srikondoji
02-13 05:07 PM
Complaints and complimenets are both important.
I guess, what logiclife is doing is right. It is correct to defend the organization and also respond to personal attacks in a befitting manner.
When i joined this organization, the only thing on my mind was to be part of the force. I was not expecting anything dramatic out of this. I cannot alone do this job, so i thought why not be part of the team which has committed to fight for a just cause.
Instead of infighting, let us unite and offer suggestions for better results.
Best regards
I guess, what logiclife is doing is right. It is correct to defend the organization and also respond to personal attacks in a befitting manner.
When i joined this organization, the only thing on my mind was to be part of the force. I was not expecting anything dramatic out of this. I cannot alone do this job, so i thought why not be part of the team which has committed to fight for a just cause.
Instead of infighting, let us unite and offer suggestions for better results.
Best regards
wallpaper Cool Wallpapers
Vexir
06-15 12:07 AM
Quick someone tell me which one I should put in the poll, the carbon pod or the orasquare ?
glus
07-11 07:46 AM
If they have to log this information then they may encash the cheque for this work. :eek: :eek:
USCIS can't cash the checks. A check submitted with AnY application can only be cashed if and when the agency decides that the application can be accepted and processed(initial processing.)
G
USCIS can't cash the checks. A check submitted with AnY application can only be cashed if and when the agency decides that the application can be accepted and processed(initial processing.)
G
2011 Cool Sun Goku Wallpaper for
dr_vroeg
06-08 09:02 AM
ben, you still want to wait until the 30th?
more...
BMS1
11-09 04:07 PM
H1-B has the following advantages under certain conditions.
1) If you are not yet married, you dump H1 and you are dumping the ability to bring your future wife to US immediately after marriage.
2) Some states give driving licenses that is valid until the EAD expiry or H1-B I-94 expiry. With H1-B, your hassle of DL renewal is reduced to one third of EAD based.
1) If you are not yet married, you dump H1 and you are dumping the ability to bring your future wife to US immediately after marriage.
2) Some states give driving licenses that is valid until the EAD expiry or H1-B I-94 expiry. With H1-B, your hassle of DL renewal is reduced to one third of EAD based.
.jpg "hairstyles cool wallpaper")
acecupid
06-14 01:30 PM
Oh yeah .. but that is provided I can file my 485 by that time. Given my PD was just May 06, I had NO preparation for 485 filing, wonder how much time gathering up all the required docs takes for this filing :)
Usually everyone has all the documents. The most common missing document is the birth certificate. It has to be in english if not translation is required. Plus, it should match your name is passport exactly. Otherwise, the american gori is always there as backup :) hehe..:D
Usually everyone has all the documents. The most common missing document is the birth certificate. It has to be in english if not translation is required. Plus, it should match your name is passport exactly. Otherwise, the american gori is always there as backup :) hehe..:D
more...
breddy2000
07-19 10:17 AM
mine 2 - rwilliams at 7:55
It was signed by R. Williams for me.Delivered on July 12th at 9:35am
Also there is a 4 digit reference : Case #xxxx on the shipment signature copy . Do you have that? Is it anything to do with our 485 or is it just the FEDEX reference number?
Thanks
It was signed by R. Williams for me.Delivered on July 12th at 9:35am
Also there is a 4 digit reference : Case #xxxx on the shipment signature copy . Do you have that? Is it anything to do with our 485 or is it just the FEDEX reference number?
Thanks
2010 decor blue wallpaper cool
unitednations
03-31 11:55 AM
UN probably didn't realize that the officer id. was different. The id. being different is a good thing, it makes the likelihood of the IO not having noticed the old NOID higher.
I am sure you are under a lot of stress, and I feel your pain, but click on UN's profile and look at his old posts carefully, he knows what he is talking about.
Again, hope things work out in your favor, keep us posted.
The one that I am looking at the officer id is the same. Timeline is different from OP. Response was received end of February 2009; denial dated end of March 2009.
I am sure you are under a lot of stress, and I feel your pain, but click on UN's profile and look at his old posts carefully, he knows what he is talking about.
Again, hope things work out in your favor, keep us posted.
The one that I am looking at the officer id is the same. Timeline is different from OP. Response was received end of February 2009; denial dated end of March 2009.
more...
canleo98
07-29 10:25 PM
Can anyone please answer this question?
Yes, two paystubs along with nice covering letter and financial analysis from your attorney is enough to prove your company's abilty to pay
Yes, two paystubs along with nice covering letter and financial analysis from your attorney is enough to prove your company's abilty to pay
hair high quality wallpaper
unchew
06-22 07:08 PM
He just left us poll-less...
more...
forever_waiting
04-22 07:13 PM
Ok. But how does this apply to immigration?
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
Thanks for asking this. I found this: Civil Rights Division Home Page (http://www.justice.gov/crt/legalinfo/natorigin.php)
IMO, rather useful in our discussion, though not relating to the constitution. But if you insist, I might point you to the 14th amendment ...
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)
Read the "Equal protection clause". It mentions this case:
The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations
Do you agree that we can draw a direct parallel of this case to our case, where they are segregating visa numbers based on the country of origin?
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
Thanks for asking this. I found this: Civil Rights Division Home Page (http://www.justice.gov/crt/legalinfo/natorigin.php)
IMO, rather useful in our discussion, though not relating to the constitution. But if you insist, I might point you to the 14th amendment ...
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)
Read the "Equal protection clause". It mentions this case:
The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations
Do you agree that we can draw a direct parallel of this case to our case, where they are segregating visa numbers based on the country of origin?
hot Find cool wallpapers for your
Macaca
02-01 12:56 PM
Employment based immigration is a very small part of legal immigration.
Here is a break down of legal immigration #s for 2006 according to Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, published by Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) (available at Spotlight on Legal Immigration to the United States (http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=651) By Gretchen Reinemeyer and Jeanne Batalova | Migration Policy Institute, November 2007).
1,266,264 immigrants were granted legal residence in 2006.
159,081 immigrants who received green cards through sponsorship from their US employers accounted for 12.6% of all legal permanent residents.
However, 87,702 (or 55.1%) of the employment-sponsored immigrants were spouses and children of principal applicants.
The share of employment-preference immigrants has varied between 3.3 percent (59,525) in 1991 and 22 percent (246,878) in 2005.
The other categories are family preference (802,712), refugee + asylee (216,454), Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 + parolees (43,546) and Diversity Lottery (44,471).
Employment based immigration is legal. However, it may help to add legal to the title.
Employment based immigration is skilled. I think employment based immigration includes cooks, priests, .... They consider themselves to be skilled just like everyone else!
If you just ask for improving legal immigration, they will improve family based or asylum.
As some persons learnt yesterday, legal immigration has very low priority as compared to undocumented. Similarly, employment based immigration has no priority in legal immigration!
Here is a break down of legal immigration #s for 2006 according to Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, published by Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) (available at Spotlight on Legal Immigration to the United States (http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=651) By Gretchen Reinemeyer and Jeanne Batalova | Migration Policy Institute, November 2007).
1,266,264 immigrants were granted legal residence in 2006.
159,081 immigrants who received green cards through sponsorship from their US employers accounted for 12.6% of all legal permanent residents.
However, 87,702 (or 55.1%) of the employment-sponsored immigrants were spouses and children of principal applicants.
The share of employment-preference immigrants has varied between 3.3 percent (59,525) in 1991 and 22 percent (246,878) in 2005.
The other categories are family preference (802,712), refugee + asylee (216,454), Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 + parolees (43,546) and Diversity Lottery (44,471).
Employment based immigration is legal. However, it may help to add legal to the title.
Employment based immigration is skilled. I think employment based immigration includes cooks, priests, .... They consider themselves to be skilled just like everyone else!
If you just ask for improving legal immigration, they will improve family based or asylum.
As some persons learnt yesterday, legal immigration has very low priority as compared to undocumented. Similarly, employment based immigration has no priority in legal immigration!
more...
house cool wallpaper Read Between
akhilmahajan
03-11 09:49 AM
I think we still are waiting from the member to tell us, exactly what was asked of the senator.
GO I/WE GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
GO I/WE GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
tattoo hairstyles cool wallpaper
boreal
08-25 12:02 PM
I am with the same employer who sponsored GC. Until GC was approved I was with H1B visa. Is it neccessary for me to file I-9 after GC?
Yes. They would need GC copy and they would update their records.
Yes. They would need GC copy and they would update their records.
more...
pictures desktop wallpaper cool.
another one
07-17 04:48 PM
As always, thanks to IV leadership for their work and inspiration. I am curious to know IV's opinion on possibilities of legislative changes this year. I was more optimistic last December (2006), than I am today. Immigration reform is dead, and based on what I am hearing from some of the blogs, the chances for any legislation this year for skilled immigrants are bleak. After a lot of work in last two years, I have some opportunities to get into an alternative field of interest. The I-485 process (switched job and applied again in Nov 2006) now limits me from changing into a different field. After being in US for near 10 yrs, I have lost the appetite to continue putting everything at stake. My pessimism may be arising from my paticular situation, but I don't see any point in continuing to be in this country if I cannot switch to my field of interest for another 2-10 yrs.
dresses Cool Ichigo Kurosaki Wallpaper
mallu
12-04 10:47 PM
Here is the link to Cao v. Upchurch ruling.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0833P.pdf.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0833P.pdf.
more...
makeup Cool Wallpapers
ajju
03-13 01:18 PM
One step closer.
