axp817
04-06 03:09 PM
One way of thanking IV is by making a donation, so that IV can continue to help others like you.
just a thought.
Good luck with your situation.
just a thought.
Good luck with your situation.
wallpaper punjabi love quotes wallpapers
chanduv23
11-16 03:25 PM
actually I realized the difference bet LC ads and EEOC laws:
Per EEOC, they cannot discriminate to hire a person on a visa. But for green card sponsorship, they have to show preference for an equally qualified USC or perm resident.
I know this b/c my employer, while sponsoring a previous H-1b at my firm, during the LC process found a qualified USC. They stopped the gc process, but could not let the person go b/c it is legal to hire an H-1b even if USCs are available.
What practical sense does this make? Once an employer sponsors an H-1b, why would he want to go thru the whole recruiting and training process again to hire a new person?
When it comes to implementation, things vary. Laws are made so that they can be worked around, laws are made in a way that can be interpreted in many ways, laws canbe generalised, they have grey areas. Everything is based on convinience.
Per EEOC, they cannot discriminate to hire a person on a visa. But for green card sponsorship, they have to show preference for an equally qualified USC or perm resident.
I know this b/c my employer, while sponsoring a previous H-1b at my firm, during the LC process found a qualified USC. They stopped the gc process, but could not let the person go b/c it is legal to hire an H-1b even if USCs are available.
What practical sense does this make? Once an employer sponsors an H-1b, why would he want to go thru the whole recruiting and training process again to hire a new person?
When it comes to implementation, things vary. Laws are made so that they can be worked around, laws are made in a way that can be interpreted in many ways, laws canbe generalised, they have grey areas. Everything is based on convinience.
.jpg "punjabi love quotes")
vin13
06-25 03:39 PM
Source:washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501914.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
Just hours before President Obama hosts lawmakers for a discussion on immigration at the White House, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded that Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill do not have the votes to pass a comprehensive reform bill.
"If the votes were there, you wouldn't need to have the meeting. You could go to a roll call," Emanuel told reporters during an hour-long breakfast.
About 20 senators and House members are due to arrive at the White House at 2 p.m. for the discussion in the State Dining Room. Aides to the president said the meeting was intended to "launch a policy conversation by having an honest discussion about the issues and identifying areas of agreement and areas where we still have work to do."
The president will announce administrative actions that the White House has already taken to chip away at the issues, including a modernization of computers that allow people to quickly see their immigration status. Officials said the White House hopes to begin the more controversial debate over a comprehensive approach to address illegal immigration later this year.
But Emanuel offered reporters a more realistic assessment, saying that while it is "not impossible" to get immigration reform done this year, it is more likely to be pushed off.
"It's not impossible to do it this year," he said. "Could you get it in this year? Yes. I think the more important thing is to get it started this year."
Responding to a question about the political implications for Democrats of delay, Emanuel said, "It's better that it happens politically. It's also better that we continue to focus on improving the economy."
Just hours before President Obama hosts lawmakers for a discussion on immigration at the White House, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded that Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill do not have the votes to pass a comprehensive reform bill.
"If the votes were there, you wouldn't need to have the meeting. You could go to a roll call," Emanuel told reporters during an hour-long breakfast.
About 20 senators and House members are due to arrive at the White House at 2 p.m. for the discussion in the State Dining Room. Aides to the president said the meeting was intended to "launch a policy conversation by having an honest discussion about the issues and identifying areas of agreement and areas where we still have work to do."
The president will announce administrative actions that the White House has already taken to chip away at the issues, including a modernization of computers that allow people to quickly see their immigration status. Officials said the White House hopes to begin the more controversial debate over a comprehensive approach to address illegal immigration later this year.
But Emanuel offered reporters a more realistic assessment, saying that while it is "not impossible" to get immigration reform done this year, it is more likely to be pushed off.
"It's not impossible to do it this year," he said. "Could you get it in this year? Yes. I think the more important thing is to get it started this year."
Responding to a question about the political implications for Democrats of delay, Emanuel said, "It's better that it happens politically. It's also better that we continue to focus on improving the economy."
2011 Punjabi Love Quotes Wallpapers
gcseeker2002
07-19 11:23 AM
For couple of weeks in 2001, when I was getting H1 transfer, I was without pay. I applied H1 transfer before old H1 expired, but got the receipt notice after few weeks and only after that I started working. Am I out of status ?
For that matter, is it out of status if one gets paid from 2 companies with
2 H1bs ? If one is on bench but getting paid by one company, starts working with 2nd company on new H1b?
For that matter, is it out of status if one gets paid from 2 companies with
2 H1bs ? If one is on bench but getting paid by one company, starts working with 2nd company on new H1b?
more...
akred
07-14 06:35 PM
it is not clear to me that this version allows legal kids to benefit
it talk about people being "otherwise deportable"
someone needs to clarify with an immigration attorney or something
Siskind says it only benefits illegals. Read his comment on his blog at http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind
it talk about people being "otherwise deportable"
someone needs to clarify with an immigration attorney or something
Siskind says it only benefits illegals. Read his comment on his blog at http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind
smuggymba
04-22 07:50 PM
what are the "legal types" of clothes ;)
macy's, dillards etc..non-walmart, non dollar store clothes...haha, kidding man.
macy's, dillards etc..non-walmart, non dollar store clothes...haha, kidding man.
more...
MrWaitingGC
12-06 03:02 PM
I moved out of GE Hyderabad and came to US. I decided to pull all the money from PF. So I submitted the application and came to US and forgot. I got the full amount within 90 days to the bank account specified. I was really impressed the way India is improving
I thought my country was worst than US but I am wrong seeing the way GC is going :eek:
I thought my country was worst than US but I am wrong seeing the way GC is going :eek:
2010 punjabi love quotes
qasleuth
03-27 11:47 AM
ashkam,
You are missing it again. What is a driver license for ? Drivers license is a drivers license. It is a verification whether one has the driving skills and knowledge to drive safely on the road.
What has it got to do with job or immigration status ?
Matters related to Driver license are largely decided by States but with "Secure ID Initiative" passed in the Congress, some of the powers have shifted to the Federal Govt. Many aspects of Secure ID initiative are still work in progress but some of the states have taken pro-active steps.
Driver license is not merely used for letting the person drive BUT ALSO serves as a photo ID.
Your immigrant status is linked to how long you can stay in this country. Your stay in this country is prescribed by the laws established by USCIS, Department of Homeland Security and other agencies. Driver's license is the single most important photo identification is this land. It shows who you are, where you reside and if you are legally in this country.
You use your photo ID to board a plane, when applying for a loan, to deal with various govt. agencies etc.
As for your question as to why driver's license is used for ID: That same question has been debated by lawmakers and thus came the idea of "Real ID". Go lookup info regarding Real ID and you will be pretty happy with using Driver's license as the ID.
Why is any of the above causing your grief ? Why references to slavery ? As long as the system is transparent and documented on their websites (like DMVs), I fail to understand your angst.
You are missing it again. What is a driver license for ? Drivers license is a drivers license. It is a verification whether one has the driving skills and knowledge to drive safely on the road.
What has it got to do with job or immigration status ?
Matters related to Driver license are largely decided by States but with "Secure ID Initiative" passed in the Congress, some of the powers have shifted to the Federal Govt. Many aspects of Secure ID initiative are still work in progress but some of the states have taken pro-active steps.
Driver license is not merely used for letting the person drive BUT ALSO serves as a photo ID.
Your immigrant status is linked to how long you can stay in this country. Your stay in this country is prescribed by the laws established by USCIS, Department of Homeland Security and other agencies. Driver's license is the single most important photo identification is this land. It shows who you are, where you reside and if you are legally in this country.
You use your photo ID to board a plane, when applying for a loan, to deal with various govt. agencies etc.
As for your question as to why driver's license is used for ID: That same question has been debated by lawmakers and thus came the idea of "Real ID". Go lookup info regarding Real ID and you will be pretty happy with using Driver's license as the ID.
