Further division is not good.
I was on record that DOS/USCIS misallocated visas in 2005. India received much more in eb3 then what they were entitled to. In fact, India, China, Mexico and Phillipines should have not gone over their 7% as a whole of the 250,000 greencards available. Because of this; dos/uscis learned their lesson and started to follow the law appropriately.
I did say that if in 2006 any country went above their limit of 7% then it would cause a lawsuit which I would be a part of. However, there would be some negative outcomes from it. UScIS/DOS behaviour could only change going forward. They could revoke the greencards issued in 2005 for people who went over the 7% limit (uscis has upto 5 years to rescind greencard if approved by mistake) but they would not get re-allocated because there is no carryover from one year to the next in the current law. Only outcome would be to change it going forward. As I've said in the past; people were spoiled at the laziness of DOS/USCIS. Retrogression and the visa allocation should have happened a long time ago.
Again wrong information by you and trying to hide background or historical information. Either USDOS/USCIS has not mismanaged the numbers in 2005. Claiming India and China was given more than they entitled to is wrong . They (DOS) did everything right till 2005. Now only they are violating. One has to study the historical issues before 1999. Before 1999, both India and China (both EB2 and EB3) were retrogressed heavily and backlogged. However ROW was current in all EB catagories. There was no retrogression in ROW. It was always current before 1999.
For example, here is March 1999 VB
All Charge-
ability Areas CHINA-
Except Those mainland
Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-
Based
1st C 22JAN98 C C C
2nd C 08SEP96 08SEP97 C C
3rd C 01JAN95 08FEB96 C C
As a part of AC21 act in 2000, the unused numbers (about 100,000) were recaptured to eliminate the backlogs in EB categories. The reason was this recapture to remove retrogression in India and China, as because that was only two countries backlogged at that point.
After that ac21 law, there were additional 100,000 visas available apart from 140,000 visas every year. DOS has given 100,000 additional visas to USCIS in 2000 itself to consume it. Because of USCIS slowness/inefficiency in processing 485s between 1999 and 2004, they even did not have processed the yearly quota. Therefore the recaptured visas were remain unused for 5 years because of USCIS inefficiency. Therefore, at some point, it has to be consumed. Therefore USCIS did backlog elimination drive in 2005 (6 months processing of 485s ) to use all the recaptured visas. The original intension to remove backlogs in India and China. That was done by USCIS. USCIS can not hold that recaptured numbers for ever (by imposing 7% limit in India and China) how the future demands will be in EB3-ROW. Far example, if ROW demands 200,000 EB3 visas in year 2020, USCIS/DOS can not hold that AC21 numbers (that were recaptured in 2000) for ROW to be consumed in 2020, by imposing 7% limit. No one can anticipate future demands.
Theoretically speaking those numbers belongs (AC21 recaptured numbers came only from EB1 and EB2 pool) belongs to EB1 and EB2 category. EB3 never gave any unused numbers in previous years. Ideally speaking, those numbers should have been issued to EB2 category first to eliminate backlogs in EB2 then only to EB3 ROW. Infact, all the ac21 numbers were used to eliminate retro in EB3 only. In 2005 they issed only 44,000 EB2 compare to about 150,000 visas in EB3. This is big injustice to EB2 India and China.
Bottom line is EB3-ROW is enjoying with the expense of EB2 India and China.
I was on record that DOS/USCIS misallocated visas in 2005. India received much more in eb3 then what they were entitled to. In fact, India, China, Mexico and Phillipines should have not gone over their 7% as a whole of the 250,000 greencards available. Because of this; dos/uscis learned their lesson and started to follow the law appropriately.
I did say that if in 2006 any country went above their limit of 7% then it would cause a lawsuit which I would be a part of. However, there would be some negative outcomes from it. UScIS/DOS behaviour could only change going forward. They could revoke the greencards issued in 2005 for people who went over the 7% limit (uscis has upto 5 years to rescind greencard if approved by mistake) but they would not get re-allocated because there is no carryover from one year to the next in the current law. Only outcome would be to change it going forward. As I've said in the past; people were spoiled at the laziness of DOS/USCIS. Retrogression and the visa allocation should have happened a long time ago.
Again wrong information by you and trying to hide background or historical information. Either USDOS/USCIS has not mismanaged the numbers in 2005. Claiming India and China was given more than they entitled to is wrong . They (DOS) did everything right till 2005. Now only they are violating. One has to study the historical issues before 1999. Before 1999, both India and China (both EB2 and EB3) were retrogressed heavily and backlogged. However ROW was current in all EB catagories. There was no retrogression in ROW. It was always current before 1999.
For example, here is March 1999 VB
All Charge-
ability Areas CHINA-
Except Those mainland
Listed born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
Employment-
Based
1st C 22JAN98 C C C
2nd C 08SEP96 08SEP97 C C
3rd C 01JAN95 08FEB96 C C
As a part of AC21 act in 2000, the unused numbers (about 100,000) were recaptured to eliminate the backlogs in EB categories. The reason was this recapture to remove retrogression in India and China, as because that was only two countries backlogged at that point.
After that ac21 law, there were additional 100,000 visas available apart from 140,000 visas every year. DOS has given 100,000 additional visas to USCIS in 2000 itself to consume it. Because of USCIS slowness/inefficiency in processing 485s between 1999 and 2004, they even did not have processed the yearly quota. Therefore the recaptured visas were remain unused for 5 years because of USCIS inefficiency. Therefore, at some point, it has to be consumed. Therefore USCIS did backlog elimination drive in 2005 (6 months processing of 485s ) to use all the recaptured visas. The original intension to remove backlogs in India and China. That was done by USCIS. USCIS can not hold that recaptured numbers for ever (by imposing 7% limit in India and China) how the future demands will be in EB3-ROW. Far example, if ROW demands 200,000 EB3 visas in year 2020, USCIS/DOS can not hold that AC21 numbers (that were recaptured in 2000) for ROW to be consumed in 2020, by imposing 7% limit. No one can anticipate future demands.
Theoretically speaking those numbers belongs (AC21 recaptured numbers came only from EB1 and EB2 pool) belongs to EB1 and EB2 category. EB3 never gave any unused numbers in previous years. Ideally speaking, those numbers should have been issued to EB2 category first to eliminate backlogs in EB2 then only to EB3 ROW. Infact, all the ac21 numbers were used to eliminate retro in EB3 only. In 2005 they issed only 44,000 EB2 compare to about 150,000 visas in EB3. This is big injustice to EB2 India and China.
Bottom line is EB3-ROW is enjoying with the expense of EB2 India and China.
wallpaper Shia LaBeouf Interview for
Please do not use offensive language. Despite our disagreements we must be mature in our language. I request you to please edit your post. Moderators please delete any offensive posts on the thread since this issue will ruffle some feathers of people who are buying labor substitution. Nobody will own on the forum, because they know majority will oppose them.
There was one more person beciskillingme and he used to preach morality on this forum and how people need to be respectful and polite. I caught him redhanded in one his posts about labor substitution and he ran away from the forum. Now he is preaching somewhere else. I will highlight this issue more and more for awareness because it is hurting all of us. It is also encouraging exploitation by employers and this cancer needs to be stopped asap.
well if you feel offended, i am ready to offer my apologies. are you ready to take back your baseless accusations-that got me started up in the first place.
There was one more person beciskillingme and he used to preach morality on this forum and how people need to be respectful and polite. I caught him redhanded in one his posts about labor substitution and he ran away from the forum. Now he is preaching somewhere else. I will highlight this issue more and more for awareness because it is hurting all of us. It is also encouraging exploitation by employers and this cancer needs to be stopped asap.
well if you feel offended, i am ready to offer my apologies. are you ready to take back your baseless accusations-that got me started up in the first place.
.jpeg "hair hot shia labeouf transformers shia labeouf transformers 1. shia labeouf")
Once you get ur Canadian PR, how long can we "not go" to canada. Will the PR expire if we do not land in canada??
2011 shia labeouf transformers 1.
Looking only at LCs that are awaiting immigrant visa numbers (ie, LCs that are "still in process" or "certified after current EB3 ROW cutoff dates") here is how it looks (copy to an XL sheet to view properly):
Period, World, India(22%), EB2-India(41% of India), EB2-India-Family(*2.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 to 2002, 269311, 59271, 24320, 51072
2002 to 2003, 36200, 7967, 3269, 6865
2003 to 2004, 13145, 2893, 1187, 2493
2004 to 2005, 6133, 1350, 554, 1163
The pre 2002 numbers pending are really bad. The last column sums up the situation for EB2-India. Use your own %ages to calculate the situation for EB3. It is clear that forward movement will be held back due to the huge chunk of LCs from 1997 to 2002 which are being certified.
So the situation is indeed hopeless and lobbying is the only way out.
Period, World, India(22%), EB2-India(41% of India), EB2-India-Family(*2.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 to 2002, 269311, 59271, 24320, 51072
2002 to 2003, 36200, 7967, 3269, 6865
2003 to 2004, 13145, 2893, 1187, 2493
2004 to 2005, 6133, 1350, 554, 1163
The pre 2002 numbers pending are really bad. The last column sums up the situation for EB2-India. Use your own %ages to calculate the situation for EB3. It is clear that forward movement will be held back due to the huge chunk of LCs from 1997 to 2002 which are being certified.
So the situation is indeed hopeless and lobbying is the only way out.
hi guys,
who have filed recently, can you guys tell me within what time frame are you guys getting a reply.
I have send all paper on 12th of oct they received on 15th.
By when can i expect a letter that they have received it.
how do i know they have received it other than fedex confirmation.
dont they send some letter confirming it.
Bharatpremi,
u r ideas are great if u can work in US and keep canadian PR for citizenship. that should be good enough.
who have filed recently, can you guys tell me within what time frame are you guys getting a reply.
I have send all paper on 12th of oct they received on 15th.
By when can i expect a letter that they have received it.
how do i know they have received it other than fedex confirmation.
dont they send some letter confirming it.
Bharatpremi,
u r ideas are great if u can work in US and keep canadian PR for citizenship. that should be good enough.
"..veracity of this statement"
Sure pick up the phone and dial IRS, or call your accountant. Or your lawyer if you want to play it safe.
Other people doesn't do or will never do anything, other then wearing pantyhose and tip toeing through the tulips.
I don't have time to spend on quixstar professionals or their business. I don't give a rats arse if quixstar is legal or illegal on H1B.
I just repeated a comment that someone else made. If you know it's legal, that's all that matters. Good luck.
Sure pick up the phone and dial IRS, or call your accountant. Or your lawyer if you want to play it safe.
Other people doesn't do or will never do anything, other then wearing pantyhose and tip toeing through the tulips.
I don't have time to spend on quixstar professionals or their business. I don't give a rats arse if quixstar is legal or illegal on H1B.
I just repeated a comment that someone else made. If you know it's legal, that's all that matters. Good luck.
Well said !!!
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
I know what I am about to say will trigger a lot of reaction and some resentment, but it has to be said on behalf of those who are not Indian. I think the per country limit is to ensure that people of all nationalities and races have an equal opportunity to obtain a green card and to ensure that no one nationality, group, or even sector (i.e. IT) monopolizes the so few visas that are available. In fact, in the visa lottery, countries become excluded when the number of immigrants from them reach a certain point, so we are lucky they do not do that in the Employment-based system!
I think that by wanting to remove the per country limit so more Indians can avail of the green card quota is both asking for "special treatment" and a slap in the face for all the non-Indian IV members. The more I read the threads on this site, the more I feel that this organization is geared just to one ethnic group. I am sure that Indians probably make up the majority of members, but the founders of IV (I hope) did not want this organization to become one-sided! Please be considerate of ALL members and try to come up with suggestions that would benefit ALL members!!!:mad:
2010 hair hot shia labeouf transformers shia labeouf transformers 1. shia labeouf
http://classifieds.sulekha.com/clad.aspx?cid=1493579&nma=BOM
http://digg.com/politics/Rep_Lofgren_Issues_Statement_on_Updated_Visa_Bulle tin
please DIGG
Thank you
please DIGG
Thank you
hair Shia+labeouf+transformers
From immigration-law.com
04/28/2007: Labor Certification Substitution Elimination Final Rule Approved by OMB 04/27/2007
The OMB approved this final rule. As soon as this rule is released, all those certified labor certification cases which have yet to be filed for substitution I-140 will be no good for substitution.
04/28/2007: Labor Certification Substitution Elimination Final Rule Approved by OMB 04/27/2007
The OMB approved this final rule. As soon as this rule is released, all those certified labor certification cases which have yet to be filed for substitution I-140 will be no good for substitution.
Country cap was introduced with a racial intent. It was never meant for diversity.
Let us call country cap what it is : racism
Let us not fool ourselves by thinking it is meant for diversity.
Please refer the law that introduced country cap.
Please refer INA 1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...ty_Act_of_1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965)
Highlights:
During debate on the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#cite_note-1) The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#cite_note-.2770s_268-0)
Let us call country cap what it is : racism
Let us not fool ourselves by thinking it is meant for diversity.
Please refer the law that introduced country cap.
Please refer INA 1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...ty_Act_of_1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965)
Highlights:
During debate on the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#cite_note-1) The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#cite_note-.2770s_268-0)
hot Shia Shows Off His Karate
1. Birth certificates: They are asking for the Birth Certificates with the application. I and my wife don't have our birth registered in India. Can we provide birth certificates that the Indian embassy sends for this purpose? For US I-485, we were planning to use Non-availability certificates.
>> Canada Accepts Birth Certificates from the embassy.
2. Experience Letter: Will a notarized letter from colleague work for showing work-exp in India. Please note that I already have over 4 yrs of experience in US after that - for which I will manage to get a work exp letter from my company.
>>4 yrs in US should be sufficient. You can just put those 4 yrs of exp in the work exp. sheet they provide. Just ignore the others, else be prepared to answer any queries about it like paystubs, offer letter etc.
3. Status in US: My H1B is valid until Oct 2009, but I don't have the visa stamped on my passport (last H1B visa stamp expired). Can I send a copy of I-797 to prove my status? Also, my wife's F-1 visa has expired but she has a valid I-20 until Dec 2007. Can I send copy of I-20 for proving her valid status in US?
>>You don't need a passport stamp
* I am providing these answers based on my experience. I got my Canadian PR. But please cross-check.
>> Canada Accepts Birth Certificates from the embassy.
2. Experience Letter: Will a notarized letter from colleague work for showing work-exp in India. Please note that I already have over 4 yrs of experience in US after that - for which I will manage to get a work exp letter from my company.
>>4 yrs in US should be sufficient. You can just put those 4 yrs of exp in the work exp. sheet they provide. Just ignore the others, else be prepared to answer any queries about it like paystubs, offer letter etc.
3. Status in US: My H1B is valid until Oct 2009, but I don't have the visa stamped on my passport (last H1B visa stamp expired). Can I send a copy of I-797 to prove my status? Also, my wife's F-1 visa has expired but she has a valid I-20 until Dec 2007. Can I send copy of I-20 for proving her valid status in US?
>>You don't need a passport stamp
* I am providing these answers based on my experience. I got my Canadian PR. But please cross-check.
house tattoo shia labeouf
Discrimination in employment based on nationality is not allowed. However, can we extend the argument to the employment based immigration? We can always choose to take that promotion though we will lose our place in the queue.
Leaving the question of fairness aside, under the current legal framework my guess is we do not have a case.
Then fight for changing that constitutinality. Who made it? Why did they make it the way the made it? Slavery was supported legally way back.. If black community might have thought " They do not have a case" as somebody has created the constitution to suit their own need and "within the framework of that legality" "they do not have a case"... then still we may be seeing slaves around.
I understand your point that we are not yet "citizens"... but for many fair practices society must not differentiate.
Leaving the question of fairness aside, under the current legal framework my guess is we do not have a case.
Then fight for changing that constitutinality. Who made it? Why did they make it the way the made it? Slavery was supported legally way back.. If black community might have thought " They do not have a case" as somebody has created the constitution to suit their own need and "within the framework of that legality" "they do not have a case"... then still we may be seeing slaves around.
I understand your point that we are not yet "citizens"... but for many fair practices society must not differentiate.
tattoo shia labeouf and megan fox
please at least send out to your state's senator.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Dear Mr. Senator,
My name is xxx, and I’m working as an xx in xx,xx.
I am sending this letter in strong protest of the outrageous bait-and-switch melodrama that the US Department of State and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have put on recently. Specifically, on June 13, 2007, the State Department announced that people seeking permanent residence based on employment would be allowed to proceed to file their applications starting on July 2, 2007
As a result, I took immediate action, spending a huge amount of time and effort preparing all the required documents and having them sent out to my attorney ASAP. However, on the very morning of July 2, the US Department of State announced that they just changed their mind and decided to reject all applications. This is such a ridiculous hoax, and it’s particularly shocking when you realize that such nonsensical and willy-nilly decisions came from the US Department of State!
As a hard-working student, I got my graduate education in this great country and was fortunate enough to get a job upon graduation. As a law-abiding individual, I have been waiting patiently in line for years to file my application for permanent residence. Yet what I’ve just seen and experienced is more than disappointing not only to me, but to thousands upon thousands of legal immigrants just like me who have struggled so hard to deal with all kinds of difficulties for years and have been doing it the right way.
I have below questions needed to be clarified:
1. How many applications have USCIS received during the period 6/14/2007 through 6/30/2007? This number is critical because apparently this number has changed the US Department of State’s opinion about the visa availability from available to unavailable in 15 days. And a more interesting question is that is this number predictable? In another word, did the US Department of US take this number in consideration when they determine that the visa will be available to all employment-based immigrants on June 13, 2007?
2. The announcement of the revised July visa availability was made in the earlier morning of July 2, 2007. Apparently, the decision was made before but not in the morning of July 2, 2007. Then, why didn’t the US Department of State release the news as soon as the decision was made in a good faith effort to inform all potential applicants at the first time? It should be anticipated that a lot of applicants would their application at the very beginning of the month. As you can imagine, all those effort are just wasted. And the worst of all is the feeling of being cheated and being fooled around.
3. My application was prepared to send to USCIS on July based on the best information available at that point of time. However, the application will be rejected/returned in accordance with the sudden announcement made in the morning of 7/2/2007. Does the US Department of State have the legal right to revise the cut-off date without going through certain procedures? Can we still trust and rely on the visa bulletin issued by the US Department of State to prepare our change of status application in the future?
Again, this is such a ridiculous hoax and it’s hard to believe the US Department of State just ate its own word like that. That is why I would like to take the liberty of writing to you about my outrage. I sincerely hope that you can take some precious time looking into this, and also at the current immigration system, which I believe is seriously flawed and patently unfair.
Thanks and best regards,
xx
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Dear Mr. Senator,
My name is xxx, and I’m working as an xx in xx,xx.
I am sending this letter in strong protest of the outrageous bait-and-switch melodrama that the US Department of State and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have put on recently. Specifically, on June 13, 2007, the State Department announced that people seeking permanent residence based on employment would be allowed to proceed to file their applications starting on July 2, 2007
As a result, I took immediate action, spending a huge amount of time and effort preparing all the required documents and having them sent out to my attorney ASAP. However, on the very morning of July 2, the US Department of State announced that they just changed their mind and decided to reject all applications. This is such a ridiculous hoax, and it’s particularly shocking when you realize that such nonsensical and willy-nilly decisions came from the US Department of State!
As a hard-working student, I got my graduate education in this great country and was fortunate enough to get a job upon graduation. As a law-abiding individual, I have been waiting patiently in line for years to file my application for permanent residence. Yet what I’ve just seen and experienced is more than disappointing not only to me, but to thousands upon thousands of legal immigrants just like me who have struggled so hard to deal with all kinds of difficulties for years and have been doing it the right way.
I have below questions needed to be clarified:
1. How many applications have USCIS received during the period 6/14/2007 through 6/30/2007? This number is critical because apparently this number has changed the US Department of State’s opinion about the visa availability from available to unavailable in 15 days. And a more interesting question is that is this number predictable? In another word, did the US Department of US take this number in consideration when they determine that the visa will be available to all employment-based immigrants on June 13, 2007?
2. The announcement of the revised July visa availability was made in the earlier morning of July 2, 2007. Apparently, the decision was made before but not in the morning of July 2, 2007. Then, why didn’t the US Department of State release the news as soon as the decision was made in a good faith effort to inform all potential applicants at the first time? It should be anticipated that a lot of applicants would their application at the very beginning of the month. As you can imagine, all those effort are just wasted. And the worst of all is the feeling of being cheated and being fooled around.
3. My application was prepared to send to USCIS on July based on the best information available at that point of time. However, the application will be rejected/returned in accordance with the sudden announcement made in the morning of 7/2/2007. Does the US Department of State have the legal right to revise the cut-off date without going through certain procedures? Can we still trust and rely on the visa bulletin issued by the US Department of State to prepare our change of status application in the future?
Again, this is such a ridiculous hoax and it’s hard to believe the US Department of State just ate its own word like that. That is why I would like to take the liberty of writing to you about my outrage. I sincerely hope that you can take some precious time looking into this, and also at the current immigration system, which I believe is seriously flawed and patently unfair.
Thanks and best regards,
xx
pictures house pictures Shia LaBeouf
proengineer why did you create a new profile to post this?
Why are you marketing a lawyer?
Atleast he had something to tell. He might had spent atleast half an hour or more to get these numbers.
And I think that who ever is on IV for sometime knows about Ron, Gerg, murty and OH . So what's the big deal ?
Why are you marketing a lawyer?
Atleast he had something to tell. He might had spent atleast half an hour or more to get these numbers.
And I think that who ever is on IV for sometime knows about Ron, Gerg, murty and OH . So what's the big deal ?
dresses girlfriend Shia Labeouf in Transformers: shia labeouf transformers 1.
Just more ways to perpetuate their buereaucracy and make the lives of legal immigrants (and non-immigrants) tougher.
Almost every rule these stupid agencies make is against small businesses.
Almost every rule these stupid agencies make is against small businesses.
makeup sure what Shia LaBeouf was
Its all very confusing. We will know more when we get into August.
girlfriend hair shia labeouf transformers
Which of the above are not needed for dependents?
For my spouse, I've to take care of all the fees for I-485 / I-765 / I-131 / Biometric ( $325 + $180 + $170 + $ 70). For me, I've to take care only I-131 Fees ( $170). The Company Pays the fees only for my I-485 and I-765 and also take care of the Attorney Fees for both of us. They also reimburse the Medical Expenses, if the insurance does not cover the charges, only for Employee/ Primary applicant. For all dependents it is my responsibility. This is not the same will all the employers. I've friends, where all the fees are covered by the company.
For my spouse, I've to take care of all the fees for I-485 / I-765 / I-131 / Biometric ( $325 + $180 + $170 + $ 70). For me, I've to take care only I-131 Fees ( $170). The Company Pays the fees only for my I-485 and I-765 and also take care of the Attorney Fees for both of us. They also reimburse the Medical Expenses, if the insurance does not cover the charges, only for Employee/ Primary applicant. For all dependents it is my responsibility. This is not the same will all the employers. I've friends, where all the fees are covered by the company.
hairstyles pictures Shia LaBeouf Disses
EB2 India is screwed again. My wait continues.................
I think IV should get a new law introduced which changes the surplus visa trickle down policy so that equal number or visas gets distributed between EB3 & EB2. This law will have maximum possibility of getting passed.
Nuke buddy are you off your rocker. These guys will kill you for even suggesting it. I myselft have taken all kinds of abuses from everyone here and i myself had the presence of mind to not go there. Leave it . That law is the law. Of course it did hurt EB3 but what it did is take the unfair benefit that EB3 was getting because of wrong interpetation of the law. No all that is water under the bridge.
Nuke buddy are you off your rocker. These guys will kill you for even suggesting it. I myselft have taken all kinds of abuses from everyone here and i myself had the presence of mind to not go there. Leave it . That law is the law. Of course it did hurt EB3 but what it did is take the unfair benefit that EB3 was getting because of wrong interpetation of the law. No all that is water under the bridge.
Hi,
Mine and my spouse I-485 has been current for over two months, We are on EB1 and our I485 receipt notice date was may 8 2007. The center is currently processing aug 2007 applications. My lawyer sent an inquiry 60 days ago and there has been no response from USCIS.
Please advice what i could do to find out why my processing has been delayed.
Thanks,
ashish
Mine and my spouse I-485 has been current for over two months, We are on EB1 and our I485 receipt notice date was may 8 2007. The center is currently processing aug 2007 applications. My lawyer sent an inquiry 60 days ago and there has been no response from USCIS.
Please advice what i could do to find out why my processing has been delayed.
Thanks,
ashish
