Michael chertoff
01-26 07:38 PM
U donno where to even start. My argument was based on relativity and "most of" theory and never was 100%.
U must be a gulti trying to defend ur region - God bless
Please dont call them GULTI or something. They are good people. from my experience, I can say they are very helpful people.
FYI- YSR or any telugu leader have nothing to do with this college mess.
Cheers,
MC
U must be a gulti trying to defend ur region - God bless
Please dont call them GULTI or something. They are good people. from my experience, I can say they are very helpful people.
FYI- YSR or any telugu leader have nothing to do with this college mess.
Cheers,
MC
wallpaper Royalty Free Toys Clipart
rajev_kk
08-09 08:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
Miss. Murthy reports that LS was rejected for some folks.
How does one get to know if his Labor Substitution was rejected? If a Receipt Notice was received does that mean that it was accepted? And, can they reject it later?
Miss. Murthy reports that LS was rejected for some folks.
How does one get to know if his Labor Substitution was rejected? If a Receipt Notice was received does that mean that it was accepted? And, can they reject it later?
Rajeev
11-04 09:42 AM
Is it updated in Thomas, govtrack, etc? I didn't find it..
It is there everywhere. Pl. check S. 1085: Reuniting Families Act (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1085)
It is there everywhere. Pl. check S. 1085: Reuniting Families Act (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1085)
2011 Royalty Free Toys Clipart
rvr_jcop
02-18 10:12 PM
Aachoo, downthedrain, jazzbytheway, sushilup, rvr_jcop -
question 1) did both you and your spouse's I485 cases receive the "pending at the location it was transfered to"?
question 2) did both you and your spouses I485 cases receive RFE?
question 3) did both you and your spouses case have an LUD after RFE?
have you guys received the RFE notices and if yes, what is USCIS asking
thanks
Sree
No RFE in our case. Just a soft LUD on 02/10 on both of our 485's. I had LUD on my AP thats yet to be approved, though my wife has not applied for any AP> Wondering if they just cross checking 485s for AP approval. And no, mine is not transfered case. Its always been at NSC.
question 1) did both you and your spouse's I485 cases receive the "pending at the location it was transfered to"?
question 2) did both you and your spouses I485 cases receive RFE?
question 3) did both you and your spouses case have an LUD after RFE?
have you guys received the RFE notices and if yes, what is USCIS asking
thanks
Sree
No RFE in our case. Just a soft LUD on 02/10 on both of our 485's. I had LUD on my AP thats yet to be approved, though my wife has not applied for any AP> Wondering if they just cross checking 485s for AP approval. And no, mine is not transfered case. Its always been at NSC.
more...
ragz4u
03-16 01:32 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18845
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee finally broached the controversial subject of the undocumented population on day five of the Committee's markup of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, but deferred any votes on the subject until after next week's congressional recess.
Chairman Specter began the day's proceedings by reiterating that it would be a "colossal mistake" for Senate Majority Leader Frist to bring an immigration bill to the Senate floor that had not been completely vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As background, Senator Frist has threatened to bring his enforcement-only legislation directly to the Senate floor unless the Judiciary Committee produces a bill by March 27. Senator Frist could do this using the seldom employed "Rule 14" procedure that permits him to introduce a bill and bypass the committee process so that it goes directly to the Senate calendar. According to Senate sources, Senator Frist's bill would simply take Chairman Specter's proposal and strip out the guestworker plan and the provisions dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens present in the U.S.
Because Senator Frist apparently will not back off of his deadline, Chairman Specter proposed this morning to continue the Committee's work beyond what was to have been the final day of the markup (today). Unfortunately, the Senate is out on recess next week, leaving tomorrow or Monday, March 27, as the only available options for continued work. Most of the Senators present agreed that meeting on March 27 would make sense, with the exception of Senator Cornyn, who disagreed that bringing the Committee's incomplete bill to the floor would be problematic (clearly an attempt on his part to stave off debate in the Committee on what to do with the undocumented population). However, in a clear rebuke to Senator Cornyn, Chairman Specter responded that the Committee would proceed immediately to debate on the controversial issue of a path to citizenship for the undocumented!