Why is any of the above causing your grief ? Why references to slavery ? As long as the system is transparent and documented on their websites (like DMVs), I fail to understand your angst.
more...
eb3retro
10-19 04:40 PM
onemore came, check your PM..
what isa fax number to expedite the process for NSC, it will great if you can share the format of expedite letter.
what isa fax number to expedite the process for NSC, it will great if you can share the format of expedite letter.
hair punjabi love quotes
longq
12-20 03:41 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
I am one of the members of the forum and suffering due to the severe retrogression of EB visas. I highly appreciate IV�s effort to bring some legislative relief to address the severe backlogs in EB visas. I too participated in all IVs campaign in urging the law makers to bring some relief for this crisis. However, I have some concern here; about the method followed U.S DOS in allocating EB visas particularly in EB2 category for India and China. I am worried whether U.S DOS is violating the INA 202 (a), by suspending AC21 provision that eliminates country quota in EB categories. If they are violating by mistake, it is our responsibility to notify/clarify with them or we need to understand the law clearly. This is very important. Because, even if 110th congress passes SKIL bill, if DOS violates the AC21 law then it will not help applicants from oversubscribed countries (India and China). Here is my analysis based on following facts.
The cutoff date for EB2 India has moved just 7 days since last 9 months. However EB2 �Row has been current. EB2- ROW has never retrogressed before. EB3 ROW has seen considerable movement in last 9 months.
There may be four possible separate or combination of following reasons for the freeze of cutoff dates for India in EB2 at Jan 2003.
1. The backlog elimination effort of DOL pumped massive approved labor certificates from BEC. There may be tons of EB2 applicants from India and China with PD in the year 2001 and 2002 might have applied 485s based on recent approvals from BEC. However I doubt that. Because, in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003, EB3 India and China were �current�. No body cared about filing EB2 labor certification till the later part of 2004. Most lawyers preferred to file EB3 as it was easy, and there were no difference between EB3 and EB2 at that time. First ever indication for EB3 retrogression was issued by DOS only in later part of 2004. I doubt so many people have filed EB2-labor till 2003, keeping in mind that EB3 will retrogress in 2004 or future. Traditionally EB2 has been less demanding compare to EB1 and EB3.
2. Perhaps, there may be a huge demand by ROW (Due to PERM) to consume all the 86% of visa numbers in EB2 category in every month that prompts DOS to allocate only 7% to India and China. I doubt this too, because India and China itself consume about 60% of EB2 visas.
3. There may be lot of EB3 Indians and Chinese with PD 2001 and 2002 porting their PD from EB3 to EB2 by filing new LC and EB2-I-140. This may escalate the demand. However, how many will do this? How many employers will to do this �favor� for their employees? A real US employer/big corporations will not do double time work for an employee. Only consulting/staffing companies will do this. I think this may be a small group (or may not be?).
4. There may be another possible reason. There may be something wrong with U.S.DOS in allocating visa numbers in EB2 category, as per section 202 (a) of current INA. They may be issuing only 2800 (7% of 40,000) visas to India and China in EB2 and redirecting unused EB2 numbers to EB3 category. They may be imposing hard country cap in EB2 (Suspending AC21 law as per their VB Nov 2005). There is a large room for this speculation, due to the pattern of cutoff date movement in EB2 category. This is just a speculation. This argument/speculation is valid if DOS has issued less than 40,000 EB2 visas in FY 2006 as mandated by the law, and issued those numbers (40,000 minus actually issued) to EB3-ROW. In my view, it violates section 203 (b) (2) of the INA. One has to wait till they release statistics for FY 2006, to see how many EB2 visas are issued in that FY.
Here is some detailed analysis that says why it violates the law.
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 203 a and b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets numbers for each preference categories with in FB and EB.
Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320. This section also explains how to handle unused numbers with respect to country quota.
Even before AC21 rule enacted in 2000, there was no �hard� country cap as per INA then. Here is the section of INA before year 2000, describes how to allocate unused visas, if overall/total demand for FB an EB visas are less than supply*.
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
As per my simple interpretation of above AC21 rule, DOS should allocate unused visas by ROW �EB2 (ROW- countries other than India and China in EB2 category) for the first two months of any calendar quarter to over-subscribed countries (India & China) at the third month of that calendar quarter. They should not allocate to lower Preference category (EB3), if demand is more in higher preference category (EB2) to consume all the visa numbers in that preference category. They should allocate visas to all the documentarily qualified applicants in that (EB2) preference category, irrespective of country of birth. If they followed this rule/law, there may be a considerable movement in cut-off dates for India and China in Dec 2005, Mar, June and Sep of 2006 in EB2 (last month of each calendar quarter in a fiscal year). We have not witnessed such movement in last 1.5 years. No one knows how DOS is allocating numbers. They may be allocating only 7% visas to India and China in EB2 category very strictly, every month, and allocating unused numbers to EB3 category, by suspending AC21 law as indicated in their Nov 2005 Visa Bulletin. If they do so, it is against the law, at least in my interpretation of AC21 rule that eliminates country quota in EB categories.
