p_kumar
07-20 03:28 PM
I thought if we dont get the EAD after 90 days, we can walk into the US Embassy in the city nearer to us and get the EAD on the spot(more like a driver's license).:eek:
wallpaper Freestyle Collage Bike Stunts
Napoleon
03-11 01:25 AM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
Question #3 and #4 should conclude this discussion.
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
Question #3 and #4 should conclude this discussion.
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
Milind123
09-12 12:27 AM
Come on folks step up to the plate. I want to send at least $100 tonight before I go to bed. Please PM me after you make the contribution.
2011 ike stunt Image
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
more...
JunRN
10-05 01:24 AM
All unrelated amendment were dropped. Do not expect anything about immigration attached to the Appropriations Bill.
tushbush
03-05 04:01 PM
same here my friend.
ditto
ditto
more...
ashutrip
06-16 06:44 PM
If you are stuck at Atlanta PERM backlog center , please email your case number and explain them that your application has been pending for a LONG time and request them to help us get out of this grave situation. Also, please post on this thread after you have sent an email so that others can be motivated to do the same. We need to send as many emails as possible to get any positive feedback. I know that DOL mentioned that they will start processing our applications soon, but we need to keep up the pressure from our end so that it has some positive effect.
I know most of the people on this forum are not in this situation ..... but let's see how many can come out of this selfishness and help others by emailing / phoning DOL Atlanta to help other brothers who want to file AOS just like them...... When phone campaigns / email campaigns happen .... we who are stuck at Atlanta help others tooo... so let's see how many on this form help us now...
Here is the info :
email : Perm.DFLC@dol.gov
Phone : 404-893-0101
Thanks
Champak (Same as 1 and 2)
what is your PD?
I know most of the people on this forum are not in this situation ..... but let's see how many can come out of this selfishness and help others by emailing / phoning DOL Atlanta to help other brothers who want to file AOS just like them...... When phone campaigns / email campaigns happen .... we who are stuck at Atlanta help others tooo... so let's see how many on this form help us now...
Here is the info :
email : Perm.DFLC@dol.gov
Phone : 404-893-0101
Thanks
Champak (Same as 1 and 2)
what is your PD?
2010 to do ike stunts - Part 2
pappu
08-16 10:11 AM
I happen to be a freelance writer (not a journalist). In response to this thread, I have penned a 2,700 word commentary on the current challenges titled "The Plight of Promise". In order to beef it up with some compelling statistics, can 5 or 6 people respond to this thread with anonymized details of their specific circumstances and how they are suffering. Keep it to 2 or 3 sentences. I will cull out required data points to make the case. For ex:
- AD, a 31 yr old non immigrant worker from Poland with a wife and two kids. Unable to get into stage 3, meanwhile need to change my job and relocate to a specific city where my child's health needs can be taken care of. Unable to do so because...
If anyone would like to get the final edited version, let me know. You will be free to republish it without copyright concerns, subject to attribution.
Lastly, I will be spending a good amount of quality time in this matter. So, I will respectfully ask people to resist their desire to 'nit pick' the pieces. Constructive, candid feedback, of course, is always welcome!
hastily, but sincerely,
obviously
Thanks a lot for the post. pls PM me your contact email and phone and we will be in touch for help on some cases amongst IV members you can use for your piece.
- AD, a 31 yr old non immigrant worker from Poland with a wife and two kids. Unable to get into stage 3, meanwhile need to change my job and relocate to a specific city where my child's health needs can be taken care of. Unable to do so because...
If anyone would like to get the final edited version, let me know. You will be free to republish it without copyright concerns, subject to attribution.
Lastly, I will be spending a good amount of quality time in this matter. So, I will respectfully ask people to resist their desire to 'nit pick' the pieces. Constructive, candid feedback, of course, is always welcome!
hastily, but sincerely,
obviously
Thanks a lot for the post. pls PM me your contact email and phone and we will be in touch for help on some cases amongst IV members you can use for your piece.
more...
jonty_11
07-11 12:29 PM
Anyone,
How do I start a new thread in IV ?
search for this the forums and u will find it.
