aditya
11-10 09:55 AM
From Jersey City Here
reach me at aditya17.nyc@gmail.com
reach me at aditya17.nyc@gmail.com
wallpaper japan-used-car-toyota-F1.jpg
.soulty
02-16 07:23 PM
thanks grinch and thirdworldman(shheshh do you have a shorter username? lol)
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
nice render eilsoe :thumb:
makemygc
07-05 09:56 AM
Immigration-law has reported that AILA has stopped taking any more plaintiffs for the lawsuit. What's IV stance on that? Does that mean if the lawsuit is settled in favor, only plaintiffs will get the benefit?
From Immigration-law.com:-
The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
From Immigration-law.com:-
The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
2011 Vodafone#39;s Ferrari F1 Car
Jaime
09-13 12:03 PM
I think this is very important, I asked in the past about it but I got no answer.
It would be OK for me to buy a bunch of flags (50-100) and maybe get reimbursed for them at the rally if somebody wants one? I get support from anyone?
We need to do this! Any ideas on how to reimburse him? How much would it be? You can PM Core and ask!
It would be OK for me to buy a bunch of flags (50-100) and maybe get reimbursed for them at the rally if somebody wants one? I get support from anyone?
We need to do this! Any ideas on how to reimburse him? How much would it be? You can PM Core and ask!
more...
spatial
01-18 11:46 AM
We need at least 1000 members signing up for the monthly contributions in a month. I am sure we can do that. We have 8000 members and it should be easy. Till now we have only 100 signups
Thanks IV core group. Signed up for $20/month. Please continue your efforts.
I am from Chinese community and registered IV just a couple of week ago. There was no email message to me regarding this movement, and some other registerd users may encounter the same situation. You may need to resend them. Only when I opened IV website yesterday did I know this recurring program and current situation. I am assuming IV is the only group who are pushing to get the I-485 relief for high skilled workers with advanced degree. There are MANY MANY Chinese in the same situation but I guess there might not have so many Chinese in IV. IV core group may think of some better way to reach more Chinese or other people. Basically, we are on the same boat for the same direction. Better to concentrate all resources to reach one goal. I would suggest IV to setup a seperate Chinese (and Hispanic) contribution page to diverse the culture background of IV members.
Subscription Payment Sent (ID #2PX91085T34540611)
In reference to:S-19881018DS353430X
Thanks IV core group. Signed up for $20/month. Please continue your efforts.
I am from Chinese community and registered IV just a couple of week ago. There was no email message to me regarding this movement, and some other registerd users may encounter the same situation. You may need to resend them. Only when I opened IV website yesterday did I know this recurring program and current situation. I am assuming IV is the only group who are pushing to get the I-485 relief for high skilled workers with advanced degree. There are MANY MANY Chinese in the same situation but I guess there might not have so many Chinese in IV. IV core group may think of some better way to reach more Chinese or other people. Basically, we are on the same boat for the same direction. Better to concentrate all resources to reach one goal. I would suggest IV to setup a seperate Chinese (and Hispanic) contribution page to diverse the culture background of IV members.
Subscription Payment Sent (ID #2PX91085T34540611)
In reference to:S-19881018DS353430X
zerozerozeven
03-09 12:17 PM
let the waiting start for the May bulletin....
more...
Hinglish
01-08 10:04 PM
May the best man win !
2010 2009 Red Bull RB5 F1 car
akred
01-21 02:26 AM
Assuming everyone stays the course, under these timelines
1. At least 5% of applicants will be sponsored by their American children.
2. Another 5% will have their first million and move to the investor's category.
The timelines would be a maximum of 20 years or so, at which point people would be sponsored by their children.
1. At least 5% of applicants will be sponsored by their American children.
2. Another 5% will have their first million and move to the investor's category.
The timelines would be a maximum of 20 years or so, at which point people would be sponsored by their children.
more...
transpass
04-09 10:20 PM
This is an "Ouch..." visa bulletin.
Dont want to be passimistic or discourage anyone; I have always been optimistic and will remain so...
However, this suggests that there will not be any fall down (previously called spillover) from EB4 and may not even be much from EB5 (Last year this was the major factor that gave 10k additional numbers to EB2 India). Lookes like people are finding alternate ways (who can) by these routes.
EB1 used up all its numbers last year and we dont know what will happen this year.
EB2 ROW usage looks low, but then again no movement in EB2 India...
Patience and persistence....
Good Luck to all of us.
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Dont want to be passimistic or discourage anyone; I have always been optimistic and will remain so...
However, this suggests that there will not be any fall down (previously called spillover) from EB4 and may not even be much from EB5 (Last year this was the major factor that gave 10k additional numbers to EB2 India). Lookes like people are finding alternate ways (who can) by these routes.
EB1 used up all its numbers last year and we dont know what will happen this year.
EB2 ROW usage looks low, but then again no movement in EB2 India...
Patience and persistence....
Good Luck to all of us.
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
hair F1 competition, Jean Todt,
alterego
09-20 07:55 PM
In addition to family based immigration, legal immigration includes asylum, refugees (with a special category for Iraqi refugees) and may be more!
You forgot the weirdest one..................the diversity green card!:)
You forgot the weirdest one..................the diversity green card!:)
more...
singhsa3
03-03 06:44 PM
Some of the data can be obtained from here
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Data_FY07_Announcement.pdf
of course it is not complete but gives a good glimpse.
Now, you show me your 10 billion dollars :)
Might not be extrapolation, but gross misrepresentation. Have you taken a poll or do you have any data to justify all the numbers you are including in the e-mail? If yes, then include the links for that in the letter, otherwise no one is going to believe you.
Why, I can say, I have 10 billion dollars which I will donate to USCIS to improve their system if I get a GC right now.
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM_Data_FY07_Announcement.pdf
of course it is not complete but gives a good glimpse.
Now, you show me your 10 billion dollars :)
Might not be extrapolation, but gross misrepresentation. Have you taken a poll or do you have any data to justify all the numbers you are including in the e-mail? If yes, then include the links for that in the letter, otherwise no one is going to believe you.
Why, I can say, I have 10 billion dollars which I will donate to USCIS to improve their system if I get a GC right now.
hot Amazingly Bizarre: F1 Car
sands_14
09-23 10:03 AM
I e-filed my EAD and AP;but when I sent the supporting documentation to the PO Box in Mesquite,Texas;it was not delivered on Friday,a notice was left.I am very anxious if it comes back.Is there a Phone Number I can call to ask them Reason for Non-delivery;what should I do???Is there an address different from the PO Box where I can FEDEX
more...
house the tricky (for an F1 car!
bkarnik
07-25 06:46 PM
Thanks a lot, please keep us posted about the outcome, even if we have one percent of hope, there is no harm trying that.
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
tattoo Brawn GP F1 car amp; Lola-Aston
nixstor
07-04 09:33 PM
[QUOTE=nixstor]Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
"Essentially, the numbers are spread out during the first three quarters and whatever is left is available during the last quarter"
On reading the Murthy article it appears that the biggest mistake USCIS committed was using up the visa numbers before the 4th qtr began on 7/2/07.
USCIS did it other way around...desparately rushed to use up the numbers before the 4th qtr began....only explanation is to avoid doing additional paperwork for the July filers...
Its not the paper work guys. They will love the money on EAD & AP. Its the huge backlog that will remain for ever on their hump unless a recapture occurs. Due to lack of communication or what ever, DOS made every category current. The only way they can escape from accepting our applications is by using up all numbers. Thats what they essentially did. AFAIK, DOS gets updates from USCIS and CP's across the world about the number of visas they have used in the past month. DOS then prepares the VB. Assuming USCIS told DOS that they have used 80/90K for the fiscal year so far, DOS is left with 60/50K for the last quarter of the fiscal year. How can DOS imagine/understand availability of 50/60k visas to be less demand for EB categories? This is what exactly the initial July VB said and we were all stupefied. They know this in and out and a simple request for pending number of 485's from years, approved & pending 140's since retrogression hit & that do not have a adjoining 485 should come out conservatively to 150-200K. Does DOS ask this as a part of their monthly information gathering process? Yes, they does is the simple answer. Then what led to the making VB current is the esoteric Q here. USCIS will have allocated the numbers at their own pace if the VB was not made current. As the VB was made current, USCIS was forced to use all the numbers and say that there are no numbers. Unless, we hear more stuff from the offices of DOS/USCIS in response to Rep Lofgren, every thing will be speculation.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
"Essentially, the numbers are spread out during the first three quarters and whatever is left is available during the last quarter"
On reading the Murthy article it appears that the biggest mistake USCIS committed was using up the visa numbers before the 4th qtr began on 7/2/07.
USCIS did it other way around...desparately rushed to use up the numbers before the 4th qtr began....only explanation is to avoid doing additional paperwork for the July filers...
