Bend it like Beckham mates! Get funky hairstyles, market yourself well and play some average soccer with all kind of funky logos on your shirt.
wallpaper wallpapers cool flower
Thanks for the suggestions guys, I'll try 'em out. :)
Folks,
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
2011 Iphone Wallpapers
bumping up??
I jst got an update on my and my wife I-485; i am not sure what it is about as i have not received the RFE yet.....but i think they are asking for our BC as we did not provide them when we applied for I-485;
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
I want to know that is it OK if i provide USCIS with the 2 AFFIDEVITS, one for me and one for my wife stating all the information such as Name, Date of Birth, City of Birth, Country of Birth, Mothers Name and Fathers Name.
Gettign the birth certificate is a very long procedure and i dont think i would have them soon. So i was wondering will it be OK if i provide them with the Affidevits. Will USCIS accept it!!!!
Lastly, i would appreciate if some one can give me the template that what text should be included in the affedevit !!!!
Thanks in advance !!!!!
I agree, thought or wish is good. If it is a thought/wish it would start with "I wish" , "I believe" or �I think� etc. His sentence starts with a rumor. Starting a rumor with the intension of misleading people is not good. His/her intensions are very clear.
what would that be ??? i mean what do you think his intentions are?? looks like he simply asked a question.
what would that be ??? i mean what do you think his intentions are?? looks like he simply asked a question.
My 140 approval updated after 1 yr....
2010 cool phone wallpapers.
I have the exact same question for the original poster. Do you know someone or have heard from several people who were scrutinized about intent after leaving the employer upon GC approval ? I know folks who left with in few months and completed naturalization without any issues, but that's an anecdotal evidence and doesn't prove anything. Please let us know your source of information.
You have seen applications being scrutinized for employment history at the time of naturalization?. can you please provide elaborate and provide examples?. Otherwise dont scare people unnecessarily.:mad:
You have seen applications being scrutinized for employment history at the time of naturalization?. can you please provide elaborate and provide examples?. Otherwise dont scare people unnecessarily.:mad:
there is no difference between using AC-21 or not. When you get your GC, the general line of thinking is that you stay with the current sponsoring employer for 6 months or more. AC-21 is merely a way of changing your 'current sponsoring employer'.
I can't say how much weight this statment holds...
I mean, there are ongoing discussions in other posts about some employers reluctant to accept EAD holders (willing to use AC21) since they may have to do some amount of 'sponsorship' for such people and suggestions that these people claim that they don't need any 'sponsorship' theoretically from the employers ...they can file EAD extensions themselves.....
In light of that it seems as if once you invoke AC21 you can choose to support your I-485 status & EAD, attorneys etc completely yourself, and thus the concept of 'sposoring employer' totally vanishes.
Its possible that USCIS can still hold you to the (diluted)intent of "continuing to work in the same job role as originally claimed in I-140/I-485" for a general period of time after getting GC, but not necessarily stick with the same current employer. The AC21 invokers already cut themselves off from the original sponsor....doesn't make much sense to force them to stick to current employer, who may or may not have sponsored anything at all towards the employee's GC.
So AC21 invokers get a degree of freedom ( --can't tell what level of freedom though, with the impending restrictions possibly in future in AC21 -- ) regarding showing the *original intent* after getting GC.
And since people stuck with same original sponsoring employer and get GC while still with them, can not invoke AC21 after getting GC to port their "original intent", it seems they would continue to be stuck with the same employer for 6-12 more months (unless fired/laid off of course, in which case one becomes a free bird :) )
[Not sure if I put my line of thiking properly in the above paragraphs...if you get confused, please ignore the post :) . It would definitely have been worse, if I tried to speak , rather that write this :D )
I can't say how much weight this statment holds...
I mean, there are ongoing discussions in other posts about some employers reluctant to accept EAD holders (willing to use AC21) since they may have to do some amount of 'sponsorship' for such people and suggestions that these people claim that they don't need any 'sponsorship' theoretically from the employers ...they can file EAD extensions themselves.....
In light of that it seems as if once you invoke AC21 you can choose to support your I-485 status & EAD, attorneys etc completely yourself, and thus the concept of 'sposoring employer' totally vanishes.
Its possible that USCIS can still hold you to the (diluted)intent of "continuing to work in the same job role as originally claimed in I-140/I-485" for a general period of time after getting GC, but not necessarily stick with the same current employer. The AC21 invokers already cut themselves off from the original sponsor....doesn't make much sense to force them to stick to current employer, who may or may not have sponsored anything at all towards the employee's GC.
So AC21 invokers get a degree of freedom ( --can't tell what level of freedom though, with the impending restrictions possibly in future in AC21 -- ) regarding showing the *original intent* after getting GC.
And since people stuck with same original sponsoring employer and get GC while still with them, can not invoke AC21 after getting GC to port their "original intent", it seems they would continue to be stuck with the same employer for 6-12 more months (unless fired/laid off of course, in which case one becomes a free bird :) )
[Not sure if I put my line of thiking properly in the above paragraphs...if you get confused, please ignore the post :) . It would definitely have been worse, if I tried to speak , rather that write this :D )
hair cool phone wallpaper.
Got EAD approved on 09/25. Filed on 07/03, RN is 09/11. - NSC, 140 still pending.
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
hot An I-Phone Wallpaper.
There are two ways to satisfy the requirements for an EB-1-1 immigrant visa. The first is receiving a major, internationally recognized award. Fortunately for those who haven�t won the Nobel Prize yet, the second set of standards is not as difficult to achieve.
The INS regulations (8 C.F.R. � 204.5(h)(3)) require that a petitioner fulfill at least three of the following ten standards:
1. Receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize for achievement in your field. This could include a medical fellowship, a Fulbright award, or a Caldecott award.
2. Membership in associations in your field that require "outstanding achievement" of their members. This standard is relatively vague. Associations that are open to all members of a given profession can be considered, but associations that limit membership to only the most accomplished members of the profession are certainly more valuable.
3. Material published about you in major trade publications or other major media. The material must concern your work in the field. Publications could range from journals specific to your field, like The Journal of Otolaryngology, to major newspapers, like The New York Times. You are not limited to print; a story about you on "60 Minutes" might also fulfill this requirement.
4. Serving as a judge of others in your field either individually or on a panel. Sitting on the Nobel Prize Committee would fulfill the requirement, as would participating in the peer review process of a scientific article or acting as a member of a thesis review committee.
5. Original, scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in your field. This standard is wide open. Basically, the INS will base its judgment of your contribution on the letters of support that others in the field submit. So letters from recognized authorities in your field who consider your contributions original and significant will satisfy this requirement.
6. Authorship of scholarly articles in your field. This refers to articles that you wrote concerning your work rather than material written about you by others, as is the case with standard 3 above. Again, the publications can range from major trade journals to mass media. Although the regulations refer specifically to "articles," other forms of publication such as visual media should fulfill this requirement.
7. Display of your work in exhibitions or showcases. The regulations do not mention how prestigious the exhibition must be.
8. Performing a critical or leading role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. This could be acting as curator for the Metropolitan Museum of Art or serving as an essential researcher for an important laboratory.
9. Commanding a high salary in your field. The regulation requires that your salary or remuneration be high in relation to others in the field, so a teacher need not make as much as a professional football player.
10. Commercial success in the performing arts. This can be demonstrated by box office receipts from your films or plays, sales of your record, or selling your video documentary to a network for a notable sum.
Satisfying three out of the ten criteria does not guarantee that the INS will grant you EB-1-1 classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The INS looks for quality as well as quantity. As in so many other aspects of immigration law, comprehensive documentation of your qualifications is all important.
The INS regulations (8 C.F.R. � 204.5(h)(3)) require that a petitioner fulfill at least three of the following ten standards:
1. Receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize for achievement in your field. This could include a medical fellowship, a Fulbright award, or a Caldecott award.
2. Membership in associations in your field that require "outstanding achievement" of their members. This standard is relatively vague. Associations that are open to all members of a given profession can be considered, but associations that limit membership to only the most accomplished members of the profession are certainly more valuable.
3. Material published about you in major trade publications or other major media. The material must concern your work in the field. Publications could range from journals specific to your field, like The Journal of Otolaryngology, to major newspapers, like The New York Times. You are not limited to print; a story about you on "60 Minutes" might also fulfill this requirement.
4. Serving as a judge of others in your field either individually or on a panel. Sitting on the Nobel Prize Committee would fulfill the requirement, as would participating in the peer review process of a scientific article or acting as a member of a thesis review committee.
5. Original, scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in your field. This standard is wide open. Basically, the INS will base its judgment of your contribution on the letters of support that others in the field submit. So letters from recognized authorities in your field who consider your contributions original and significant will satisfy this requirement.
6. Authorship of scholarly articles in your field. This refers to articles that you wrote concerning your work rather than material written about you by others, as is the case with standard 3 above. Again, the publications can range from major trade journals to mass media. Although the regulations refer specifically to "articles," other forms of publication such as visual media should fulfill this requirement.
7. Display of your work in exhibitions or showcases. The regulations do not mention how prestigious the exhibition must be.
8. Performing a critical or leading role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. This could be acting as curator for the Metropolitan Museum of Art or serving as an essential researcher for an important laboratory.
9. Commanding a high salary in your field. The regulation requires that your salary or remuneration be high in relation to others in the field, so a teacher need not make as much as a professional football player.
10. Commercial success in the performing arts. This can be demonstrated by box office receipts from your films or plays, sales of your record, or selling your video documentary to a network for a notable sum.
Satisfying three out of the ten criteria does not guarantee that the INS will grant you EB-1-1 classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The INS looks for quality as well as quantity. As in so many other aspects of immigration law, comprehensive documentation of your qualifications is all important.
house 1000 Cool Phone Wallpapers
Kambi:
Based on current stats,
LC - It will take about 4 months from the date you initiate your case with your lawyer
140- Eb2 or eb 3 will take from 4 weeks to 4 months
485 - If u are from India or China and based on current situation for Eb2 it could take upto 4 years and 6-7 years for EB3. If you are from Rest of the world it would be 1-2 years.
However, if the SKIL bill passes, things could change and you could get the whole GC within 2 years or so.........Keep hopeful...that is what I am doing after 8 years on H1........with a MBA from a US University!!
Based on current stats,
LC - It will take about 4 months from the date you initiate your case with your lawyer
140- Eb2 or eb 3 will take from 4 weeks to 4 months
485 - If u are from India or China and based on current situation for Eb2 it could take upto 4 years and 6-7 years for EB3. If you are from Rest of the world it would be 1-2 years.
However, if the SKIL bill passes, things could change and you could get the whole GC within 2 years or so.........Keep hopeful...that is what I am doing after 8 years on H1........with a MBA from a US University!!
tattoo TAG： Game phone wallpaper boy
Maybe politicians involved - only when powerful politicians are involved such things happen - USCIS/DOS does not do such things on its own.
How about the fact that it was related to CIR to shut up the Legals asking for Ammendments in CIR, ,,,,as CIR fell apart, they took away our bait too.....
It seems too simple, but only makes sense...
Remember this has never happenned before in the history of VBs
How about the fact that it was related to CIR to shut up the Legals asking for Ammendments in CIR, ,,,,as CIR fell apart, they took away our bait too.....
It seems too simple, but only makes sense...
Remember this has never happenned before in the history of VBs
pictures more Pac-Man Wallpaper
Hi,
Thank u all for your advices and information. I would like to add a few things which I think were not clear from my initial post.
My H1 was denied because there were false information in the petition which USCIS did not buy. My current employer is a direct vendor for my client and has a purchase order in my name and he does this all the time. I am looking for a new employer not because I want to but because I have to as my current employer is not able to provide me with any job/project. Do you all think that even in this situation, he can enforce the non-compete on me. My employer is NJ based where non-competes are enforced.
Thank u all for your advices and information. I would like to add a few things which I think were not clear from my initial post.
My H1 was denied because there were false information in the petition which USCIS did not buy. My current employer is a direct vendor for my client and has a purchase order in my name and he does this all the time. I am looking for a new employer not because I want to but because I have to as my current employer is not able to provide me with any job/project. Do you all think that even in this situation, he can enforce the non-compete on me. My employer is NJ based where non-competes are enforced.
dresses Cool Wallpapers and
My parents came on Jan 10th on Luft from Bangalore and they did not need a transit visa. I hear that the only time you may need a transit visa is when you are traveling to India on an expired US Visa. Even over this there is confusion.
makeup cool cell phone wallpaper
I beleive this is my last volley anyway here it is hope ya like.
http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v150/VDaminator/serve-7.jpg
http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v150/VDaminator/serve-7.jpg
girlfriend Labels: I PHONE WALLPAPER
this renewal i believe will be with new fees, so will it be extended for 1 yr or 3 yrs ?
hairstyles Here are some cool phone
Thank you very much for clarifying that for me,ok so first thing is to find a reputable immigration attorney close to me in Texas City.
Make sure you speak with an attorney who files a lot of marriage-based cases.
Make sure you speak with an attorney who files a lot of marriage-based cases.
My spose and myself got EIDs, but I decided to be on H1b. But a small company offered my wife to work as part time employee, one day per week and they are ready to pay couple of hunder dollers.
Becase my wife gets some experience, we thought that is good idea.But the question is do we need to ask them to run the W2 form for her or just taking the money and reporting that income to IRS while filing taxes is enough? Gurus please answer.
Becase my wife gets some experience, we thought that is good idea.But the question is do we need to ask them to run the W2 form for her or just taking the money and reporting that income to IRS while filing taxes is enough? Gurus please answer.
by now everybody might have heard stories about how USCIS pulled staff and worked overtime and weekends to utilize the 60k visas in one month to prevent the july 485 filings.
What I am wondering is why did they do it. One obvious reason is the incresed fee comming into effect from July 30 2007. In addition to it what are the other reasons.
Is there any agenda within USCIS to prevent people from getting EAD and ac21 benefits?
Is USCIS filled with anti immgrant mentality who have takem upon themselves to make our lives difficult?
What I am wondering is why did they do it. One obvious reason is the incresed fee comming into effect from July 30 2007. In addition to it what are the other reasons.
Is there any agenda within USCIS to prevent people from getting EAD and ac21 benefits?
Is USCIS filled with anti immgrant mentality who have takem upon themselves to make our lives difficult?
