looneytunezez
06-11 12:49 PM
Sent message to my senators (CA).
wallpaper dresses teachers day quotes.
greencard_fever
07-28 05:08 PM
only a fool of the nth order can say that india will benefit from this nuclear treaty!
I am not saying that India will be benefit from with this N-deal. I was said if so then how? read it properly...by the way i don’t have any info on this deal and looks like you have more info. can you please tell me and other IV members who is not aware of this deal that how India will not get the benefit and how bad it will effect our great nations growing economy and Nuclear power?
I am not saying that India will be benefit from with this N-deal. I was said if so then how? read it properly...by the way i don’t have any info on this deal and looks like you have more info. can you please tell me and other IV members who is not aware of this deal that how India will not get the benefit and how bad it will effect our great nations growing economy and Nuclear power?
nomi
12-12 12:36 PM
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
I agree with you. There is not logic in any of immigration related laws. I think they should re-write all those immigration laws again and all lawmakers should be Immigrant who can understand all the pain we have coz of these immigration laws. I don`t think any law maker knows "what I-485 is"
Once they approve the 1-140 and that`s it it shuold be all done. AOS
(Change of Status) is all stupid and meaning less. It just money making games for all Attorneys and law makers. All attorneys supports law makers so they make laws where attorney can have maximum benefits from us. These attorneys don`t do anything either about immigration laws coz this is the only way for them to make money.
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
I agree with you. There is not logic in any of immigration related laws. I think they should re-write all those immigration laws again and all lawmakers should be Immigrant who can understand all the pain we have coz of these immigration laws. I don`t think any law maker knows "what I-485 is"
Once they approve the 1-140 and that`s it it shuold be all done. AOS
(Change of Status) is all stupid and meaning less. It just money making games for all Attorneys and law makers. All attorneys supports law makers so they make laws where attorney can have maximum benefits from us. These attorneys don`t do anything either about immigration laws coz this is the only way for them to make money.
2011 Mummy this 没良心的 teacher
rockstart
03-10 11:07 AM
Guru's
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
more...
vandanaverdia
09-10 01:41 PM
No in-state tuition for legals (only for illegals) - You are a legal high-skilled immigrant and have played by all the rules while contributing greatly to the economy, yet your children are not eligible for in-state tuition, while the children of illegal aliens ARE!!!!!
This holds true for even your spouse not being eligible for in-state tuition. WHY???? Because you are a legal dependent(spouse/children) immigrant?
But the children/spouses of the illegal aliens are eligible for the same!!!!!
This holds true for even your spouse not being eligible for in-state tuition. WHY???? Because you are a legal dependent(spouse/children) immigrant?
But the children/spouses of the illegal aliens are eligible for the same!!!!!
god_bless_you
12-13 11:46 AM
I think you should write an e-mail to the core team to get their attention on this idea.
Do you think no one from core team reading this thread??
Do you think no one from core team reading this thread??
more...
varshadas
01-30 02:51 PM
After we come up with the final flyer with images and stuff, we should get it reviewed by IV to make sure that we don't have conflicting statements. We have to get color printouts. We can get them at Kinko's.
Who is good with PPT? Someone can work on the images? Do we want to use IV's existing images or make some new ones?
Thanks,
Varsha
Who is good with PPT? Someone can work on the images? Do we want to use IV's existing images or make some new ones?
Thanks,
Varsha
2010 Happy Teachers Day Quotes:
actaccord
02-23 03:01 PM
to spread the words to all IV members ? Please send the same message you have posted in local chapters to all IV members. We will get additional hands and minds to make this event successful.
Poster to spread the word.. (http://pennyappware.com/myposter.pdf)
Poster to spread the word.. (http://pennyappware.com/myposter.pdf)
more...
anandrajesh
07-02 12:00 PM
Well, this is a clear sign of "You are not Needed here, get the heck out of our country". May be we should heed to this msg and move out.
I wasted My money, Time, Took a Few shots at the Doctor, declined a good Permanent Offer for all this. What a Waste...