How do I start a new thread in IV ?
search for this the forums and u will find it.
hair Stunt Bike / Watsonville
snathan
05-02 01:13 PM
Good job Admin2.
Folks with ITINs,
Please file for SSNs quoting this stimulus package and get the refund. If someone tries and SSA refuses, we can take it up with legislators or even pursue litigation.
I will try with SSA and update you...may be next month.
Folks with ITINs,
Please file for SSNs quoting this stimulus package and get the refund. If someone tries and SSA refuses, we can take it up with legislators or even pursue litigation.
I will try with SSA and update you...may be next month.
more...
gcisadawg
02-09 12:47 AM
Did I even say this? What are you saying? Go see a shrink :D
Read first what I said.
OOPS! mea culpa! It is a case of bad negation! It should have read as "How come it is not 'stupid' when a girl spends husband's money to support her parents?"
Read first what I said.
OOPS! mea culpa! It is a case of bad negation! It should have read as "How come it is not 'stupid' when a girl spends husband's money to support her parents?"
hot Dehradun Bike stunts
Macaca
09-15 08:24 AM
Legal Immigrants `Stuck' as U.S. Agencies Struggle With Backlog (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJxl3j_vmv7Y) By Nicholas Johnston (njohnston3@bloomberg.net) | Bloomberg, June 7, 2006
more...
house Bike Stunts Gone Wild Image
sanam9696
09-14 11:02 AM
Why this fight for EB2 vs EB3..
ideally GC should be given based on one's arrival in US or based on first filing of GC..irrespective of which category u r
keeping that in mind, it doesn't matter, if u r EB2 or EB3 or if u r porting the date..because in either way..one will get GC (luck is still a factor) based on number of years in US or years since GC process started.
given a chance and if permissible under the law, most of us would want to switch to EB1..or even change the birthplace..to avoid this mess..but then it is too difficult to switch to EB1 compared to switching from EB3 to EB2. one would always take the least resistive path and it is right as long as it is not illegal under the current law..(oh..no..don't talk about morality..because when personal interests are at stake..nothing matters..for most of us)
anyway..they have successfully created enough divisions among ourselves EB1,2,3...row...the bright side of eb3 to eb3 porting is..that everyone will become eb2 and then we will stand united..hopefully..but then we will have divisions..eb2 before this year..eb2 originally filed..eb2 with masters from us..eb2 with 5 yrs of experience..eb2 with two masters...eb2 with fair screen..eb2 with black skin..
we have been always like that..divided and self centric and we will remain so and that's why u can see those blood sucking idiots can kill as at their will because we are not indians..but..from up, bihar, gujarat..from castes..region.language..list is endless but then we have never learnt anything from history..that's why ruled by minorities for most of the years in last 2000yrs history..
ideally GC should be given based on one's arrival in US or based on first filing of GC..irrespective of which category u r
keeping that in mind, it doesn't matter, if u r EB2 or EB3 or if u r porting the date..because in either way..one will get GC (luck is still a factor) based on number of years in US or years since GC process started.
given a chance and if permissible under the law, most of us would want to switch to EB1..or even change the birthplace..to avoid this mess..but then it is too difficult to switch to EB1 compared to switching from EB3 to EB2. one would always take the least resistive path and it is right as long as it is not illegal under the current law..(oh..no..don't talk about morality..because when personal interests are at stake..nothing matters..for most of us)
anyway..they have successfully created enough divisions among ourselves EB1,2,3...row...the bright side of eb3 to eb3 porting is..that everyone will become eb2 and then we will stand united..hopefully..but then we will have divisions..eb2 before this year..eb2 originally filed..eb2 with masters from us..eb2 with 5 yrs of experience..eb2 with two masters...eb2 with fair screen..eb2 with black skin..
