mgos
07-15 07:33 PM
Just called CNN an complained about Lou Dobbs programming and his singling out of Indian H1B immigrants. Got the number from www.michaelmoore.com.
If enuf of us call, CNN might be forced to do better factual reporting.
If enuf of us call, CNN might be forced to do better factual reporting.
wallpaper a química do amor e por; quimica do amor. Quimica Do Amor 4sharedcom
learning01
02-01 01:27 PM
Your position on will be part of IVs position.
We all have our roots in H1B. So, my friend what is your position?
What is IV's position on more H1Bs?
We all have our roots in H1B. So, my friend what is your position?
What is IV's position on more H1Bs?
cgeek4u
07-16 06:07 PM
Signed
2011 quimica do amor. amor fresa lyrics; amor fresa lyrics
willigetagc
08-25 12:11 PM
I have sent money using icicibank's M2I service . Usually they take 5 working days to remit the money(atleast 8 days to transfer). I made four transactions last week(mon, tue, wed, thu) and they already remitted the money using low conversion rate.
It just took less than three days to remit the money this time. Bank deliberately did this just to steal money from me. I have lost more than 35 paise per dollar and it comes close to Rs 10,000. This is ridiculous and its a big robbery.
How do i get my money back? How do i make a compliant about this bank? They have no one to assist me over the phone.
What to do now?. Rs 10,000 may look too small for us. But how can we let banks to act like a criminals.
Any help/suggestion/comment?
They just did what the law allows them to do. These things happen according to established practices. Be happy that they are efficient.
What would you do if the opposite had happened and if you were in the money because the currency moved in the opposite direction after you initiated the transfer. Will you return the money to the bank?
So, stop whining. If you are so smart that you can predict currency movements, then hedge your money transfer with some other instrument.
It just took less than three days to remit the money this time. Bank deliberately did this just to steal money from me. I have lost more than 35 paise per dollar and it comes close to Rs 10,000. This is ridiculous and its a big robbery.
How do i get my money back? How do i make a compliant about this bank? They have no one to assist me over the phone.
What to do now?. Rs 10,000 may look too small for us. But how can we let banks to act like a criminals.
Any help/suggestion/comment?
They just did what the law allows them to do. These things happen according to established practices. Be happy that they are efficient.
What would you do if the opposite had happened and if you were in the money because the currency moved in the opposite direction after you initiated the transfer. Will you return the money to the bank?
So, stop whining. If you are so smart that you can predict currency movements, then hedge your money transfer with some other instrument.
more...
snathan
04-20 04:56 PM
I fully agree with FraudGultee I shouldnt have called snathan a moron, i am sorry about that. but on the hindsight his reply sort of proves it... :D
Yes...it proves.
Yes...it proves.
rheoretro
11-13 02:46 PM
- First, it is highly unlikely that Hastert will ever, ever support CIR. That itself is a "red flag" from a post by "Red card."
- Actions speak louder than words. If Murtha becomes the majority leader in house than Democrat agenda for 2008 presidential agenda will be Iraq not immigration. That doesn't mean no immigration reform, just not in the "lame-duck" session.
- Lets wait for next year for any progress on immigration.
GCS999 - excellent points! I asked someone yesterday why they even care about Hastert. He's toast, anyway.There's a very revealing article in the Washington Post today, which says that the Dems will tread cautiously, and perhaps even slowly, on immigration. And they have bigger fish to fry, the number one being Iraq. Not sure what the needless hullabaloo about the lame duck session is. People need to stop crying wolf.
Democrats May Proceed With Caution on Immigration
Explosive Issue Not A Top Priority For Incoming Leaders
By Darryl Fears and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 13, 2006; A03
When election results started rolling in Tuesday, Cecilia Mu�oz said that she and other immigration advocates were "holding our breath." One by one, Republicans who had fought tooth and nail for stricter immigration laws fell, turning control of Congress over to the Democrats.
By morning, a 700-mile Mexican border fence passed by Republicans in a pre-election gambit had fallen flat with voters. A sharply worded GOP bill that targeted illegal immigrants and spurred marches by millions of Latinos in the spring appeared likely to fade into memory.