This is a sad sad news
UPDATE ON JULY VISA AVAILABILITY
The sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month have resulted in the use of almost 60,000 Employment numbers. As a result of this unexpected action it has been necessary to make immediate adjustments to several previously announced cut-off dates. All Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices have been notified of the following:
Effective Monday July 2, 2007 there will be no further authorizations inresponse to requests for Employment-based preference cases. All numbers available to these categories under the FY-2007 annual numerical limitation
have been made available. Employment preference numbers will once again be available to these chargeability areas beginning October 1, 2007, under the FY-2008 annual numerical limitation.
Department of State Publication 9514
CA/VO: July 2, 2007
I wasted My money, Time, Took a Few shots at the Doctor, declined a good Permanent Offer for all this. What a Waste...
This is a sad sad news
UPDATE ON JULY VISA AVAILABILITY
The sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices during the past month have resulted in the use of almost 60,000 Employment numbers. As a result of this unexpected action it has been necessary to make immediate adjustments to several previously announced cut-off dates. All Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices have been notified of the following:
Effective Monday July 2, 2007 there will be no further authorizations inresponse to requests for Employment-based preference cases. All numbers available to these categories under the FY-2007 annual numerical limitation
have been made available. Employment preference numbers will once again be available to these chargeability areas beginning October 1, 2007, under the FY-2008 annual numerical limitation.
Department of State Publication 9514
CA/VO: July 2, 2007
hair Quotes For Teachers Day. which
morpheus
07-24 10:21 AM
I believe you are overlooking three very important facts.
1. The USCIS main priority at the moment is to reduce backlogs. Unfortunately retrogression works in their favor because it reduces the processing they have to do. Your proposal would increase the processing by forcing them to accept 485 filings and building up a backlog.
2. The USCIS administrator would not be allowed to make a decision like this without input from Congress. It's radically different from concurrent processing, which is a minor administrative change. With AC21, filing 485 without a visa number would allow people to change jobs etc, so it is in the realm of political decisions, not administrative.
3. The USCIS can't even manage to get premium I140 processing (planned since 2002), multi-year EAD's (overdue for years now) or issue regulations on AC21 (due since 2000). Even Congress can barely get them to act!
1. The USCIS main priority at the moment is to reduce backlogs. Unfortunately retrogression works in their favor because it reduces the processing they have to do. Your proposal would increase the processing by forcing them to accept 485 filings and building up a backlog.
2. The USCIS administrator would not be allowed to make a decision like this without input from Congress. It's radically different from concurrent processing, which is a minor administrative change. With AC21, filing 485 without a visa number would allow people to change jobs etc, so it is in the realm of political decisions, not administrative.
3. The USCIS can't even manage to get premium I140 processing (planned since 2002), multi-year EAD's (overdue for years now) or issue regulations on AC21 (due since 2000). Even Congress can barely get them to act!
more...
EkAurAaya
09-26 10:09 AM
I sent an email too and asked the editor to contact info@immigrationvoice.org for more information on why the rally was conducted (to clear up backlog of already filed petitions for green cards and not h1b increase)
hot hair teachers day quotes.
Madhuri
10-12 02:41 PM
PD Mar 2006
485 pending
Recd EAD
485 pending
Recd EAD
more...
house Colored Teachers Day Card With
when
02-20 03:47 PM
When EB3 India........:(:confused:
tattoo hair quotes for teachers day.
yabadaba
12-27 08:22 AM
this was back in 2004...was on opt till then...wellsfargo just needed my h1b approval notice to approve my mortgage
plus for tax purposes u r considered a permanent resident. that means u have lived in ur state for x number of days in a calendar year...never had issues with getting credit cards, car loan, etc.
of course i had 4 yrs of credit history before that..dont know if that helped.
plus for tax purposes u r considered a permanent resident. that means u have lived in ur state for x number of days in a calendar year...never had issues with getting credit cards, car loan, etc.
of course i had 4 yrs of credit history before that..dont know if that helped.
more...
pictures quotes for teachers day
arsh007
01-30 02:45 PM
Hi,
I know a good desi firm. The firm takes just $2/hr for the operational expense. If you need more info please send a private message.
