puddonhead
10-16 11:40 AM
As I had mentioned earlier in this thread - I had received 3 referral credits through IV. (actually I had sent out more invitations - but not everybody accepted/used my invitations).
For this, as I had promised earlier in this thread - I will contribute $75 to IV once I start using these referral credits (which will happen from next month once my own sign up referral bonus runs out).
Two of the three referrals who used my invitation also promised they will contribute $25 to IV for the referral.
To me, this appears to be an acceptable use of the IV message board. Anybody benefitting from IV by getting referrals may want to do the same.
OTOH, I think it is unfair to abuse the IV platform for personal gain. No other respectable message board allows that. Try these referral spam or other trolling activities in fatwallet of SD, and see how fast you get banned for it even though they are explicitly for deal hunting. Online anonymity is a great thing since it masks a trolls true identity. But think again - your identity is not really as secure behind online anonymity as you think unless you are a professional troll and have taken elaborate measures to obfuscate things. Trolling may come back to bite you.
Now, a question for mods - I went in to sign up for another recurring contribution for 3 months for $25 today (in addition to my normal subscription). However, I cant find any option for $25 recurring contribution now.
For this, as I had promised earlier in this thread - I will contribute $75 to IV once I start using these referral credits (which will happen from next month once my own sign up referral bonus runs out).
Two of the three referrals who used my invitation also promised they will contribute $25 to IV for the referral.
To me, this appears to be an acceptable use of the IV message board. Anybody benefitting from IV by getting referrals may want to do the same.
OTOH, I think it is unfair to abuse the IV platform for personal gain. No other respectable message board allows that. Try these referral spam or other trolling activities in fatwallet of SD, and see how fast you get banned for it even though they are explicitly for deal hunting. Online anonymity is a great thing since it masks a trolls true identity. But think again - your identity is not really as secure behind online anonymity as you think unless you are a professional troll and have taken elaborate measures to obfuscate things. Trolling may come back to bite you.
Now, a question for mods - I went in to sign up for another recurring contribution for 3 months for $25 today (in addition to my normal subscription). However, I cant find any option for $25 recurring contribution now.
wallpaper As: Charlie Sheen#39;s wife
johnmcdonald98
10-03 03:35 PM
me and my friend, both are stuck into this right now. Both are having different nationality and we both are in this country from last 10 yrs. So I think it might also depends on your history, as longer stay, your name will pop-out from many places, which will delay the things.
godbless
01-16 10:02 AM
My attorney is asking for my I 94 to file for my h1 extension that is expiring in June 2007. Which I 94 should I give him the one that I currently have which says Parole till 01/26/2007 or the one thay I got with my h1 approval notice earlier that says H1 valid till 06/2007??
2011 Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife Parties
WaldenPond
03-02 05:33 PM
Here is the news that is very important but often overlooked in the immigration spectrum:
"Senate OKs Patriot Act renewal sends to House"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11638713/
Why this is the news is good and relevant from the point of view EB provisions?
Because EB provisions (section 8001) were thrown out of S.1932 because of the differences between key players over the Patriot act. Now that this is out of the picture, at least there is one less thing to worry about.
"Senate OKs Patriot Act renewal sends to House"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11638713/
Why this is the news is good and relevant from the point of view EB provisions?
Because EB provisions (section 8001) were thrown out of S.1932 because of the differences between key players over the Patriot act. Now that this is out of the picture, at least there is one less thing to worry about.
more...
l1fraud
06-08 10:15 PM
Thanks ... normal options in USCIS asks you to call ICE.gov ... BUT ICE.gov doesn't seem to have a local office.. please let me know if anyone out there has gone this route and any update regarding what all documents we need to produce to prove our case. Since its a Billion dollar company they are bound to fight the case (hopefully). Any information regarding the same is appretiate.
justAnotherFile
07-09 10:37 PM
Focus on Flowers Campaign Please!
more...
