waiting4gc02
02-21 11:53 AM
Satish,
Did you see these updated today (2/21) ?
Where did you see that ??
Thanks
Did you see these updated today (2/21) ?
Where did you see that ??
Thanks
wallpaper jessica simpson wedding
greenguru
06-28 03:41 PM
I checked on murthy site, what is there ?
piyu7444
10-14 06:33 PM
I am in a similar situation...filed for AP in June...mine got approved...wife's AP has not gotten approved yet....planning to travel in early December.
I tried expediting for financial loss and got email saying that is not enough reason....
I am thinking of refiling my wife's I131 and paying the extra $300...now. What do you guys think...is there a chance of approval before end of November or is it a lost cause...
Its late if you want to go in early dec. If money is not a concern I would still try............
I tried expediting for financial loss and got email saying that is not enough reason....
I am thinking of refiling my wife's I131 and paying the extra $300...now. What do you guys think...is there a chance of approval before end of November or is it a lost cause...
Its late if you want to go in early dec. If money is not a concern I would still try............
2011 Jessica Simpson#39;s short brown
gc_chahiye
02-10 06:24 PM
Weigh in with % raise and take decision. If its around 15%-20% raise with
good benefits etc then move..
cheers
Iad
the spouse is the primary applicant. The OP is dependent/secondary applicant
OP can take even a 3000% raise, change jobs to a completely unrelated field, do whatever he/she wants to do, whenever he/she wants to.
good benefits etc then move..
cheers
Iad
the spouse is the primary applicant. The OP is dependent/secondary applicant
OP can take even a 3000% raise, change jobs to a completely unrelated field, do whatever he/she wants to do, whenever he/she wants to.
more...
freakin_gc
01-31 05:00 PM
Thanks for your time guys...just curious hopefully SB can help me...how do I find out my I-140 subcategory(skilled category or Professional).In my I-140 receipt notice under section it mentioned as Skilled worker or Professional, sec.203(b)(3)A(i) or (ii)
gparr
May 22nd, 2005, 08:29 PM
My business travels took me, once again, to Las Vegas. Armed with a polarizer and more time on this trip, I was determined to do a better job of photographing the views in Red Rock Canyon than I did the last time. Was able to shoot in the canyon area at both sunrise and sunset. I'm much happier with the results this time. Here are three of my favorites from the effort. Several more in my gallery. Comments/critiques appreciated.
Gary
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/rrc06.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/rrc03.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/rrc04.jpg
Gary
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/rrc06.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/rrc03.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/rrc04.jpg
more...
n2b
07-17 01:03 PM
DOS and USCIS are slow. But it would be really helpful if the IV code team can provide some update on our site. I believe over 2.5 hours have passed since the last update regarding some update in 1 hour. I guess we can't do anything if it takes more time but an update always helps! Thank you.
2010 jessica simpson wedding
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
andy garcia
11-10 09:30 PM
Remember, USCIS only tells us "total" I-485 receipts. They don't break it down to what many of us are interested to know, which is, how many are family based and how many are employment based. There is no way to know how many of the 150K receipts issued in Sept for I-485 were EB.
FB and EB combined annual limit is 366,000 immigrant visas (226K FB + 140K EB)
That total also includes Asylum/refugee, DV lottery and Immediate Relatives.
FB and EB combined annual limit is 366,000 immigrant visas (226K FB + 140K EB)
That total also includes Asylum/refugee, DV lottery and Immediate Relatives.
hair jessica simpson hairstyles
eastindia
04-08 08:39 AM
Looking at this issue, isnt' it USCIS who is at fault here ?
How can they allow the employer to "reuse" the original labor when employee1 has already used it for his I-140 approval ?
This is definitely a USCIS mess. Employees/beneficiaries shouldn't be paying the price for USCIS's fault.
This is really wonderful.
USCIS should be screwing people who used Substitute labor. They should even revoke or issue RFEs to all peoples who got Greencard using Substitute labor. I am sure the queue is get very very short if this happens. let us not allow these people who jumped in this queue.
I am writing to USCIS about this. Let us all write to USCIS, Ombudsman and also on USCIS blog about this.
How can they allow the employer to "reuse" the original labor when employee1 has already used it for his I-140 approval ?
This is definitely a USCIS mess. Employees/beneficiaries shouldn't be paying the price for USCIS's fault.
This is really wonderful.
USCIS should be screwing people who used Substitute labor. They should even revoke or issue RFEs to all peoples who got Greencard using Substitute labor. I am sure the queue is get very very short if this happens. let us not allow these people who jumped in this queue.
I am writing to USCIS about this. Let us all write to USCIS, Ombudsman and also on USCIS blog about this.
more...
chanduv23
06-30 07:59 AM
Chanduv23,
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
Yes, RFEs could be a part of preadjudication. But at times people do receive random RFEs too. If you are lucky, you can get the answer from a officer on whether your case is preadjudicated or not.
What about RFE without being current? Can it also be taken as Pre-adjudicated? Pls advise.
Thank you
Yes, RFEs could be a part of preadjudication. But at times people do receive random RFEs too. If you are lucky, you can get the answer from a officer on whether your case is preadjudicated or not.
hot jessica simpson hairstyles. TechEnthu. Apr 19, 02:11 PM
rongha_2000
10-02 11:23 AM
Thanks for the response and I have recd the same kind of response from my lawyer too. What I find confusing is everyone cautions me saying "As a backup, maintain your H1." Is there a real need to maintain a backup? Meaning if I need to maintain my H1 why should I apply for EAD for myself? Or is it so that I can continue on H1 right now with my same company and If I get laid off I can use EAD to get another job (not everyone hires H1-Bs) and in later case my daughter will be covered because our AOS is pending? In that case if I leave the country I can reenter using our receipts and APs, is that right?
Yes it will be Pending Adjustment for all of you if you use EAD .
But as backup and if not required just be on H1B visa and do job for same company again if possible .
or if you are changing company file H1B extension as backup.
Yes it will be Pending Adjustment for all of you if you use EAD .
But as backup and if not required just be on H1B visa and do job for same company again if possible .
or if you are changing company file H1B extension as backup.
more...
house Wedding Hairdo Collections
ryan
02-03 05:33 PM
Hi Ryan,
Do you know anyone have done that? Like you personally or anyone you know? Have they got I-140? I read that its possible to get PERM Labor done under EB-2, but USCIS gives real hard time at I-140 stage.
Appreciate your help!
Thank you
The lawyers had the Ozzie degree, as well as the US CPA evaluated via an accredited foreign degree evaluator. This was back in the summer of �06. Again, invest a few extra $$ and hire a good lawyer. They can best explain the process / prerequisites to you.
Do you know anyone have done that? Like you personally or anyone you know? Have they got I-140? I read that its possible to get PERM Labor done under EB-2, but USCIS gives real hard time at I-140 stage.
Appreciate your help!
Thank you
The lawyers had the Ozzie degree, as well as the US CPA evaluated via an accredited foreign degree evaluator. This was back in the summer of �06. Again, invest a few extra $$ and hire a good lawyer. They can best explain the process / prerequisites to you.
tattoo jessica simpson wedding
Macaca
08-10 04:25 PM
A woman who was traveling alone in the mountains found a precious stone in a stream.
The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, the woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left, rejoicing in his great fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.
But a few days later he came back to return the stone to the woman. "I've been thinking," he said, "I know how valuable the stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me the stone."
The woman smiled, "The joy of giving!"
The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, the woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so without hesitation. The traveler left, rejoicing in his great fortune. He knew the stone was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime.
But a few days later he came back to return the stone to the woman. "I've been thinking," he said, "I know how valuable the stone is, but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to give me the stone."
The woman smiled, "The joy of giving!"
more...
pictures jessica simpson wedding
Soul
05-30 05:12 PM
:P
dresses Jessica Simpson wedding hair
gc_peshwa
09-22 09:59 PM
Pappu
Is there an IV action item defined for defeating this bill? Why has this been posted? Just curios....
Is there an IV action item defined for defeating this bill? Why has this been posted? Just curios....
more...
makeup wedding hair ideas…
neelu
01-03 08:17 AM
Thank you very much .
girlfriend Jessica Simpson#39;s long loose
quizzer
02-23 04:54 PM
Thats true, When my I-140 was approved, as per the site my date was atleast 2 months away, but i received the approval notice. :)
Shirish,
Can you give more details about your I140?
EB2 or EB3?
NSC or TSC?
RD and AD???
Thanks
Shirish,
Can you give more details about your I140?
EB2 or EB3?
NSC or TSC?
RD and AD???
Thanks
hairstyles jessica simpson wedding hairstyles
ravi
09-13 10:55 PM
I am eligible for emeregency appointment as I am coming to India to
attend visa interview as I got new i-20 for MBA program starting january
2007. Please I request you to provide me information on how to shcedule
intervie before dec10, 2006, so that accordingly I will buy the
flight tickets.
My international advisor in school will also provide me recommendation
if needed for emergency appointment, showing my need.
attend visa interview as I got new i-20 for MBA program starting january
2007. Please I request you to provide me information on how to shcedule
intervie before dec10, 2006, so that accordingly I will buy the
flight tickets.
My international advisor in school will also provide me recommendation
if needed for emergency appointment, showing my need.
xgoogle
08-25 02:08 PM
bump
nozerd
01-18 12:54 PM
Only Primary applicant needs to take it for sure. Even for US immigration you could be NIW candidate but your spouse may be illiterate still she will also get GC.
No comments:
Post a Comment