty Murthy's office about the same issue. They said that
they had couple of experience where I140 revoked. But USCIS honored
the original PD. But atty says that its kinda grey area. They could insist
that if I140 is revoked, new PD could be your change of employement date.
It depends on the officer . Some of them could honor PD. Some of them insist to the newer PD. Or some other officer may flip a coin and chose one. It will all depend on your luck.
good luck
babu
girlfriend makeup vintage pin up
.soulty
03-09 08:00 PM
just enter whatever you have on the date and then fix it up after.. no drama, you can always use this piece for a portfolio or something and you can showcase it later.
hairstyles Classic Pin Up Continued (full
nixstor
07-03 12:38 PM
There have been cases of folks using L1 A Visa. Big outsourcing companies (US & Indian- Does not matter) routinely file for L1 A (intra company transferee - Managerial) when the person is clearly not performing managerial job. Once on L1 A, folks can file for EB1 and get a GC very soon as it is mostly current. I have seen cases in the past like this. I do not know the status now, as DOL is coming down heavily with audits on PERM applicants. This is one area where only deserving people need to be awarded. This post is not to blame anyone, but people do use this Grey area I suppose to their benefit.
AFAIK, this does not work for people who are already in the US. One has to work in their native or different county to be eligible for the EB1 managerial position here. Some one might have sneaked away this way at some time. But this is definitely not happening on a large scale as EB1 is current for all countries for quite some time. If a lot of folks are getting away, EB1 cannot be current for long time.
AFAIK, this does not work for people who are already in the US. One has to work in their native or different county to be eligible for the EB1 managerial position here. Some one might have sneaked away this way at some time. But this is definitely not happening on a large scale as EB1 is current for all countries for quite some time. If a lot of folks are getting away, EB1 cannot be current for long time.
msyedy
06-13 01:23 PM
Senthil1, Pineapple
Please let us not sound harsh and have a bipartisan :D discussion. It is just my statement I do not disagree with neither of you.
Rule 2
You mean Microsoft and Google and other companies want to stop outsourcing. They would not have build a huge team in india if they wanted to do this. The point that you are missing is that they need H1-Bs here because no american born is availabe here to fill those positions.
Read my statement thoroughly.
Big consulting companies(Bearing point....my list will go on) that are plenty in the US who hire and fire H1-B and american born if they cannot find another client for them after few days.
What will happen to these companies .. they have to shut down
Rule 2 will be a disaster for all these companies.
These companies do not go to india to get H1-B's they get them when they come here brought by india Desi companies.
It will be a mess. You might be talking about one company that will never displace and american and will garauntee an employee that he will never be fired once hired : Give me a break.
What exactly is your point Senthil?
If by reiterating (over and over) the "evilness" of "desi" companies insofar as impacting American workers is concerned and justifying absurdly and obviously restrictionist bills on the fond hope that it would have minimal impact on the "good" American companies who hire H1s in the exception, you wish to make it clear that you are an employee of the latter set of companies, you have certainly made your point, and do not need 364 posts to hammer it it.
Ladies and gentlemen, Senthil is a genuine, bona fide high skilled person working for an honest American company which has high ethical standards, and is not, repeat, NOT displacing any son of the soil American.
There - you can relax now.
Please let us not sound harsh and have a bipartisan :D discussion. It is just my statement I do not disagree with neither of you.
Rule 2
You mean Microsoft and Google and other companies want to stop outsourcing. They would not have build a huge team in india if they wanted to do this. The point that you are missing is that they need H1-Bs here because no american born is availabe here to fill those positions.
Read my statement thoroughly.
Big consulting companies(Bearing point....my list will go on) that are plenty in the US who hire and fire H1-B and american born if they cannot find another client for them after few days.
What will happen to these companies .. they have to shut down
Rule 2 will be a disaster for all these companies.
These companies do not go to india to get H1-B's they get them when they come here brought by india Desi companies.
It will be a mess. You might be talking about one company that will never displace and american and will garauntee an employee that he will never be fired once hired : Give me a break.
What exactly is your point Senthil?
If by reiterating (over and over) the "evilness" of "desi" companies insofar as impacting American workers is concerned and justifying absurdly and obviously restrictionist bills on the fond hope that it would have minimal impact on the "good" American companies who hire H1s in the exception, you wish to make it clear that you are an employee of the latter set of companies, you have certainly made your point, and do not need 364 posts to hammer it it.
Ladies and gentlemen, Senthil is a genuine, bona fide high skilled person working for an honest American company which has high ethical standards, and is not, repeat, NOT displacing any son of the soil American.
There - you can relax now.
ss2005
07-11 01:48 PM
If they want to make money, they no need to say that abt 2 year EAD at all.
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
And also most of the EAD renewals are free of cost who filed after 30th June 30 2007.
Post a Comment