Desertfox
03-24 03:31 PM
-------------------------------------
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
-------------------------------------
It is illegal... On I-9 it clearly says that an employer can not deny employment because of an expiry date on a valid work authorization document. This makes sense, since the employer does not have any authority to check for this candidate's ability to renew the authorization, neither the candidate is obligated to share that information. Per DHS & DOL once you have valid EAD, you are good to go! I am curious though who should be responsible for educating these employers!:confused:
Based on the criteria above I dont see how it is illegal to ask what type of work authorization one has, and if EAD , how long it is valid. It may be illegal to disqualify a candidate who has EAD with validity for the required amount of time. But I sure can ask about the details within legal limits, can't I?
-------------------------------------
It is illegal... On I-9 it clearly says that an employer can not deny employment because of an expiry date on a valid work authorization document. This makes sense, since the employer does not have any authority to check for this candidate's ability to renew the authorization, neither the candidate is obligated to share that information. Per DHS & DOL once you have valid EAD, you are good to go! I am curious though who should be responsible for educating these employers!:confused:
2010 Charlie Sheen And Brooke
acecupid
06-12 05:51 PM
Hi,
I am currently working in Skilled visa through one of MNC company.I am working for this company for last 4 years and prior to this company i worked in another small company for two years.When I join my current company i provided all the legal document like exp,last two month pay stub and releiving letter and they did BG . They did not find anything wrong with prior employer in last 4 year. recently they found something wrong about my prior employer and asking me providing additional document and unfortunately company is closed or rename. I have told my current employer that i don't have any more evidance of my prior employer.Because of this reason they are asking me to come back india.
Is there any way that i can take legal action against this company in US because from last one week
they are harrassing my like anything.
Please let me know if anyone come across in this situation.
They are just giving you BS. They are trying to use a fake reason to send you back to India. They might be using this fake reason (BG check) to avoid any legal hassles. Keep track of how they are harassing you, keep a copy of all emails and documents used in correspondence in this matter and complain to DOL.
I am currently working in Skilled visa through one of MNC company.I am working for this company for last 4 years and prior to this company i worked in another small company for two years.When I join my current company i provided all the legal document like exp,last two month pay stub and releiving letter and they did BG . They did not find anything wrong with prior employer in last 4 year. recently they found something wrong about my prior employer and asking me providing additional document and unfortunately company is closed or rename. I have told my current employer that i don't have any more evidance of my prior employer.Because of this reason they are asking me to come back india.
Is there any way that i can take legal action against this company in US because from last one week
they are harrassing my like anything.
Please let me know if anyone come across in this situation.
They are just giving you BS. They are trying to use a fake reason to send you back to India. They might be using this fake reason (BG check) to avoid any legal hassles. Keep track of how they are harassing you, keep a copy of all emails and documents used in correspondence in this matter and complain to DOL.
more...
bayarea07
09-15 10:54 AM
bump
hair Charlie Sheen Brooke Mueller
CADude
09-20 01:25 PM
I sent same message which i sent to congressmen and senator(please see page 4). I provided following info.
Details as provided below:
Name of Applicant: XXX
“A” Number of Applicant: XXX
Date of Birth: XXX
USPS Tracking No: XXX
if this helps.
What case related info you would add in an email?
SSN, dob, 140 info, approval date, Alien number?
Pls. share this detail
Thanks
Details as provided below:
Name of Applicant: XXX
“A” Number of Applicant: XXX
Date of Birth: XXX
USPS Tracking No: XXX
if this helps.
What case related info you would add in an email?
SSN, dob, 140 info, approval date, Alien number?
Pls. share this detail
Thanks
more...
redsox2009
04-04 04:09 PM
We know EB2 - I dates have not moved since Oct ,2010 .
So India regular quota for the last six months : 5800/2 = 1900 .
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1900 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1900 = 3100 porting already took place. (though only 1900 really got GC)
I think you meant to say 2800 not 5800. I'm correcting your statement.