Chairman Specter said that he and Senator Kennedy talked at length yesterday about the issue of the undocumented. He reiterated his concerns about the undocumented workers jumping the line in front of those who have followed the legal channels. He's concerned about 25-year backlogs for 4th preference beneficiaries and other long backlogs. However, he noted his willingness to find a way to put the undocumented on a path to citizenship at the end of the line. Chairman Specter also reiterated that he wants a bill to come out of Committee that can pass the floor and be reconciled with the House bill.
Senator Kennedy argued that the McCain/Kennedy bill will not lead to line-jumping, explaining that the bill's formula would clear backlogs and deal with the lines themselves. In addition, he noted his willingness to accept a 2nd degree amendment to ensure that legal permanent residence would not be granted to the undocumented population until both the current employment-based and family-based backlogs had been cleared. "What really is the alternative," he asked? "Mass deportations? Criminalization and a permanent subclass?"
Senator Kennedy continued by talking eloquently about the pure motives of immigrants who have come to this country, both historically and currently, to make a better life for themselves and their families. He said that we should admire the drive of these people. We should not treat them as criminals but should give them an opportunity. We should bring them out of shadows, have them pay a fine, work, and wait their turn. Senator Kennedy also noted that some 60,000 legal permanent residents currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Senator Kyl noted that no one on the Committee supports enforcement only, adding that his and Senator Cornyn's proposal would provide a "work opportunity," not a punishment. He said that the Specter "gold card" would be just like a green card but without the right to citizenship. He also opined that people waiting in the family-based backlog don't have the right to be in the U.S. now, so letting undocumented aliens get in line would harm those individuals who have been waiting patiently. At one point, he allowed that it might be OK to give a path to citizenship to high skilled workers but not to low skilled workers.
Senator Cornyn associated himself with Senator Kyl's remarks. "We can't accept everyone in the world who wants to come here," he said. And while he professed agreement with Senator Kennedy about the beneficial contributions and benevolent motivations of the undocumented population, he couldn't seem to get past the "law breaking" issue. "The American people won't accept a program to deal with the undocumented if we haven't finished the bill's enforcement titles," he argued. He also defended the Cornyn/Kyl "report to deport" proposal, noting that it is neither a ruse nor impractical. He added that the intention of the proposal is not to strand people outside of the country as some have accused.
Senator Durbin weighed in by stating that the immigration system has been broken for a long while. He recounted stories about important individuals he knows whose parents were undocumented aliens. He stood in support of the McCain/Kennedy proposal, calling it "tough but fair," and reiterated that we should not be criminalizing undocumented status, as both the Chairman's Mark and H.R. 4437 would do.
Senator Graham noted that many people, including many on the Republican side of the aisle, don't even want to debate this complex issue. For them, rounding these immigrants up and deporting them is the only answer. "Such a proposal is simply not feasible," Senator Graham added. He also noted that half of his family likely would not be able to meet the requirements of the McCain/Kennedy legislation, thereby buttressing the argument that it is no easy give away. "While there are lots of people on talk radio complaining about the undocumented, these folks are out there working," he said. "This is not a 'get out of jail free' card." In addition to those who would deport the undocumented population, there are others who would put them all in jail, he continued, adding that this also would not work. He warned Chairman Specter and others that they shouldn't be trying to avoid criticism on this issue, because they're all going to get it. He agreed that the undocumented population should be put in line behind all those currently waiting in the backlogs but does not believe it is appropriate to force them to leave the country in order to take part in the program, as this would break up families.
Senator Feinstein argued that the DHS would be incapable of handling such a massive program. She was also concerned with what would happen to those who apply for the program if they are unable to pass the requisite background checks. "Could people with minor misdemeanors get status,?" she asked. She requested a letter from Senator Kennedy's staff on the issue. Senator Feinstein also returned to the issue of DHS's processing capabilities, asking for additional information on the subject before the issue is brought to a vote.
Senator Specter indicated that he intends to work through the undocumented issue by beginning with the McCain/Kennedy bill and the 2nd degree amendment mentioned above by Senator Kennedy. He also indicated that there is a deal on the table between Senators Cornyn and Kennedy on the temporary worker (future flows) program.
Senator Feinstein brought up the subject of agricultural workers and wanted to know why they weren't included as part of the guestworker program. Senator Kennedy responded that the reason is because Senator Craig, the chief sponsor of AgJobs, would offer it as an amendment on the floor. Senator Brownback opined that they needed to have staff work out the details of any agricultural program.
Chairman Specter then noted that staff would be working out various details during next week's recess, confirmed continuation of the markup on March 27th, and gaveled the meeting to a close.
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.
more...
jayleno
07-26 01:23 PM
horrendous situation huh? I'd personally use that word for people who are suffering from more worse situations. A bad situation.. yes. Unfair..yes. Should we fight for a better treatment from USCIS...yes. Not a reason enough to get headaches and lose sleep over atleast not just yet. Ofcourse IMO.
I am not expecting any sympathy from you. I am just sharing the common problem that people are facing with the horrendous situation. We all need empathy. Blaming and flaming at someone doesn't help. Since it is a platform for all immigrants who are facing a common problem with our green card, I am just sharing my feelings.
I am not expecting any sympathy from you. I am just sharing the common problem that people are facing with the horrendous situation. We all need empathy. Blaming and flaming at someone doesn't help. Since it is a platform for all immigrants who are facing a common problem with our green card, I am just sharing my feelings.
2010 Royalty Free Toys Clipart
rb_248
11-03 10:09 AM
EB2 likes visa bulletin predictions.
EB3 does not.
That explains the green or red in my opinion.
The current USCIS policy is favoring EB2. There is no dispute about that. EB3ers are justifiably angry and are venting it out on EB2ers. What EB3ers must understand is they should be hating the game not the players. They should be hating the systems and not the other applicants. EB2ers, like me, just got lucky.
I guess this EB2 v EB3 fight will go on until Obama takes up Immigration.
EB3 does not.
That explains the green or red in my opinion.
The current USCIS policy is favoring EB2. There is no dispute about that. EB3ers are justifiably angry and are venting it out on EB2ers. What EB3ers must understand is they should be hating the game not the players. They should be hating the systems and not the other applicants. EB2ers, like me, just got lucky.
I guess this EB2 v EB3 fight will go on until Obama takes up Immigration.
more...
waitin_toolong
07-31 12:14 PM
guys cool down it took them till end of May about 2 months to issue all receipt notices for H1 filed on Apr 2 this year. With the whole yes-no-yes situation this month they are definitely backlogged. Lets just wait till we actually get the receipts .
there is no point in calling names.
there is no point in calling names.
hair AS4863 Toy Cow Clip Art
eb3retro
10-19 02:06 PM
my travel date is on nov 21st and my RD for ap renewal is aug 6th. here are the things I have done so far.
1) called NSC and expedited mine and my spouse AP.
2) sent a fax copy of the expedite request letter to NEbraska service center requesting an expedite.
3) have sent all the documents to the local congressman and they are sending a letter by fax to NSC requesting to expedite.
4) Have an infopass appt for oct 28th.
5) sent another copy of the ap renewal receipt, along with 2 phographs, 485 and i140 receipt copy along with a letter requesting expedite with an email from travel agent citing financial loss if i cancel tickets.
6) also, my father in law had to undergo a bypass surgery (emergency) this week and we have received a letter from the doctor regarding the same and will be using it during the infopass if I do not see an approval (atleast online) before our infopass appointment.
Mine RD: Sep 3rd
I have booked tickets for Nov 18th.
I think I can wait until this month end to start expediting process. I will have 17 days window.
What do you suggest guys? Is that a reasonable time or I should start right away?
Thanks
1) called NSC and expedited mine and my spouse AP.
2) sent a fax copy of the expedite request letter to NEbraska service center requesting an expedite.
3) have sent all the documents to the local congressman and they are sending a letter by fax to NSC requesting to expedite.
4) Have an infopass appt for oct 28th.
5) sent another copy of the ap renewal receipt, along with 2 phographs, 485 and i140 receipt copy along with a letter requesting expedite with an email from travel agent citing financial loss if i cancel tickets.
6) also, my father in law had to undergo a bypass surgery (emergency) this week and we have received a letter from the doctor regarding the same and will be using it during the infopass if I do not see an approval (atleast online) before our infopass appointment.
Mine RD: Sep 3rd
I have booked tickets for Nov 18th.
I think I can wait until this month end to start expediting process. I will have 17 days window.
What do you suggest guys? Is that a reasonable time or I should start right away?
Thanks
more...
kumar1
02-28 02:33 PM
---
I am not answerable to an anonymous "internet toughie" who picks up fights on forums. it's evident that your understanding of the tonality in a professional response vis a vis a personal one is impaired albeit imponderable.
I shall not waste my time "coaching" the same.
[B]"then we all know who the real immature person is"
After your fiasco with Kumar, doesn't this whole forum apart from a few thousand scandalized visitors know who really enthrones "immaturity" here?
With this i end my diatribe with you mr internet toughie aka sledgehammer. lol
I am not answerable to an anonymous "internet toughie" who picks up fights on forums. it's evident that your understanding of the tonality in a professional response vis a vis a personal one is impaired albeit imponderable.
I shall not waste my time "coaching" the same.
[B]"then we all know who the real immature person is"
After your fiasco with Kumar, doesn't this whole forum apart from a few thousand scandalized visitors know who really enthrones "immaturity" here?
With this i end my diatribe with you mr internet toughie aka sledgehammer. lol
hot Royalty Free Toys Clipart
EkAurAaya
10-11 04:30 PM
Yes Sir. Unfortunate for labor not cleared in time.
EB3 RIR March 2005.
Off topic - Didn't PERM start in March 2005?
EB3 RIR March 2005.
Off topic - Didn't PERM start in March 2005?
more...
house Christmas Toys Clip Art Free
chi_shark
10-27 12:03 AM
Have you ever been illegal?
Hi Guys,
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
Hi Guys,
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
tattoo Stick Horse Toy Clipart
dtekkedil
08-31 11:20 PM
No lies, salary cannot be raised and people on H-4 cannot work. The article is right.
What I don't get is where they got that the Sept 18 rally will see 5000 of us attending? That's way too little guys, we need at least double that!
Will we even have 5000 people??? I will be (pleasantly) surprised if we do!
Too bad most of us think this rally is a waste of time. I hope they wake up and realize that doing nothing and waiting for their GCs will be an even bigger waste of time if they lose their job 3 years down the line!
What I don't get is where they got that the Sept 18 rally will see 5000 of us attending? That's way too little guys, we need at least double that!
Will we even have 5000 people??? I will be (pleasantly) surprised if we do!
Too bad most of us think this rally is a waste of time. I hope they wake up and realize that doing nothing and waiting for their GCs will be an even bigger waste of time if they lose their job 3 years down the line!
more...
pictures playing with toys clipart,
gcformeornot
11-27 12:27 AM
here...............
dresses 348 cliparts children#39;s toys
a_yaja
07-27 01:20 PM
From their tone, I can tell the were trying hard to be helpful.
But, no receipt for me yet. July 2nd filer here as well.
Should I keep another set of 485 application ready, just in case if I don't hear about check cashing or receipt till august 15th ?
Is there any harm in filing the 485 again (just to be safe).... IF I don't get any indication of action on july2nd app ?
And how are you sure that the second application will be correct and not have any errors that the first one had? :D
But, no receipt for me yet. July 2nd filer here as well.
