3d Nirvana
02-27 08:28 PM
You can also use Mental Rey, and check the "final gather" option. Make sure when you use it you set the rays down to like 10 or 20, or it'll take forever to render.
This will actually make all objects emit a certain amount of light depending on their brightness. For example, a stone wall will not make any noticeable light, but a bright white ball (a light bulb) will act as a omni light. I use this in almost all my renders to achieve a more realistic scene.
That shader glow thing isn't what he wants I think. To add it though, open the attributes of the material, and under the special effects menu you just increase the value from 0. That does not make the object a light though, it adds a glow to the object in post (after the render), and so it does no make any actual light. .... i might be thinking of some other glow thing, soulty's way might work as well
I will start my subway soon guys! I love the entries so far! Keep it up!
Cheers!
3dnirvana
This will actually make all objects emit a certain amount of light depending on their brightness. For example, a stone wall will not make any noticeable light, but a bright white ball (a light bulb) will act as a omni light. I use this in almost all my renders to achieve a more realistic scene.
That shader glow thing isn't what he wants I think. To add it though, open the attributes of the material, and under the special effects menu you just increase the value from 0. That does not make the object a light though, it adds a glow to the object in post (after the render), and so it does no make any actual light. .... i might be thinking of some other glow thing, soulty's way might work as well
I will start my subway soon guys! I love the entries so far! Keep it up!
Cheers!
3dnirvana
wallpaper Carles Puyol and Malena Costa
kpchal2
07-18 12:17 PM
hi tapukakababa, the number is for the national customer service center but you mentioned you called the nebraska service center. so did u ask them to transfer to that service center or ???. i would like to talk to those guys and see what they did wityh my application. i guess we already had a painful ride and if it does not yield the right fruit then it really hurts us bad.
delhiguy
07-04 08:03 PM
Excellent
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
2011 Malena+costa+wiki
vbkris77
03-10 04:18 PM
Thanks for the reply. I already contributed fo FOIA campaign.
We keep doing feasibility discussions within the team and with our advisors before launching a campaign. We did work on some in your list above + more last year and got a couple of successes in return. Admin fix for 2 year EAD, visa recapture bill introduction are some.
I feel some admin fixes can be possible at this time and some advocacy effort with USCIS can help us get more efficient service. FOIA campaign is a step in that direction. Please support it to make it successful so that we have resources and participation to move forward.
We keep doing feasibility discussions within the team and with our advisors before launching a campaign. We did work on some in your list above + more last year and got a couple of successes in return. Admin fix for 2 year EAD, visa recapture bill introduction are some.
I feel some admin fixes can be possible at this time and some advocacy effort with USCIS can help us get more efficient service. FOIA campaign is a step in that direction. Please support it to make it successful so that we have resources and participation to move forward.
more...
sweet23guyin
10-16 10:49 AM
||
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
more...
crazyghoda
01-30 02:15 PM
Wow! Thanks a lot for posting such detailed RFE information. This really helps a lot in understanding what I may be asked.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Hi had an RFE when my dates were not current. Here is the scan of my RFE notice.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Hi had an RFE when my dates were not current. Here is the scan of my RFE notice.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
2010 girlfriend Malena Costa
mantric
02-17 05:07 AM
canuck has a point, although his wording is not the best.
our own self respect should come first when we are faced with economic coercion of our choices. we came here not as beggars but with skills to offer to employers. in exchange for commitment and hard work there was a promise to a path to permanent residency. we have a right to live here as employees without constant and undue stress because of discriminatory laws and unreasonable delays that constrain our advancement in the very careers that brought us here. this much is true of all EB immigrants.
self-respect is not a question of not obeying laws but of challenging them when they turn out to be unfair and discriminatory to hard working, tax paying residents. this issue is central, not the fact that i came from one country or another.
now if you look at rajiv khanna's lawsuit against USCIS, the main reason USCIS won was because of their argument that i-485 filers were not a unified class. so USCIS used the very argument that these filers were divided to win the case. when USCIS itself has used this argument of divisions between immigrants against legal eb immigrants howcome we are reluctant to admit this policy ?
the instruments of control are much more refined now than they used to be in the days of slavery and divide and rule. but they do exist in and it is for us to recognize them as such. that's the first step to freedom.
our own self respect should come first when we are faced with economic coercion of our choices. we came here not as beggars but with skills to offer to employers. in exchange for commitment and hard work there was a promise to a path to permanent residency. we have a right to live here as employees without constant and undue stress because of discriminatory laws and unreasonable delays that constrain our advancement in the very careers that brought us here. this much is true of all EB immigrants.
