coopheal
11-12 09:58 AM
IV core should have two focus: long term plan and a short term plan.
Long term plan is anything that involves visa increase.
Short term plan is anything that does not involve visa increase, but that provides some kind of releif to us. A no-nonsense, non-controversial and simple measure that can be added to an appropriation bill is a best example.
I hope the core is reading this post...
If you have an idea, and possibly a suggestion on how to implement it, post it. Even an old idea with innovative implementation may help us.
However, please do not wait on contribution thinking until something happens I don�t have to contribute. IV core is already working on many issues, and your monthly contribution would help stabilize resource needs for current items.
Long term plan is anything that involves visa increase.
Short term plan is anything that does not involve visa increase, but that provides some kind of releif to us. A no-nonsense, non-controversial and simple measure that can be added to an appropriation bill is a best example.
I hope the core is reading this post...
If you have an idea, and possibly a suggestion on how to implement it, post it. Even an old idea with innovative implementation may help us.
However, please do not wait on contribution thinking until something happens I don�t have to contribute. IV core is already working on many issues, and your monthly contribution would help stabilize resource needs for current items.
wallpaper Peugeot 207 CC 2Dr C/Cabriolet
Jaime
09-10 04:32 PM
We love the U.S. We won't allow bad immigration policy to continue to hurt our country with a self-inflicted Reverse Brain Drain. Already 100,000 of us highly-skilled immigrants have left in frustration! We won't allow this to continue!!! We are going to stop this madness, AND IT ALL STARTS IN WASHINGTON ON THE 18th!!!! This is not only for ourselves, we are doing this for America!!!!!!!!!!!!
gc_chahiye
09-24 01:11 PM
Hi,
I have a EAD L2 Based valid till 2009. I havent worked in US till now after getting EAD. Now I have to travel to India for a Month. What will be the procedure to retain my EAD after I come back to US after 30 day.
Please Guide Me
Mahesh
you dont have to do anything. Based on your L2 petition you will get an I-94
valid till 2009. Since your EAD is unexpired, you can continue working once you come back. EAD is authorization to work, completely unrelated to your travel to India and back. What exactly are you worried about?
I have a EAD L2 Based valid till 2009. I havent worked in US till now after getting EAD. Now I have to travel to India for a Month. What will be the procedure to retain my EAD after I come back to US after 30 day.
Please Guide Me
Mahesh
you dont have to do anything. Based on your L2 petition you will get an I-94
valid till 2009. Since your EAD is unexpired, you can continue working once you come back. EAD is authorization to work, completely unrelated to your travel to India and back. What exactly are you worried about?
2011 Peugeot 207 CC 1.6 Sport
Suva
08-10 02:06 PM
I am in.
more...
Macaca
09-26 09:41 PM
Here's a classic example ..
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
The point to be made is simple. Over last few months IV members, as an organization, with all it's diverse members and even more diverse immigration problems, in general have moved towards having an opinion and pushing an agenda in a direction which may affect H1-B, F1 visas and not directly EB Green cards.
It would be more prudent if the message sent across is simple-- rather than use the term generic term of legal immigrants - it should focus towards EB-Green cards, coz very few (other than the stuck )understand that H1-B is non-immigrant visa and try to club the whole GC + H1B issue together.
From CNN's point of view (and the whole world) the Legal immigrants are GC, H1, F1, B1, L1, etc .. the onus is on IV to clear that IV stands for EB based GCs. period. Use the term "Immigrant" wisely and sparsely.
senthil1 makes more sense then this!
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
The point to be made is simple. Over last few months IV members, as an organization, with all it's diverse members and even more diverse immigration problems, in general have moved towards having an opinion and pushing an agenda in a direction which may affect H1-B, F1 visas and not directly EB Green cards.
It would be more prudent if the message sent across is simple-- rather than use the term generic term of legal immigrants - it should focus towards EB-Green cards, coz very few (other than the stuck )understand that H1-B is non-immigrant visa and try to club the whole GC + H1B issue together.
From CNN's point of view (and the whole world) the Legal immigrants are GC, H1, F1, B1, L1, etc .. the onus is on IV to clear that IV stands for EB based GCs. period. Use the term "Immigrant" wisely and sparsely.
senthil1 makes more sense then this!
webm
09-26 10:12 AM
I sent a message to editor!!!
more...
vkotval
12-28 03:01 PM
Just wanted to share this link with you all
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_analys.html
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_analys.html
2010 (Peugeot 207 CC Sport )
prinive
02-21 10:22 AM
Thanks... But I dont think so it will happen... Any how if it happens, a bag of sugar for you...
Don't worry man! Your coast is near ... I think the EB3 India movement will atleast go to Sept - Oct 2001 . Someone had posted the Labor PD count from May 01 to Dec 01 . (524 in total) . Obviously the unknown which came out of the BEC backlogs makes this situation worse.
Don't worry man! Your coast is near ... I think the EB3 India movement will atleast go to Sept - Oct 2001 . Someone had posted the Labor PD count from May 01 to Dec 01 . (524 in total) . Obviously the unknown which came out of the BEC backlogs makes this situation worse.
more...
shannonxi
07-18 10:47 AM
Mine reached NSC on July 2 at 9:02 AM. Got Fedex delivery confirmation and no receipt from CIS yet. Will check with my lawyer for advise.
hair Peugeot 207 CC 1.6 16v 120
nirenjoshi
03-09 12:53 PM
EB3 ROW has been retrogressed as predicted in Oh's website.
All non-India EB3 are at March 03 now....
Will they keep them at March 03 for few months and give a bump to EB3?
