Thanks @ fatjoe
Yeah, I know what you mean. But if one has waited for so long (13 years in my case), you want to see it in writing before you believe anything.
Yes, I will call TSC again in a couple hours.
Thanks for all the info and for all the support you have provided. Good luck to you, hopefully your spouses case will get approved soon too.
Alright, Congrats Caliguy!!!
I guess the emails and updates are sent by some kind of batch processing system. I got the email at 5:15 am, do you think that uscis guys would work that early...., duh....
So cool down, you will get email soon.
If you are doubtful, call uscis one more time, and confirm that your case is approved.
Yeah, I know what you mean. But if one has waited for so long (13 years in my case), you want to see it in writing before you believe anything.
Yes, I will call TSC again in a couple hours.
Thanks for all the info and for all the support you have provided. Good luck to you, hopefully your spouses case will get approved soon too.
Alright, Congrats Caliguy!!!
I guess the emails and updates are sent by some kind of batch processing system. I got the email at 5:15 am, do you think that uscis guys would work that early...., duh....
So cool down, you will get email soon.
If you are doubtful, call uscis one more time, and confirm that your case is approved.
wallpaper Target Field, MN, April 2010
The Durbin-Grassley bill would, among other things:
� Prohibit the blatantly discriminatory practice of "H-1B only" ads and prohibit employers from hiring additional H-1B and L-1 guest-workers if more than 50 percent of their employees are H-1B and L-1 visa holders.
I wonder how much research these two amigos did on Monster and dice. Here's the link if these two are reading
http://seeker.dice.com/jobsearch/servlet/JobSearch?op=300&N=0&Hf=0&NUM_PER_PAGE=30&Ntk=JobSearchRanking&Ntx=mode+matchall&AREA_CODES=&AC_COUNTRY=1525&QUICK=1&ZIPCODE=&RADIUS=64.37376&ZC_COUNTRY=0&COUNTRY=1525&STAT_PROV=0&METRO_AREA=33.78715899%2C-84.39164034&TRAVEL=0&TAXTERM=0&SORTSPEC=0&FRMT=0&DAYSBACK=30&LOCATION_OPTION=2&FREE_TEXT=h1b&WHERE=
Please click on the ads and see if the ads come up with H1B only or they say 'No H1Bs', which I guess is an acceptable form of discrimination for these two.
Last I checked I was hard pressed to find a single job which were open enough for H1B's, let alone exclusively for H1B's, but almost all of the openings explicitly barred H1B visa holders.
� Prohibit the blatantly discriminatory practice of "H-1B only" ads and prohibit employers from hiring additional H-1B and L-1 guest-workers if more than 50 percent of their employees are H-1B and L-1 visa holders.
I wonder how much research these two amigos did on Monster and dice. Here's the link if these two are reading
http://seeker.dice.com/jobsearch/servlet/JobSearch?op=300&N=0&Hf=0&NUM_PER_PAGE=30&Ntk=JobSearchRanking&Ntx=mode+matchall&AREA_CODES=&AC_COUNTRY=1525&QUICK=1&ZIPCODE=&RADIUS=64.37376&ZC_COUNTRY=0&COUNTRY=1525&STAT_PROV=0&METRO_AREA=33.78715899%2C-84.39164034&TRAVEL=0&TAXTERM=0&SORTSPEC=0&FRMT=0&DAYSBACK=30&LOCATION_OPTION=2&FREE_TEXT=h1b&WHERE=
Please click on the ads and see if the ads come up with H1B only or they say 'No H1Bs', which I guess is an acceptable form of discrimination for these two.
Last I checked I was hard pressed to find a single job which were open enough for H1B's, let alone exclusively for H1B's, but almost all of the openings explicitly barred H1B visa holders.
The numbers are based of the I-485 already filed. Please read the heading of the page 5
That's exactly what I wrote a few posts above. I think the more basic question is - What does 485 inventory mean? Is it already filed 485 numbers or "can be filed based on approved I-140" numbers?
To the OP: Can you provide the link from where we can open the PDF instead of just throwing the PDF open. Maybe that will provide a better context to the numbers.
That's exactly what I wrote a few posts above. I think the more basic question is - What does 485 inventory mean? Is it already filed 485 numbers or "can be filed based on approved I-140" numbers?
To the OP: Can you provide the link from where we can open the PDF instead of just throwing the PDF open. Maybe that will provide a better context to the numbers.
2011 Target Field this quot;Springquot;
Its not that I think I am smarter or have any additional insight...but I take things at face value. Of course the total number of pending cases in the chart and in the PDF should match - they both are exactly what they say they are "PENDING EMPLOYMENT BASED I-485 cases" If that's what the report title says, that's exactly what it means. No point in over-analyzing if this is just for pre-adjudicated or only primary applications etc....
I say stupid questions because people still ask "Does the PDF report contain numbers for dependents or only for primary applicants" - so you are telling me that this is not clear from the PDF report??
I and many others do not see the definition of "Pending" what is in our minds matching the definition of "Pending" by USCIS. We believe that it is not yet concluded. Even USCIS itself is not clear. In trend chart under "All other pending" its total figure for national level is 279031 till July 2009. Where as in the Excel worksheet it is 233816 till July 2009( Worksheet is produced for the time period till the December 2009 but for July to Dec 2009 all visa categories have zero value thus data is till July 2009)
So I would request you to keep patience till we get "authentic" feedback from somebody. Many people are working on this in background. If you want to see the signs they are there in many other threads including recently declared FOIA and USCIS data comparison thread published by Pappu.
We can't be just "innocently simple minded" when USCIS itself publishes different data sets at different links and start believing the only data of a particular worksheet is correct just because USCIS declared it. If you try to compare both of these trend chart and excel worksheet with the April operating performance report declared by USCIS (needhelp! has posted it on this thread) then you get into more confusion and start seeing clear discrepency.
So choice is yours , patiently watching the input of others on this thread and start contributing in analysis OR keep on doing what you are doing unnecessarily.
I say stupid questions because people still ask "Does the PDF report contain numbers for dependents or only for primary applicants" - so you are telling me that this is not clear from the PDF report??
I and many others do not see the definition of "Pending" what is in our minds matching the definition of "Pending" by USCIS. We believe that it is not yet concluded. Even USCIS itself is not clear. In trend chart under "All other pending" its total figure for national level is 279031 till July 2009. Where as in the Excel worksheet it is 233816 till July 2009( Worksheet is produced for the time period till the December 2009 but for July to Dec 2009 all visa categories have zero value thus data is till July 2009)
So I would request you to keep patience till we get "authentic" feedback from somebody. Many people are working on this in background. If you want to see the signs they are there in many other threads including recently declared FOIA and USCIS data comparison thread published by Pappu.
We can't be just "innocently simple minded" when USCIS itself publishes different data sets at different links and start believing the only data of a particular worksheet is correct just because USCIS declared it. If you try to compare both of these trend chart and excel worksheet with the April operating performance report declared by USCIS (needhelp! has posted it on this thread) then you get into more confusion and start seeing clear discrepency.
So choice is yours , patiently watching the input of others on this thread and start contributing in analysis OR keep on doing what you are doing unnecessarily.
Does anyone know how long this process takes (from online app to visa stamped)? I just filled in my app online on wednesday hoping to finish it off on the weekend. Now their site is down for maintenance until monday.
I heard some one telling me that there is a max limit of 5000 mts per month which includes local, long distance and international.
Is it true or just a rumor ?
As per my phone and chat conversation with Vonage is that it's a rumor, there is no limit at all, you can call as long as you want....
Is it true or just a rumor ?
As per my phone and chat conversation with Vonage is that it's a rumor, there is no limit at all, you can call as long as you want....
Well, no - my basic argument is that the banks bloated up the 'real' asset value - I had the money then and I have the money now and I am still paying my monthly mortgage amount - the point is about the inflated housing prices.....with these banks knowing the actual value of the asset and still going ahead with the extravagant loans.
From another point of view, tell me 1 reason why would you lend out money to somebody who you know would not be able to pay you back?
your argument is weak. You used these 'extravagant loans' knowing that they are extravagant and then signed on the dotted line and now you are backing off saying 'sorry, you gave me a loan on something I wanted and thought what it is worth and it is no more. So take it back'. If you 'have the money now' then pay by all means and don't end the contract that you signed.
I agree banks were greedy. So is punjabi.
And all the argument about returning used goods is no comparison. The bill says that you can return it in a month. Foreclosure is a provision to help people is serious trouble. It is trying to be sympathetic and nice to people who are in pain. It is not something one is entitled to because he couldn't make a profit. :mad:
From another point of view, tell me 1 reason why would you lend out money to somebody who you know would not be able to pay you back?
your argument is weak. You used these 'extravagant loans' knowing that they are extravagant and then signed on the dotted line and now you are backing off saying 'sorry, you gave me a loan on something I wanted and thought what it is worth and it is no more. So take it back'. If you 'have the money now' then pay by all means and don't end the contract that you signed.
I agree banks were greedy. So is punjabi.
And all the argument about returning used goods is no comparison. The bill says that you can return it in a month. Foreclosure is a provision to help people is serious trouble. It is trying to be sympathetic and nice to people who are in pain. It is not something one is entitled to because he couldn't make a profit. :mad:
2010 the new Target Field#39;s
Ok...the way I see this is 5000min/month at $25 (not adding taxes) is 5 cents a minutes...that is more than what I pay for my calling cards....bottom line....if your monthly calling bill is less than $ 25 there is no reason why you should get Vonage.
Use this one !
Free online calculators for home, work, and school (http://www.calculateforfree.com/)
Use this one !
Free online calculators for home, work, and school (http://www.calculateforfree.com/)
From http://blog.nam.org/archives/dobbs_watch/
(I saw this 60 minutes show as well)
But the best part of the interview for non-fans like us who regularly point out Lou's non-obsession with the facts, was an exchange with Stahl where she notes that in the course of a story on illegal immigrant carrying diseases into the US, Dobbs minion Christine Romans says there were 7,000 cases of leprosy in the US in the past 3 years. Says Stahl, "60 Minutes checked that and found a report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, saying that 7,000 is the number of leprosy cases over the last 30 years, not the past three. The report also says that nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants." (Emphasis ours). This exchange then ensues:
"We went to try and check that number, 7,000. We can't...," Stahl says.
"Well, I can tell you this. If we reported it, it's a fact," Dobbs replies.
"You can't tell me that. You did report it," Stahl says.
"I just did," Dobbs says.
"How can you guarantee that to me?" Stahl asks.
Says Dobbs, "Because I'm the managing editor. And that's the way we do business. We don't make up numbers, Lesley."
Wow. Let's let the arrogance linger in the air just a bit, shall we...?
But that's not all. In the end of the interview, there's this back and forth on whether Lou is a journalist, which of course everyone knows he's not. Imagine an interview with a guy claiming he's Elvis. Same-same:
STAHL: I'm sitting here saying to myself, `This man runs a news show?'
Mr. DOBBS: Hmm. I do.
STAHL: And you can just tell me you don't like the president. Whoo.
Mr. DOBBS: I, matter of fact, insist that the audience know where I come from.
STAHL: What about fair and balanced?
Mr. DOBBS: I've never, Lesley, found the truth to be fair and balanced. I found it to be...
STAHL: But that's--but wait, what's the definition of "journalism?" That that's in there.
Mr. DOBBS: I...
STAHL: That has to be part of what a journalist is, is fair and balanced.
Mr. DOBBS: I truly believe there's a nonpartisian, independent reality. But more of the same...
STAHL: But it's your reality.
Mr. DOBBS: It is my reality.
STAHL: But it's not the reality.
Mr. DOBBS: Well, how so
(I saw this 60 minutes show as well)
But the best part of the interview for non-fans like us who regularly point out Lou's non-obsession with the facts, was an exchange with Stahl where she notes that in the course of a story on illegal immigrant carrying diseases into the US, Dobbs minion Christine Romans says there were 7,000 cases of leprosy in the US in the past 3 years. Says Stahl, "60 Minutes checked that and found a report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, saying that 7,000 is the number of leprosy cases over the last 30 years, not the past three. The report also says that nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants." (Emphasis ours). This exchange then ensues:
"We went to try and check that number, 7,000. We can't...," Stahl says.
"Well, I can tell you this. If we reported it, it's a fact," Dobbs replies.
"You can't tell me that. You did report it," Stahl says.
"I just did," Dobbs says.
"How can you guarantee that to me?" Stahl asks.
Says Dobbs, "Because I'm the managing editor. And that's the way we do business. We don't make up numbers, Lesley."
Wow. Let's let the arrogance linger in the air just a bit, shall we...?
But that's not all. In the end of the interview, there's this back and forth on whether Lou is a journalist, which of course everyone knows he's not. Imagine an interview with a guy claiming he's Elvis. Same-same:
STAHL: I'm sitting here saying to myself, `This man runs a news show?'
Mr. DOBBS: Hmm. I do.
STAHL: And you can just tell me you don't like the president. Whoo.
Mr. DOBBS: I, matter of fact, insist that the audience know where I come from.
STAHL: What about fair and balanced?
Mr. DOBBS: I've never, Lesley, found the truth to be fair and balanced. I found it to be...
STAHL: But that's--but wait, what's the definition of "journalism?" That that's in there.
Mr. DOBBS: I...
STAHL: That has to be part of what a journalist is, is fair and balanced.
Mr. DOBBS: I truly believe there's a nonpartisian, independent reality. But more of the same...
STAHL: But it's your reality.
Mr. DOBBS: It is my reality.
STAHL: But it's not the reality.
Mr. DOBBS: Well, how so
hair The Worst Seat At Target Field
Just sent my letter to WH and also IV. Also, my three friends had sent this letter to both WH and IV.
90 days...
Btw, I've got mine I-485 receipt at Sept 13th, filed with NSC and was received by well known J. Barrett at 10-25 of July 2nd.
Did you have LUD on your I 140?
Btw, I've got mine I-485 receipt at Sept 13th, filed with NSC and was received by well known J. Barrett at 10-25 of July 2nd.
Did you have LUD on your I 140?
hot The New Target Field
I have not completed 10 Years in the US yet, but this is an excellent idea and would support the same.
house once inside Target Field,
It was just a minor adjustment to make room for expenses towards advocacy day.
Those who came to the advocacy event on April 4th,5th, like me, and saw the amount of money and efforts that go into reserving a conference room in a hotel next to the Capitol Hill for 4 days, printing out thousands of documents, inviting staffers/congressmen for meetings, arranging an elaborate reception for them, preparing advocacy packets for close to 400 meetings etc etc. I am amazed how IV is even able to afford the expenditures with the relatively small number donors that it has.
Kudos to IV-Core and the volunteers.
Great,
That helps.
Those who came to the advocacy event on April 4th,5th, like me, and saw the amount of money and efforts that go into reserving a conference room in a hotel next to the Capitol Hill for 4 days, printing out thousands of documents, inviting staffers/congressmen for meetings, arranging an elaborate reception for them, preparing advocacy packets for close to 400 meetings etc etc. I am amazed how IV is even able to afford the expenditures with the relatively small number donors that it has.
Kudos to IV-Core and the volunteers.
Great,
That helps.
tattoo Target Field/sales tax combo
--
Who actually controls the work? The client.
Regardless of Fixed bid scenarios. The work is actually controlled by the client. You may be responsible for a part of the work.
--
I am talking about projects here. The project-sponsor is the client. They control the work.
Not about product implementations for the products that were developed internally inside the visa-sponser's company.
Repeating your quote here
L-1B temporary workers can no longer work primarily at a worksite other than their petitioning employer if the work will be controlled and supervised by a different employer
I have put color coding for better understanding. Please read it again.
This is what I wrote
I hope this clears your confusion.
Who actually controls the work? The client.
Regardless of Fixed bid scenarios. The work is actually controlled by the client. You may be responsible for a part of the work.
--
I am talking about projects here. The project-sponsor is the client. They control the work.
Not about product implementations for the products that were developed internally inside the visa-sponser's company.
Repeating your quote here
L-1B temporary workers can no longer work primarily at a worksite other than their petitioning employer if the work will be controlled and supervised by a different employer
I have put color coding for better understanding. Please read it again.
This is what I wrote
I hope this clears your confusion.
pictures Target Field reflects
Fatjoe,
I will join your club. My dates are exactly like yours Except RD is Aug 13th.
Rest PD,ND, TSC ,EB2 ...all are same.
Opened SR 9/5...wait for 6 months letter recieved
Called IO....nothing new
Last week Sent letter 7001 form.
Lost all the hopes......
My PD : Mar-04
RD: 14Aug07
ND: 12Oct07
TSC EB2
I have not tried much yet though. I just called and have them Open SR today.
I will join your club. My dates are exactly like yours Except RD is Aug 13th.
Rest PD,ND, TSC ,EB2 ...all are same.
Opened SR 9/5...wait for 6 months letter recieved
Called IO....nothing new
Last week Sent letter 7001 form.
Lost all the hopes......
My PD : Mar-04
RD: 14Aug07
ND: 12Oct07
TSC EB2
I have not tried much yet though. I just called and have them Open SR today.
dresses J.D. Hoyt#39;s amp; Target Field
AILA has created this document. We will have to make sure that our clauses are not removed from these bills like what happened at S1932.
http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/immreform106.pdf
http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/immreform106.pdf
makeup Target Field
I think the question though genuine and points to the fundamental flaw in the system but is irrelevant to the point of discussion here.
The whole point is that the incentive for porting has been taken away by making computer information manger a Job Zone 4. In addition, additional scrutny will weed out any fraud.
I need to read up on the new zones implementation.
But if you may, please answer this question: If one wants to change jobs within the same company to a new job that falls in the same zone as his current one, can he do that without a new LCA?
The new job is in the same building/region; just some additional responsibility and would be in a different group than the present one.
The whole point is that the incentive for porting has been taken away by making computer information manger a Job Zone 4. In addition, additional scrutny will weed out any fraud.
I need to read up on the new zones implementation.
But if you may, please answer this question: If one wants to change jobs within the same company to a new job that falls in the same zone as his current one, can he do that without a new LCA?
The new job is in the same building/region; just some additional responsibility and would be in a different group than the present one.
girlfriend at Target Field (stadium
Please sing this petition:
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8489276&type=TA (http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8489276&type=TA)
Senate Judiciary Committee to Debate Immigration Reform on March 2!
Urge Committee members to support a realistic, comprehensive solution
On March 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up an immigration reform bill. Enter your zip code in the box, and if your Senator is a member of the Committee, send a letter urging him or her to support a realistic, comprehensive solution that includes a path to permanent legal status for the current undocumented population. We need to let our Senators know that the enforcement-only approach endorsed by the House in December will hurt our communities and compromise our economy but will not fix our broken immigration system.
If your Senators are not members of the Judiciary Committee, you can still send a general letter urging them to support comprehensive immigration reform when the debate reaches the Senate floor. Enter your zip code to take action now!
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8489276&type=TA (http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=8489276&type=TA)
Senate Judiciary Committee to Debate Immigration Reform on March 2!
Urge Committee members to support a realistic, comprehensive solution
On March 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up an immigration reform bill. Enter your zip code in the box, and if your Senator is a member of the Committee, send a letter urging him or her to support a realistic, comprehensive solution that includes a path to permanent legal status for the current undocumented population. We need to let our Senators know that the enforcement-only approach endorsed by the House in December will hurt our communities and compromise our economy but will not fix our broken immigration system.
If your Senators are not members of the Judiciary Committee, you can still send a general letter urging them to support comprehensive immigration reform when the debate reaches the Senate floor. Enter your zip code to take action now!
hairstyles Target Field opens tonight,
Hey Prashanth,
Good luck to you! So yours was a 1 month delay... Hope my husband doesnt have to wait so long as you have.
Lets all hang on!
Regards,
NK
Good luck to you! So yours was a 1 month delay... Hope my husband doesnt have to wait so long as you have.
Lets all hang on!
Regards,
NK
Hi vikki76, bpositive, dipika, caliguy, leoindiano:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?
in resent SR, IO said my case is pre adjudicated and under review. we asked what's that mean, he doesn't know - if it's under review then how preadjudicated?
i send request to senator before 2 weeks, but still no change in LUD and no reply.:confused:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?
in resent SR, IO said my case is pre adjudicated and under review. we asked what's that mean, he doesn't know - if it's under review then how preadjudicated?
i send request to senator before 2 weeks, but still no change in LUD and no reply.:confused:
I-94s are submitted at the airport when you leave the country. In many cases there are no I-94s coz they have been submitted and no one thought of making copies of them before travelling out of country. I am sure I dont have all the I-94s that I ever used. I submitted them at the airport when I went out and didnt make copies.
I think it must be ok if you dont have all of them. Can anyone advise if that's the case?
You or your employer should have a copy of all approved I-797 H1 reciept. Isint the l-94 on there?
I think it must be ok if you dont have all of them. Can anyone advise if that's the case?
You or your employer should have a copy of all approved I-797 H1 reciept. Isint the l-94 on there?