DOS can not interpret above AC21 rule that eliminates per country limit applies �totally� to all EB categories put together, not by individual preference categories. I.e. If they say they will issue more than 2,800 visas to EB2- India per year (more than 7% of 40,000), provided overall demand for EB visas are less than 140,000. If they interpret the law like this, then there is no need for section 202(a) (5) (A) due to AC21 law. The law before AC21 {i.e. section 202 (a) (3)} itself address the elimination of country quota in both FB and EB category*. Then, section 202(a) (5) (A) is a duplicate wording of section 202(a) (3). So, this section of AC21 law becomes a redundant/duplicate law. Then, there is no meaning of employment �preference� category if they interpret �totally or overall worldwide demand�. In other words, a non-Indian/Chinese restaurant cook (EB3) is more preferred than a NIW PhDs (EB2) from India or China. Is it the intend of the congress when enacting AC21 law in removing per country limitation in EB category? Is it the American Competitiveness in 21st century? I highly doubt that.
Now it is the time to ask US DOS, how they are allocating visa number in EB2 category. If DOS interpreting the law differently, then we need to ask the law makers (Congress) what is their original intension behind the section 202(a)(5)(A) when they drafted the AC21 law in 2000 and how it is differ from 202 (a) (3).
Perhaps Core IV team can initiate to discuss/consult this issue with an immigration lawyer and place an enquiry with DOS or Law makers, if needed.
(*Note: DOS do not mix FB and EB categories for visa number allocation/calculation to meet the per country limit. They keep both in separate track to meet separately the 7% limit)
more...
Leo07
11-03 11:00 AM
go green go_guy123:)
hot Punjabi Love Quotes Wallpapers
akred
07-14 09:23 PM
Please dont talk BS if you do not even know who i am...i'm a member of this group since the start!!! So you have no right to say stuff you don't even know..i'm really tired of people being selfish and not caring about kids who do age out. Some children need this because they do become illegal, like myslef eventhough we we're legal...it doesnt harm you guys...so please help the dream act effort!!!
So let me guess, your parent applied under 245(i) in 2001 and thats why you have aged out. No thanks, that 245(i) amnesty has caused us enough problems with the labor certification backlogs.
So let me guess, your parent applied under 245(i) in 2001 and thats why you have aged out. No thanks, that 245(i) amnesty has caused us enough problems with the labor certification backlogs.
more...
house punjabi love quotes wallpapers
bharol
08-18 12:59 AM
Trust me. You would see an approval this month. Most of the people who got an LUD on their approved I-140 on 07/13/2008 are seeing their GC approved. Only uncertain people are those who hasn't seen any such light.
Thanks. This gives me some hope.
I had LUD on my approved I140 on July 27,2008.
Does it mean something?
Thanks. This gives me some hope.
I had LUD on my approved I140 on July 27,2008.
Does it mean something?
tattoo punjabi love quotes wallpapers
ramus
06-20 07:44 AM
Great.... Thanks.
Today is the next day of my GC freedom, and I am still on this forum, I didnot mean to leave the Forum, I still support IV with all my heart.......:D
Today is the next day of my GC freedom, and I am still on this forum, I didnot mean to leave the Forum, I still support IV with all my heart.......:D
more...
pictures beautiful love quotes
boys1729
04-10 04:00 PM
I know there are some of good <desi> consulting companies..
�there are some of good <desi> consulting companies� �hmm.. debatable. Its like saying there are some good bad-apples. I think there can be grades for desi consultants like little bad, more bad, even more bad, horribly bad, ruthlessly bad�etc but not good.
I don�t think there are any desi consultants who don�t fake their resume at least a little bit. Yeah, even a tiny bit (tiny bit according to consultants mostly will be quite a bit in normal standards) of faking is still faking. So how can you call them good?
�there are some of good <desi> consulting companies� �hmm.. debatable. Its like saying there are some good bad-apples. I think there can be grades for desi consultants like little bad, more bad, even more bad, horribly bad, ruthlessly bad�etc but not good.
I don�t think there are any desi consultants who don�t fake their resume at least a little bit. Yeah, even a tiny bit (tiny bit according to consultants mostly will be quite a bit in normal standards) of faking is still faking. So how can you call them good?
dresses love quotes in punjabi.