"I think this is the best environment we've had on the issue in quite some time," said Cassandra Q. Butts, a senior vice president for the pro-immigration Center for American Progress.
But when it comes to immigration, things are never easy. In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were also elected to Congress.
"It's not without its challenges, for sure," said Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "You've got opposition in both parties. You still have restrictionists in the Republican Party. You have Democrats who've been reluctant to move on any kind of worker program."
Butterfield predicted that lobbyists and Democrats have less than a year to move legislation that could put some 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to legal residency, before the looming 2008 elections make a deal politically impossible. And analysts say the fate of President Bush's proposal to create a temporary worker program for 200,000 immigrants is in doubt, with labor's allies in charge.
In recent days, advocates have been burning up the phone lines talking to one another and to try to determine whom House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the presumed speaker of the next Congress, will appoint to key committees, and how the new Democratically controlled Congress will approach the issue.
Major challenges lay ahead. The Mexican border remains a sieve where an estimated 100,000 immigrants sneak into the country every year. Conservatives in the House, and some Democrats, want the border sealed with manpower, fencing and technological gadgets before they will even consider guest workers.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes increased immigration, said Democrats should implement an enforcement program first. Anything else might be political suicide.
"The Democrats need to get their majority reelected in the next two years," Krikorian said. "My sense is that the Democrats have grown up enough to know they can't get reelected trying to get everything they want."
Immigration experts are on the lookout for the kind of compromises that led to the flawed immigration reform laws of 1986 and 1996. In those years, a White House and Congress split between the two parties passed watered-down laws requiring employers to check the legal status of new hires to satisfy businesses and immigration advocates. They also failed to give enforcement agencies the money, staff, technology or practical ability to do the job.
The miscues paved the way for an explosion of illegal immigration.
"The question is, will this just be another split-the-baby approach, such as we saw in 1986," said Robert Bonner, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2003 to 2005, "or are we actually going to do something that is going to seriously achieve the objectives of controlling the border?"
At the White House Friday, the Bush administration struck a bipartisan chord, trumpeting both border enforcement and a guest worker initiative. "The President believes a temporary guest worker program, where you will know if you're in or you're out, is going to relieve pressure on the border and also reduce the incentive for people to travel from Central America through Mexico in search of such jobs," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.
Bush supports a proposal by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to allow foreign nationals currently outside the country to work in the United States temporarily. Illegal immigrants now in the country could work too, but only if they pay a $2,000 penalty for breaking the law, pay back taxes, undergo a criminal check, learn English, take civics lessons, go to the back of the employment line and then work six years with no legal problems.
The McCain-Kennedy bill would also strengthen the border and create a computerized system to check the legal status of workers. The Senate bill would authorize spending $400 million to expand a pilot program used by 5,000 employers to cover new hires by more than 8 million U.S. companies within 18 months.
But some experts are skeptical. The non-partisan Migration Policy Institute has said that the pilot system is flawed, will take at least three years to implement, and will fail unless it is made much more accurate. The MPI panel, co-chaired by former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) also said other steps are needed, such as producing tamper-proof Social Security or other employment ID card based on fingerprints or other unique identifying features.
Others say thousands of immigration investigators are needed to verify legal workers and track down those who remain in the country illegally.
James W. Ziglar, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said if Congress does take up an overhaul, "the recognition that enforcement has to be of equal stature is something that will occur this time, because the lessons learned from the 1986 act are still burning very brightly in the minds of people on both sides of the debate."
Mu�oz, a vice president at the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino civil rights group, said Democrats should move carefully ahead with a plan that satisfies both sides.
"This notion that it's dangerous to vote to support comprehensive immigration reform I believe to be false," she said. In Arizona, she said, voters rejected anti-immigration Republicans Randy Graf and Rep. J.D. Hayworth.
But, to show how complicated the issue is, Arizona voters also approved three referenda to make life tougher for illegal immigrants.
Anti-immigration Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who was distraught after the election, believing a guest worker program was inevitable under the Democrats, now says he's changed his mind.
"It seemed to me that it was not going to be as easy for them as I had anticipated or feared," Tancredo said. "They're not putting it out there as their number one, out-of-the-box issue."
The more he thought about the issue, the more cloudy the future seemed.
"I don't know," he said. A temporary guest worker program "could certainly happen. I may be just skipping past the graveyard."
- Actions speak louder than words. If Murtha becomes the majority leader in house than Democrat agenda for 2008 presidential agenda will be Iraq not immigration. That doesn't mean no immigration reform, just not in the "lame-duck" session.
- Lets wait for next year for any progress on immigration.
GCS999 - excellent points! I asked someone yesterday why they even care about Hastert. He's toast, anyway.There's a very revealing article in the Washington Post today, which says that the Dems will tread cautiously, and perhaps even slowly, on immigration. And they have bigger fish to fry, the number one being Iraq. Not sure what the needless hullabaloo about the lame duck session is. People need to stop crying wolf.
Democrats May Proceed With Caution on Immigration
Explosive Issue Not A Top Priority For Incoming Leaders
By Darryl Fears and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, November 13, 2006; A03
When election results started rolling in Tuesday, Cecilia Mu�oz said that she and other immigration advocates were "holding our breath." One by one, Republicans who had fought tooth and nail for stricter immigration laws fell, turning control of Congress over to the Democrats.
By morning, a 700-mile Mexican border fence passed by Republicans in a pre-election gambit had fallen flat with voters. A sharply worded GOP bill that targeted illegal immigrants and spurred marches by millions of Latinos in the spring appeared likely to fade into memory.
"I think this is the best environment we've had on the issue in quite some time," said Cassandra Q. Butts, a senior vice president for the pro-immigration Center for American Progress.
But when it comes to immigration, things are never easy. In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were also elected to Congress.
"It's not without its challenges, for sure," said Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "You've got opposition in both parties. You still have restrictionists in the Republican Party. You have Democrats who've been reluctant to move on any kind of worker program."
Butterfield predicted that lobbyists and Democrats have less than a year to move legislation that could put some 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to legal residency, before the looming 2008 elections make a deal politically impossible. And analysts say the fate of President Bush's proposal to create a temporary worker program for 200,000 immigrants is in doubt, with labor's allies in charge.
In recent days, advocates have been burning up the phone lines talking to one another and to try to determine whom House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the presumed speaker of the next Congress, will appoint to key committees, and how the new Democratically controlled Congress will approach the issue.
Major challenges lay ahead. The Mexican border remains a sieve where an estimated 100,000 immigrants sneak into the country every year. Conservatives in the House, and some Democrats, want the border sealed with manpower, fencing and technological gadgets before they will even consider guest workers.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes increased immigration, said Democrats should implement an enforcement program first. Anything else might be political suicide.
"The Democrats need to get their majority reelected in the next two years," Krikorian said. "My sense is that the Democrats have grown up enough to know they can't get reelected trying to get everything they want."
Immigration experts are on the lookout for the kind of compromises that led to the flawed immigration reform laws of 1986 and 1996. In those years, a White House and Congress split between the two parties passed watered-down laws requiring employers to check the legal status of new hires to satisfy businesses and immigration advocates. They also failed to give enforcement agencies the money, staff, technology or practical ability to do the job.
The miscues paved the way for an explosion of illegal immigration.
"The question is, will this just be another split-the-baby approach, such as we saw in 1986," said Robert Bonner, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2003 to 2005, "or are we actually going to do something that is going to seriously achieve the objectives of controlling the border?"
At the White House Friday, the Bush administration struck a bipartisan chord, trumpeting both border enforcement and a guest worker initiative. "The President believes a temporary guest worker program, where you will know if you're in or you're out, is going to relieve pressure on the border and also reduce the incentive for people to travel from Central America through Mexico in search of such jobs," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.
Bush supports a proposal by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to allow foreign nationals currently outside the country to work in the United States temporarily. Illegal immigrants now in the country could work too, but only if they pay a $2,000 penalty for breaking the law, pay back taxes, undergo a criminal check, learn English, take civics lessons, go to the back of the employment line and then work six years with no legal problems.
The McCain-Kennedy bill would also strengthen the border and create a computerized system to check the legal status of workers. The Senate bill would authorize spending $400 million to expand a pilot program used by 5,000 employers to cover new hires by more than 8 million U.S. companies within 18 months.
But some experts are skeptical. The non-partisan Migration Policy Institute has said that the pilot system is flawed, will take at least three years to implement, and will fail unless it is made much more accurate. The MPI panel, co-chaired by former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) also said other steps are needed, such as producing tamper-proof Social Security or other employment ID card based on fingerprints or other unique identifying features.
Others say thousands of immigration investigators are needed to verify legal workers and track down those who remain in the country illegally.
James W. Ziglar, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said if Congress does take up an overhaul, "the recognition that enforcement has to be of equal stature is something that will occur this time, because the lessons learned from the 1986 act are still burning very brightly in the minds of people on both sides of the debate."
Mu�oz, a vice president at the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino civil rights group, said Democrats should move carefully ahead with a plan that satisfies both sides.
"This notion that it's dangerous to vote to support comprehensive immigration reform I believe to be false," she said. In Arizona, she said, voters rejected anti-immigration Republicans Randy Graf and Rep. J.D. Hayworth.
But, to show how complicated the issue is, Arizona voters also approved three referenda to make life tougher for illegal immigrants.
Anti-immigration Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who was distraught after the election, believing a guest worker program was inevitable under the Democrats, now says he's changed his mind.
"It seemed to me that it was not going to be as easy for them as I had anticipated or feared," Tancredo said. "They're not putting it out there as their number one, out-of-the-box issue."
The more he thought about the issue, the more cloudy the future seemed.
"I don't know," he said. A temporary guest worker program "could certainly happen. I may be just skipping past the graveyard."
more...
desi3933
08-22 01:47 PM
Here's an anecdote -
This was back in the late 80s, when I was growing up - in Bangalore.
India had just lost the Finals of a well fought [field] hockey match to Pakistan. We were all very disappointed by the loss, but it saddened me further to see a victory procession with waving Pakistani flags in the Muslim parts of the City.
Ofcourse, India is a secular country and more so the United States.. and you can cheer whoever you please..
But, If you chose to become a US Citizen, and US were in a battle with your country of Origin (let's narrow it down to Sports, to keep it less complicated), which country would you side? If I chose to side with my country of origin, it would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it ?
>> which country would you side?
Without a doubt, USA as I am a US citizen and USA is my country.
This was back in the late 80s, when I was growing up - in Bangalore.
India had just lost the Finals of a well fought [field] hockey match to Pakistan. We were all very disappointed by the loss, but it saddened me further to see a victory procession with waving Pakistani flags in the Muslim parts of the City.
Ofcourse, India is a secular country and more so the United States.. and you can cheer whoever you please..
But, If you chose to become a US Citizen, and US were in a battle with your country of Origin (let's narrow it down to Sports, to keep it less complicated), which country would you side? If I chose to side with my country of origin, it would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it ?
>> which country would you side?
Without a doubt, USA as I am a US citizen and USA is my country.
2010 quot;Química do Amor e do
cool_guy_onnet1
06-15 09:39 AM
I have an appointment with Murthy's attorney next week. SInce we have limit on PM I would suggest making a yahoogroup thread and include those in the same boat. My PD is Sep 05 EB2 India . it's pretty bad for me :-) Getting married next March (just need to find the gal - kidding ;-) )
Lets talk with our respective attorneys and separate attorney's personal benefit from this.
Ofcourse, all the Attorneys will tell you NOT TO DO CP SINCE THEY CANT CHARGE THIS Matthew Oh GUY and others want you to do 485 so they can milk more money out of you.
Email me at cool_guy_onnet@yahoo.com and I would setup something for "485 kawares"
Thanks
To raaj2007, just getting an EAD does not nullify your H1, but if you use EAD you loose H1. Go and check with your attorney. If you use EAD you cannot enter US using H1 or H4, you have to use Advance parole.
Adding to the replies to other post
(i) I heard after filing 485 I could change employers? Yes or no? If yes, then which state would I be in? (EAD, AP or none)?
Answer - You can change employer after 180 days of pending 485 using AC 21 and you would be in EAD and use AP to enter US
(ii) After filing 485, do I HAVE to get my wife into US before the dates retrogress again?? Whoa never heard that...are you sure?
Answer -Yes, if you dont, you would not be able to file for her if the dates retrogresses again, also to file 485 for your wife , she should be in US at the time of filing 485.