Its not the paper work guys. They will love the money on EAD & AP. Its the huge backlog that will remain for ever on their hump unless a recapture occurs. Due to lack of communication or what ever, DOS made every category current. The only way they can escape from accepting our applications is by using up all numbers. Thats what they essentially did. AFAIK, DOS gets updates from USCIS and CP's across the world about the number of visas they have used in the past month. DOS then prepares the VB. Assuming USCIS told DOS that they have used 80/90K for the fiscal year so far, DOS is left with 60/50K for the last quarter of the fiscal year. How can DOS imagine/understand availability of 50/60k visas to be less demand for EB categories? This is what exactly the initial July VB said and we were all stupefied. They know this in and out and a simple request for pending number of 485's from years, approved & pending 140's since retrogression hit & that do not have a adjoining 485 should come out conservatively to 150-200K. Does DOS ask this as a part of their monthly information gathering process? Yes, they does is the simple answer. Then what led to the making VB current is the esoteric Q here. USCIS will have allocated the numbers at their own pace if the VB was not made current. As the VB was made current, USCIS was forced to use all the numbers and say that there are no numbers. Unless, we hear more stuff from the offices of DOS/USCIS in response to Rep Lofgren, every thing will be speculation.
more...
pictures RA108 #39;earthdreams#39; F1 Car
vghc
07-03 12:40 PM
If you read my earlier response, you would not be asking me this question. Just to repeat myself, I completely agree with you that wives and kids should not be included to the EB GC quota!
Fine...then there's a comon ground......:)
I don't like this Indian,China vs the ROW talk. Its just bloody depressing.
Fine...then there's a comon ground......:)
I don't like this Indian,China vs the ROW talk. Its just bloody depressing.
dresses Honda Racing Formula One Car
alterego
07-14 09:37 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
more...
makeup Honda F1 Cheap Sports Car 2009
indyanguy
02-20 03:47 PM
looks like there no hope for EB3 India to move further :(
Ya, no hope for EB3-India :(
Ya, no hope for EB3-India :(
girlfriend bytbujo: formula 1 cars for
prioritydate
12-20 04:30 PM
Your PD is Dec, 2004. Why you think you'll get RFE for not working during 2001?
I am not sure about that. So, are you saying that they don't care what my status was before applying my GC?
I am not sure about that. So, are you saying that they don't care what my status was before applying my GC?
hairstyles Mercedes Mclaren F1 car
am100
06-28 10:39 PM
Got approval emails yesterday.
PD Feb 2004
EB2 India
LC Approved 8/10/06
140 Approved 2/12/07
485 Filed on 6/27/07 NSC
PD Feb 2004
EB2 India
LC Approved 8/10/06
140 Approved 2/12/07
485 Filed on 6/27/07 NSC
kumar1
05-15 05:34 PM
I also know cases where during the time of campus placement, all A grade companies required US citizenship/Green Card status. Imagine doing a 100K+ investment and then listening to this crap - ooops you do not have GC......right now we are not sponsoring H1-B...........
The way I look at it - Unless I have GC and the freedom to move around in any job or any area, what is the point doing MBA? My hands are still tied with H1-B tag. It is like buying a race car and driving it on an unpaved road. Fee free to disagree.
And I totally understand that GC can take 10+ year if not more.
Sometime ago , I had seen Jack Welch's comments on this ( the last page in Business Week ) where he had mentioned that he respected people who have an online MBA bcoz of the fact that these people were handling a family , kids , a full time job and education, no mean feat ... and that he did not consider their MBA less than another MBA.
To the person, who commented about their CIO being from Univ of Phoenix, I worked at a biotech where the CFO was an MBA from Golden Gate University ... You don't want to know where the company went.
The way I look at it - Unless I have GC and the freedom to move around in any job or any area, what is the point doing MBA? My hands are still tied with H1-B tag. It is like buying a race car and driving it on an unpaved road. Fee free to disagree.
And I totally understand that GC can take 10+ year if not more.
Sometime ago , I had seen Jack Welch's comments on this ( the last page in Business Week ) where he had mentioned that he respected people who have an online MBA bcoz of the fact that these people were handling a family , kids , a full time job and education, no mean feat ... and that he did not consider their MBA less than another MBA.
To the person, who commented about their CIO being from Univ of Phoenix, I worked at a biotech where the CFO was an MBA from Golden Gate University ... You don't want to know where the company went.
puddonhead
08-10 07:40 PM
Could you elaborate on how this is a "wishful" reinterpretation of the law?
I have no intention of playing spoilsport if you are taking some good faith initiative. In fact, if there is some campaign launched on this - I will probably even contribute (well - if you are doing something in good faith for a community then I have a moral obligation to support it if it is not harmful for the community).
However, this part "I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis" souonds wishful to me based on my understanding of what the immigration law says. I spent some time going over the law a couple of years ago - so its possible that my memory may be failing me. If you can show some place in the Immigration law that actually supports this reinterpretation then I will correct myself.
I have no intention of playing spoilsport if you are taking some good faith initiative. In fact, if there is some campaign launched on this - I will probably even contribute (well - if you are doing something in good faith for a community then I have a moral obligation to support it if it is not harmful for the community).
However, this part "I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis" souonds wishful to me based on my understanding of what the immigration law says. I spent some time going over the law a couple of years ago - so its possible that my memory may be failing me. If you can show some place in the Immigration law that actually supports this reinterpretation then I will correct myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment