kanshul
04-23 09:48 AM
Also remember that the client may not be happy with the small consulting firm who is threatning...
Do you have a middle layer (preferred vendor)? Does your employer have other working on the client site? In either case the employer faces serious possiblity of losing businesss in the future.
Talk to your client manager and I can assure you that no court will hold your employer's reasoning as valid.
What state are you in? In NJ your employer is not even considered an employer but an employmend agency so no non compete holds...
Do you have a middle layer (preferred vendor)? Does your employer have other working on the client site? In either case the employer faces serious possiblity of losing businesss in the future.
Talk to your client manager and I can assure you that no court will hold your employer's reasoning as valid.
What state are you in? In NJ your employer is not even considered an employer but an employmend agency so no non compete holds...
wallpaper Serena Williams: Back on the
reddog
03-11 11:07 AM
This is illegal. Your not working at all for the employer who filed your Green Card is completely the wrong way to go.
maristella61
02-27 11:55 AM
LIN = nebraska service center, SRC = Texas service center
Thanks !
Thanks !
2011 serena williams hot pink
msp1976
02-09 03:59 PM
All non-Indian members....
At present India is the most retrogressed country...This is just an attempt to gauge the extent of retrogression....
This poll does not imply that you are not valuable and your concerns are not cared for...
At present India is the most retrogressed country...This is just an attempt to gauge the extent of retrogression....
This poll does not imply that you are not valuable and your concerns are not cared for...
more...
sagar_nyc
04-21 02:03 PM
Actually GC on L1 can be really much faster because GC processing on L1 comes under special EB1 category. So if you are willing to take risk of loosing job on L1. I will recommend to go for GC under L1.
Hi greeta,
I am not sure about time frame for GC but FREEDOM is more important for me. The market is not good, if you loose the job in L1 then you have to leave
to your home country and cannot transfer your visa. If it's H1 you can always do that.
If at all there is a difference in processing times for GC for L1, i don't see any drastic difference. Instead of 6 years it may be 5 years (6 years for GC? Are you kidding me?). No big deal.
Good luck.
Rgds,
Kris
Hi greeta,
I am not sure about time frame for GC but FREEDOM is more important for me. The market is not good, if you loose the job in L1 then you have to leave
to your home country and cannot transfer your visa. If it's H1 you can always do that.
If at all there is a difference in processing times for GC for L1, i don't see any drastic difference. Instead of 6 years it may be 5 years (6 years for GC? Are you kidding me?). No big deal.
Good luck.
Rgds,
Kris
leoindiano
03-17 10:02 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
more...
tcsonly
07-21 04:07 PM
My PD is June 04 and the online status for my LC shows CERTIFIED since last week. Attorneys say they need DOL to send them the approved LC ... some document, which would be needed to file I-140 and I-485. Any idea how much time it takes for DOL to send the above said document back to the applicant or representative?
In that case, have your paper work ready such as medical tests, birth certs & related.
-C.
In that case, have your paper work ready such as medical tests, birth certs & related.
-C.
2010 serena williams hot pink
Rockford
07-17 02:29 PM
OK. Now we have this new thread about the "comment" made some anonymous user "south" made on a blog by siskind, and siskind himself is looking at IV for new updates. Man, give us a break. That comment was not made by siskind, but it was made by some user on his blog.
Thanks, but keep moving.
I have seen some credible comments in the past. You are right , Greg is looking to IV for updates on this , so I would not expect any authoritative news from him either. This comment seemed more real in the light of new AILA comments.
BTW , I like your signature :)
Thanks, but keep moving.
I have seen some credible comments in the past. You are right , Greg is looking to IV for updates on this , so I would not expect any authoritative news from him either. This comment seemed more real in the light of new AILA comments.
BTW , I like your signature :)
more...
maine_gc
02-01 07:32 AM
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
hair tattoo Serena Williams Skintight Hot serena williams hot pink bodysuit.
waitnwatch
05-30 01:42 PM
Ideally all H1B people who are interested in immigrating will apply for GC around the 2nd or 3rd year of H1B.
If you are in EB2/EB3 you will and apply for Labor and/or I140 during the 3rd year, by the time you reach the 6th year you will be surely be able to apply for extension as by then you will be eligible even if your I140 is not approved as it will cross 365 days in pending state by then. If its approved then all the more you are safe.
The problem comes only for those who delay their GC process till the end of the H1B visas 5th or 6th year and those who are stuck in BEC.
Otherwise having this rule actually wont affect many people in future. So I would not worry about this rule.
Please see my previous post. I am talking about the new system which does not have the EB1/2/3 classification. Please do not confuse it with the existing system. Also under the new system you have 6 points for employer recommendation and 10 points for experience. So 1st year employees may not get either an employer recommendation or any points for work experience.
