santb1975
06-11 09:08 PM
That is better than yesterday. We can do better.
Thanks to contributors today
Thanks to contributors today
wallpaper tattoo wallpapers. prayer
ItIsNotFunny
03-05 01:23 PM
Same here my friend.
2005 & 2006, not to undermine your situation but to be honest, you guys are way behind in queue. Your cases will be touched soon but let 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004 get some consolation first :)
2005 & 2006, not to undermine your situation but to be honest, you guys are way behind in queue. Your cases will be touched soon but let 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004 get some consolation first :)
HumJumboHathuJumbo
09-10 12:58 PM
I, for one, am happy with this Oct visa bulletin. This is how it should be. First give GCs to all those with < 2003 PD. You guys with 2006 and 2007 pd should be glad you even got to file I-485 and EAD. What are you bitching about?.
I dont care about the red dots. I stand corrected. you guys are being selfish.
I dont care about the red dots. I stand corrected. you guys are being selfish.
2011 Tattoo Wallpaper displays a
swo
07-20 06:47 PM
thats one way to look at it. The other way to see this is that:
- given enough people making noise its possible to get DOS/USCIS to make changes and fix things. this has now been proven.
-there is a lot more visibility for EB related issues now, so much better chance of recapture or exemption for spouses from VB calculations etc.
- instead of focus being on filing 485 without visa numbers (which is what IV focussed on for a while) everyone will now focus right at the root of the problem. All 500K are now focussed on solving the main issue.
My friend, there is validity in what you say. I think there is a general shortage of visas, period. That is the root of the issue. However, we did know that going in. So when we get stuck in that situation we have to remember to distinguish between calling for change and demanding it.
Also, with all due respect to IV, I think the thing that most likely led to the USCIS turnaround was not our voices, but rather the fact that a law suit would have revealed SERIOUS rule breaking - particularly with regard to issuing of visas to non-security cleared people. I think the USCIS's fear of dealing with a) discovery during court proceedings and b) potentially huge finanicial damages, were the main motivating factors to the turnaround.
There is no doubt though, that the voices of immigrants did make a difference.
By the way, this morning I wrote to both Senators Cornyn (for) and Clinton (against) in response to their amendment votes yesterday. I thanked him from trying to bring relief and urged her to show more bravery in solving the crisis at a future opportunity. I urge you all to do the same.
- given enough people making noise its possible to get DOS/USCIS to make changes and fix things. this has now been proven.
-there is a lot more visibility for EB related issues now, so much better chance of recapture or exemption for spouses from VB calculations etc.
- instead of focus being on filing 485 without visa numbers (which is what IV focussed on for a while) everyone will now focus right at the root of the problem. All 500K are now focussed on solving the main issue.
My friend, there is validity in what you say. I think there is a general shortage of visas, period. That is the root of the issue. However, we did know that going in. So when we get stuck in that situation we have to remember to distinguish between calling for change and demanding it.
Also, with all due respect to IV, I think the thing that most likely led to the USCIS turnaround was not our voices, but rather the fact that a law suit would have revealed SERIOUS rule breaking - particularly with regard to issuing of visas to non-security cleared people. I think the USCIS's fear of dealing with a) discovery during court proceedings and b) potentially huge finanicial damages, were the main motivating factors to the turnaround.
There is no doubt though, that the voices of immigrants did make a difference.
By the way, this morning I wrote to both Senators Cornyn (for) and Clinton (against) in response to their amendment votes yesterday. I thanked him from trying to bring relief and urged her to show more bravery in solving the crisis at a future opportunity. I urge you all to do the same.
more...
watcher
09-09 02:32 PM
I could not attend the rally due to work schedule. However, here is my small contribution. Great work IV, and all the best.
$100
Google Order #529545486966288
$100
Google Order #529545486966288
baburob2
03-15 01:00 PM
Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, frustrated by the sluggish debate over immigration reform at the committee level, plans to introduce a bill that deals solely with border security as early as today.....
Republican aides say the move by Mr. Frist is not meant to trump similar legislation offered by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, but rather as an "insurance policy" to ensure the topic is addressed.
Mr. Frist's bill, according to aides, would simply take Mr. Specter's proposal and strip out the guest worker plan and provisions dealing with illegal aliens already in the U.S.
Mr. Specter's legislation has stalled in committee over his proposal to criminalize illegal aliens already here as well as other issues. His bill would allow employed illegal aliens to remain in the United States indefinitely, although it would require them to return home before applying for permanent citizenship.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060315-012816-1400r.htm
Republican aides say the move by Mr. Frist is not meant to trump similar legislation offered by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, but rather as an "insurance policy" to ensure the topic is addressed.
Mr. Frist's bill, according to aides, would simply take Mr. Specter's proposal and strip out the guest worker plan and provisions dealing with illegal aliens already in the U.S.
Mr. Specter's legislation has stalled in committee over his proposal to criminalize illegal aliens already here as well as other issues. His bill would allow employed illegal aliens to remain in the United States indefinitely, although it would require them to return home before applying for permanent citizenship.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060315-012816-1400r.htm
more...
yabadaba
08-02 08:15 PM
Pappu...emailed it to u. Core IV let me knoe if u want it.
2010 love tattoo green star graphic
aerady
05-09 05:40 PM
I have been a victim of this rule implemented by DMV. On Texas the rule is like this. If you have Visa validity embedded on your DL, you will get a letter before 'Valid till Date period' on DL to show proof of approved I-797. In TX your approved petition you need to satisfy two conditions (1) When you go to DMV office, your approved I-797 should have atleast 6 months validity (2) The period on your I-797 should be more than one year. If you disqualify on any of these, they will suspend your license until you show a I-797 that satisfies the above two conditions.
So, My case is like this:-
My TX driving license(Valid till 2017) was suspended by DMV when I went(I tried online but it didn't work) for address change on 5/8/2010 saying that I don�t have a H1B visa which is valid for more than 6 months (Valid till 10/26/2010 � approx 5 months and 20 days) at the time of my visit for Address change.
I quit driving after that and my employer applied for Visa extension and they got the visa approval from 10/27/2010 to 9/19/2011. I got the approved petition from USCIS on 2/15/2011.
I went to the DMV office on 2/16/2011 and again DMV denied me license saying that even though the visa is now valid for 8 months, the total period for which the visa I got is less than 1 year(10/27/2010 to 9/19/2011 =11 months)
I am on 6+ years on US and my employer is processing my green card. USCIS will give only 1 year or less increment H1B extension after the 6th year till I get my I-140 approved.
The USCIS processing time is 4 months to 6 months for visa extensions, which puts me in a loop like sometimes when I get the approved extension, I will not have 6 months validity from the time I receive the approved petition from USCIS OR USCIS may not give one full year extension.
I am literally stuck without driving for the last one year. I was driving in US from 2003 to 2010, I don't have any accident history, I pay taxes regularly and always been a good citizen, but see what I get back!
So, My case is like this:-
My TX driving license(Valid till 2017) was suspended by DMV when I went(I tried online but it didn't work) for address change on 5/8/2010 saying that I don�t have a H1B visa which is valid for more than 6 months (Valid till 10/26/2010 � approx 5 months and 20 days) at the time of my visit for Address change.
I quit driving after that and my employer applied for Visa extension and they got the visa approval from 10/27/2010 to 9/19/2011. I got the approved petition from USCIS on 2/15/2011.
I went to the DMV office on 2/16/2011 and again DMV denied me license saying that even though the visa is now valid for 8 months, the total period for which the visa I got is less than 1 year(10/27/2010 to 9/19/2011 =11 months)
I am on 6+ years on US and my employer is processing my green card. USCIS will give only 1 year or less increment H1B extension after the 6th year till I get my I-140 approved.
The USCIS processing time is 4 months to 6 months for visa extensions, which puts me in a loop like sometimes when I get the approved extension, I will not have 6 months validity from the time I receive the approved petition from USCIS OR USCIS may not give one full year extension.
I am literally stuck without driving for the last one year. I was driving in US from 2003 to 2010, I don't have any accident history, I pay taxes regularly and always been a good citizen, but see what I get back!
more...
manugee
09-11 03:26 PM
I managed to get a red-eye back from CA on Monday... so I will see you guys on Tuesday for the rally.
Go IV,
Manish Jain
Go IV,
Manish Jain
hair Tattoo Wallpaper displays a
ronhira
07-06 02:32 PM
Guys for sake of transparency and moving ahead with a change, we should hold elections for the core team. Lobbying efforts are not working at all.
absolutely, i need to see microsoft projects to keep track of the lobbying project. why can't the current folks show progress as per the microsoft projects plan. after the end of time and budget, we need to see the result in the form of our GC. that's how we do all our projects at work. why is this lobbying thing any different.
if i can summarize bawa's point, we need to cut all ties with democrats, trash obama repeatedly unless we are sure that we have aligned with sarah palin and we are sure that we have been sidelined for next 8 years. wonderful strategy to ensure 100% failure, i luv it, the change we can believe in.
absolutely, i need to see microsoft projects to keep track of the lobbying project. why can't the current folks show progress as per the microsoft projects plan. after the end of time and budget, we need to see the result in the form of our GC. that's how we do all our projects at work. why is this lobbying thing any different.
if i can summarize bawa's point, we need to cut all ties with democrats, trash obama repeatedly unless we are sure that we have aligned with sarah palin and we are sure that we have been sidelined for next 8 years. wonderful strategy to ensure 100% failure, i luv it, the change we can believe in.
more...
StuckInTheMuck
07-11 10:53 AM
First new Iphone and now this news. I am still in Sep 06 but this type of things keeps the hope alive :).
Maybe you should now change your handle to USDream2DustBack2Dream :)
Maybe you should now change your handle to USDream2DustBack2Dream :)
hot haida tattoo wallpaper Image
singhsa3
09-11 05:18 PM
What about the issues like not following RD or PD?
What about being rude on the call?
What about the wild fluctuation in the bulletein?
Should we let these thing to continue?
What we are expecting after this calc. camp ? I dont think so they will revise bulletin nor they will give single extra visa above 140k. I think we should focus on HR 5882 .. We should send something to lawmakers.
Just a thought.
What about being rude on the call?
What about the wild fluctuation in the bulletein?
Should we let these thing to continue?
What we are expecting after this calc. camp ? I dont think so they will revise bulletin nor they will give single extra visa above 140k. I think we should focus on HR 5882 .. We should send something to lawmakers.
Just a thought.
more...
house Tattoo Backgrounds
waitingmygc
05-18 03:44 PM
Hi ind_game, attorney and all readers,
After reading ind_game last quote "God save AC21.....". I have following questions:
1. Do you know any one (your friend, client) used AC21 and faced same problem? Es
2. Is it true that AC-21 info don't get updated in the USCIS records?
3. If yes (2 question), then x-employer I-140 revocation will ALWAYS result in THIS kind of problems (as ind-game is facing)?
4. To attorneys only: Is AC-21 really helpful or misleading? Asking because if it don't update in USCIS records.
Please reply.
thanks,
waitingmygc
After reading ind_game last quote "God save AC21.....". I have following questions:
1. Do you know any one (your friend, client) used AC21 and faced same problem? Es
2. Is it true that AC-21 info don't get updated in the USCIS records?
3. If yes (2 question), then x-employer I-140 revocation will ALWAYS result in THIS kind of problems (as ind-game is facing)?
4. To attorneys only: Is AC-21 really helpful or misleading? Asking because if it don't update in USCIS records.
Please reply.
thanks,
waitingmygc
tattoo MySpace Layouts MySpace Codes
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...
pictures Tattoo Wallpaper - 1.0
Libra
09-11 09:54 PM
thank you desi_unlucky, you'll be lucky soon :-)
dresses getting his first tattoos,
immuser
09-10 04:44 PM
contribute $100 - Google Order #466330497623100
more...
makeup dragon tattoo wallpaper -
pankajkakkar
08-08 02:49 PM
After reading the op-ed by Pankaj, I had the following questions: Has the SKIL bill already passed the Senate? I know it is included as part of CIR. But, what happens if CIR gets thrown out?
There are five possibilities, as far as I can think:
1. The House does absolutely nothing. CIR sits unenforced (it's not law until the House passes an identical bill). We continue to suffer. Highly unlikely, since there is a lot of pressure to do *something*.
2. The House passes SKIL by itself. In this case, the Senate will have to revote on SKIL by itself, and then SKIL would be a law by itself. CIR will be irrelevant. We will get what we want. Somewhat likely, if (3) or (4) doesn't happen.
3. The House and Senate conference to come up with a bill. SKIL is discarded in conference. The House and Senate will have to revote on the bill. CIR will be irrelevant. We will continue to suffer. I think this is somewhat unlikely. If there is a conference, big business with it's deep pockets will have its way. Big business supports SKIL.
4. The House and Senate conference to come up with a bill. SKIL is included in conference. The House and Senate will have to revote on the bill. CIR will be irrelevant. We will get what we want. I think this is the most likely possibility, although timing is very uncertain (it may not happen until spring of next year).
5. The House passes CIR identical to the Senate bill. CIR will be law. We will get what we want. Highly unlikely.
Pankaj
There are five possibilities, as far as I can think:
1. The House does absolutely nothing. CIR sits unenforced (it's not law until the House passes an identical bill). We continue to suffer. Highly unlikely, since there is a lot of pressure to do *something*.
2. The House passes SKIL by itself. In this case, the Senate will have to revote on SKIL by itself, and then SKIL would be a law by itself. CIR will be irrelevant. We will get what we want. Somewhat likely, if (3) or (4) doesn't happen.
3. The House and Senate conference to come up with a bill. SKIL is discarded in conference. The House and Senate will have to revote on the bill. CIR will be irrelevant. We will continue to suffer. I think this is somewhat unlikely. If there is a conference, big business with it's deep pockets will have its way. Big business supports SKIL.
4. The House and Senate conference to come up with a bill. SKIL is included in conference. The House and Senate will have to revote on the bill. CIR will be irrelevant. We will get what we want. I think this is the most likely possibility, although timing is very uncertain (it may not happen until spring of next year).
5. The House passes CIR identical to the Senate bill. CIR will be law. We will get what we want. Highly unlikely.
Pankaj
girlfriend Skull Tattoo Background Vector
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
09-01 03:24 PM
Glad to see there are people like me on this thread. I came to the US in FEB 1995 as an undergrad. I have an MS today and dropped out of the PHD program (2000) to find a job because of recessions. Survived 3 top-notch companies, recessions, despicable back-stabbing coworkers, unethical and unworkable environment, lay-offs, legal dept messing up my H1b application making me go on unpaid leave (~3wks) without health insurance, filing me under EB3 while applying EB2 for another coworker from a diff country with the same job title, etc etc....my rear end is pretty soar these days and I am beginning to question all this....
i usually dont post much...but I couldnt resist this thread
It will take another 9-10 years to get your GC if the system remains the same.
Please upgrade to EB2
i usually dont post much...but I couldnt resist this thread
It will take another 9-10 years to get your GC if the system remains the same.
Please upgrade to EB2
hairstyles dragon tattoo backgrounds
chanduv23
11-20 04:36 PM
H1B petition can be revoked automatically if a) employer notifies USCIS that the petition is withdrawn or b) employer goes out of business. See 8 CFR 214.2.(b)(11). So yes, EAD is much safer in this regard. Revoked H1B petition cannot be used for transfer/extension. It's nice to have H1B as a fallback, but it's not a safe heaven.
Here is an interesting article regarding H1B and employer's obligation to notify the USCIS if employment ends.
http://www.chincurtis.com/pdfs/ccid_1_033007-1.pdf
Which means that EAD is much safer than H1b. Then why are Attorneys insisting on the opposite (H1b against EAD?)
If this is confirmed news, i will revisit my blog and make changes
Here is an interesting article regarding H1B and employer's obligation to notify the USCIS if employment ends.
http://www.chincurtis.com/pdfs/ccid_1_033007-1.pdf
Which means that EAD is much safer than H1b. Then why are Attorneys insisting on the opposite (H1b against EAD?)
If this is confirmed news, i will revisit my blog and make changes
Green.Tech
06-11 12:08 PM
However, if there was any legislation relief, then it would be a different ball game altogether. May be we will see a repeat of 2002-2004 when all categories were current.
...and that could happen if all of us unite and participate in IV's campaigns, otherwise the wait could be a long one!
...and that could happen if all of us unite and participate in IV's campaigns, otherwise the wait could be a long one!
nonimmi
08-13 03:56 PM
I believe some top-level IV core members are EB3-I with PD 2003-04. So it is hard to believe that they are not worried watching "U" month after month and don't want to do anything about it. But as IV-Core they can not just do something for EB3-I. We need to find a way to fix this issue without creating another subgroup for EB3-I and take advantage of IV movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment