paskal
07-21 10:43 PM
guys,
where are you seeing the year to year count of AC 21 number usage?
i see the 2001-2003 figure in mpadapa's link, what about the rest?
where are you seeing the year to year count of AC 21 number usage?
i see the 2001-2003 figure in mpadapa's link, what about the rest?
wallpaper is nicki minaj real hair.
Marphad
03-27 02:17 PM
I cannot think of any one good leader left in india. not one who can rise above self-interest and narrow mentality. Can you imagine any one of the so called leaders that was mentioned in this list leading the nation, and not be a laughing stock? remember deva gowda at davos...made a mockery of India there. Mayawati/modi, etc. what kind of leadership qualities (international affairs/finance/etc) do they have? the only kind of experience they have is gundaism, and creating conflicts with caste, culture and religion.
I wish most of the current class of leaders were erased, and a new class of leaders were brought in. Sadly that'll never happen with the kind of democratic setup we have. in the name of representation, we are debarring intellects, and people with broad vision from joining politics.
Why do you forget Mulayam Singh? He has a great quality of pampering muslims and giving tickets to Gundas. He scored #1 in that.
I wish most of the current class of leaders were erased, and a new class of leaders were brought in. Sadly that'll never happen with the kind of democratic setup we have. in the name of representation, we are debarring intellects, and people with broad vision from joining politics.
Why do you forget Mulayam Singh? He has a great quality of pampering muslims and giving tickets to Gundas. He scored #1 in that.
narendra_modi
01-15 01:11 PM
It wont be an issue since you already gor your GC or I-485 filed. I failed to understand still what you are doing here.
If one filed I-485, isn't employee-employer relationship comes under a questionmark? what if that company is closed ? And if this memo is implemented, most of the GC filing IT Inc. will be shut down sooner and hence will be a big mess..they are the ones who are supporting for their GC.
If one filed I-485, isn't employee-employer relationship comes under a questionmark? what if that company is closed ? And if this memo is implemented, most of the GC filing IT Inc. will be shut down sooner and hence will be a big mess..they are the ones who are supporting for their GC.
2011 hair Adrian Peterson Wallpaper
vrbest
07-22 12:27 PM
Thank you for taking time to answer my question. my PD is Apr 06 EB3-India. I filed 485 on Jul 23, 2007.
Can I continue working for Company B until GC is received? or should I join company C before that?
Whats your EB3 PD. You can join company C anytime assuming that it has been more than six months since you filed your I-485. Company C can start the EB2 process should you choose to. However bear in mind that this process will also take some time.
Can I continue working for Company B until GC is received? or should I join company C before that?
Whats your EB3 PD. You can join company C anytime assuming that it has been more than six months since you filed your I-485. Company C can start the EB2 process should you choose to. However bear in mind that this process will also take some time.
more...
reachinus
07-28 09:56 PM
I am not saying that the AP cannot be used again, but it cannot be used after the Validity on the AP which is 1 year from the Issue date and the date on the I-94 doesn't have any meaning.
For example
My AP was issued on Oct 18th 2007 and I can use it to travel till Oct 17th 2008. But people are saying that they are issued an I-94 with a date which is 1 year from the date they enter/use the AP.
But my concern is that I was issued an I-94A which doesn't have any date on it. Should I be concerned about that?
AP's are generally issued for multiple trips. I am little confused by your question. Could you please specify why is it that you think that you cannot use the AP again.
For example
My AP was issued on Oct 18th 2007 and I can use it to travel till Oct 17th 2008. But people are saying that they are issued an I-94 with a date which is 1 year from the date they enter/use the AP.
But my concern is that I was issued an I-94A which doesn't have any date on it. Should I be concerned about that?
AP's are generally issued for multiple trips. I am little confused by your question. Could you please specify why is it that you think that you cannot use the AP again.
VenuK
07-10 03:10 PM
This question is for Attorney and for Everyone:
Could you pls... pls... look into my case and if possible could you provide your suggestions.
here is the link for my case
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20055
with Thanks in advance,
Venu
Could you pls... pls... look into my case and if possible could you provide your suggestions.
here is the link for my case
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20055
with Thanks in advance,
Venu
more...
Lasantha
02-15 01:41 PM
You are welcome Dyana. Also if you search this forum, you might be able to find lots of threads on filing 485, doing medicals etc from last June/July/August. These topics were beaten to death on this forum last year when a whole bunch of us filed 485. Good luck!
Thank U all for your quick answers&good advice.It feels good to know I have new friends who can help me with my questions.
About the cheques u're right, that's how we have done it. Separate personnal cheques for each of us, easy to track online.
Hopefully we are not out-of-status and my husband's employer is not on th black list.
How couldn't I figure it out by myself what IV means????Shame,shame...
Thank U all for your quick answers&good advice.It feels good to know I have new friends who can help me with my questions.
About the cheques u're right, that's how we have done it. Separate personnal cheques for each of us, easy to track online.
Hopefully we are not out-of-status and my husband's employer is not on th black list.
How couldn't I figure it out by myself what IV means????Shame,shame...
2010 hair A fan holds an England
delhirocks
06-26 11:53 PM
This is what my very very high profile attorney wrote in her email to me today....
" We have heard that there will be a visa regression the first week of July "
And in immigration matters I trust her more than anybody in this whole country. So guys be ready and prepared. Do what u have to do. Be proactive.
My post is not to spread rumors or scare people but to help them to grab this golden opportunity.
I am ready to send papers for July 1st.
good luck with that...
" We have heard that there will be a visa regression the first week of July "
And in immigration matters I trust her more than anybody in this whole country. So guys be ready and prepared. Do what u have to do. Be proactive.
My post is not to spread rumors or scare people but to help them to grab this golden opportunity.
I am ready to send papers for July 1st.
good luck with that...
more...
ujjwal_p
05-11 09:19 PM
To respond to your other post...and FYI
Check this link or goolge to know more about US flag burning protest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
That's not the point dude. Do you think just because its legal, its acceptable and people are burning flags everyday. What are you smoking brother?
Check this link or goolge to know more about US flag burning protest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
That's not the point dude. Do you think just because its legal, its acceptable and people are burning flags everyday. What are you smoking brother?
hair hair Ganesha wallpapers of
reddymjm
09-23 11:33 AM
Let's do it
I just emailed all of them with my name, address and phone number. Atleast 13 of them bounced. Can some one correct the email addresses in that sheet.
I just emailed all of them with my name, address and phone number. Atleast 13 of them bounced. Can some one correct the email addresses in that sheet.
more...
logiclife
02-12 09:04 PM
Per country limit applies to every country in exactly the same way. It doesn't discriminate between Chad or China. So, how is it discrimination? And think about it- in Olympics soccer/basketball every country can send only one team. Should China and India be allowed to send more teams since they have a larger population? We should try to increase the number of GCs.
That is an apples to dinosaur analogy.
The per-country ceiling was originally created in order to establish and maintain proportionality in various immigrants coming from different countries in FAMILY BASED IMMIGRATION.
Family based immigration is driven by family relationship. Its not driven by talent or economic contribution. Therefore its important to make sure that no country completely dominates the family based immigration system by getting a head start. If one country is ahead initially in sending immigrants (like the Irish in the 1920s and Italians in 1930s), then that country's immigrants would sponsor their family and that new family would in turn sponsor their relatives and so on. Whichever country has an advantage in the begining would keep building on that advantage and eat up the entire family based quota. That's why when they wrote the INA in 1965 by codifying a bunch of loose federal regulations that governed immigration, they inserted the per-country ceiling. And that makes sense even today in Family based immigration.
Every country in the world has unlimited potential to send family members and relatives to America. But every country in the world does not have unlimited potential to send Ph.Ds and skilled labor. That ability is disproportionately huge with India, China, Mexico and Phillipines.
The per-country ceilings got INHERITED into employment based system because our legislators were too lazy to spot the difference in two systems. One system gives you a green card because you are related to someone. Other system gives you a green card because you have skills that are wanted by an employer here.
Benefits driven by family relationship should be rationed and given out propotionally because an Irish family, Italian family and a Chinese family all love their families equally and the value of family re-unification is the same. You cant say that the Irish love their sibilings more than the Chinese or Indians do. HENCE THE COUNTRY LIMITS IN FAMILY BASED SYSTEM.
But in employment based system, what the system is doing is that an Irish guy, (or any ROW guy) with Bachelor's degree in EB3 is getting green card sooner than an Indian guy or Chinese guy with masters degree in EB2. THAT IS DISCRIMINATION. Yes, that is discrimination not matter how you slice it and dice it with your olympic analogies.
That is an apples to dinosaur analogy.
The per-country ceiling was originally created in order to establish and maintain proportionality in various immigrants coming from different countries in FAMILY BASED IMMIGRATION.
Family based immigration is driven by family relationship. Its not driven by talent or economic contribution. Therefore its important to make sure that no country completely dominates the family based immigration system by getting a head start. If one country is ahead initially in sending immigrants (like the Irish in the 1920s and Italians in 1930s), then that country's immigrants would sponsor their family and that new family would in turn sponsor their relatives and so on. Whichever country has an advantage in the begining would keep building on that advantage and eat up the entire family based quota. That's why when they wrote the INA in 1965 by codifying a bunch of loose federal regulations that governed immigration, they inserted the per-country ceiling. And that makes sense even today in Family based immigration.
Every country in the world has unlimited potential to send family members and relatives to America. But every country in the world does not have unlimited potential to send Ph.Ds and skilled labor. That ability is disproportionately huge with India, China, Mexico and Phillipines.
The per-country ceilings got INHERITED into employment based system because our legislators were too lazy to spot the difference in two systems. One system gives you a green card because you are related to someone. Other system gives you a green card because you have skills that are wanted by an employer here.
Benefits driven by family relationship should be rationed and given out propotionally because an Irish family, Italian family and a Chinese family all love their families equally and the value of family re-unification is the same. You cant say that the Irish love their sibilings more than the Chinese or Indians do. HENCE THE COUNTRY LIMITS IN FAMILY BASED SYSTEM.
But in employment based system, what the system is doing is that an Irish guy, (or any ROW guy) with Bachelor's degree in EB3 is getting green card sooner than an Indian guy or Chinese guy with masters degree in EB2. THAT IS DISCRIMINATION. Yes, that is discrimination not matter how you slice it and dice it with your olympic analogies.
hot hair and
dealsnet
09-04 12:26 PM
If this is true, it is serious. If a donors information is compromised, it is like selling the credit card info the cheats. It is high time to clear bad elements from IV.
Yup, it is a religious fanatic. Also it must be an insider.
I am still wondering how the full name of "Jayapaul Reddy Vadicherla" is known.
One thing is that the Vadicherla is a Donor and must have given all his details while donating. The insider have access to this information and posted it.
_TrueFact, can you post my full name?
Yup, it is a religious fanatic. Also it must be an insider.
I am still wondering how the full name of "Jayapaul Reddy Vadicherla" is known.
One thing is that the Vadicherla is a Donor and must have given all his details while donating. The insider have access to this information and posted it.
_TrueFact, can you post my full name?
more...
house hair flower tattoos flower
Macaca
01-18 08:48 AM
Is H-1B working at a gas station a bad apple? Yes.
Non-Indian staffing company keeps $150/hr, 25 years back. Is this a bad apple? How much can a staffing company keep? Why? Who decides it? Has Hilda L. Solis decided it for for US workers? Why should Janet Napolitano decide it for H-1B?
Contractor salary and benefits come from his/her billing only. Most US workers are not paid on bench/benefits. Why should H-1B be paid on bench/benefits? Contractor can be paid on bench/benefits only by spreading the billing over bench/benefits (thereby reducing paycheck). Why is this a good apple?
Non-Indian staffing company keeps $150/hr, 25 years back. Is this a bad apple? How much can a staffing company keep? Why? Who decides it? Has Hilda L. Solis decided it for for US workers? Why should Janet Napolitano decide it for H-1B?
Contractor salary and benefits come from his/her billing only. Most US workers are not paid on bench/benefits. Why should H-1B be paid on bench/benefits? Contractor can be paid on bench/benefits only by spreading the billing over bench/benefits (thereby reducing paycheck). Why is this a good apple?
tattoo hair Toyota : Tundra Dbl Cab
soma
02-13 10:59 PM
you cannot sue for incompetence, or the courts would be full!
If thats the case why did 180 day rule for namecheck get through in court?! wasn't that incompetence?
If thats the case why did 180 day rule for namecheck get through in court?! wasn't that incompetence?
more...
pictures hair dresses The Fantastic
hebbar77
05-29 07:18 PM
nothing came easy for immigrants here including europeans immigrants in early 1500's! They silenced the people to make their way!, we are standing in line!
dresses hair jordan tattoo of every
sledge_hammer
02-16 08:27 AM
Great find!
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
I guess all the talk about suing USCIS will go down the toilet based on this excerpt from the article -
"Assuming that under the plenary power doctrine noncitizens possess few, if any, constitutional protections with respect to entering the country, the implications of racial and national origin exclusions on citizens must be considered. Because the Constitution unquestionably protects the rights of citizens, citizens claiming injury have a better chance at successfully challenging the immigration laws than noncitizens directly affected by their operation. Courts have recognized that citizens in certain circumstances may challenge the lawfulness of immigration laws because of the impact on their rights."
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
more...
makeup hair Travis McCoy.
unitednations
02-13 03:00 PM
Whether overflow happens vertically or horzontaly is subject to interpretation and we cannot really say if EB3 ROW is getting any undue advantage.....
That matter can be litigated.....
You guys still think it is horizontal. This has been discussed so many times with reference to the law; the note in november 2005 visa bulletin; another lawyer who received statistics in chinees overall approvals for 2006 which were going to be close to 7% and you guys still believe this is a gray area.
the november 2005 visa bulletin made it black and white. It is no gray any longer. AC21 didn't do anything to change to horizontal; only spillover is allowed in quarter not annual.
Hard to understand why people think it is still gray.
That matter can be litigated.....
You guys still think it is horizontal. This has been discussed so many times with reference to the law; the note in november 2005 visa bulletin; another lawyer who received statistics in chinees overall approvals for 2006 which were going to be close to 7% and you guys still believe this is a gray area.
the november 2005 visa bulletin made it black and white. It is no gray any longer. AC21 didn't do anything to change to horizontal; only spillover is allowed in quarter not annual.
Hard to understand why people think it is still gray.
girlfriend hair Single Review: Selena
neocor
01-09 01:33 PM
I just got to this site via from immigration portal.
I have been reading a lot in the other forum and here about the ways to cure retrogression. Lobbying for more Visa's and other things that were part of the S.1932 bill are fine, however these things are not going to solve the retrogression problem even if such a bill gets passed.
No one seems to be talking about the real problem that is Labor Substitution. Abolishing Labor Substitution will itself take care of every retrogression problem.
The INS does not have the right tools to police the misue of this rule. This is resutling in a lot of problems for even those employees whose Labor's get substituted even if they are still working in the same company.
Any effort to reform immigration should start with first reforming the Labor Substitution rule (if not completely abolish).
I know that all the companies/employers and the lawyers community are against removing the Labor substitution, therefore it will never be removed, but atleast it should be reformed so that it can be better policed so that no one is able to misuse it and play with peoples lives. And in turn add to retregression.
Following reforms are needed in Labor Substitution.
- First thing in the Labor Substitution reform is related to the Priority date. The Priority Date for a substituted Labor should the date when the Labor is substituted (or the I-140 filing date). It should not be be the date when the Labor was originally filed. This in itself will solve 90% of the problems related to retrogression.
- When a Labor is substituted it should be verified immediately to find if there is any I-140 or I-485 that is pending based on this Labor. If so then the Labor should be rejected immediately. Currently this is not done at the time the Labor is substituted, therefore the resulting 485 filing just amounts to add up into the backlog of Visa Number requirement, until the priority date becomes current for this 485.
- If an employee invokes the AC21 then that Labor should not be allowed to be substituted.
- There should be a limit to the time until which a Labor can be substituted. This could be debatable and could have other consequences, as the INS could invalidate any GC application that is been pending for more than the this duration.
In short the Labour substitution rule is in a mess and is getting miused a lot. People are getting fooled by the employers, and ultimately its making the retrogression more worse.
neocor
I have been reading a lot in the other forum and here about the ways to cure retrogression. Lobbying for more Visa's and other things that were part of the S.1932 bill are fine, however these things are not going to solve the retrogression problem even if such a bill gets passed.
No one seems to be talking about the real problem that is Labor Substitution. Abolishing Labor Substitution will itself take care of every retrogression problem.
The INS does not have the right tools to police the misue of this rule. This is resutling in a lot of problems for even those employees whose Labor's get substituted even if they are still working in the same company.
Any effort to reform immigration should start with first reforming the Labor Substitution rule (if not completely abolish).
I know that all the companies/employers and the lawyers community are against removing the Labor substitution, therefore it will never be removed, but atleast it should be reformed so that it can be better policed so that no one is able to misuse it and play with peoples lives. And in turn add to retregression.
Following reforms are needed in Labor Substitution.
- First thing in the Labor Substitution reform is related to the Priority date. The Priority Date for a substituted Labor should the date when the Labor is substituted (or the I-140 filing date). It should not be be the date when the Labor was originally filed. This in itself will solve 90% of the problems related to retrogression.
- When a Labor is substituted it should be verified immediately to find if there is any I-140 or I-485 that is pending based on this Labor. If so then the Labor should be rejected immediately. Currently this is not done at the time the Labor is substituted, therefore the resulting 485 filing just amounts to add up into the backlog of Visa Number requirement, until the priority date becomes current for this 485.
- If an employee invokes the AC21 then that Labor should not be allowed to be substituted.
- There should be a limit to the time until which a Labor can be substituted. This could be debatable and could have other consequences, as the INS could invalidate any GC application that is been pending for more than the this duration.
In short the Labour substitution rule is in a mess and is getting miused a lot. People are getting fooled by the employers, and ultimately its making the retrogression more worse.
neocor
hairstyles hair Zebra Pink Cake picture
at0474
12-14 01:11 PM
There was a thread some time back about people considering going to law school and becoming their own lawyers. What I took out of it was that its not that easy. Besides going to school, you have to pass some tough state exams. I am quite happy with my lawyer. I paid some dough but its much cheaper than going to law school, and saves me time and headache.
Going to law school is not for everyone, definitely not for me (fat books scares me :eek:). I like the suggestion by garybanz about getting a qualified opinion. Just so that we know.
--Grupak, I wasn't talking about the law here. It was villamonte, I was just requesting him to be polite. The thing I agreed about him was that we cannot call country cap quota as discrimination.
Going to law school is not for everyone, definitely not for me (fat books scares me :eek:). I like the suggestion by garybanz about getting a qualified opinion. Just so that we know.
--Grupak, I wasn't talking about the law here. It was villamonte, I was just requesting him to be polite. The thing I agreed about him was that we cannot call country cap quota as discrimination.
mallu
02-12 08:46 PM
.....USCIS says EBs are retrogressed because there are XXXXX people in the queue. .....
Do they publish how much is XXXXX per country ?
Do they publish how much is XXXXX per country ?
a.j.2048
12-13 10:39 PM
The anti's would be all over us as soon as we filed in federal district court probably even before a hearing, and definitely after a hearing.
Not necessarily. The antis are mad because the country quotas are effectively limiting European immigration. Read how this fellow rails against the country quotas in his book: http://www.vdare.com/alien_nation/
Not necessarily. The antis are mad because the country quotas are effectively limiting European immigration. Read how this fellow rails against the country quotas in his book: http://www.vdare.com/alien_nation/