nixstor
04-23 04:57 PM
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
wallpaper the human heart diagram
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
zen
04-07 10:09 AM
it is good to hear from Pappu that IV is ready to take up this issue ...but till someone comes foward ..can IV focus on other issues like recapture, removal of country limits etc (there is no shortage of issues where focus is needed)
------------------
no comments from anyone regarding the above ?
------------------
no comments from anyone regarding the above ?
2011 the human heart diagram
gc_check
10-29 11:45 AM
Folks, This poll was created originaly on 7/7, Many folks got their GC, since then. The % might not reflect the current numbers of folks waiting. Still a good indicator, May be new poll might give a current status.
more...
makemygc
07-05 10:56 AM
Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
GCOP
07-11 02:07 PM
How many applications are pending for EB-3 (I). ?
Currently the tunnel is closed at the end for EB-3 :mad: and the only way out I see is for us EB-3 folks to dig through. No one cares about EB-3 I folks. That's the way I see it.
Currently the tunnel is closed at the end for EB-3 :mad: and the only way out I see is for us EB-3 folks to dig through. No one cares about EB-3 I folks. That's the way I see it.
more...
prioritydate
12-20 04:31 PM
Have you been out of country anytime after this...??If yes then you are fine.
Once you re-enter US..all previous records will be cleared....!!!
Yes, I did. In fact, many times.
Once you re-enter US..all previous records will be cleared....!!!
Yes, I did. In fact, many times.
2010 the human heart diagram
CSPAvictim
07-09 06:53 PM
I have a question: If this is indeed an internal DOS regulation, which it most probably is, does it mean that DOS can make changes without sufficient notice to the applicants/public? Does the Administrative Procedures Act come into play in such a situation?
Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.
The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
more...
sroyc
07-11 04:43 PM
There is a lot of hurtburn among folks here abt a lot of things...Does that mean USCIS is going to cater to every case of heartburn. I dont think so.
What else would explain EB2 China's PD going back to EB2 India's PD (April 2004) when visas from EB2-ROW were made available and then both PD's moving to June 2006 (which was EB2 China's PD before it became unavailable)?
They could have set it to March 2005 and it would have been enough to exhaust the remaining EB2-ROW visas left considering the number of EB2 India applicants in the backlog. The fact is that there are not enough EB2 China applicants left in 2003/2004/2005. The only way they can get a fair share of the EB2-ROW spillover was if PD's for both EB2 India and China were moved to 2006.
What else would explain EB2 China's PD going back to EB2 India's PD (April 2004) when visas from EB2-ROW were made available and then both PD's moving to June 2006 (which was EB2 China's PD before it became unavailable)?
They could have set it to March 2005 and it would have been enough to exhaust the remaining EB2-ROW visas left considering the number of EB2 India applicants in the backlog. The fact is that there are not enough EB2 China applicants left in 2003/2004/2005. The only way they can get a fair share of the EB2-ROW spillover was if PD's for both EB2 India and China were moved to 2006.
hair the human heart diagram
indio0617
11-22 10:40 AM
Ok. Here is a question I have.
I know one can get 3 years extensions once 140 is approved even with previous employer. The question is -
Assume EB2 140 is approved for previous employer has PD June 2004, and then one changes the job. By the time his 6 years of H1B gets over, June 2004 becomes current. Now the person cannot file 485 since 140 was approved for old employe whom he has left an year back. Will the person still get 3 years of extension on H1B?
I was thinking, u get 3 years extension due to retrogession.. so with the fact that PD is current, how will you still get 3 years of extension?
Thanks.
Yes. You are correct. 3 year extension after I-140 approvals can be granted only if you are unable to file for I-485. Things will be complicated in the scenario you outlined which would require some prior planning.
It is all a big mess, forcing us to stay in this perpetually uncertain state, putting our lives on hold. Of course we all have a choice : factor out the GC from our career / life equation and move on without all the complexities. I guess we will see more and more people taking that route now given the gloomy scene on retrogession.
I know one can get 3 years extensions once 140 is approved even with previous employer. The question is -
Assume EB2 140 is approved for previous employer has PD June 2004, and then one changes the job. By the time his 6 years of H1B gets over, June 2004 becomes current. Now the person cannot file 485 since 140 was approved for old employe whom he has left an year back. Will the person still get 3 years of extension on H1B?
I was thinking, u get 3 years extension due to retrogession.. so with the fact that PD is current, how will you still get 3 years of extension?
Thanks.
Yes. You are correct. 3 year extension after I-140 approvals can be granted only if you are unable to file for I-485. Things will be complicated in the scenario you outlined which would require some prior planning.
It is all a big mess, forcing us to stay in this perpetually uncertain state, putting our lives on hold. Of course we all have a choice : factor out the GC from our career / life equation and move on without all the complexities. I guess we will see more and more people taking that route now given the gloomy scene on retrogession.
more...
indyanguy
07-28 12:26 PM
Now a days this has become a fashion to bash Hinduism and people take pride in doing so just to make a point to prove that they are very secular and far sighted and very broad minded but infact these are the people who are pseudo-secular and the reason for majority Hindus in our own country being held hostage by the policticians and the largest minority community in india.....
I've seen this many times that any hindu who speaks their mind and strong believers in their religion will be tagged as fundamentalists and rss supporters where as I have nothing to do with any religious groups but I am proud of my RELIGION and it does hurt me when I see my religion/gods depicted in a bad way. If you are a aethist then just shutup but don't bash Hindu religion and I am sure that all the guys who tried to do so dont have balls to bash other religions coz they know the conseqences of it and I am sure these religious bashing people are the one who'd visit temple to get their greencards but don't accept it either becoz they are hypocrates or ashamed of their own religion......
You hit the nail on the head. I definitely agree that opposing the hindu religion has become a fashion statement especially in the so called highly educated highly skilled community. If you don't like hinduism, keep your mouth shut and convert yourself to the other liberal religions out there.
I've seen this many times that any hindu who speaks their mind and strong believers in their religion will be tagged as fundamentalists and rss supporters where as I have nothing to do with any religious groups but I am proud of my RELIGION and it does hurt me when I see my religion/gods depicted in a bad way. If you are a aethist then just shutup but don't bash Hindu religion and I am sure that all the guys who tried to do so dont have balls to bash other religions coz they know the conseqences of it and I am sure these religious bashing people are the one who'd visit temple to get their greencards but don't accept it either becoz they are hypocrates or ashamed of their own religion......
You hit the nail on the head. I definitely agree that opposing the hindu religion has become a fashion statement especially in the so called highly educated highly skilled community. If you don't like hinduism, keep your mouth shut and convert yourself to the other liberal religions out there.
hot the human heart diagram
ghost
08-12 07:30 AM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Unsolicited advice - Let's put a small amount as a deposit before we begin these efforts - 6 USD per week for 6 months (signing up for 25 USD per month for 6 months)...I did it and took me 5 minutes, now I am more dedicated to this effort than ever before and am sure that this dedication will have a positive impact on our future efforts...thanks for reading!
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
Unsolicited advice - Let's put a small amount as a deposit before we begin these efforts - 6 USD per week for 6 months (signing up for 25 USD per month for 6 months)...I did it and took me 5 minutes, now I am more dedicated to this effort than ever before and am sure that this dedication will have a positive impact on our future efforts...thanks for reading!
more...
house the human heart diagram
conundrum
11-06 11:56 AM
btw, I didn't notarize my letter. I faxed in the FOIA request.
tattoo the human heart diagram
yabadaba
12-27 08:22 AM
this was back in 2004...was on opt till then...wellsfargo just needed my h1b approval notice to approve my mortgage
plus for tax purposes u r considered a permanent resident. that means u have lived in ur state for x number of days in a calendar year...never had issues with getting credit cards, car loan, etc.
of course i had 4 yrs of credit history before that..dont know if that helped.
plus for tax purposes u r considered a permanent resident. that means u have lived in ur state for x number of days in a calendar year...never had issues with getting credit cards, car loan, etc.
of course i had 4 yrs of credit history before that..dont know if that helped.
more...
pictures the human heart diagram
sri1309
09-10 05:27 PM
Guys,
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
dresses the human heart diagram
downthedrain
02-03 01:21 PM
Please read my post again.
The letter is for future GC job, not for your current job.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
desi3933, Sorry I am a little confused, I have been working for the same company for last 8 years and I am continuing with them. I substituted on another approved labor when filing I140 from the same company. So there is no future job for me, it is the current job.
Thanks for your advise again
The letter is for future GC job, not for your current job.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
desi3933, Sorry I am a little confused, I have been working for the same company for last 8 years and I am continuing with them. I substituted on another approved labor when filing I140 from the same company. So there is no future job for me, it is the current job.
Thanks for your advise again
more...
makeup the human heart diagram
Sammo
02-21 05:04 PM
every package except LW has a free trial.
Yeah and thats the one I really want to try...I've heard so much abuot LW being the best (although my 3d friends are probably biased)...
Yeah and thats the one I really want to try...I've heard so much abuot LW being the best (although my 3d friends are probably biased)...
girlfriend the human heart diagram
saimrathi
07-05 02:05 PM
Damn straight, I am one of the free riders.. But I contribute back by doing the work... I have emailed and called media personnel, office bearers etc.. why should I pay on top of that?? When I make the calls, write the emails, I dont think I will be singled out and the only person to benefit out of it...
Once again, please focus on the issues at hand, once the VB fiasco has died down, we will have a lot of time on our hands to work out payments on the site...
My checking this thread is probably bumping it up, so i'm not coming back here.. dont bother to reply, i dont subscribe to the threads..
Sai,
I DO THAT PART. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS. IF YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THE FREE RIDERS HERE THEN YOU WON'T BE BOTHERED BY DISCUSSION HERE. PLEASE EXCUSE ME FOR BEING RUDE ... YOU KNOW YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW :(
Once again, please focus on the issues at hand, once the VB fiasco has died down, we will have a lot of time on our hands to work out payments on the site...
My checking this thread is probably bumping it up, so i'm not coming back here.. dont bother to reply, i dont subscribe to the threads..
Sai,
I DO THAT PART. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS. IF YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THE FREE RIDERS HERE THEN YOU WON'T BE BOTHERED BY DISCUSSION HERE. PLEASE EXCUSE ME FOR BEING RUDE ... YOU KNOW YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW :(
hairstyles the human heart diagram
msadiqali
09-14 04:13 PM
what is EVL?
I also got an RFE asking for my employer letter. I moved to IL from CA.
I got the letter from employer and submitted to USCIS... waiting for answer..
I also got an RFE asking for my employer letter. I moved to IL from CA.
I got the letter from employer and submitted to USCIS... waiting for answer..
amitps
09-26 11:27 AM
Eilene Zimmerman
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
IV Leaders and Core are working on it...but feel free to call her / email her.
freelance journalist
v and f: 619.582.2192
ezimmerman@sbcglobal.net
IV Leaders and Core are working on it...but feel free to call her / email her.
Macaca
09-26 10:46 AM
About us (http://mediamatters.org/about_us/)
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation � news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda � every day, in real time.
Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions. Contact Us (http://mediamatters.org/contact_us): mm-tips@mediametters.org
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation � news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda � every day, in real time.
Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions. Contact Us (http://mediamatters.org/contact_us): mm-tips@mediametters.org