we have been always like that..divided and self centric and we will remain so and that's why u can see those blood sucking idiots can kill as at their will because we are not indians..but..from up, bihar, gujarat..from castes..region.language..list is endless but then we have never learnt anything from history..that's why ruled by minorities for most of the years in last 2000yrs history..
tattoo Bike Stunt Videos: Stunt
vactorboy29
07-20 11:14 PM
Check this web site and do ur calculations;
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1183751418157.shtm
Thanks,
Ashish
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1183751418157.shtm
Thanks,
Ashish
more...
pictures Motorbike madness
Winner
07-06 03:42 PM
what is this suppose to mean, should I be scared
Please...Please....Please don't reply within one hour.
Please...Please....Please don't reply within one hour.
dresses Save the stunts for your
ras
07-06 03:39 AM
Why is such a big organization like IV not able to generate funds. Is it that IV members are not worthy to give funding or is there something else that needs to be done to make the members shell out money. An organization with 20K members has a lot of potential generate funds.
I do agree that desi mentality is little different with regard to coming forward or donating money. But that cannot be sole factor for the IV failure. I strongly believe it is not the member contributions that can make IV survive. There should be other mechanisms of getting funding like advertisements, banners, corporate sponsorship, etc. All these are leadership decisions. And apparently we don't see that happening which leads to the notion that we need new blood in the team.
I also dont deny that IV core team has other things in their life. And they cannot devote complete time for this. So as mentioned in one of the posts lets employ a manager to do these things. Lets figure out the expectations for this employee and also the salary for about 6months duration. Lets us assess this employees progress. A full time responsible team members/assistants ( paid or non paid) are required for the organization. There could be non paid executive committee members in parallel.
How are other websites like La raza or similer websites generating money. What are the ways they are following. Analyse them come up with the strategy to get more funding. That is what the leadership team is supposed to do. Not winning on the members to give money always. Lets us accept it the funding that can be got from members can only be minimal. Now having understood that what are the alternatives?
I think we need to come out of the shell. IV core doesn't appear to be transparent as it is supposed to be. Remember am not denying what they have done so far is any less. But my only saying is that we could do much more with the 20-30K memberbase. Lets utilize the brains in the crowd.
Please dont start questioning me if I donated, participated and followed IV suggestions. Yes, I did all of them. The point is not I as an individual we are talking about the system as a whole.
I do agree that desi mentality is little different with regard to coming forward or donating money. But that cannot be sole factor for the IV failure. I strongly believe it is not the member contributions that can make IV survive. There should be other mechanisms of getting funding like advertisements, banners, corporate sponsorship, etc. All these are leadership decisions. And apparently we don't see that happening which leads to the notion that we need new blood in the team.
I also dont deny that IV core team has other things in their life. And they cannot devote complete time for this. So as mentioned in one of the posts lets employ a manager to do these things. Lets figure out the expectations for this employee and also the salary for about 6months duration. Lets us assess this employees progress. A full time responsible team members/assistants ( paid or non paid) are required for the organization. There could be non paid executive committee members in parallel.
How are other websites like La raza or similer websites generating money. What are the ways they are following. Analyse them come up with the strategy to get more funding. That is what the leadership team is supposed to do. Not winning on the members to give money always. Lets us accept it the funding that can be got from members can only be minimal. Now having understood that what are the alternatives?
I think we need to come out of the shell. IV core doesn't appear to be transparent as it is supposed to be. Remember am not denying what they have done so far is any less. But my only saying is that we could do much more with the 20-30K memberbase. Lets utilize the brains in the crowd.
Please dont start questioning me if I donated, participated and followed IV suggestions. Yes, I did all of them. The point is not I as an individual we are talking about the system as a whole.
more...
makeup Each episode features a stunt
Imigrait
03-03 03:55 PM
It's stupid to have rules around which expect Immigrants from India and China to hold on to their jobs for 10 years without changing it when everyone around is losing their jobs.
girlfriend Dirt Bike Stunts
.jpg "Crazy Motocross Bike Stunts")
hebron
10-22 10:00 AM
Hi 9Years and VayuMahesh,
Thanks for the info. This helps people who are planning to port.