Something is cooking...Otherwise they wouldn't retrogress ROW by almost 2 years...
From the bulletin -
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or �unavailability� at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
All non-India EB3 are at March 03 now....
Will they keep them at March 03 for few months and give a bump to EB3?
Something is cooking...Otherwise they wouldn't retrogress ROW by almost 2 years...
From the bulletin -
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or �unavailability� at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
more...
arvindkappula
01-19 12:19 AM
Since my statement about making copies of offical US documents is causing confusion, let me rephrase & elaborate -
I, as many of you were, was stopped and requested to provide proof of immigration status. I had a color photocopy of my US Visa Stamp of my passport.
Besides the fact that the Border Patrol agent denied the photocopy as proof of immigration status, he did let me go as soon as I provided my College ID and a DL, warning me that it is against the law to make a photocopy of an official US IMMIGRATION document FOR PERSONAL USE. I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE. So, while you are allowed to provide photocopies of official US documents for official government purposes, you cannot make copies of official US IMMIGRATION documents for personal use. I have a pretty busy schedule so I don't have the patience to search, cut and paste the section of the law which refers to this since I did research this at that time and deemed correct the Border Agent's warning.
Are you sure that you were able to make a color photocopy of your passport? How did you manage to do that, at your work copy machine or from Kinko's, Staples, office depot, or some where else?
The reason I am asking is, in FL, recently I tried to take color copies of my passport in Staples, where I was not allowed to take photocopies of passport which was clearly labeled on copy machine and same thing at Kinko's and I wonder how you managed to get color copies.. (sorry folks my questions was way out from the main topic of this post).
I, as many of you were, was stopped and requested to provide proof of immigration status. I had a color photocopy of my US Visa Stamp of my passport.
Besides the fact that the Border Patrol agent denied the photocopy as proof of immigration status, he did let me go as soon as I provided my College ID and a DL, warning me that it is against the law to make a photocopy of an official US IMMIGRATION document FOR PERSONAL USE. I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE. So, while you are allowed to provide photocopies of official US documents for official government purposes, you cannot make copies of official US IMMIGRATION documents for personal use. I have a pretty busy schedule so I don't have the patience to search, cut and paste the section of the law which refers to this since I did research this at that time and deemed correct the Border Agent's warning.
Are you sure that you were able to make a color photocopy of your passport? How did you manage to do that, at your work copy machine or from Kinko's, Staples, office depot, or some where else?
The reason I am asking is, in FL, recently I tried to take color copies of my passport in Staples, where I was not allowed to take photocopies of passport which was clearly labeled on copy machine and same thing at Kinko's and I wonder how you managed to get color copies.. (sorry folks my questions was way out from the main topic of this post).
hot Next. Peugeot
reddymjm
06-03 05:01 PM
dont do it ..on L1A under NIW he/she can get a GC without labour. Just file I140 and then 485 NIW ..that would be really stupid to move L1A to H1B
Then wait for 180 days to take advantage of AC21.
Then wait for 180 days to take advantage of AC21.
more...
house Peugeot 207 CC 1.6 16v 120
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.
tattoo Peugeot 207 CC 1.6 HDi 110 FAP
sasi1234
04-10 09:47 AM
First off, you are looking for a bodyshop. A consulting shop. You would be the consultant if you are hired they would be the consulting firm.
There is a website called http://www.desicrunch.com/ (Desi Crunch) that as reviews of most of Indian Consulting shops. Reviews are posted by individuals themselves so they would be reliable.
Loved desi crunch..especially the tips that you gave for consultants..they make more sense!!
There is a website called http://www.desicrunch.com/ (Desi Crunch) that as reviews of most of Indian Consulting shops. Reviews are posted by individuals themselves so they would be reliable.
Loved desi crunch..especially the tips that you gave for consultants..they make more sense!!
more...
pictures Peugeot 207 CC 1.6 HDi 110 FAP
webm
04-24 11:53 AM
Thank you all for the warm response. I appreciate it and wish the same for absolutely all of you. I hope my heated discussions with various officials about TSC's lack of action will clear some logjam for everyone else who is current but still waiting.
Thanks much!!
Thanks much!!
dresses Used 2007 Peugeot 207 Cc 1.6
yabayaba
06-11 10:41 AM
Done
more...
makeup Used Peugeot 207 CC 1.6 16V
gcma08
06-06 07:44 PM
My PD is Jan 2004 (EB2-RIR, India), I filed thru NSC
Which service center are you form?
Which service center are you form?
girlfriend 2011 Peugeot 207 CC – Photos,
test101
07-05 03:24 PM
what a waste of time.People should be working side by side to make media,congress, sentors aware of the our problem. Instead of fighting about making the website free or not.
hairstyles Peugeot 207cc
Macaca
09-11 01:38 PM
It's good to have money and the
things money can buy,
but it's good, too,
to check up
once in a while and
make sure that
you haven't lost
the things money can't buy
George Horace Lorimer
things money can buy,
but it's good, too,
to check up
once in a while and
make sure that
you haven't lost
the things money can't buy
George Horace Lorimer
eilsoe
03-04 02:16 PM
uuh... crap...
*goes to work on entry*
*goes to work on entry*
pcs
11-12 09:57 PM
It not about law... it is about following the law...
If you want quick action shoot letters ALL AT THE SAME TIME.... Just decide the name and the address of recipients .... Attach the copy of the rule and write the letter .....
Just make enough noise so that they can not ignore this rule...
If you want quick action shoot letters ALL AT THE SAME TIME.... Just decide the name and the address of recipients .... Attach the copy of the rule and write the letter .....
Just make enough noise so that they can not ignore this rule...