Should I keep another set of 485 application ready, just in case if I don't hear about check cashing or receipt till august 15th ?
Is there any harm in filing the 485 again (just to be safe).... IF I don't get any indication of action on july2nd app ?
And how are you sure that the second application will be correct and not have any errors that the first one had? :D
more...
makeup children toys clip art,
coloniel60
08-14 07:58 AM
Yes, there is no point in re-filing,rather it will create confusion. I spoke to USCIS ,at this point the fedex receipt no. is good enough ,to prve that your application reached service center,before 17th august . Now it makes sense to just wait for the receipt.
People can show someone elses fedex receipt and claim that they too mailed their application. How can USCIS find out which fedex receipt is for what application?
People can show someone elses fedex receipt and claim that they too mailed their application. How can USCIS find out which fedex receipt is for what application?
girlfriend littlechildren Children
seahawks
09-10 12:08 AM
AC 21 is complicated, the whole GC process is complicated. Lot of us are thinking 180 days ahead for changing employers.. please think about September 18th. We need to make a difference. Please attend the rally, please contribute, every effort taken by each of you makes a difference. Even if you don't believe you cannot make a change, WE DO! Wake up and lets all go to D.C!
If you are already coming, awesome.. kudos!
If you are already coming, awesome.. kudos!
hairstyles toys clip art
nozerd
12-24 09:59 PM
Pappu it is sad situation. I know of one Junior who I myself hired for the job and who is 4 yrs my Junior and reports to me get green card because he is EB3 but not India/China
chanduv23
03-11 04:34 PM
"non answer" meant they didn't answer his questions but rather gave some vague reply of how h-1 was good for usa.
If I was on the receivng end of that response; I would have thought that these guys are playing with me and by not answering the quesitons; then they are obviously trying to hide something. Therefore, I will attack them in another way to make them conform to the behaviour I want.
MSFT do not abuse h1b visa - they maintain their pay scales and follow all rules. When they say they want h1b visa quota available it basically means - they do not want to turn away a talented candidate because of lack of visa. All these companies are genuine in their usage. So they can definitely give a proper response.
Now for a company like INFY. WIPRO, etc.. - h1b, l1b etc.. is a part of their business modal. They need some visa to bring people in and out as it is a big part of their business. If they really were serious - they must have presented their case and also work with US govt for a different kind of visa that allows them to do their business by convincing the govts about trade etc...
Now comes the consulting companies. There are companies that genuinely bring people and rotate them at various clients for projects and people stick to them till green card. But due to sheer greed - some of these have abused the system - they have absolutely no sympathy for their acts of greed. The max they can do is threaten, usse small time lawyers, cancel pay, write letters to USCIS to cancel 140 etc... do you expect them to give a proper response to the Senators?
If I was on the receivng end of that response; I would have thought that these guys are playing with me and by not answering the quesitons; then they are obviously trying to hide something. Therefore, I will attack them in another way to make them conform to the behaviour I want.
MSFT do not abuse h1b visa - they maintain their pay scales and follow all rules. When they say they want h1b visa quota available it basically means - they do not want to turn away a talented candidate because of lack of visa. All these companies are genuine in their usage. So they can definitely give a proper response.
Now for a company like INFY. WIPRO, etc.. - h1b, l1b etc.. is a part of their business modal. They need some visa to bring people in and out as it is a big part of their business. If they really were serious - they must have presented their case and also work with US govt for a different kind of visa that allows them to do their business by convincing the govts about trade etc...
Now comes the consulting companies. There are companies that genuinely bring people and rotate them at various clients for projects and people stick to them till green card. But due to sheer greed - some of these have abused the system - they have absolutely no sympathy for their acts of greed. The max they can do is threaten, usse small time lawyers, cancel pay, write letters to USCIS to cancel 140 etc... do you expect them to give a proper response to the Senators?
eilsoe
02-03 05:25 AM
that smilie says it all :P