1. Did you refile under EB2 with the same employer? If so, would you mind sharing details - job description used for EB3 and EB2? I have an MCA from India with 12+ years of experience. My current employer filed my GC under EB3 (PD 2004), job description used was Software Engineer. I was promoted since then to Principal S/W Engineer and I was hoping I could ask my current employer to refile under EB2. But my attorney says that it is risky since the current job description of Principal Software Engineer has to be different from Software Engineer by atleast 50%.
2. Did you get any RFE during the new PERM or I-140?
It will be of great help if you could advice.
Thanks in advance!
Thanks for the info. This helps people who are planning to port.
1. Did you refile under EB2 with the same employer? If so, would you mind sharing details - job description used for EB3 and EB2? I have an MCA from India with 12+ years of experience. My current employer filed my GC under EB3 (PD 2004), job description used was Software Engineer. I was promoted since then to Principal S/W Engineer and I was hoping I could ask my current employer to refile under EB2. But my attorney says that it is risky since the current job description of Principal Software Engineer has to be different from Software Engineer by atleast 50%.
2. Did you get any RFE during the new PERM or I-140?
It will be of great help if you could advice.
Thanks in advance!
hairstyles Just practicing ike stunts on
spicy_guy
10-28 03:20 PM
I am not sure if this is possible at all. But just wanted to see.
If my Wife's employer starts GC for her on EB2, can my case be ported / interfile to her's? She is dependent on my GC application.
If my Wife's employer starts GC for her on EB2, can my case be ported / interfile to her's? She is dependent on my GC application.
GCBy3000
07-06 04:49 PM
What does this statement mean?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes06Jul07.pdf
per existing policies and procedures, requests for Premium Processing Service will continue to be processed within 15 days. USCIS wishes to assure all customers that the original received date (the date which the document is date stamped) will be honored and recorded on the receipt notice. This date will appear in the "Received Date" box on Form I-797, Notice of Action. The received date is different from the "Notice Date", which also appears on Form I-797. The Notice Date is the date the receipt notice was actually generated.
Why USCIS suddenly did this press release? Something fishy?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes06Jul07.pdf
per existing policies and procedures, requests for Premium Processing Service will continue to be processed within 15 days. USCIS wishes to assure all customers that the original received date (the date which the document is date stamped) will be honored and recorded on the receipt notice. This date will appear in the "Received Date" box on Form I-797, Notice of Action. The received date is different from the "Notice Date", which also appears on Form I-797. The Notice Date is the date the receipt notice was actually generated.
Why USCIS suddenly did this press release? Something fishy?
gchope07
07-18 03:36 PM
Immm,
Please update us on this thread when you receive the physical notice and let us know if the receipt date was Jun15th or something else. That will give us some vital information abt what the defintion of receipt date is.
Thanks...
My application was sent on June, 14th and delivered on June 15th (I have the FedEx tracking info and signature page confirming 6/15).
The case status online based on receipt number (obtained by calling them a few times until I got lucky) says:
"On July 11, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case."
Not sure if the online status is referring to the receipt date or the notice date when it says "On July 11, 2007, we received" when, in fact, they received it on June 15th!!
.
Please update us on this thread when you receive the physical notice and let us know if the receipt date was Jun15th or something else. That will give us some vital information abt what the defintion of receipt date is.
Thanks...
My application was sent on June, 14th and delivered on June 15th (I have the FedEx tracking info and signature page confirming 6/15).
The case status online based on receipt number (obtained by calling them a few times until I got lucky) says:
"On July 11, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case."
Not sure if the online status is referring to the receipt date or the notice date when it says "On July 11, 2007, we received" when, in fact, they received it on June 15th!!
.
No comments:
Post a Comment