So India regular quota for the last six months : 2800/2 = 1400
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1400 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1400 = 2600 porting already took place. (though only 1400 really got GC)
So India regular quota for the last six months : 5800/2 = 1900 .
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1900 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1900 = 3100 porting already took place. (though only 1900 really got GC)
I think you meant to say 2800 not 5800. I'm correcting your statement.
So India regular quota for the last six months : 2800/2 = 1400
Since dates have not moved, I am assuming 1400 should also be considered towards porting.
so my conclusion is so far 1200 + 1400 = 2600 porting already took place. (though only 1400 really got GC)
hot Actor Charlie Sheen#39;s wife
drirshad
01-04 03:16 AM
Long but must read ...............
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0104-endelman.shtm
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0104-endelman.shtm
more...
house Scoop: Charlie Sheen#39;s wife
crksd
10-16 09:30 PM
No, we didn't raise a SR after the interview. I was planning on doing it early next week since I had not seen any LUDs since our interview, and then we found a nice surprise this morning. But, if you are wait has been longer, it certainly won't hurt to do it. Good luck in your case too.
tattoo charlie sheen wife brooke
hebbar77
09-10 01:10 PM
Is this campaign for people with min 50 reputation points? :D
more...
pictures Charlie Sheen#39;s wife, Brooke
soni7007
08-07 12:54 PM
U are saying - The person's GC category should be same all through out the GC process, irrespective of the technical advancements the person make during the course of the GC process. A person is porting only because he is qualified for the category, U folks are talking as if there is an open slot and everyone is clamoring for it.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
dresses Charlie Sheen#39;s wife Brooke
drona
07-10 07:38 PM
Saimrathi Please see nixstor's message above and respond to it.
more...
makeup Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife Brooke
Libra
07-09 08:03 PM
He want to forward flowers to injured soldier, we are more than happy, but would he care to answer our frustration.......
girlfriend Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife Admitted
gcForV
07-09 09:43 PM
we are giving USCIS options on how to deal with the campaign.
If they really do forward the flowers they need to think about seperating notes from flowers.
If they really do forward the flowers they need to think about seperating notes from flowers.
hairstyles Charlie Sheen#39;s estranged wife
gcphul
01-27 10:51 AM
I Do
xyz2009
08-19 10:49 PM
Its a no brainer (enter on AP) and you definitely have to talk to attorney
Krithi: Can you please let me know how to go to Adv Parole side. Although we have had them but have never used them before. So I need to guide my wife towards this AP area.
So in order to show or use AP my wife has to go and line up in the visa queue OR she has to go to Permanent Resident/Citizens side and from there they will route to this AP check/processing area. Please advise.
Sorry with my fundamental questions but I have never used my APs till now.
Krithi kindly reply or anybody else who can help with my questions/clarification mentioned above kindly help me.
Thanks a lot
Best Regards,
Krithi: Can you please let me know how to go to Adv Parole side. Although we have had them but have never used them before. So I need to guide my wife towards this AP area.
So in order to show or use AP my wife has to go and line up in the visa queue OR she has to go to Permanent Resident/Citizens side and from there they will route to this AP check/processing area. Please advise.
Sorry with my fundamental questions but I have never used my APs till now.
Krithi kindly reply or anybody else who can help with my questions/clarification mentioned above kindly help me.
Thanks a lot
Best Regards,
ivy55
06-19 12:48 PM
I have the following question
1.I have approved an I140 from Vermont. Where do I submit my I485 do I have to enclose I140
2. My spouse and children are in the US do I need to submit affidavit of support, W2 etc
3. There is an A3 in my Labour Certification but not in the I140, do I use this A# in the I485
Thanks
1.I have approved an I140 from Vermont. Where do I submit my I485 do I have to enclose I140
2. My spouse and children are in the US do I need to submit affidavit of support, W2 etc
3. There is an A3 in my Labour Certification but not in the I140, do I use this A# in the I485
Thanks