desigirl
02-16 09:05 AM
Which airport should members be looking to book the tickets to? Baltimore, Dulles or Reagan? Which is the closest to the Capitol Hill or which airport has the easy public transportation access to Capitol Hill. I would like to go ahead and buy the air tickets.
Thanks.
Thanks.
wallpaper for wallpaper, powerpoint
alex99
07-07 08:27 PM
Request More Eb3 Guys To Participate......
Please....
Please....
gsc999
09-20 02:37 AM
Congratulations to all of us for having marched yesterday, I was extremely impressed with the level of organization. Salut to everyone who made it possible.
However, I have a whole bunch of points, sorry if they come out strong....
1) I absolutely agree with the 'Legal' Immigration issue, we did look as if we were immigrants and not defined as legal, I think high-skilled is secondary to the legality... This is one of the reasons I have not purchased merchandise, as it looks like it addresses immigration as such. I think banner by Chinese group exphasizing the legal aspect looked very impressive..
2) It was obvious from speeches on Monday night and yesterday (friendship between US and India comments, etc) that this is seen as an Indian issue. Unless you are trying to show it as such, something has to be done about it. Non-indians were marching with you as well, and next time effort should be made to put together Indian, Chinese and whoever else when putting pictures, RollCall for example, or talking to the press, or talking to representatives. I have expressed my desire and submitted all information to the person in charge of organizing meetings on Capitol Hill, but was not provided with this oppportunity..
Basically, it was clear that, as of now, even many representatives see the issue as Indians versus Mexicans... Not a good idea....
3) I thought that some of the signs were extremely offensive to the Americans "We brought you yahoo/hotmail/google" and as such... if I were an American contemplating about my views on the immigration, and if I were as patriotic as many Americans are, I would be upset with the messages putting down local brains...
4) It was a very impressive effort by Chinese group, thumbs up. Although very strange that so ew of them showed up. My CHinese colleague who alreday has GC and helped distribute info to his friends, told me that all 5 Chinese papers in the area had big announcements about the Rally
5) I agree with disappointment about local people, it seemed like there were many more members from CA, NY and other places than VA/MD/DC, we should all be wokring on raising awareness.
All for now
Agains, congrats to all of us
----
Good observation.
Here is my response. to point # 1 & #3.
Look, legal immigration is not just restricted to employment based immigration, it includes family based immigration. So if you say you support legal immigration that doesn't differentiate your message, infact, compared to 950K family based annual visas only 140K go to employment based legal immigrants. IV's agenda is employment based immigration. We are very clear about where we stand.
Now point # 3. No Americans are not upset about confronting the reality about Hotmail, Google and other companies that create jobs for Americans. How can they, we are a country of immigrants. These placards were carefully selected and a lot of due diligence went into their selection and all of them had a positive message.
Having said that, if you notice none of the IV members who attended the rally ever congratulated the Indian or English core members. Your post is the first post which thanks individual communities.
I agree with rest of your message and that is why we need more support from members like you to bring diversity to IV. This is not an Indian organization and we never claim it to be. We need your paricipation to prove that point.
However, I have a whole bunch of points, sorry if they come out strong....
1) I absolutely agree with the 'Legal' Immigration issue, we did look as if we were immigrants and not defined as legal, I think high-skilled is secondary to the legality... This is one of the reasons I have not purchased merchandise, as it looks like it addresses immigration as such. I think banner by Chinese group exphasizing the legal aspect looked very impressive..
2) It was obvious from speeches on Monday night and yesterday (friendship between US and India comments, etc) that this is seen as an Indian issue. Unless you are trying to show it as such, something has to be done about it. Non-indians were marching with you as well, and next time effort should be made to put together Indian, Chinese and whoever else when putting pictures, RollCall for example, or talking to the press, or talking to representatives. I have expressed my desire and submitted all information to the person in charge of organizing meetings on Capitol Hill, but was not provided with this oppportunity..
Basically, it was clear that, as of now, even many representatives see the issue as Indians versus Mexicans... Not a good idea....
3) I thought that some of the signs were extremely offensive to the Americans "We brought you yahoo/hotmail/google" and as such... if I were an American contemplating about my views on the immigration, and if I were as patriotic as many Americans are, I would be upset with the messages putting down local brains...