With last year crisscrossing, EB2 India most apps are cleared upto september 2004. We should not have too many in 2004 except substitution cases.
Hope it will step into 2005 in next 4 months....
Atleast 5 in my office and 5 in friend circle :-)
But I wish what you say is true that not many left in 2003.. and dates move to 2004 and then further...
With last year crisscrossing, EB2 India most apps are cleared upto september 2004. We should not have too many in 2004 except substitution cases.
Hope it will step into 2005 in next 4 months....
Atleast 5 in my office and 5 in friend circle :-)
But I wish what you say is true that not many left in 2003.. and dates move to 2004 and then further...
girlfriend abstract wallpaper cool.
chanduv23
03-14 05:34 AM
And the drama continues...
All I had asked was how the older IV core members were doing as I hadn't seen them online in over a year. But as usual a simple question like that and a request for some updates kicks up a storm!!
Once again, this was not to start a storm. I honestly just wanted to find out how the older core members were doing. WaldenPond, thanks for your first response.
Well, the climax is good :) :) - we found a member 'jnraajan' interested in starting a state chapter and building the grass roots efforts and seems to be motivaited enough and took the discussion in a positive way.
Lot of people read IVs discussions silently - looking at 'jnraajan' others do get motivated.
There is no storm or whatever you think, folks like h1bslave and his likes need fitting responses for their posts and thats it.
All I had asked was how the older IV core members were doing as I hadn't seen them online in over a year. But as usual a simple question like that and a request for some updates kicks up a storm!!
Once again, this was not to start a storm. I honestly just wanted to find out how the older core members were doing. WaldenPond, thanks for your first response.
Well, the climax is good :) :) - we found a member 'jnraajan' interested in starting a state chapter and building the grass roots efforts and seems to be motivaited enough and took the discussion in a positive way.
Lot of people read IVs discussions silently - looking at 'jnraajan' others do get motivated.
There is no storm or whatever you think, folks like h1bslave and his likes need fitting responses for their posts and thats it.
hairstyles cool desktop wallpapers. cool
wikipedia_fan
03-31 11:34 AM
To me; it looks like it could be a shift in change of policy. In the denial notice; it is the same officer number who sent the notice of intent to deny. Therefore; it is not a training issue; looks like something else is happening.
training issue is when they send straght denial after 140 is revoked.
It is hard to believe that someone can suddenly change policy internally and not talk about it. In my case the officer id who issued denial is different from the officer id who issued NOID.
UNITEDNATIONS - for some reason, I think you are trying to spread unnecessary fear with your conspiracy theories. Agreed that USCIS is going tough on consulting companies and that stuff, but "internal policy change" seems to be more of a conspiracy.
training issue is when they send straght denial after 140 is revoked.
It is hard to believe that someone can suddenly change policy internally and not talk about it. In my case the officer id who issued denial is different from the officer id who issued NOID.
UNITEDNATIONS - for some reason, I think you are trying to spread unnecessary fear with your conspiracy theories. Agreed that USCIS is going tough on consulting companies and that stuff, but "internal policy change" seems to be more of a conspiracy.
leoindiano
03-13 11:19 AM
it doesnt hurt to believe, you are 9 months away...:-)
As the guy who posted it said, this is a normal process....Consulates will know 3 to 4 days before...
As the guy who posted it said, this is a normal process....Consulates will know 3 to 4 days before...
number30
04-19 07:06 PM
There have been thousands of instances where applicants have been disqualified from applying for GC and even their H1B revoked when initial degree was found to not be related to the occupation - examples: B.Com, B.Sc (Bio, Geology..except Physics/Math), B.Arch.
USCIS is now very strict. :( -but for the betterment of the whole system.
It goes by how requirements were specified on LC. If you put proper wordings on LC B.Com, B.Sc. are OK for EB3 .
But for EB2 they want Four year degree for Indian graduates.
USCIS is now very strict. :( -but for the betterment of the whole system.
It goes by how requirements were specified on LC. If you put proper wordings on LC B.Com, B.Sc. are OK for EB3 .
But for EB2 they want Four year degree for Indian graduates.