If you are in EB2/EB3 you will and apply for Labor and/or I140 during the 3rd year, by the time you reach the 6th year you will be surely be able to apply for extension as by then you will be eligible even if your I140 is not approved as it will cross 365 days in pending state by then. If its approved then all the more you are safe.
The problem comes only for those who delay their GC process till the end of the H1B visas 5th or 6th year and those who are stuck in BEC.
Otherwise having this rule actually wont affect many people in future. So I would not worry about this rule.
Please see my previous post. I am talking about the new system which does not have the EB1/2/3 classification. Please do not confuse it with the existing system. Also under the new system you have 6 points for employer recommendation and 10 points for experience. So 1st year employees may not get either an employer recommendation or any points for work experience.
more...
TexDBoy
06-07 03:36 PM
When is your last entry to US?
why r they asking for so many years back?
why r they asking for so many years back?
hot Serena Williams
piyu7444
04-01 02:32 PM
What was your exact PD (Day?) Nov 21 2006
2. Which service center did you file with? Texas
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW? No special category and I filed on Jul 1 and my application reached USCIS on Jul 2
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country? India and no crosscharge.........
Hope this helps..
2. Which service center did you file with? Texas
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW? No special category and I filed on Jul 1 and my application reached USCIS on Jul 2
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country? India and no crosscharge.........
Hope this helps..
more...
house Serena Williams Explains Hot
indyanguy
01-13 07:39 PM
Do they send you a copy of the original?
Hi All,
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
Hi All,
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
tattoo serena williams hot pink
waitingnwaiting
11-29 02:43 PM
Any news on this?Will they give EAD?
Please ask the lawyer who said that and let us know if this is happening.
Please ask the lawyer who said that and let us know if this is happening.
more...
pictures Post image for Serena Williams
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
dresses Serena Williams Explains Hot
dummgelauft
04-13 12:40 PM
You are talking about needs? Then US needs all EB's over illegals by much, much more than US needs EB1 over EBn (n>1). So let's not talk of who contributes and who does not. It doesn't matter, all have same raw deal
If there was the slightest doubt that you are technically qualified person, you removed it 100% by by giving that equation Ebn(n>1) LOL!!
If there was the slightest doubt that you are technically qualified person, you removed it 100% by by giving that equation Ebn(n>1) LOL!!
more...
makeup hot serena williams hot pink serena williams hot pink bodysuit. serena
haifromsk@yahoo.com
09-06 02:50 PM
MS+0 is totally fine as long as the requirement is masters. It has least complications. When ppl with no masters apply no probs. When ppl with masters and exp apply, I am sure they will ask for more wage than labour cert. On those grounds u can deny those resumes. Its not worth to change employer just for that reason. There are many other big things that ur employer should back u in. So stay with someone who will back u well with apper work and with whome u have a rappo or will have a rappo.
girlfriend Serena Williams returns to
AirWaterandGC
05-12 10:14 AM
This is what I received :
Thank you for taking action on AILA's Contact Congress website. If you'd like to get more involved in our advocacy efforts, please contact AILA's Manager of Grassroots Advocacy, Jenny Levy.
Your message was sent to:
Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Representative Keith M. Ellison (D-MN 5th)
Thank you for taking action on AILA's Contact Congress website. If you'd like to get more involved in our advocacy efforts, please contact AILA's Manager of Grassroots Advocacy, Jenny Levy.
Your message was sent to:
Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Representative Keith M. Ellison (D-MN 5th)
hairstyles serena williams hot pink
pankajkakkar
03-01 06:46 PM
I'd like to join the conference call as well.
desi3933
08-25 01:01 PM
Okay!! I'll have to ask a lawyer then...But most often I get good answers here in the IV forum, then asking the attorney...sometimes, i personally feel, they are not all that good with answers.
There is one more thing you should consider -
One is allowed to enter on AP, as long as the I-485 application remains pending. The risk is, if the I-485 application is denied while person is outside USA, then the Immigration Inspector can deny the person's entry on AP into the USA.
_________________
Not a legal advise.
There is one more thing you should consider -
One is allowed to enter on AP, as long as the I-485 application remains pending. The risk is, if the I-485 application is denied while person is outside USA, then the Immigration Inspector can deny the person's entry on AP into the USA.
_________________
Not a legal advise.
RNGC
11-25 03:03 PM
You are doing great...Please keep up the good work...
also, add item 6 to our wish list..
6. Remove "same or similar" clause in EAD which is causing lots of confusion. Just see that anyone who gets a EAD works in the Information technology field and not flipping burgers.
also, add item 6 to our wish list..
6. Remove "same or similar" clause in EAD which is causing lots of confusion. Just see that anyone who gets a EAD works in the Information technology field and not flipping burgers.
Post a Comment