485Mbe4001
06-02 07:00 PM
I think his post was based on the summary on the site.
"OpenCongress Summary:
This legislation would reform the family-based immigration system and speed up the process for family members of legal immigrants to secure visas. Specifically, it would reclassify spouses and children of legal immigrants as immediate relatives, raise the per-country family-sponsored immigration limits from 7 percent to 10 percent of total admissions, recapture visas that went unused in previous years due to bureaucratic errors, allow widows and spouses to remain eligible for visas after the death of a sponsoring family member, and more."
Where did you read the new text ?
"OpenCongress Summary:
This legislation would reform the family-based immigration system and speed up the process for family members of legal immigrants to secure visas. Specifically, it would reclassify spouses and children of legal immigrants as immediate relatives, raise the per-country family-sponsored immigration limits from 7 percent to 10 percent of total admissions, recapture visas that went unused in previous years due to bureaucratic errors, allow widows and spouses to remain eligible for visas after the death of a sponsoring family member, and more."
Where did you read the new text ?
more...
makeup sad love quotes in punjabi.
asharda
07-06 04:43 PM
ABEY DHAKKAN
TRUTH HURTS AND WHY ARE SO SORRY..
DID ANYONE ASK U FOR YOUR WISE COMMENTS ..
KEEP UR TRAP SHUT IF U HAVE NOTHING TO SAY
May be you have to say or have said too much already! Why don't you take a chill pill and relax... you do what you feel is right and let others follow their heart
RELAX DUDE! take a break!
TRUTH HURTS AND WHY ARE SO SORRY..
DID ANYONE ASK U FOR YOUR WISE COMMENTS ..
KEEP UR TRAP SHUT IF U HAVE NOTHING TO SAY
May be you have to say or have said too much already! Why don't you take a chill pill and relax... you do what you feel is right and let others follow their heart
RELAX DUDE! take a break!
girlfriend punjabi love quotes
akbose
03-21 08:23 PM
Hi....already joined the list under the name abose_98, NYC
All NY members - New York City, upstate ... please join this mailing list
IV-NY (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationvoiceny)
As the first step, please update your contact information.
Thanks,
Chandrakanth
All NY members - New York City, upstate ... please join this mailing list
IV-NY (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationvoiceny)
As the first step, please update your contact information.
Thanks,
Chandrakanth
hairstyles punjabi love quotes in punjabi
waiting_4_gc
07-27 07:09 PM
why not 1 to Mr. Emilio Gonzales and 1 to Dr. Rice...just to be on safe side...in case none of these centers accepts your application :D
How about one for local senator :D :D
How about one for local senator :D :D
prioritydate
08-05 07:42 PM
I am trying to keep track of 2004 cases. I think USCIS is not doing fair justice by not giving preference to 2004 cases. Please post your priority date, I-140 approval dates(if approved), I-485 received dates, Name check cleared date(if cleared), finger print cleared date(if you gave finger prints and they got cleared)
My Details :
PD : 12/23/2004
I-140 Approval Date :05/03/2007
I-485 Received Date : 07/26/2007
Name Check Cleared.
Gave Finger Prints.
I think mine is straight forward case. :confused:
My Details :
PD : 12/23/2004
I-140 Approval Date :05/03/2007
I-485 Received Date : 07/26/2007
Name Check Cleared.
Gave Finger Prints.
I think mine is straight forward case. :confused:
cygent
09-19 03:11 PM
Ok, I've seen a lot of threads about go to the rally, actions items, I've reading a lot of guys saying dont ask for your receipt status, dont waste your time etc, etc.
What, are you 4 yrs. old man? If one works sincerely towards the cause, then he will realize the answer themselves, please try & think about that. Please help us work towards the goal. Nothing happens overnight, hope you are old & experienced enough to realize that or you must be an armchair quarterback. Please listen to "Time" by Pink Floyd & get your priorities straight.
What, are you 4 yrs. old man? If one works sincerely towards the cause, then he will realize the answer themselves, please try & think about that. Please help us work towards the goal. Nothing happens overnight, hope you are old & experienced enough to realize that or you must be an armchair quarterback. Please listen to "Time" by Pink Floyd & get your priorities straight.
No comments:
Post a Comment