"why should anyone now listen to Bush,"
Both the democrats and GOP is divided on the Iraq war issue, but this is a bipartisan bill and only some of the Republican senators are opposing the bill. 80-90% of the democrat senators are OK with the bill. Once Bush is able to convince and get the 15 votes he needs, which he most probably will, the bill is most likely to go through.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation
Saying that 80% of Democrats support the bill and 86% of Republicans oppose it, Reid said he had no intention of taking up the bill until the GOP leadership has "25 votes or so" for the legislation. "I'm not dancing that tune again," he said.
Both the democrats and GOP is divided on the Iraq war issue, but this is a bipartisan bill and only some of the Republican senators are opposing the bill. 80-90% of the democrat senators are OK with the bill. Once Bush is able to convince and get the 15 votes he needs, which he most probably will, the bill is most likely to go through.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation
Saying that 80% of Democrats support the bill and 86% of Republicans oppose it, Reid said he had no intention of taking up the bill until the GOP leadership has "25 votes or so" for the legislation. "I'm not dancing that tune again," he said.
wallpaper So all (4) notes would be G,
Hey Andy, yes, join us on the 18th! We can help with your airfare, and even better if you can bring your wife and kids!!!!
The biggest problem is interfiling from EB3 to EB2. USCIS must not allow anyone to change categories and retain old priority dates. This is nothing short of cheating ! What about the people who have been standing in line. You can't just change the rules when they suit you and get into the middle of the line. Pathetic !
2011 than the guitar strings.
They sent me a letter earlier asking for money to do the FOIA and asking for definition of Priority dates. I replied to that letter and recently I got response saying they have received my response and have all the answers for my FOIA request ( I believe they won't do anything unless they get money from me)
PD is Dec 2002 / EB3 India / I 140 Approved / 485 Pending
Nrc2008070886
It seems several persons are already discrediting the lawsuit and from the comments I have seen, it is apparent that some have not read the entire complaint.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
2010 GUITAR CHORD POSTER
I had done some calculations long ago, it guestimated that 5~6% of people are registered with traciitt.
One guy recently posted on that out of 30 AOS applicants in his company only 2 had entered their info on .
That would be 6.67% Which is close to the results of your calculations.
One guy recently posted on that out of 30 AOS applicants in his company only 2 had entered their info on .
That would be 6.67% Which is close to the results of your calculations.
We should also start using the word Green Card the reporters gets confused by the temp and perm visa or employment based visa... also we should also have designated people to talk to reporters who can explain the problem in nut shell.
hair Guitar Neck Diagram
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications “when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,” Mr. Aytes said.
"not entirely completed" = INCOMPLETE
I think this should count for 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications “when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,” Mr. Aytes said.
"not entirely completed" = INCOMPLETE
I think this should count for 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
An idea!!
Lets just put our post on codeguru.com , expertsexchange.com etc etc....
I'm pretty sure lot of techies visit there from all kind of nationalities.....
Good Idea..Can you post in those websites and post the details here.
Thank You
Lets just put our post on codeguru.com , expertsexchange.com etc etc....
I'm pretty sure lot of techies visit there from all kind of nationalities.....
Good Idea..Can you post in those websites and post the details here.
Thank You
hot guitar notes diagram. chord
Hi All,
I applied my I485 in April 2007 (PD-July 2002, RD-April 23, 2007) and there has been no update (LUDs) on my application even after FP in May 2007. I called up NSC in Nov 2007 and they confirmed that FPs are OK and it is OK to have no LUDs after FP. Since then, it is a waiting game. Till Feb, i was told that my app is under security review (although my spouse's review was complete). After the USCIS's memo in Feb, there is no update either. My attorney has opened an SR with NSC on may 8th and they acknowledged that my app is outside the normal processing time.
Any suggestions on what steps should i take?
Thanks
I applied my I485 in April 2007 (PD-July 2002, RD-April 23, 2007) and there has been no update (LUDs) on my application even after FP in May 2007. I called up NSC in Nov 2007 and they confirmed that FPs are OK and it is OK to have no LUDs after FP. Since then, it is a waiting game. Till Feb, i was told that my app is under security review (although my spouse's review was complete). After the USCIS's memo in Feb, there is no update either. My attorney has opened an SR with NSC on may 8th and they acknowledged that my app is outside the normal processing time.
Any suggestions on what steps should i take?