4) It was a very impressive effort by Chinese group, thumbs up. Although very strange that so ew of them showed up. My CHinese colleague who alreday has GC and helped distribute info to his friends, told me that all 5 Chinese papers in the area had big announcements about the Rally
5) I agree with disappointment about local people, it seemed like there were many more members from CA, NY and other places than VA/MD/DC, we should all be wokring on raising awareness.
All for now
Agains, congrats to all of us
----
Good observation.
Here is my response. to point # 1 & #3.
Look, legal immigration is not just restricted to employment based immigration, it includes family based immigration. So if you say you support legal immigration that doesn't differentiate your message, infact, compared to 950K family based annual visas only 140K go to employment based legal immigrants. IV's agenda is employment based immigration. We are very clear about where we stand.
Now point # 3. No Americans are not upset about confronting the reality about Hotmail, Google and other companies that create jobs for Americans. How can they, we are a country of immigrants. These placards were carefully selected and a lot of due diligence went into their selection and all of them had a positive message.
Having said that, if you notice none of the IV members who attended the rally ever congratulated the Indian or English core members. Your post is the first post which thanks individual communities.
I agree with rest of your message and that is why we need more support from members like you to bring diversity to IV. This is not an Indian organization and we never claim it to be. We need your paricipation to prove that point.
2011 Background power point 2003
CT_Green
09-26 09:56 AM
This is actually an article by FSB (Forture Small Business) and they have a debate section. Just wanted to make everyone aware. Thanks.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/
more...
paskal
07-03 01:54 PM
the discussion on such heated topics can still be in civil tones.
frankly personal attacks and strong language are not going to get anyone's point across any better. try keeping a cool approach and write well reasoned thoughtful posts. also don't forget, in everything, there is ususally something to the other point of view- however much we disagree on something. lets try this refreshing new approach...maybe we will find there is actually common ground...;)
frankly personal attacks and strong language are not going to get anyone's point across any better. try keeping a cool approach and write well reasoned thoughtful posts. also don't forget, in everything, there is ususally something to the other point of view- however much we disagree on something. lets try this refreshing new approach...maybe we will find there is actually common ground...;)
laudo
09-28 08:34 PM
I finally got my green card after starting the process 3 years ago (most of the delay was because of a slight mistake of the part of my employee - a university - on the interpretation of how much experience I had and how much experience I was supposed to have to be an acceptable candidate for the job). Anyway, I filed the I-485 last February and received the green card last week. Meanwhile, the USCIS requested additional evidence twice, which probably delayed the decision by 1 to 2 months: first, they inquired on the legal status of my stay in the US - I came as a ph.d. student in 2000, requiring me to send copies of I-20s, I-94s, passport, visas, and a letter detailing dates and place of entry to and exit from the US; second, they requested evidence on bona fide marriage (we got married at the end of 2006), so I had to send our joint rent, insurances, credit card, and bank account contracts.
So this was my experience. Took some time, but it was successful. My advice for self-filing is that you send all of this together with the I-485 to avoid delays with these request for additional evidence.
By the way, I'm from Brazil and I'm an assistant professor in a state university.
Last, I'd like to thank everybody who provides helpful information in this forum.
So this was my experience. Took some time, but it was successful. My advice for self-filing is that you send all of this together with the I-485 to avoid delays with these request for additional evidence.
By the way, I'm from Brazil and I'm an assistant professor in a state university.
Last, I'd like to thank everybody who provides helpful information in this forum.
more...
indianindian2006
07-14 06:09 PM
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
You are correct but his case could be that his employer cancelled his 140 which could damage his case more than the use of AC21 to change employers.
2010 The ackground text says
signifer123
02-16 01:02 PM
Lol only one person i know of said they were giving up man, i just have to replan my look for mine
more...
singhsa3
03-04 11:21 AM
I am expectin WSJ to pay a visit. So I changed the first message.
hair Wallpaper powerpoint welcome
rayoflight
02-19 11:29 AM
SEC. 501. EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
‘Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
‘(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
‘(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
‘(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
‘(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
‘(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
‘(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
‘(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
‘(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien’s admissibility under this section.