(iii) Is there no step after 485 filing that I can keep postponing to not let 485 approve (like delaying 485 fingerprinting multiple times) so that I can let 485 approve only after I am married and can bring my wife in?
Answer - No, you cannot postpone it on your own will. But if your marriage date is before 485 approval (even one day) and tour wife could not make it to US, she can come to US using follow to join process. That process is also available if PD are current. In that scenario you ask USCIS to send US consulate in India to send a notice that the principal applicant's 485 has been approved and since the marriage was before 485 approval, she should be called for Interview at the US consulate in India and given the immigrant VISA, The Follow to join process is like Consular Processing.
Hope I answered your doubts.
Lets talk with our respective attorneys and separate attorney's personal benefit from this.
Ofcourse, all the Attorneys will tell you NOT TO DO CP SINCE THEY CANT CHARGE THIS Matthew Oh GUY and others want you to do 485 so they can milk more money out of you.
Email me at cool_guy_onnet@yahoo.com and I would setup something for "485 kawares"
Thanks
To raaj2007, just getting an EAD does not nullify your H1, but if you use EAD you loose H1. Go and check with your attorney. If you use EAD you cannot enter US using H1 or H4, you have to use Advance parole.
Adding to the replies to other post
(i) I heard after filing 485 I could change employers? Yes or no? If yes, then which state would I be in? (EAD, AP or none)?
Answer - You can change employer after 180 days of pending 485 using AC 21 and you would be in EAD and use AP to enter US
(ii) After filing 485, do I HAVE to get my wife into US before the dates retrogress again?? Whoa never heard that...are you sure?
Answer -Yes, if you dont, you would not be able to file for her if the dates retrogresses again, also to file 485 for your wife , she should be in US at the time of filing 485.
(iii) Is there no step after 485 filing that I can keep postponing to not let 485 approve (like delaying 485 fingerprinting multiple times) so that I can let 485 approve only after I am married and can bring my wife in?
Answer - No, you cannot postpone it on your own will. But if your marriage date is before 485 approval (even one day) and tour wife could not make it to US, she can come to US using follow to join process. That process is also available if PD are current. In that scenario you ask USCIS to send US consulate in India to send a notice that the principal applicant's 485 has been approved and since the marriage was before 485 approval, she should be called for Interview at the US consulate in India and given the immigrant VISA, The Follow to join process is like Consular Processing.
Hope I answered your doubts.
more...
willwin
09-17 01:48 PM
Not so fast...the bill language clearly indicates that the provisions of this bill will take effect from the first fiscal day of the new fiscal year after this bill becomes an act...so unless this bill is voted by the house and senate and then signed by the President before September 30th, we will not be seeing any benefit until the fiscal year starting October 1st, 2009. After the September session, Congress will convene again in November/December timeframe for a short session. If the bill does not get passed then, then come next January, it will be starting the process all over again as it will be a new year for the Congress. Just like green cards, Congress does not carry over bills from one year to the next.
The effective date could be one of the amendments .... it is changeable.
The effective date could be one of the amendments .... it is changeable.
hair Química do amor
ElectricGrandpa
06-11 04:15 AM
Guys: Feel free to make new entries, but let me know what one u choose for the polls :D:D
So we can show multiple entries? But still only vote on one... sounds good.
I'll show this one for now then... It kinda sucks, but I plan on making a better one soon(which is why I hadn't uploaded this one yet).
-Matt
So we can show multiple entries? But still only vote on one... sounds good.
I'll show this one for now then... It kinda sucks, but I plan on making a better one soon(which is why I hadn't uploaded this one yet).
-Matt
more...
alien2006
06-08 12:12 PM
Don't forget there are a few H1Bs who are hired in research, govt, non profit, universities, etc who do not come under the H1B quota. Even they want GCs, :)
hot quimica do amor.
santb1975
01-30 05:07 PM
it is at 22 now. I will post this on the so.Cal chapter
more...
house RENATO VITI QUIMICA DO AMOR @ Top40-Charts.com - Songs amp; Videos from 49
krish2005
01-08 03:06 PM
Visa Bulletin for February 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4611.html)
1st C C C C C
2nd C 22MAY05 22JAN05 C C
3rd 22SEP02 22SEP02 22JUN01 01JUL02 22SEP02
Thanks bro.
We are in the same old state. :eek:
1st C C C C C
2nd C 22MAY05 22JAN05 C C
3rd 22SEP02 22SEP02 22JUN01 01JUL02 22SEP02
Thanks bro.
We are in the same old state. :eek:
tattoo promoção “Química do Amor”
dixie
04-30 08:11 PM
Sent in my contribution, even though i havent started my green card process yet .. and may never get around to starting it if the GC status quo continues. However, this is a just and commendable cause, and I believe we should do all we can to get favorable reforms passed now .. strike when the immigration iron is hot.
more...
pictures Química do amor, atração e
ElectricGrandpa
06-12 09:13 AM
Very neat. I like your black screen and nifty scrollwheel as well. I'm not sure if you're allowed to change them, but either way they look neat.
dresses Luan Santana – Quimica do amor
chetanjumani
03-14 09:08 AM
We have seen that even after the PD being current, there have been many people whose cases have not been approved. We saw last year in July many cases with later priority date and later receipt dates were approved and people with earlier PD and earlier Receipt dates still waiting,
Now with the 180 day rule for FBI name check, things could be expected to be little better, but we have to remember that since most of the cases are paper based, some one has to physically get to cases from a huge storage, sort it manually, distribute it manually and get it adjudicated.
So even if the visa number is current, just beacuse the number of applications are so high that we still cannot say for sure whose cases are going to be approved.
From www.immigration-information.com, it appears, the biggest factor in getting the GC visa number allocated to a case is, having a case ready to be adjudicated and in the hands of an immigration officer at a time, when both processing date and priority dates are current. It appears that even after the huge retrogression, there were not enough demand for AOS based approvals, so they had to PD current to allow CP based cases to use the visas and ensure they are not wasted. I like the fact that visa were at least not wasted, but I would have loved to see applicants who have been waiting for years to have a first opportunity to that visa, specially because they have done everything that any one could do.
I have been pro-fee increase by USCIS, only provided that they will use this money to expedite the processing, make things eletronic, make things more transparent, and to be honest, I feel the overall improvements are happening. Though I still see a lot of scope for futher improvements.
We have clearly seen that labor processing has been improved dramatically with PERM. Now waiting for years to get Labor is almost history. I hope that IV and all its members direct its efforts towards ensuring that we see the improvements in efficiency that we expected to happen with fee increases.
Lets unite together to work for a system which is fair and efficient for everyone. Lets contribute to IV administrative fixes and any other efforts which will ensure a higher efficiency and better utilization of visa numbers for AOS applications.
Now with the 180 day rule for FBI name check, things could be expected to be little better, but we have to remember that since most of the cases are paper based, some one has to physically get to cases from a huge storage, sort it manually, distribute it manually and get it adjudicated.
So even if the visa number is current, just beacuse the number of applications are so high that we still cannot say for sure whose cases are going to be approved.
From www.immigration-information.com, it appears, the biggest factor in getting the GC visa number allocated to a case is, having a case ready to be adjudicated and in the hands of an immigration officer at a time, when both processing date and priority dates are current. It appears that even after the huge retrogression, there were not enough demand for AOS based approvals, so they had to PD current to allow CP based cases to use the visas and ensure they are not wasted. I like the fact that visa were at least not wasted, but I would have loved to see applicants who have been waiting for years to have a first opportunity to that visa, specially because they have done everything that any one could do.
I have been pro-fee increase by USCIS, only provided that they will use this money to expedite the processing, make things eletronic, make things more transparent, and to be honest, I feel the overall improvements are happening. Though I still see a lot of scope for futher improvements.
We have clearly seen that labor processing has been improved dramatically with PERM. Now waiting for years to get Labor is almost history. I hope that IV and all its members direct its efforts towards ensuring that we see the improvements in efficiency that we expected to happen with fee increases.
Lets unite together to work for a system which is fair and efficient for everyone. Lets contribute to IV administrative fixes and any other efforts which will ensure a higher efficiency and better utilization of visa numbers for AOS applications.
more...
makeup quimica do amor. CARLA E JUNIOR QUIMICA DO AMOR
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
girlfriend quimica do amor
mhathi
11-06 02:41 PM
Your company is not a sample of the entire population. The H1B program is not on-demand program. It is once in an year annual event (because of the demand). US based companies when they get a new project which needs a position, if they cannot hire locally, cannot get H1B worker from overseas when they want. So, in anticipatory mode they have to get some numbers and utilize them and we do lose some H1B visas if they cannot bring them for various reasons.
Is it fair, may not be. Is it widespread waste, I don't think so.
Coming to market reality - how many US workers will join a desi consultancy company or India operations based company?
The intent of the H1B program is not to bring people in the country in "Anticipatory mode" as you put it. The intent of the H1B program had always been for US employers to hire foreign skilled workers "On-Demand" when no american is willing, qualified or able to do the said job. Prior to 1999, the visa cap was 65000/yr WITHOUT the extra master's degree cap we have now, and still visas were never totally used up for any year, certainly not on the first day. It is only after the advent of the IT consulting companies hoarding visas in "anticipation" of future jobs that the problems started. Without any restrictions on this kind of abuse, no amount of H1 visa increase would be sufficient. They are talking of raising visas to 130,000 right? Based on the FY 2008 applications, those visas would be used up in TWO DAYS!
IMHO, the intent of the H1B program is equally important than just loopholes (or not) in the letter of the law.
Is it fair, may not be. Is it widespread waste, I don't think so.
Coming to market reality - how many US workers will join a desi consultancy company or India operations based company?
The intent of the H1B program is not to bring people in the country in "Anticipatory mode" as you put it. The intent of the H1B program had always been for US employers to hire foreign skilled workers "On-Demand" when no american is willing, qualified or able to do the said job. Prior to 1999, the visa cap was 65000/yr WITHOUT the extra master's degree cap we have now, and still visas were never totally used up for any year, certainly not on the first day. It is only after the advent of the IT consulting companies hoarding visas in "anticipation" of future jobs that the problems started. Without any restrictions on this kind of abuse, no amount of H1 visa increase would be sufficient. They are talking of raising visas to 130,000 right? Based on the FY 2008 applications, those visas would be used up in TWO DAYS!
IMHO, the intent of the H1B program is equally important than just loopholes (or not) in the letter of the law.
hairstyles quimica do amor. lt;h2gt
sc3
08-14 01:06 AM
For those who care to read...the fact that I am suggesting that people should port their priority dates before that door closes shows that I believe that people who have played by the rules (ie actually put in the 5 yrs experience or find a job with EB2 requirements) should get preference !!
I call this the plight of EB2 india because as the rules are set up, in theory, if majority of EB3 ported priority dates, then yes, EB2 with later dates would truly get the short end of the stick.
Having said that, the backlash against people like SunnySurya is unfair. From his perspective, he is right and the law grants him the right to sue if he feels so.
THe problem in these forums is that any mature discussion is not possible because any dissenting voice is soon suppressed with ad hominem attacks such as the gentlemen who wanted to buy me tickets to india.
Seriously, how much more immature can we get?
Even reading this discussion, NOT ONE PERSON has attacked the argument on a legal basis. INsults are aplenty though.
Legal arguments were already dealt with in the other thread, there is no basis to sue, as the porting is well established law. So is the requirements for EB2.
Regarding the EB3 to EB2 shafting EB2, well, you already know that most people will not be able to port because they are not willing to change jobs, or that the company is bit too strict about playing with immigration laws.
Also, a point to be noted when you say EB3 has had the opportunity -- you too had similar opportunities. You too could have been EB3, gained experience and converted to EB2. Instead you decided that it was in your best interests to follow your dream of getting a PHD -- a choice, I dont think you are be ruing, but for the fact that you find yourself placed behind all the guys who did not do PHD.
Plight of EB2? I think not. Even with EB3-to-EB2 porting, priority dates are well ahead of EB3 (even without the current jump, EB2 was around mid 2004), and now, I guess when it returns to normal, would be around 2005. So while not exactly current (like EB1, shouldn't they be "similarly entitled" to have a superior lead times), the wait times for EB2, compared to EB3 hardly justifies it to be called "plight".
But then again, to each his own. EB3ers other EB2ers waited almost 3 years for our LCs, people with 2006PDs did not even wait 6 months for it (both EB2 and EB3) -- and worse still are people stuck in BEC (who waited 4-6 years). And yet people in 2006 complain that they have "horrendous wait times".
EB3s saw tons of people getting through substitute labor, people who have no right to cut into the line ahead of us, significant portion of these cases (including EB2 substitution) are fraught with fraud, however the law was weak, and there was nothing that we could do to prevent such things. Lawsuits are useless for us to weed out such applicants, or even question their earlier PDs because they are protected by the then current laws.
I call this the plight of EB2 india because as the rules are set up, in theory, if majority of EB3 ported priority dates, then yes, EB2 with later dates would truly get the short end of the stick.
Having said that, the backlash against people like SunnySurya is unfair. From his perspective, he is right and the law grants him the right to sue if he feels so.
THe problem in these forums is that any mature discussion is not possible because any dissenting voice is soon suppressed with ad hominem attacks such as the gentlemen who wanted to buy me tickets to india.
Seriously, how much more immature can we get?
Even reading this discussion, NOT ONE PERSON has attacked the argument on a legal basis. INsults are aplenty though.
Legal arguments were already dealt with in the other thread, there is no basis to sue, as the porting is well established law. So is the requirements for EB2.
Regarding the EB3 to EB2 shafting EB2, well, you already know that most people will not be able to port because they are not willing to change jobs, or that the company is bit too strict about playing with immigration laws.
Also, a point to be noted when you say EB3 has had the opportunity -- you too had similar opportunities. You too could have been EB3, gained experience and converted to EB2. Instead you decided that it was in your best interests to follow your dream of getting a PHD -- a choice, I dont think you are be ruing, but for the fact that you find yourself placed behind all the guys who did not do PHD.
Plight of EB2? I think not. Even with EB3-to-EB2 porting, priority dates are well ahead of EB3 (even without the current jump, EB2 was around mid 2004), and now, I guess when it returns to normal, would be around 2005. So while not exactly current (like EB1, shouldn't they be "similarly entitled" to have a superior lead times), the wait times for EB2, compared to EB3 hardly justifies it to be called "plight".
But then again, to each his own. EB3ers other EB2ers waited almost 3 years for our LCs, people with 2006PDs did not even wait 6 months for it (both EB2 and EB3) -- and worse still are people stuck in BEC (who waited 4-6 years). And yet people in 2006 complain that they have "horrendous wait times".
EB3s saw tons of people getting through substitute labor, people who have no right to cut into the line ahead of us, significant portion of these cases (including EB2 substitution) are fraught with fraud, however the law was weak, and there was nothing that we could do to prevent such things. Lawsuits are useless for us to weed out such applicants, or even question their earlier PDs because they are protected by the then current laws.
Leo07
11-21 11:26 AM
any suggestion here?
I'm still not decided, couple of days to go....:)
Now with Atlas America off...What's the best alternative?, I'm running out of time here...
Friends, please suggest. I bought ICICI lombard 3 times previously, never had to use it, so no comments there. Now, I'm thinking of buying something better as I had heard horrible things about ICICI lombard.
I'm still not decided, couple of days to go....:)
Now with Atlas America off...What's the best alternative?, I'm running out of time here...
Friends, please suggest. I bought ICICI lombard 3 times previously, never had to use it, so no comments there. Now, I'm thinking of buying something better as I had heard horrible things about ICICI lombard.
tonyHK12
04-20 06:41 PM
a special "Debate thread" (not fight :) ) where anything goes is probably not a bad idea at this point. where certain members who want to debate can be granted access
The constant hijacking of every thread is getting tiresome. :(
Its only the instigators and flamers, who would want that thread. Personal attacks should be banned on threads. Most people are happy just debating.
The person initiating or using provocation for a personal attack should be banned after a couple of warnings. The victim has no such restrictions and is allowed to retaliate as much as he wants.
The constant hijacking of every thread is getting tiresome. :(
Its only the instigators and flamers, who would want that thread. Personal attacks should be banned on threads. Most people are happy just debating.
The person initiating or using provocation for a personal attack should be banned after a couple of warnings. The victim has no such restrictions and is allowed to retaliate as much as he wants.
No comments:
Post a Comment