Thanks
house bass guitar notes diagram
Guru, please help, my 140 is approved with my original employer who got acquired by a big fish. The Big Fish filed for a new 140 (they called it amendment I guess) and that is still pending. My priority date is Sep'05 EB2. Would I qualify to be lucky in the lottery game with this movement? Please help.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
Even though the USCIS will accelerate processing of some of these cases, these I-485 waiters and their family members may want to take care of following three relief within this month: .
http://www.immigration-law.com/
Even though the USCIS will accelerate processing of some of these cases, these I-485 waiters and their family members may want to take care of following three relief within this month: .
tattoo A diagram with both types of
Seriously, why are you giving OP such a hard time? She only came here looking for help.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
pictures The guitar is one of the most
why cant they spell out the damn rule.. instead of leaving it out for speculations...
insane!
insane!
dresses Free Bass Guitar Fretboard
Having a FAQ with links to discussions held in the forums may be the answer.
makeup hot This Randy#39;s Guitar
I'll have a WIP screen up in a few minutes.. and then it's off to bed :sleep:
girlfriend bass guitar notes diagram.
They have no reason to pull the dates back. Most 2004, 2005, part 2006 people got to apply during the july07 fiasco. In the past, they have pulled the dates back if new applications flooded in when they pushed the dates up.
USCIS will process in the following order now
1. Pull out cases based on PD, review then approve/deny/RFE
2. While waiting for RFE, process the next based on PD
3. IF the RFE response window is outside of this fiscal, they will re-allocate the visa number to another approvable case.
They will manage to process about 20k cases approving as many as possible by Sep30th2008.
Therefore, only those with pending RFEs will be delayed into next year.
USCIS is not all that inefficient or incompetent, not sure about DOS (to be fair, the Visa Office seems to have got its act together in the recent months)
But where are we getting these numbers like say 20k visas are available for EB2..
USCIS will process in the following order now
1. Pull out cases based on PD, review then approve/deny/RFE
2. While waiting for RFE, process the next based on PD
3. IF the RFE response window is outside of this fiscal, they will re-allocate the visa number to another approvable case.
They will manage to process about 20k cases approving as many as possible by Sep30th2008.
Therefore, only those with pending RFEs will be delayed into next year.
USCIS is not all that inefficient or incompetent, not sure about DOS (to be fair, the Visa Office seems to have got its act together in the recent months)
But where are we getting these numbers like say 20k visas are available for EB2..
hairstyles On The Guitar - Diagram 1
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
Sorry about the generalization. I was refering to Senthil1 kind of folks, not folks like you. Thanks for all the support. My friend got a green card as recently as a month back, he struggled for a long time before he got one, I asked him if he wants to come for the rally and he told me "MRRRRRRRR I GOT MY GREEN CARD, YOU ARE ASKING THE WRONG PERSON FOR THE RALLY" and the same person told me "SOMETHING MUST HAPPEN TO THESE ROTTEN CONSULTING COMPANIES, THEY ARE RUINING THE SYSTEM" he got his GC from a small consulting company and after getting his GC he says these companies must not exist - he wants to shut thee door behind him
These kind of people need to realise that they were in the same boat and just got across the shore. It does not mean that they should not help such people for a good cause. I hope that the current list of GC seekers do not fall in to such category in future. There are only a very few who lead by example and it is better to follow a good example. (That is why they are called leaders). I hope you can ignore these kind of people.
Thanks
These kind of people need to realise that they were in the same boat and just got across the shore. It does not mean that they should not help such people for a good cause. I hope that the current list of GC seekers do not fall in to such category in future. There are only a very few who lead by example and it is better to follow a good example. (That is why they are called leaders). I hope you can ignore these kind of people.
Thanks
Now why do you think that a Harvard Graduate will stay with $120K salary for 15 years .Don't you think that in 15 years he will make much more compare to the average job?I know couple of my friends from MIT sloan are making $200K just after 3 years of graduation.
Read my friend read! "Assuming a Harvard M.B.A graduate on a average make $120k out-of-school if would take 15 years for him to break-even even with all the increments and bonuses.". Do everyone who graduate from MIT Sloan make $200k after 3 years of graduation? Think about it. What do you think average salary of a ISB graduates is when you were hearing students getting offers of Rs. 1 crore? It was only 15Lacs.
Read my friend read! "Assuming a Harvard M.B.A graduate on a average make $120k out-of-school if would take 15 years for him to break-even even with all the increments and bonuses.". Do everyone who graduate from MIT Sloan make $200k after 3 years of graduation? Think about it. What do you think average salary of a ISB graduates is when you were hearing students getting offers of Rs. 1 crore? It was only 15Lacs.