self-respect is not a question of not obeying laws but of challenging them when they turn out to be unfair and discriminatory to hard working, tax paying residents. this issue is central, not the fact that i came from one country or another.
now if you look at rajiv khanna's lawsuit against USCIS, the main reason USCIS won was because of their argument that i-485 filers were not a unified class. so USCIS used the very argument that these filers were divided to win the case. when USCIS itself has used this argument of divisions between immigrants against legal eb immigrants howcome we are reluctant to admit this policy ?
the instruments of control are much more refined now than they used to be in the days of slavery and divide and rule. but they do exist in and it is for us to recognize them as such. that's the first step to freedom.
more...
sukhwinderd
03-18 08:42 AM
please PM vin13
I can donate about 30K Continental miles. Please let me know the procedure.
Thanks,
I can donate about 30K Continental miles. Please let me know the procedure.
Thanks,
hair may Malena+costa+novia+de+
amitjoey
07-05 03:52 PM
Update: Thank you everyone who has contributed since July 2 when we announced the drive. Our total contributions from paypal and google are around $2,500 till now (despite having 15 k members). As you can understand this is hardly of any significance for even a small legal effort. A big lawsuit is out of question. Thus IV core will use it for IV activities to further pursue its advocacy efforts. IV encourages its members being a plaintiffs with AILF if they so desire. If you are an IV member and also a plaintiff, you can let us know for any guidance we can provide. IV will be coming up with more direction to its members soon. We will have some plan for everyone and will need participation from everyone. Please stay tuned.
Man, $2500 only. That is really pathetic.
Man, $2500 only. That is really pathetic.
more...
gcformeornot
08-29 03:55 PM
most of the desi consultants seem to be concentrated in NJ or Chicago. Are there any reliable desi consultants for H-1 in CA? What are the websites which give info in this direction?
What are the steps to be followed and things to watch out for in selecting a desi consultant?
like Reliable Desi Consultant? I think they become Extinct with dinosaurs!
What are the steps to be followed and things to watch out for in selecting a desi consultant?
like Reliable Desi Consultant? I think they become Extinct with dinosaurs!
hot Malena Costa photographed at
pappu
01-16 11:29 AM
Date of sign up: Jan. 16, 2007
Subscription Name: Secure $20 Per Month Recurring Contribution
Subscription Number: S-92E2356024336193V
Can you confirm?
pls update your profile so that we can confirm.
Subscription Name: Secure $20 Per Month Recurring Contribution
Subscription Number: S-92E2356024336193V
Can you confirm?
pls update your profile so that we can confirm.
more...
house carles puyol and malena costa.
mps
04-23 09:43 PM
Hearty Congratulations !!
You have been a great contributor to this site .. please continue to do so for benefit of rest of us ..:)
You have been a great contributor to this site .. please continue to do so for benefit of rest of us ..:)
tattoo Malena Costa is Carles Puyol#39;s
new_horizon
06-10 04:08 PM
Done
more...
pictures carles puyol and malena costa. reblog source:malenacosta
anilsal
12-27 10:33 AM
When I went to renew my IL drivers license, two questions:
a) are u a citizen?
b) Do you vote?
Thats it. A yawn from the lady. License renewed till 2011.
I think the "Blue" states are much easier when it comes to dmv.
When you have time and you are an Indian:
http://tinyurl.com/yd4ds9
a) are u a citizen?
b) Do you vote?
Thats it. A yawn from the lady. License renewed till 2011.
I think the "Blue" states are much easier when it comes to dmv.
When you have time and you are an Indian:
http://tinyurl.com/yd4ds9
dresses Carles Puyol and Malena Costa
vin13
02-17 11:10 AM
I am volunteering to coordinate the collection and redemption of airline miles.
Those who would like to donate or in need please PM me with your Name and Phone number along with a good time to reach.
if you are donating miles, please also provide the airlines and the number of miles you wish to donate and contact info (name and phone number)
Please do not forget to put your phone number when you send me the PM.
Thanks
Those who would like to donate or in need please PM me with your Name and Phone number along with a good time to reach.
if you are donating miles, please also provide the airlines and the number of miles you wish to donate and contact info (name and phone number)
Please do not forget to put your phone number when you send me the PM.
Thanks
more...
makeup Carles Puyol and Malena Costa
zuhail
03-10 03:49 PM
Of all 4 the proposals made by vbkris77,
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
I would just stick with one and only one:
RE-CAPTURING VISA NUMBERS.
If we add any other item like re validating H1B inside US,accountability for USCIS etc, the message would bound to get lost. It will get bogged down by the details of implementing the other proposals. The devil is always in the details.
I think we need to stick to single target of visa re-capturing (with no mention of the word H1B in the legislation). There should be no crap about H1B workers stealing jobs nor granting pardon for illegals. Visa re-capture is for educated foreign-born professionals currently employed in US.
Many ask if this is the right time. When will be the right time?. Are we asking anything that has not been already granted by the law?. These past visa numbers have been already approved by the law but not used by the USCIS.
The time is RIGHT NOW.
It is interesting why IV team is not taking up this one item and start fund raising.
May be the team has some valid reasons for not doing so. I could only guess.
But waiting for the right time to take up this agenda of re-capturing visa numbers is not a valid reason. That is totally hopeless.
girlfriend malena costa and puyol,
alias
09-10 01:25 PM
Would the Sys Admin know if you've done that? :D
Nope, you are simply transporting RTSP video data on port 80, to them it should be like any other web traffic.
Nope, you are simply transporting RTSP video data on port 80, to them it should be like any other web traffic.
hairstyles malena costa puyol. want This
immi2006
02-22 07:26 PM
Hi,
I called USCIS today, i was asked to take infopass to get a status update on my case, as it was pending in local office. I am not sure why.
My PD is 2001 March, from Dallas BEC - LC cleared on June 2007. Filed 140+485 on July 2. In my company atleast 400 - 500 number of EB2 cases came thru in June 2007, there were a few hundred lcs from BEC for EB3 too..from 2000-2001 time frame, based on some of the threads I have seen. We are one of the largest networking company in San Jose, here. I am sure there are other companoies that have good number of folks, also depends on how many stuck on..
Filed my 10 th year H1 extension,
PD March 2001
EB2 - Category - Adv Degree
Country - India
Degree - Research IIT/IISc Bangalore.
Following advice of 'Googler' i skimmed through the USCIS OMbud's report. So USCIS is not able to accurately 'count' the cases because old cases at local offices are not accounted in system (?) . Otherwise it would have been a quick data base query to obtain whatever statistics.
And i was interested in knowing how many India EB2 pending till Oct.2002 ;-)
I called USCIS today, i was asked to take infopass to get a status update on my case, as it was pending in local office. I am not sure why.
My PD is 2001 March, from Dallas BEC - LC cleared on June 2007. Filed 140+485 on July 2. In my company atleast 400 - 500 number of EB2 cases came thru in June 2007, there were a few hundred lcs from BEC for EB3 too..from 2000-2001 time frame, based on some of the threads I have seen. We are one of the largest networking company in San Jose, here. I am sure there are other companoies that have good number of folks, also depends on how many stuck on..
Filed my 10 th year H1 extension,
PD March 2001
EB2 - Category - Adv Degree
Country - India
Degree - Research IIT/IISc Bangalore.
Following advice of 'Googler' i skimmed through the USCIS OMbud's report. So USCIS is not able to accurately 'count' the cases because old cases at local offices are not accounted in system (?) . Otherwise it would have been a quick data base query to obtain whatever statistics.
And i was interested in knowing how many India EB2 pending till Oct.2002 ;-)
a_yaja
12-28 03:25 PM
Please excuse my ignorance,,but what is 529
529 is a college savings program that lets you put in money for your children's education. All contributions to the 529 account grow tax free, as long as they are used for higher education (bachelor's and above). Currently, the contribution is not exempt from Federal Income tax, but in Ohio, the first $2000 is exempt from state income tax. If the money is used for anything else other than higher education, there is a 10% penalty and the withdrawal is taxed as ordinary income. I think you can get away with the 10% penalty if the designated child gets a scholarship.
529 is a college savings program that lets you put in money for your children's education. All contributions to the 529 account grow tax free, as long as they are used for higher education (bachelor's and above). Currently, the contribution is not exempt from Federal Income tax, but in Ohio, the first $2000 is exempt from state income tax. If the money is used for anything else other than higher education, there is a 10% penalty and the withdrawal is taxed as ordinary income. I think you can get away with the 10% penalty if the designated child gets a scholarship.
Indirant
01-27 12:20 PM
Hi varsha,
I think sanjay or Rajeev was suppose to work with Ajay in metropark
Sekar
I think sanjay or Rajeev was suppose to work with Ajay in metropark
Sekar
Post a Comment