Many in this community have endured and suffered at the hands of rogue employers at one time or the other.
It is time we came together and shut them down. It is better for the community and the world in general.
It is time we came together and shut them down. It is better for the community and the world in general.
wallpaper prom updos 2011 pictures. prom
Here's a suggestion - instead of whining about the "unjust" treatment being meted out to you, go get yourself a PhD, publish some research papers, get a couple of patents under your belt, then go qualify for EB1.
Okay?
I and many folks in this forum have seen very few approvals for this category. How come USCIS says that this category is over subscribing the visa quota. Why they are moving un used visas to EB2 (no offense) why not for EB3?
We need IV help in this area.
Okay?
I and many folks in this forum have seen very few approvals for this category. How come USCIS says that this category is over subscribing the visa quota. Why they are moving un used visas to EB2 (no offense) why not for EB3?
We need IV help in this area.
Everyone is going to get citizenship .. yes right citizenship by next year.. no GC business.
Now everybody say "AMEN"
Now everybody say "AMEN"
2011 Taylor Swift#39;s elegant, updo
Most likely this saga of retrogression will be decided in the next 2 to 3 months when Senate / House discuss the CIR. If by July end nothing happens, it will be a signal for us to leave. I know this will be a good news for some since the queue will get shorter, but who cares. This country "was" the best, but the next "best" country is likely to be from Asia. We all know it is either India or China...
It is discouraging to see this thread - it is surprising to see the understanding of 'g(G)andhigiri' we have - no tolerance, no forgiveness for the mistake! Shame on us.
If you really look at who is paying less and misusing the H1-B and L1 to manipulate the job market, its the big offshore companies who bring the less experienced folks from India/China and other asian countries into US. These biggies pay way too less (52 to 57K) to these folks than what the conultants who work for local consulting companies make.
They apply for 1000's of H1B's and L1's showing the positions in US but 60% of the folks works back in their offshore centers in China or India with H1B/L1 stamped on their passport. Question is, if they applied for H1B / L1 based on an existing position in US and gets approved, why is that folks are still working in India or China center? Doesn't that mean they faked the position?
When we consolidated the vendors and excluded all the local consulting companies to include only two of the big offshore companies, we have seen their consultants brought onsite leaving them after few months at our group to join local consulting companies for better pay.
To me, they manipulate the job market displace americans much more than the local consulting companies.
I truely hope CIS look deep into these manipulations and frauds as well.
I think the unlimited number of L1's has been a 'bane' for the employment market here as they 'definitely' replace the American jobs.Again this might fit in to the company's strategy and I m no one to complain about it. I am sure most of the other consultants on H1B in this country do make decent enough ( > 75k ) to qualify for the wage bracket that is being applied as a statistic here. The fact is though is that the employers do advertise lower salaries for the positions there by creating requirement though they might be actually paying the employees more than the advertised salary.
kris
They apply for 1000's of H1B's and L1's showing the positions in US but 60% of the folks works back in their offshore centers in China or India with H1B/L1 stamped on their passport. Question is, if they applied for H1B / L1 based on an existing position in US and gets approved, why is that folks are still working in India or China center? Doesn't that mean they faked the position?
When we consolidated the vendors and excluded all the local consulting companies to include only two of the big offshore companies, we have seen their consultants brought onsite leaving them after few months at our group to join local consulting companies for better pay.
To me, they manipulate the job market displace americans much more than the local consulting companies.
I truely hope CIS look deep into these manipulations and frauds as well.
I think the unlimited number of L1's has been a 'bane' for the employment market here as they 'definitely' replace the American jobs.Again this might fit in to the company's strategy and I m no one to complain about it. I am sure most of the other consultants on H1B in this country do make decent enough ( > 75k ) to qualify for the wage bracket that is being applied as a statistic here. The fact is though is that the employers do advertise lower salaries for the positions there by creating requirement though they might be actually paying the employees more than the advertised salary.
kris
This is not for legal immigrants. It is clearly directed towards legalizing the illegals - who obviously would not leave US once they get a chance to enter.
Economy is in trouble so immigration will be on back-burner.
Still if Democrats chose to fix (really??) immigration, I think they would try to address concerns of Hispanic voters by legalize illegals and fixing family based immigration issues. This would help increase Hispanic votes, and support in 2010 elections. New Hispanic voters may make up for the non-Hispanic US votes they lose in the process.
If they address just legal immigration, it will anger both Hispanics, non-Hispanics groups and their votes in 2010 elections. So it's not a possibility.
Here are a **few equations that make it easier to understand. :) :)
VB = W + A + H + O <--- 2008 Dem vote bank.
(W: Whites, A: African American, H: Hispanics, O: Others. )
VB1 = (W - ΔW1) + (A) + (H + ΔH1) + (O) <-- pro-illegal policies
So Δ(vb1-vb) = ΔH1 - ΔW1 (it may give them some additional votes.)
VB2 = (W - ΔW2) + (A) + (H - ΔH2) + (O) <-- pro-legal policies
and Δ(vb2-vb) = - ΔH2 - ΔW2 (significant loss of white and Hispanic votes )
Based on this - Dems can't afford to be seen as Pro-legal.
** These equations are described as "Great breakthrough in computational politics" - by rb_248. :) :)
Economy is in trouble so immigration will be on back-burner.
Still if Democrats chose to fix (really??) immigration, I think they would try to address concerns of Hispanic voters by legalize illegals and fixing family based immigration issues. This would help increase Hispanic votes, and support in 2010 elections. New Hispanic voters may make up for the non-Hispanic US votes they lose in the process.
If they address just legal immigration, it will anger both Hispanics, non-Hispanics groups and their votes in 2010 elections. So it's not a possibility.
Here are a **few equations that make it easier to understand. :) :)
VB = W + A + H + O <--- 2008 Dem vote bank.
(W: Whites, A: African American, H: Hispanics, O: Others. )
VB1 = (W - ΔW1) + (A) + (H + ΔH1) + (O) <-- pro-illegal policies
So Δ(vb1-vb) = ΔH1 - ΔW1 (it may give them some additional votes.)
VB2 = (W - ΔW2) + (A) + (H - ΔH2) + (O) <-- pro-legal policies
and Δ(vb2-vb) = - ΔH2 - ΔW2 (significant loss of white and Hispanic votes )
Based on this - Dems can't afford to be seen as Pro-legal.
** These equations are described as "Great breakthrough in computational politics" - by rb_248. :) :)
2010 Taylor Swift Love Story Updo
We stay in Northern Virginia around 25 miles to DC. We will be happy to host any guests who are willing to stay with us during their trip to DC.
...
Bottom line:
If Job opening is for Software Engineer with BS with 2 y experience, it will go with EB3 no matter you have MS and 10 year experience.
....
Yes, that is perfectly correct. If an employer needed somebody with BS and 2 yrs exeperience, and no US person applied. You (with a BS and 2 yrs experience) applied. Employer filed your I-140, which is approved. Now you wait for 4 years, and in the meantime you get your MS. Technically, you are now overqualified for the position, and employer may decide even not to consider you any more (leave alone upgrading to EB2). Note that entire process is for future employment after you get your GC, until then if you are working, you are working as a guest worker.
Bottom line:
If Job opening is for Software Engineer with BS with 2 y experience, it will go with EB3 no matter you have MS and 10 year experience.
....
Yes, that is perfectly correct. If an employer needed somebody with BS and 2 yrs exeperience, and no US person applied. You (with a BS and 2 yrs experience) applied. Employer filed your I-140, which is approved. Now you wait for 4 years, and in the meantime you get your MS. Technically, you are now overqualified for the position, and employer may decide even not to consider you any more (leave alone upgrading to EB2). Note that entire process is for future employment after you get your GC, until then if you are working, you are working as a guest worker.
hair taylor swift love story
What is your EB category?
When i checked my status online, i saw that there was a LUD on my pending case on 10/7 and 10/8. Wondering there is a LUD, I called the NSC and the person on the phone told me that the case is being reviewed by an officer.
My question is that if there are no numbers available, then why would there be a LUD on the case status. So has anyone else seen a LUD on their cases as recently as after Oct 1, 2008????
MY PD is March 2006
Filed 485 in July 2007.
RD is Aug 2007.
cheers
When i checked my status online, i saw that there was a LUD on my pending case on 10/7 and 10/8. Wondering there is a LUD, I called the NSC and the person on the phone told me that the case is being reviewed by an officer.
My question is that if there are no numbers available, then why would there be a LUD on the case status. So has anyone else seen a LUD on their cases as recently as after Oct 1, 2008????
MY PD is March 2006
Filed 485 in July 2007.
RD is Aug 2007.
cheers
My humble disagreement here...
Even though the hearing has been scheduled for the bill S 424, the hearings are not tightly linked to a specific bill. Hearings are a means to collect the data related to the issue at hand. The hearing results can be used to a wide range of related bills. S 1085 is a very similar bill and the emphasis of this bill is also reuniting families. During markup of whichever bill they pickup, they can amend the new pieces of the other bill.
If it is a markup, then, it is tightly linked to the bill.
So, definitely the party remains in good standing :)
Sorry to spoil the party guys..but it seems this hearing is for
S 424 - Uniting American Families Act of 2009
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111NlehB4::
and not S.1085 Reuniting Families Act ...
I hope someone proves me wrong.... :mad::confused:
Even though the hearing has been scheduled for the bill S 424, the hearings are not tightly linked to a specific bill. Hearings are a means to collect the data related to the issue at hand. The hearing results can be used to a wide range of related bills. S 1085 is a very similar bill and the emphasis of this bill is also reuniting families. During markup of whichever bill they pickup, they can amend the new pieces of the other bill.
If it is a markup, then, it is tightly linked to the bill.
So, definitely the party remains in good standing :)
Sorry to spoil the party guys..but it seems this hearing is for
S 424 - Uniting American Families Act of 2009
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111NlehB4::
and not S.1085 Reuniting Families Act ...
I hope someone proves me wrong.... :mad::confused:
hot taylor swift love story updo. swift+hair+updo+love+story
ujjvalkoul
Try this forum. It's a better source of information on Canadian immigartion.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33
Good Luck!
Try this forum. It's a better source of information on Canadian immigartion.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33
Good Luck!
house Taylor Swift Love Story Updo
FBI Namecheck status (not good news) (pg. 37 of the report)
As of May 2007, USCIS reported a staggering 329,160 FBI name check cases pending, with approximately 64 percent (211,341) of those cases pending more than 90 days and approximately 32 percent (106,738) pending more than one year.40 While the percentages of long-pending cases compared to last year are similar, the absolute numbers have increased. There are now 93,358 more cases pending the name check than last year. Perhaps most disturbing, there are 31,144 FBI name check cases pending more than 33 months as compared to 21,570 last year � over a 44 percent increase in the number of cases pending more than 33 months.4
As of May 2007, USCIS reported a staggering 329,160 FBI name check cases pending, with approximately 64 percent (211,341) of those cases pending more than 90 days and approximately 32 percent (106,738) pending more than one year.40 While the percentages of long-pending cases compared to last year are similar, the absolute numbers have increased. There are now 93,358 more cases pending the name check than last year. Perhaps most disturbing, there are 31,144 FBI name check cases pending more than 33 months as compared to 21,570 last year � over a 44 percent increase in the number of cases pending more than 33 months.4
tattoo prom curly updo hairstyles
So basically it was technical issue??? ... if someone heard what was going on in the senate and what the arguments were against this waiver please post...
May be the senators thought that it would increase the budget size or something???
My interpretation: the vote was not on Cornyn's amendment; in response to a Point of Order raised, there was a motion to waive the Budget Act for Cornyn's amendment (the Budget Act requires 60 "Yes" votes to bring to the floor amendments to appropriation bills); if 60 senators had voted "Yes" (and agreed to waive the Budget Act requirement for Cornyn's amendment), then a vote on the actual amendment would only have required a simple majority. But because only 55 voted "Yes", the amendment failed to obtain the waiver; it was out of order because it did not qualify as an amendment to this bill.
Because 40 Dems voted no on the waiver does not mean they are opposed to the amendment; they just did not want to vote on this amendment on this bill.
May be the senators thought that it would increase the budget size or something???
My interpretation: the vote was not on Cornyn's amendment; in response to a Point of Order raised, there was a motion to waive the Budget Act for Cornyn's amendment (the Budget Act requires 60 "Yes" votes to bring to the floor amendments to appropriation bills); if 60 senators had voted "Yes" (and agreed to waive the Budget Act requirement for Cornyn's amendment), then a vote on the actual amendment would only have required a simple majority. But because only 55 voted "Yes", the amendment failed to obtain the waiver; it was out of order because it did not qualify as an amendment to this bill.
Because 40 Dems voted no on the waiver does not mean they are opposed to the amendment; they just did not want to vote on this amendment on this bill.
pictures TAYLOR SWIFT LOVE STORY UPDO
Its a question.. THIS IS NOT A RUMOR ...
Are they even filing a lawsuit ?? If they are SO READY, where is the big press release saying USCIS SUED !!!!!!! :cool:
Are they even filing a lawsuit ?? If they are SO READY, where is the big press release saying USCIS SUED !!!!!!! :cool:
dresses 0403-taylor-swift-updo_bd-1.
Hi:
Lot of people get stuck in the name check in AOS, and many of them wait for at least 6 months. I am wondering if someone may get stuck in namcecheck and may have to wait for months in home country while doing cp?
Thanks
Lot of people get stuck in the name check in AOS, and many of them wait for at least 6 months. I am wondering if someone may get stuck in namcecheck and may have to wait for months in home country while doing cp?
Thanks
makeup Taylor Swift Love Story
" i think you should post it on the attorney forum and talk to a attorney "
Yes. My attorney has this paper now. Hopefully I should here from in a day or so .
Thanks
-vinod
Yes. My attorney has this paper now. Hopefully I should here from in a day or so .
Thanks
-vinod
girlfriend taylor swift love story
Talk to a lawyer and get the answers.
I do, but I don't get all the answers.
But if you're on travel and questioned by immigration upon entrance if you're still working for sponsoring employer, depending on the circumstances, they can take your GC away. So that's another scenario separate from an audit or citrizenship interview that GC jeopardy may arise.
Didn't think about that. but... why would officer ask "do you work for the sponsoring employer"? Isn't your GC same as family based, asylum, etc. green cards? Does officer even have that information right away? What do they ask usually?
If circumstances change, like you getting laid off or fired, that's a different story. If the sponsor's intent changes, and that does happen, then obviously, you're free to move on. But you should be able to prove that, with say a termination letter, for example.
I don't see the difference between being laid off and leaving yourself. In case of being laid off, your employer has to show intent of employing you forever. If any document will surface, that he had plans to lay you off before applying for I-140 or without you invoking AC21 at moment of AOS, then you are in the same trouble.
All the way one keeps thinking that you are free to start a business, look for more exciting opportunities, go work in starbacuks...( yeah all that )...once you get a GC..
But, now everyone is talking about again sticking to the sponsoring employer, a green card being revoked while entry...and umpteen scenarios...
So, where does it end..when can one really feel you can flex yourself and do something without worrying about my employment history...
These issues are raised not to start freaking out, but just to know them and not to do some silly things.
In general... take this philosophically - it never ends. If not immigration, then something else will always be. Just know the law, keep your paperwork in order, don't talk to government employees without a lawyer, flex your mind, and do your thing.
I do, but I don't get all the answers.
But if you're on travel and questioned by immigration upon entrance if you're still working for sponsoring employer, depending on the circumstances, they can take your GC away. So that's another scenario separate from an audit or citrizenship interview that GC jeopardy may arise.
Didn't think about that. but... why would officer ask "do you work for the sponsoring employer"? Isn't your GC same as family based, asylum, etc. green cards? Does officer even have that information right away? What do they ask usually?
If circumstances change, like you getting laid off or fired, that's a different story. If the sponsor's intent changes, and that does happen, then obviously, you're free to move on. But you should be able to prove that, with say a termination letter, for example.
I don't see the difference between being laid off and leaving yourself. In case of being laid off, your employer has to show intent of employing you forever. If any document will surface, that he had plans to lay you off before applying for I-140 or without you invoking AC21 at moment of AOS, then you are in the same trouble.
All the way one keeps thinking that you are free to start a business, look for more exciting opportunities, go work in starbacuks...( yeah all that )...once you get a GC..
But, now everyone is talking about again sticking to the sponsoring employer, a green card being revoked while entry...and umpteen scenarios...
So, where does it end..when can one really feel you can flex yourself and do something without worrying about my employment history...
These issues are raised not to start freaking out, but just to know them and not to do some silly things.
In general... take this philosophically - it never ends. If not immigration, then something else will always be. Just know the law, keep your paperwork in order, don't talk to government employees without a lawyer, flex your mind, and do your thing.
hairstyles Musician Taylor Swift attends
Let us poll here only for Nebraska Service Center 02-July filers and find stats to estimate the timeline
This is the case of harrasment. I am sure he will definitely have a laugh with his group later.
To OP: You should definitely check with an immigration lawyer before you plan your trip. I don't think anyone here can give you a definite answer (unless there is someone who's gone through this him/her-self)
OP committed a crime > he paid his fine did community service > if the court thinks that's enough for his first time crime, who are we to judge?? If he repeats what he did... he wont get off the hook that easy... so I'm sure he understands what he has gotten into! lets leave it at that.
OP committed a crime > he paid his fine did community service > if the court thinks that's enough for his first time crime, who are we to judge?? If he repeats what he did... he wont get off the hook that easy... so I'm sure he understands what he has gotten into! lets leave it at that.
