nixstor
06-28 11:00 PM
Knock Knock
wallpaper Older with Heart Disease*,
shantak
03-18 06:45 PM
If you have left your I-140 company, that I-140 is dead. No wonder you have not heard back. It's not pending, it's cancelled. I-140 is employer based and therefore if USCIS said they were not satisfied with place of work, which reads: not enough income for the company to be able to pay you the salary declared in the I140 app. If you did not reply to their show-cause within the time frame stated, your I-140 application is deemed abandoned.
How will an I-140 gets cancelled just because he left the company. GC is for future employment, that should have nothing to do with the current employment. Same with Place of work issue, place of issue on H1 has nothing to do with I-140
As amit has suggested approaching Senators will do wonders (atleast for some)
How will an I-140 gets cancelled just because he left the company. GC is for future employment, that should have nothing to do with the current employment. Same with Place of work issue, place of issue on H1 has nothing to do with I-140
As amit has suggested approaching Senators will do wonders (atleast for some)
GCisLottery
01-25 04:47 PM
Please do not quote T(oilet paper) o(f) I(ndia)
Seriously.
Seriously.
2011 Heart Disease Statistics Uk.
dilber
06-13 08:02 PM
I have asked this question before and have called around 4 reps so far. Do I just leave a message or ask for the Congressman / woman? The receptionists are probably not even writing down the messages.
Hi Aah_GC
I called all the representatives and I thought they were not taking down any thing and way it even useful. basically I was doubting like you did so to one of the aides I asked did he get down the numbers and he just repeated them right back. Also any further doubts I had are cleared now as I see a lot of reps we were targeting actually becoming co-sponsors to these bills. So I would suggest (and urge) you to definitely call every lawmakers in all the 2 calling items. I mean it can never hurt right??
Hi Aah_GC
I called all the representatives and I thought they were not taking down any thing and way it even useful. basically I was doubting like you did so to one of the aides I asked did he get down the numbers and he just repeated them right back. Also any further doubts I had are cleared now as I see a lot of reps we were targeting actually becoming co-sponsors to these bills. So I would suggest (and urge) you to definitely call every lawmakers in all the 2 calling items. I mean it can never hurt right??
more...
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
06-02 12:55 PM
July 07 485 filer with pd of July 2003 in EB3.
EAD and AP available and can be used for AC21.
Current H1 valid till 2010 July
Got married after filing 485 and so wife does not have EAD etc and is on H4.
Another company wants me to come to their company using EAD as they dont want to file h1. Can I use EAD under AC21 and switch jobs while my wife is still on H4 ?
Is the EAD/AOS status change applicable only when going in and out of the country ? If we decide to stay in the USA till we get a GC, does it matter if I use EAD to change jobs though my wife is on H4 ?
EAD and AP available and can be used for AC21.
Current H1 valid till 2010 July
Got married after filing 485 and so wife does not have EAD etc and is on H4.
Another company wants me to come to their company using EAD as they dont want to file h1. Can I use EAD under AC21 and switch jobs while my wife is still on H4 ?
Is the EAD/AOS status change applicable only when going in and out of the country ? If we decide to stay in the USA till we get a GC, does it matter if I use EAD to change jobs though my wife is on H4 ?
SureShot
06-05 11:22 AM
You should all be very proud of yourselves.
These are the biggest pieces of S**T I have ever seen! Congrats!
These are the biggest pieces of S**T I have ever seen! Congrats!
more...
vactorboy29
11-27 09:19 AM
I had very very bad experience in Mumbai. I had lost my all documents except passport .Keep ur Documents all the time with you no matter what situation would be. Look for good safe hotel don�t go after chip hotel. One more thing keep all your valuables in secured place.
At consulate experience was pleasant.
At consulate experience was pleasant.
2010 statistics from several
gcseeker2002
02-20 03:16 PM
I was looking at the flcdatacenter website for Perm labors filed in 2006, and here are the numbers of total perm filed :
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
more...
Joybose
08-14 02:58 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Hey, which service center, Texas or Nebraska.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Hey, which service center, Texas or Nebraska.
hair +heart+disease+statistics+
thomachan72
05-10 09:42 AM
I am curious to know if people are sending amounts >20K by wire transfer to India or other countries from the US. People who do that regularly or have done that in past, have you encountered any problems? Wire transfers are directly informed by the bank to the IRS and you do not have to do it personally right?
Comments from those who have done this before is appreciated.
Comments from those who have done this before is appreciated.
more...
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.
hot heart disease statistics 2010.
skagitswimmer
June 6th, 2005, 08:35 AM
Would the 20D or D1MkII have greater tolerances i.e. wider range algorithms in the camera?
more...
house heart disease statistics 2010.
akilaakka
07-11 02:10 PM
My EAD and AP application was received June 19, 2009 at TSC. To my pleasant shocking & surprise USCIS approved mine and wife's application in 20 days and we received the card today.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
We are happy with the speed and efficiency USCIS and wish they could do everything the same way. we received two year EAD but concerned as receiving a two year EAD indicates that it may take a while to get my PD (Dec 2005).
Thanks
Senthil.
tattoo coronary heart disease
immilaw
12-08 08:48 AM
Called Senator Tom Price - 770-565-4990. Was asked the Bill #.
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
What's the Bill # and which house is it being introduced in?
Lets not start a seperate thread. We already have one http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2483 for these messages. Please post your messages there.
more...
pictures National vital statistics
nk2006
12-07 02:40 PM
Friends,
I apoligizeif I was posting this message in the wrong section.
I'm on H1B and filed my 140/485 concurrently in Aug 2007. Can I do ONLINE MBA with out affecting GC process?
Yes.
I think you can take classes (online or even regular in-class) as long as you maintian your primary H1B status - i.e. continue to work with the employer on the specified job/number of hours etc.
(note: I am not a lawyer)
I apoligizeif I was posting this message in the wrong section.
I'm on H1B and filed my 140/485 concurrently in Aug 2007. Can I do ONLINE MBA with out affecting GC process?
Yes.
I think you can take classes (online or even regular in-class) as long as you maintian your primary H1B status - i.e. continue to work with the employer on the specified job/number of hours etc.
(note: I am not a lawyer)
dresses coronary artery disease
GCwaitforever
11-17 09:00 PM
My Dear friends I need your valuable suggestion. I have decided and fixed my mind to return home after 8 years as I recently got laid off after working 4 years in same company. My EB2 LC was pending last three years Dallas backlog. My previous employer will mail me W2 to my India home address. I do not know how to file Tax from India. Do I need to buy Turbo Tax software before leaving home? You can understand my present scenario. Any kind input will be much appreciated.
Very sorry to hear about the layoff. Filing tax from India is not a big deal. Many tax web sites accept credit cards or let you pay the tax filing fee out of your incoming refund or your bank account. You do not even have to wait for your W-2 to pay taxes if you read your last paycheck carefully.
Very sorry to hear about the layoff. Filing tax from India is not a big deal. Many tax web sites accept credit cards or let you pay the tax filing fee out of your incoming refund or your bank account. You do not even have to wait for your W-2 to pay taxes if you read your last paycheck carefully.
more...
makeup hot coronary heart disease
champu
02-18 07:08 PM
Kudos to desi3933!
rajesh1972 - You should ask your wife to consider giving birth child in US land, who knows your baby may be a next president.
Also, you may consider naming him/her Barack...;)
rajesh1972 - You should ask your wife to consider giving birth child in US land, who knows your baby may be a next president.
Also, you may consider naming him/her Barack...;)
girlfriend Peripheral artery disease
needhelp!
02-14 02:34 PM
bump
hairstyles heart disease statistics 2010.
deepimpact
09-22 08:20 PM
Next thing....H1 program only once in 3 years or only when "needed".....
Cut the number of GCs by half...So that people will go back to their origin when their H1 expires.....
Attach huge price tag to GC... and...
Well, the message is clear...Isn't it?
Well instead of going back after H1 expires, the people can chose to be illegals. Then their Kids will get GC under the DREAM ACT.:D
Cut the number of GCs by half...So that people will go back to their origin when their H1 expires.....
Attach huge price tag to GC... and...
Well, the message is clear...Isn't it?
Well instead of going back after H1 expires, the people can chose to be illegals. Then their Kids will get GC under the DREAM ACT.:D
nixstor
12-01 04:09 PM
Thanks for your input guys. can the job description be changed now for an labor petition that has been filed before? My lawyer made me fill a questionnare and lot of other things about what I do. She picked up main lines from my resume and filled it up on my job description.
seeking_GC
09-23 06:31 PM
Thanks for this info. Would you mind sharing the fax number? Thanks in advance.
I assume you mean the fax number for NSC - it is 402-219-6171.
I assume you mean the fax number for NSC - it is 402-219-6171.
No comments:
Post a Comment