‘(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
‘(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
‘(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien’s application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
‘Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.’.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
‘ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS ON THE BASIS OF EARNED ACCESS TO LEGALIZATION
‘Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
‘(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then;
‘(2) has at all times been a person of good moral character;
‘(3) has never been convicted of a criminal offense in the United States;
‘(4) in the case of an alien who is 18 years of age or older, but who is not over the age of 65, has successfully completed a course on reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English language, unless unable to do so on account of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment;
‘(5) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has accepted the values and cultural life of the United States; and
‘(6) in the case of an alien 18 years of age or older, has performed at least 40 hours of community service.
‘(b) Treatment of Brief, Casual, and Innocent Absences- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain a continuous presence in the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.
‘(c) Admissible as Immigrant-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The alien shall establish that the alien is admissible to the United States as immigrant, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).
‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- The provisions of paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (6)(B), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C)(i)(I) of section 212(a) shall not apply in the determination of an alien’s admissibility under this section.
‘(d) Security and Law Enforcement Clearances- The alien, if over 15 years of age, shall submit fingerprints in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such fingerprints shall be submitted to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a process for challenging the accuracy of matches that result in a finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status.
‘(e) Inapplicability of Numerical Limitations- When an alien is granted lawful permanent resident status under this subsection, the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision of this Act shall not be reduced. The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to adjustment of status under this section.
‘(f) Termination of Proceedings- The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate removal proceedings without prejudice pending the outcome of an alien’s application for adjustment of status under this section on the basis of a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under this section.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 245A the following:
‘Sec. 245B. Adjustment of status on the basis of earned access to legalization.’.
more...
sparky_jones
03-12 08:30 AM
This once again proves that most of the popular immigration attorneys and other parties claiming to have "inside" information really don't have much more access to information than the rest of us.
hot Powerpoint Worship Backgrounds
preddy2k
07-24 01:20 PM
Any July 2nd filers got their receipt #s?
My package has been sent to TSC on July 2nd around 9AM by FedEx. Did not hear anything yet.
My package has been sent to TSC on July 2nd around 9AM by FedEx. Did not hear anything yet.
more...
house ackground power point,
HV000
03-19 12:53 PM
Question on AOS processing based on PD/RD - Currently, EB2 INDIA is Dec 03. Assuming May 08 VB goes to Jan 03 (EB2 INDIA) , will the EB2 INDIA AOS applications with Feb - Dec 03 PDs still get processed??
Any chance of EB2 India moving forward to April 05 by October 2008??
Any chance of EB2 India moving forward to April 05 by October 2008??
tattoo powerpoint wallpaper. for
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
more...
pictures WALLPAPER POWERPOINT KOTA
mrdelhiite
07-23 03:47 PM
485 is not for employer, its for employee. AOS.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
dresses wallpaper ackground powerpoint
shiva7
02-13 10:21 PM
If we think about the motive behind this I don't see any reason to believe that it's ethnic cleansing. They want to help Americans but not to punish H1-B workers. It maybe fair to not to hire H1-B or fire H1-B. May be they believe that they could help themselves without any foreign worker. But it is not fair to delay Green cards to those who filed for green cards.Because we went through all the legal processes, spent time, spent money and so on...
:(
:(
more...
makeup Kuromi wallpaper powerpoint
minimalist
04-03 12:41 PM
tying GC to housing initiative. You say there are things that can be done without money. Then, when I requested you to outline each step on how to approach, gather people and take it forward, you vanished and you sprout here again.
COntributing or not contributing money is your prerogative. If you don't see merit in something you do not have to contribute. But if you feel something can be done, just don't expect someone else to execute that idea. YOU have to take ownership.
There was a good explanation given on why it needs 10,000. EVeryone knows USCIS asked 5000. That would probably take 2 years time as there are 20,000 requests in queue before this one. Given that fact, they had some ideas to see if they can get a faster response time following a different path. They estimated it would cost about 5000 more.
People who trust them (in terms of their ability and honesty), contributed. If you do not trust them, that is fair enough. But they earned the trust of so many people who are willing to contribute. Believe me, none of the people who contributed have done so after careful deliberation.
Well, even for this initiative, you are welcome to outline steps and then am sure many of the IV members will join you.
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
COntributing or not contributing money is your prerogative. If you don't see merit in something you do not have to contribute. But if you feel something can be done, just don't expect someone else to execute that idea. YOU have to take ownership.
There was a good explanation given on why it needs 10,000. EVeryone knows USCIS asked 5000. That would probably take 2 years time as there are 20,000 requests in queue before this one. Given that fact, they had some ideas to see if they can get a faster response time following a different path. They estimated it would cost about 5000 more.
People who trust them (in terms of their ability and honesty), contributed. If you do not trust them, that is fair enough. But they earned the trust of so many people who are willing to contribute. Believe me, none of the people who contributed have done so after careful deliberation.
Well, even for this initiative, you are welcome to outline steps and then am sure many of the IV members will join you.
very good point and I agree 100 percent ..sad part is that such a good post gets buried under 20 posts which ask for more donations.
as far as I know FOIA campaign was for 5000 dollars ..then it was increased to 10,000. will it increase again ?
girlfriend powerpoint wallpaper.
sunty
11-11 09:37 AM
vin13,
This just beats me..Why was the conference call idea for such an important issue floated only in the Donor Forum. Fine, the Donors pay and they deserve to have some information. But if you need bigger participation from IV members, the conf. call idea should have been in the General Forum as well....
Anyways, can this still be arranged ? I would love to be a part of that in any possible way. Please let me and all the other members know.
This just beats me..Why was the conference call idea for such an important issue floated only in the Donor Forum. Fine, the Donors pay and they deserve to have some information. But if you need bigger participation from IV members, the conf. call idea should have been in the General Forum as well....
Anyways, can this still be arranged ? I would love to be a part of that in any possible way. Please let me and all the other members know.
hairstyles for wallpaper, powerpoint
nixstor
07-02 10:56 PM
This is because Rajiv Khanna and Murthy do not like each other and compete with each other. Murthy is on the board of AILA and Rajiv is not. So murthy will promote the lawsuit and rajiv will not.
Competition is a good thing. How ever, your post sounded like they feud with each other no matter how much genuine the issue is. Why would any of them would like to be at the end of losing if they know for sure that the other is winning? Any sane mind will join the bandwagon, esp when their business interests are at stakes.
Keeping it aside, I did not mean to dampen any one's spirits on filing a law suit. I had similar thoughts in my mind and it just happened to be similar to Rajiv Khanna's. I could be wrong in this case. I will be very happy if we come out in flying colors in this law suit. How ever my preference is to get more and more media/blog attention and try to get recapture/ability to file 485 based on the momentum we build because of this screw up by DOS & USCIS.
Competition is a good thing. How ever, your post sounded like they feud with each other no matter how much genuine the issue is. Why would any of them would like to be at the end of losing if they know for sure that the other is winning? Any sane mind will join the bandwagon, esp when their business interests are at stakes.
Keeping it aside, I did not mean to dampen any one's spirits on filing a law suit. I had similar thoughts in my mind and it just happened to be similar to Rajiv Khanna's. I could be wrong in this case. I will be very happy if we come out in flying colors in this law suit. How ever my preference is to get more and more media/blog attention and try to get recapture/ability to file 485 based on the momentum we build because of this screw up by DOS & USCIS.
Siboo
07-24 01:25 PM
Any July 2nd filers got their receipt #s?
My package has been sent to TSC on July 2nd around 9AM by FedEx. Did not hear anything yet.
Did you call TSC about the status? Somebody got their receipt numbers today by calling NSC. (looks like package Reached NSC on 06/23/2007 and Notice Date is 07/24/2007)
My package has been sent to TSC on July 2nd around 9AM by FedEx. Did not hear anything yet.
Did you call TSC about the status? Somebody got their receipt numbers today by calling NSC. (looks like package Reached NSC on 06/23/2007 and Notice Date is 07/24/2007)
kittu1991
03-17 01:56 PM
Thanks
Just commented on it since he has nothing better to do.
Just commented on it since he has nothing better to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment