grinch
03-04 03:21 PM
Yeah I've been working on my entry slowly, learning some new things I never knew.
Almost done!
Almost done!
wallpaper hip tattoo rose. Redeye
Legal_In_A_Limbo
03-10 11:10 AM
Guys.....if you want to change representation to self in your 485 case, you do not need to file a form G-28......G-28 is for lawyers seeking permission to represent you. You do not need a permission for yourself............all you have to do is send USCIS a letter saying all future correspondence should be done with you and you are representing yourself on this case hereon....follow up after a month after sending the letter to ensure they have changed you as the point of contact on the case........If you are substituting your current lawyer by another one, then you need a new G-28
coolmanship, can you please share the format of the letter which we need to send to USCIS asking them of taking the attorney of the case?
I will really appreciate that.
coolmanship, can you please share the format of the letter which we need to send to USCIS asking them of taking the attorney of the case?
I will really appreciate that.
vdlrao
09-26 02:43 PM
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your interest in FSB. We admit that there was a
mischaracterization of the Capitol Hill rally in the story and it was
corrected as soon we realized the error.
We have changed the story to correctly identify the mission as a protest of
the long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already
in the U.S.
We will work to avoid errors like this in the future.
Best regards,
FSB
Thank you for your interest in FSB. We admit that there was a
mischaracterization of the Capitol Hill rally in the story and it was
corrected as soon we realized the error.
We have changed the story to correctly identify the mission as a protest of
the long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already
in the U.S.
We will work to avoid errors like this in the future.
Best regards,
FSB
2011 rose tattoos on hip. lower
h1techSlave
07-28 03:04 PM
Would you be offended if the image of Ganesh is used on a sack of rice or sugar or a bottle of cooking oil? If not, then what's the problem in using it on an alcoholic beverage bottle?
I always thought in the same angle. Why people are so jittery about alcohol? Alcohol is harmless in reasonable quantities. It is bad when consumed excessively; so are oil, rice etc. What's the big deal about alcohol alone?
I always thought in the same angle. Why people are so jittery about alcohol? Alcohol is harmless in reasonable quantities. It is bad when consumed excessively; so are oil, rice etc. What's the big deal about alcohol alone?
more...
dilber
06-26 05:28 PM
May be you scared the USCIS with your phone calls and they just wanted you out of their systems. So that you don't rally other people and then they might have to really become efficient.:cool:
BTW really happy for you... enjoy:o
I got a red for this with comment "bhaag saale, really happy for you? kaam c=dhanda nahi hai kya?"
Translation: Get lost you idiot, happy for you? don't you have any other work?
Not that I care about it too much but shouldn't highly skilled people be more responsible, and courteous. :cool:
BTW really happy for you... enjoy:o
I got a red for this with comment "bhaag saale, really happy for you? kaam c=dhanda nahi hai kya?"
Translation: Get lost you idiot, happy for you? don't you have any other work?
Not that I care about it too much but shouldn't highly skilled people be more responsible, and courteous. :cool:
ragu
02-19 09:03 PM
are nil. Politicians are not going to touch immigration even with a 10 foot pole right now.
I'm one of those who say with pride that I can create jobs and buy houses. Then why will not congress or policy makers not touch this. As some here said it depends upon what we think about ourselves. I know many people who like to work under someone even after 10-15 years, my brother is like that, and I know many more like me who want to start companies, employ many people, and do bigger things. Both may be right in their own ways, but if you project yourself like me, then the doors will open.. Show enterprise..
I'm one of those who say with pride that I can create jobs and buy houses. Then why will not congress or policy makers not touch this. As some here said it depends upon what we think about ourselves. I know many people who like to work under someone even after 10-15 years, my brother is like that, and I know many more like me who want to start companies, employ many people, and do bigger things. Both may be right in their own ways, but if you project yourself like me, then the doors will open.. Show enterprise..
more...
go_guy123
08-02 11:02 PM
If you only joined the company for a green card, then what were you doing all these years when your employer kept your documents and did not file. Why didn't you quit the job....If not more, you are to be equally blamed for the situation you are currently in....I understand your frustration, take a deep breath and move on.....Good luck....
Very true. One needs to be rational and take charge of one's destiny. Skilled based immigration is close to over now. The sooner one realises this, the less painfaul it will become. Yes I do agree it would be better if they make it more explicit like they do in the middle east.
Very true. One needs to be rational and take charge of one's destiny. Skilled based immigration is close to over now. The sooner one realises this, the less painfaul it will become. Yes I do agree it would be better if they make it more explicit like they do in the middle east.
2010 rose tattoo hip
kumarc123
03-12 09:10 AM
I completely agree with you.. in the last 3-4 years of forming IV what lobbying efforts did the IV folk do after July 2007 fiasco?? With all the donations and money they are making from advertisements on this website what have they accomplished? they could not even have an established and reliable relationship with DOS or USCIS to get clear information out to its members?? I think it is a BIG F-A-I-L-U-R-E on the part of IV if they cannot even get some valid information let alone bringing some change in the immigration system. And when we are all discussing in anticipation of this much awaited April bulletin, what do the IV admin folk do?? Start another DONOR FORUM thread and talk about what?? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!! If starting a new DONOR FORUM thread is all you can do for all the donors? what good is it?? Before we go ahead and bash USCIS, IV folk have a lot of explanation to do -
1. What links do you have with USCIS?
2. What efforts are being made?
3. What is the future POA?
4. If sitting around and waiting for the next visa bulletin is all you IV leadership is doing then stop asking for DONATIONS!!
Peace!
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
1. What links do you have with USCIS?
2. What efforts are being made?
3. What is the future POA?
4. If sitting around and waiting for the next visa bulletin is all you IV leadership is doing then stop asking for DONATIONS!!
Peace!
IV needs to OPEN ITS BOOKS
And show DONORS where their money is going? Where is the sponsors money going? and what is this ORGANIZATION planning to do. IF not, one these days they will find themselves in a audit and public scrutiny.
Any yes people who says open your eyes? Have you got your GC? EAD is only a means and not the destination
PAPU, you need to explain to all IV members and disclose the books and what you are doing as IV head, and dont give me the bull, of we are working, you want our support, we want clarity and real action.
more...
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
hair rose tattoos on hip
andycool
02-11 11:50 AM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Check this link
Report of the Visa Office 2009 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4594.html)
Point V and part 2
the numbers come around 137000 ( which is 3000 ) Short of 140,000 ( I think the actual number will be 140,000 + Spill over FB Visas from 2008 If any )
Thanks
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Check this link
Report of the Visa Office 2009 Table of Contents (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_4594.html)
Point V and part 2
the numbers come around 137000 ( which is 3000 ) Short of 140,000 ( I think the actual number will be 140,000 + Spill over FB Visas from 2008 If any )
Thanks
more...
dpp
07-09 03:55 PM
Delhiguy,
YES! They did broke law by provisioning visa numbers for applications that had not cleared FBI check. Their book clearly says the visa number needs to be alloted only after the application is 100% ready for adjudication.
Yes, this is another one. There are somany. Please check AILA lawsuit.
YES! They did broke law by provisioning visa numbers for applications that had not cleared FBI check. Their book clearly says the visa number needs to be alloted only after the application is 100% ready for adjudication.
Yes, this is another one. There are somany. Please check AILA lawsuit.
hot rose tattoos for girls on hip.
map_boiler
07-05 05:30 PM
Guys, please contribute to IV. I just did today, and believe me, you will feel better for doing so...
This is not just for you and me, but also for those who will come after us. Also, this is not a battle just to sue USCIS/DOS, but a war we need to fight on multiple fronts:
1) First and foremost, we the immigrant community need to join hands and fight as one cohesive group.
2) Sue the government agencies for damages/violation of law/precedents due to the revised visa bulletin
3) Get this matter the attention it deserves in the media
4) Try and get congress to intervene in this matter, and also introduce and pass legislation that will fix the broken employment based immigration system
5) Request corporate sponsorship. Since employers spent money on this fiasco as well, they will have a vested interest in pursuing this as well.
The main thing, however, is funds. IV needs funds to fight for us. Each of us has already spent 100's (many even 1000's) of $ trying to get ready to file our I-485's. So even if 10,000 members contribute just $100 each, it will be $1 mil. I am sure each of us can at least spare that much. It is a small price to pay for liberation from this GC mess for all of us....
With ~15,000 members already, and hopefully some serious $$$$$$ raised, IV will be a force to be reckoned with. No one will be able to treat us with such utter disdain ever again...
This is not just for you and me, but also for those who will come after us. Also, this is not a battle just to sue USCIS/DOS, but a war we need to fight on multiple fronts:
1) First and foremost, we the immigrant community need to join hands and fight as one cohesive group.
2) Sue the government agencies for damages/violation of law/precedents due to the revised visa bulletin
3) Get this matter the attention it deserves in the media
4) Try and get congress to intervene in this matter, and also introduce and pass legislation that will fix the broken employment based immigration system
5) Request corporate sponsorship. Since employers spent money on this fiasco as well, they will have a vested interest in pursuing this as well.
The main thing, however, is funds. IV needs funds to fight for us. Each of us has already spent 100's (many even 1000's) of $ trying to get ready to file our I-485's. So even if 10,000 members contribute just $100 each, it will be $1 mil. I am sure each of us can at least spare that much. It is a small price to pay for liberation from this GC mess for all of us....
With ~15,000 members already, and hopefully some serious $$$$$$ raised, IV will be a force to be reckoned with. No one will be able to treat us with such utter disdain ever again...
more...
house rose tattoos on hip. aswitcher
meridiani.planum
03-03 01:36 PM
I just sent a request to CNN to take a look at this thread. A formal letter may be sent soon. So please continue to vote and participate.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
tattoo Rose Hip Tattoos
ramee
06-28 11:29 PM
Thank you Dhundhun.
For some reason I thought the difference between Welcome Email and Card Ordered email is only couple of days.
For some reason I thought the difference between Welcome Email and Card Ordered email is only couple of days.
more...
pictures girlfriend tattoos for girls
ThinkTwice
09-20 12:09 AM
I agree with sunny1000, We definetly should consider it
We retain the name Immigration Voice but we add a slogan to it
for xample in a news report it would appear some thing like this -
"" IMMIGRATION VOICE- An organisation of Legal Immigrants, was directly responsible for driving the congress to increase the greencard numbers to 300,000, exclude the family members from the quota and reduce the FBI check times to no more than one month, after such huge success and having achieved their ultimate goal IMMIGRATION VOICE - An organisation of Legal Immigrants has decided to fight for world peace.""
Good point...
Just my 25 cents...;)
We retain the name Immigration Voice but we add a slogan to it
for xample in a news report it would appear some thing like this -
"" IMMIGRATION VOICE- An organisation of Legal Immigrants, was directly responsible for driving the congress to increase the greencard numbers to 300,000, exclude the family members from the quota and reduce the FBI check times to no more than one month, after such huge success and having achieved their ultimate goal IMMIGRATION VOICE - An organisation of Legal Immigrants has decided to fight for world peace.""
Good point...
Just my 25 cents...;)
dresses rose tattoos
greyhair
06-10 02:06 PM
There is no point in arguing with each other just to see this bill in a manner to exclude each one of us. EAD is work authorization even when it is not a visa. The intent of the bill will matter. The clear intent is to not allow hiring of non-citizens by companies engaged in mass layoff, which could include EADs. What's the point of arguing if someone gets an RFE for employment letter? It's not relevant.
What should/can we all do to prevent this from passing? What does IV core want us to do?
What should/can we all do to prevent this from passing? What does IV core want us to do?
more...
makeup Tattoo Me Now!
delax
07-14 07:39 PM
Yes. I VOLUNTARILY exclude myself from any such potential benefit.
BTW did you get a discount from Murthy for defending the firm on this website? Most of your posts are all about defending.
Great - You have your conscience to answer about excluding yourself - hopefully you will walk the talk - if not, so much for your commitment to "Gandhigiri".
And Oh! BTW I did not get a discount - but I atleast dont hurl allegations before I know the facts. Its a pity that you are missing the forest for the trees - I dont think I am defending anybody here. But just because Murthy Law Firm is more visible than a John Doe Law Office, does not make her more guilty or for that matter more innocent. She may be as guilty or as innocent as any other lawyer - her letter will only help not harm. If she takes undue credit for it "Gandhigiri" would require us to send her flowers - not hurl allegations.
Let us practice what we preach - or is the preaching only to show USCIS - since you have a vested interest there. Ask yourself this question. I dont need to tell you the answer. Cheers
BTW did you get a discount from Murthy for defending the firm on this website? Most of your posts are all about defending.
Great - You have your conscience to answer about excluding yourself - hopefully you will walk the talk - if not, so much for your commitment to "Gandhigiri".
And Oh! BTW I did not get a discount - but I atleast dont hurl allegations before I know the facts. Its a pity that you are missing the forest for the trees - I dont think I am defending anybody here. But just because Murthy Law Firm is more visible than a John Doe Law Office, does not make her more guilty or for that matter more innocent. She may be as guilty or as innocent as any other lawyer - her letter will only help not harm. If she takes undue credit for it "Gandhigiri" would require us to send her flowers - not hurl allegations.
Let us practice what we preach - or is the preaching only to show USCIS - since you have a vested interest there. Ask yourself this question. I dont need to tell you the answer. Cheers
girlfriend Rose Hip Tattoos
agaudi
11-13 12:10 PM
The are playing with all of us, At this point after almost 10 years of following the law in order to get a GC I guess that is better to be undocumented. They at least can swith jobs or do other things, not paying lawyers USICS fees taxes etc etc. We are prisoners in this broken immigration system. the other day I called USCIS to see why my and my family's apps haven't been processed yet. They said they will review my case. 5 days later I got three identical e mails telling me they are ACTIVELY working on our cases! Can you believe that? I'm tired of all of this and I want to do whatever it takes to finish with this, I think I can produce more for me, my family and this country, but I'm loosing my youth in this battle. Tell me what to do and I'll do it.
hairstyles Tribal Rose Tattoos-guza_large
tapukakababa
07-18 12:21 PM
hi tapukakababa, the number is for the national customer service center but you mentioned you called the nebraska service center. so did u ask them to transfer to that service center or ???. i would like to talk to those guys and see what they did wityh my application. i guess we already had a painful ride and if it does not yield the right fruit then it really hurts us bad.
As "inthehole" mentioned, first a lady answered and asked me questions about the reason of calling..
then she asked some questions and asked which service center I applied to.. I said NSC and then she transferred me automatically.. so you can go ahead and call that number..
As "inthehole" mentioned, first a lady answered and asked me questions about the reason of calling..
then she asked some questions and asked which service center I applied to.. I said NSC and then she transferred me automatically.. so you can go ahead and call that number..
kumar1
12-10 03:24 PM
Do some population control in India and China, that would automatically fix the issue of retrogression. We are simply too many and we have clogged the system real bad. every 6th person on the face of this earth is Indian.
sbabunle
01-05 01:35 AM
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.....
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.....