Thanks
I have looking out for companies to sponsor my wife's H1 (she is currently on H4) here in St Louis, MO. One local company (less than 25 employees) is ready to sponsor my wife's H1 provided the following conditions are met:
1. Pay H1 costs (including petition and attorney fees)
2. Pay payroll taxes for my wife from Oct 1, 2007 if she manages to get an H1 but is not able to begin working on a project.
3. Refund of H1 costs after completing 6 months on project.
I was ready for all conditions except 'paying payroll taxes when not on project'. That would mean paying around $700-$800 each month or more...Its surprising how desi companies can impose such conditions....
I am still contemplating whether to go ahead with this company or tell him "GO to HELL".......
I know a good desi firm. The firm takes just $2/hr for the operational expense. If you need more info please send a private message.
Thanks
I have looking out for companies to sponsor my wife's H1 (she is currently on H4) here in St Louis, MO. One local company (less than 25 employees) is ready to sponsor my wife's H1 provided the following conditions are met:
1. Pay H1 costs (including petition and attorney fees)
2. Pay payroll taxes for my wife from Oct 1, 2007 if she manages to get an H1 but is not able to begin working on a project.
3. Refund of H1 costs after completing 6 months on project.
I was ready for all conditions except 'paying payroll taxes when not on project'. That would mean paying around $700-$800 each month or more...Its surprising how desi companies can impose such conditions....
I am still contemplating whether to go ahead with this company or tell him "GO to HELL".......
dresses teachers day quotes and
ramus
07-03 03:00 PM
Thanks.
Contributed $100.
Order Details - Jul 3, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
Google Order #222021463879830
Contributed $100.
Order Details - Jul 3, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
Google Order #222021463879830
more...
makeup wallpaper Happy Teachers Day
Libra
06-13 10:33 AM
Yaar JohnAmit.........they are making fun of those who are crying about cheap labor and immigration system....they created it for fun.
I have seen this same footage months ago and to it don't look real, its cooked. Some facts there are just un-digestible like the gora guy will take job of a waiter immediately after working as senior exec. cmon market is not that bad unless he don't know anything else and don't have ability to get other similar job, then he should be fired anyways. and then that carlos guy, his dress up don't seems convincing that other execs will give me good response after presentation. its all cooked... showing 600k+ numbers are all bogus.
I have seen this same footage months ago and to it don't look real, its cooked. Some facts there are just un-digestible like the gora guy will take job of a waiter immediately after working as senior exec. cmon market is not that bad unless he don't know anything else and don't have ability to get other similar job, then he should be fired anyways. and then that carlos guy, his dress up don't seems convincing that other execs will give me good response after presentation. its all cooked... showing 600k+ numbers are all bogus.
girlfriend dresses quotes for teachers
greatzolin
08-15 04:18 PM
They should have continued down to EB3 w/ those dates..!
hairstyles Quotes for Teachers; funny
ita
01-30 10:03 PM
How does one know what is the amount mentioned on H1 LCA? Do we have to ask the employer about it?
Now how do you show that you were in status since last entry to 485 filing date? Do we have to produce monthly pay stubs or will the W2 be sufficient?
Will appreciate your response.
Thank you.
Example[/U]
Mr Chanakya Pandit (fictitious name) has filed for eb-3 India in July 2007 for I-485. He has PD of Sep 2005 (not current).
Mr Pandit entered last on H1 visa on Jan 21st 2006 and he is working for ABC company. As per H1 LCA, his salary is 65k and he is getting paid 62k.
He entered on USA using AP in Oct 2008. He is using EAD to work.
Since he was getting paid less athn H1 salary, he is out of status since Jan 21st 2006 and he has accumulating out of status days until date of I-485 filing. If this out of status > 180 days, his I-485 can be denied just on this basis alone.
If person is out of status for more than 180 days at thetime of filing for I-485, he can denied entry even on AP. Read your AP document, it mentions warning about of out of status right there.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Now how do you show that you were in status since last entry to 485 filing date? Do we have to produce monthly pay stubs or will the W2 be sufficient?
Will appreciate your response.
Thank you.
Example[/U]
Mr Chanakya Pandit (fictitious name) has filed for eb-3 India in July 2007 for I-485. He has PD of Sep 2005 (not current).
Mr Pandit entered last on H1 visa on Jan 21st 2006 and he is working for ABC company. As per H1 LCA, his salary is 65k and he is getting paid 62k.
He entered on USA using AP in Oct 2008. He is using EAD to work.
Since he was getting paid less athn H1 salary, he is out of status since Jan 21st 2006 and he has accumulating out of status days until date of I-485 filing. If this out of status > 180 days, his I-485 can be denied just on this basis alone.
If person is out of status for more than 180 days at thetime of filing for I-485, he can denied entry even on AP. Read your AP document, it mentions warning about of out of status right there.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
snathan
03-10 01:13 PM
Yes...we need to get the unused visa numbers. But this is not the right time for that. Because of the economy there will be huge outcry and we should avoid the negative publicity.
In this situation if things are not going bad for us, we should be happy. At least for status quo rather than losing what we have.
In this situation if things are not going bad for us, we should be happy. At least for status quo rather than losing what we have.
sc3
10-16 06:05 PM
What happened to your sense of judgment, whoever said that USCIS is doing it maliciously? They reacted for sure but within legal boundaries. I do not understand why you keep twisted people’s answers.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
I havent twisted anyone's answers. When you (and others) say "reacted" you mean that they are intentionally shafting you in some way. Do you dispute that? Why is the very first response to this idea something to the tune of "..and see the cutoff go back to ice ages". It clearly shows that people are saying USCIS will "revolt" against you (not necessarily in as many words).
That is exactly I am saying, I am asking why should it be this way, this is totally wrong. They should go by PD. Even if my application was not moved to another centre mine still would not have gotten approved because I applied in Aug and not July. I mentioned that to tell you that I have to wait even more now.
Now if you ask me why I applied in Aug and not in Jul, it is because my family was not in US at that time. If you had told me beforehand about the impending fiasco I wouldn’t have sent them in the first place. I had to call them back and cancel my trip spending hundreds of $s.
Why is it not sustainable, now you are defending something that is wrong, why should I have to wait though my GC was started ages before?
Let's see here; I don't need to know why you did not apply earlier, that is your personal matter. But answer me this.
I have a PD of late 2002 (EB3), and haven't been able to apply due to personal reasons. Now when the PD becomes current. I apply and the following bulletin further advances the PD. Do you think that I should be given preference over someone who had no personal obligations and applied in 2007, that is to say, should the entire system be ground to a halt because I am a late filer?
Now put yourself in the earlier RD's applicant? What will be your answer? Do you think someone who delays for personal reason be given a free pass just because he has an earlier PD??
I know you dont want to hear it, but the current system of RD based processing is a good system. Your grouse probably is that they advanced the PDs so much further when there was enough demand from earlier PDs. If you argue on that premise, I will be very supportive. But I am insensitive to "I have an earlier PD, so I should get my GC first".
PD has its place in the system, however it does not play a role in processing order.
Just because I said USCIS is doing something wrong (not following processing order..) doesn’t mean I said that DOS did something right.. you keep assuming things..
You were blaming USCIS for the Perm/BEC debacle, I did not assume anything you haven't already said.
Again you are running your imagination wild, who blamed all the other things on USCIS?..
I guess your computer has a bug, it is not showing the winkies and the smiles properly. Get a technician to look at it.
Dude, show me one post of mine which said anything against the idea. I even gave a green for what he is trying to do, at least he is doing something while the rest of us are watching….
I was responding to "bec", and you ended up debating the issue by supporting the idea that USCIS retaliated because of the July 07. I guess that makes it fair play for people to assume that you are against the original idea. I you consider it to be overreaching to make such connection, I apologize for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment