unseenguy
06-15 06:49 PM
The competitive angle did occur to me. There is no reason a business should not look for ways to cut costs. However, this is a question of fairness & legitimacy. A L1 visa person living in a low cost country and coming here temporarily on short-term assignments can make do with lower wages because he likely does not have to support a family here at the US cost of living, and L1 spouses can work. This is not fair to a H1 with same skills whose H4 spouse cannot work, and for the same reasons it is not fair to USC/GC folks. Isn't that why we currently have all this labor certification processes and DOL laws? Those laws are designed to level the playing field. It is not easy for the company to outsource entirely, so they break the law by abusing the visa. Why should we not act to stop this illegitimate corporate action?
If that does not sound reasonable, let me ask you this: Why should USCIS and law-makers even consider taking steps to address green-card backlogs, adding resources to process more cases more quickly when they can just sit there and collect fees from you for visa / EAD renewals?
Agreed on your point. But there are other discriminations at workplace such as , age, race, sex and sexual harrassment. Those who complain about it effectively terminate their careers. If you want to go , complain against this L1 misuse fine, but you are not going to get mileage, maybe some bad breath and bad publicity and eventual loss of reference & job. If your company / client has decided they do not want to persist with you, there are 101 ways they can get rid of you, legal or illegal, my suggestion is, if you were exposed,
can L1fraud hold his head high in front of his client and still ask for reference with no sense of guilt in future? If not, he has lost half the game but now wants to lose the other half in a self destructive manner.
If that does not sound reasonable, let me ask you this: Why should USCIS and law-makers even consider taking steps to address green-card backlogs, adding resources to process more cases more quickly when they can just sit there and collect fees from you for visa / EAD renewals?
Agreed on your point. But there are other discriminations at workplace such as , age, race, sex and sexual harrassment. Those who complain about it effectively terminate their careers. If you want to go , complain against this L1 misuse fine, but you are not going to get mileage, maybe some bad breath and bad publicity and eventual loss of reference & job. If your company / client has decided they do not want to persist with you, there are 101 ways they can get rid of you, legal or illegal, my suggestion is, if you were exposed,
can L1fraud hold his head high in front of his client and still ask for reference with no sense of guilt in future? If not, he has lost half the game but now wants to lose the other half in a self destructive manner.
wallpaper The golden retriever isn#39;t the
aristotle
06-26 10:22 PM
Can anyone answer this question please?
In I-485, when we enter I-94 information, I am not sure which date to use in the valid field.
The date on my white EAD card expired already. I have a new I-797 which is valid until 2010. My guess is I should enter this date. Can any one please confirm?
Thanks a lot!
In I-485, when we enter I-94 information, I am not sure which date to use in the valid field.
The date on my white EAD card expired already. I have a new I-797 which is valid until 2010. My guess is I should enter this date. Can any one please confirm?
Thanks a lot!
snathan
03-31 11:48 AM
53,872 ( EB2 Total allocation in 2010 ) = Some X (EB2 ROW usage is say X) + 19,961 ( Total India received in 2010) + 6,505( Total China's received in 2010)
==>> X =[B] 53,872 -19,961-6,505 ==> X= 27406
==>> So Total EB2 ROW usage in 2010 is = 27,406
-----------------
1)EB2 I & C Usage = 19,961+ 6,505 = 26466.
2)Visas due to Spill Over for EB2 I & C = 26466 - 5,604 (EB2 (I&C) Regular quota {2*(40,040*7%)} ) = 20,862
3) Visas due to spill over for EB2 India only in 2010 = 26,466 (EB2 I & C Usage ) - 2,802(EB2-I Regular quota {40,040*7%} ) - 6,505 (EB2 China Total Usage) = 17,159.
-------------------
1) In 2011 according the USCIS statement we are getting 12,000 spill over visas in MAY.
Out of that about 10,000 will be allocated to India.
Reason: India PD based on April bulletin = 08 May 2006,
China PD Based on April bulletin = 22 Jul 2006
India has to get cleared 3 months (May Jun and Jul) before the spill over allocated to China.
The average demand for EB2 India is about 1.5k/Month.
which takes 3*1.5 = 4.5 K visas.
The remaining Visas = 7.5 K
The average demand for EB2 China is about 700/ Monnth.
The Total demand for EB2 India & China together from Aug 2006 will be about 2.2k/Month.
So 7.5K will clear about 3.5 months of EB2 I&C from Aug 2006.
So The May bulletin takes the EB2 I & C to November 2006 Or December 2006 as we also get the regular monthly quota of 2*(40,040*7%)
-------
Just my assumption. God only knows how USCIS moves the dates in May.
.
Thanks for the info....I believe it will be either Dec 2006 or Jan 2007
==>> X =[B] 53,872 -19,961-6,505 ==> X= 27406
==>> So Total EB2 ROW usage in 2010 is = 27,406
-----------------
1)EB2 I & C Usage = 19,961+ 6,505 = 26466.
2)Visas due to Spill Over for EB2 I & C = 26466 - 5,604 (EB2 (I&C) Regular quota {2*(40,040*7%)} ) = 20,862
3) Visas due to spill over for EB2 India only in 2010 = 26,466 (EB2 I & C Usage ) - 2,802(EB2-I Regular quota {40,040*7%} ) - 6,505 (EB2 China Total Usage) = 17,159.
-------------------
1) In 2011 according the USCIS statement we are getting 12,000 spill over visas in MAY.
Out of that about 10,000 will be allocated to India.
Reason: India PD based on April bulletin = 08 May 2006,
China PD Based on April bulletin = 22 Jul 2006
India has to get cleared 3 months (May Jun and Jul) before the spill over allocated to China.
The average demand for EB2 India is about 1.5k/Month.
which takes 3*1.5 = 4.5 K visas.
The remaining Visas = 7.5 K
The average demand for EB2 China is about 700/ Monnth.
The Total demand for EB2 India & China together from Aug 2006 will be about 2.2k/Month.
So 7.5K will clear about 3.5 months of EB2 I&C from Aug 2006.
So The May bulletin takes the EB2 I & C to November 2006 Or December 2006 as we also get the regular monthly quota of 2*(40,040*7%)
-------
Just my assumption. God only knows how USCIS moves the dates in May.
.
Thanks for the info....I believe it will be either Dec 2006 or Jan 2007
2011 Golden Retriever puppy dog
pappu
01-12 10:27 AM
Hello Pappu,
I feel we should have some banners up in different Indian stores, specially targeting some selfish EAD holders, who already feel they got their green cards irrespective of the current visa bulletin
1. Setting up banners will not only attract new members, but will make these EAD holders think from a rational perspective.
2.Also IV administration should send out a personal email to all it members, informing them about the importance of coming together, this way the EAD members who have stopped coming to IV will get the message.
3. We should contact the Indian newspaper editors, to print about our rally on March1st 2009, I believe more awareness we spread a better result we get.
Thank you
Some ideas are good. In order to implement them, we need support from members. Pls volunteer and take up the ideas to lead them. For example I have mentioned about poster and banner campaign. If each one of us, prints them and post them in various places, we can get good publicity.
We have to make do with such low cost volunteer work. Someone pointed out that we should contact newspapers and get articles published. Wish it was so easy. We have written tons of mails but that alone does not work. You need to issue press releases and publish them online. Publishing them each online costs a couple hundred dollars by publishing services who distribute, and there is no guarantee it will be picked up. Thus you need a focussed campaign for it. There are services where you can contact reporters and media on a specific topic and send them email, press release directly. If they are already writing article you can know the deadline. If you have an idea, you can pitch a story idea to the reporter directly. A good service I know costs 5K for non profits for one year. If you need access to International reporters database add 2k to it. All this is possible only if we have these kinds of resources. When we can hardly get contributions of 5k in 4 months after collecting $5 each, it is tough to plan a big media campaign. The reason why other big organizations and big anti immigrant orgs can get so much publicity is that they probably can spend their huge resources on such services. They can also afford a full time staff. We do not have all that and run IV along with our full time day time jobs. So the first thing we need to do before we run any campaign is to get more members and more contributions and monthly signups. Without that ideas may only remain on the forums.
I feel we should have some banners up in different Indian stores, specially targeting some selfish EAD holders, who already feel they got their green cards irrespective of the current visa bulletin
1. Setting up banners will not only attract new members, but will make these EAD holders think from a rational perspective.
2.Also IV administration should send out a personal email to all it members, informing them about the importance of coming together, this way the EAD members who have stopped coming to IV will get the message.
3. We should contact the Indian newspaper editors, to print about our rally on March1st 2009, I believe more awareness we spread a better result we get.
Thank you
Some ideas are good. In order to implement them, we need support from members. Pls volunteer and take up the ideas to lead them. For example I have mentioned about poster and banner campaign. If each one of us, prints them and post them in various places, we can get good publicity.
We have to make do with such low cost volunteer work. Someone pointed out that we should contact newspapers and get articles published. Wish it was so easy. We have written tons of mails but that alone does not work. You need to issue press releases and publish them online. Publishing them each online costs a couple hundred dollars by publishing services who distribute, and there is no guarantee it will be picked up. Thus you need a focussed campaign for it. There are services where you can contact reporters and media on a specific topic and send them email, press release directly. If they are already writing article you can know the deadline. If you have an idea, you can pitch a story idea to the reporter directly. A good service I know costs 5K for non profits for one year. If you need access to International reporters database add 2k to it. All this is possible only if we have these kinds of resources. When we can hardly get contributions of 5k in 4 months after collecting $5 each, it is tough to plan a big media campaign. The reason why other big organizations and big anti immigrant orgs can get so much publicity is that they probably can spend their huge resources on such services. They can also afford a full time staff. We do not have all that and run IV along with our full time day time jobs. So the first thing we need to do before we run any campaign is to get more members and more contributions and monthly signups. Without that ideas may only remain on the forums.
more...
pappu
08-21 10:15 AM
!!!!!!!!!!!!!Not all cell phones are included!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nothing is 'unlimited'. There is always a fine print. :)
Nothing is 'unlimited'. There is always a fine print. :)
vicks_don
04-17 02:01 PM
I heard that they stopped giving interim EAD's. So all were asked to apply atleast 3-4 months before other wise status will be lost unless you have valid H1. Not to scare anyone but thats what I read somewhere.
more...
nomad
07-12 02:22 AM
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/262484.html
Editorial: Green card fiasco
Stop mistreating those who play by rules
-
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, July 9, 2007
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them.
As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said last Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system."
This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost.
In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point?
In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial: Green card fiasco
Stop mistreating those who play by rules
-
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, July 9, 2007
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them.
As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said last Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system."
This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost.
In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point?
In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 Dog Breed: Golden Retriever
ujjwal_p
09-23 07:51 PM
It is economy. DOL vitually halted PERM approvals. Companies are not sponsering GCs as they used. If you give an Ad today, you will get 10 times resumes. So there is no easy way to get an approval.
I think we are assuming that this will continue to be the case through Oct 2010. What if DOL changes policies with PERM approval tomorrow or the economy starts improving by March? EB2 ROW is current and there will be quite a few PERM's from them which will be adjusted immediately. We'll have to wait till the Sep results are in and the data is adjusted with 2005 EB2 numbers. Hopefully all < 2005 should be taken care of for EB2.
I think we are assuming that this will continue to be the case through Oct 2010. What if DOL changes policies with PERM approval tomorrow or the economy starts improving by March? EB2 ROW is current and there will be quite a few PERM's from them which will be adjusted immediately. We'll have to wait till the Sep results are in and the data is adjusted with 2005 EB2 numbers. Hopefully all < 2005 should be taken care of for EB2.
more...
wantgc23
08-20 02:20 PM
Since it is a question of Interpretation of the law, It would be nice if someone in IV who has connections with AILA makes an inquiry with USCIS through AILA.
That is true. USCIS behaviour no longer (or never has) assumes the meaning of EB1&EB2 wording in the law text.
Previously a lot of visas flowed into EB3 because USCIS misinterpreted ( rather did not take into account) the AC21 change, which suggests that the per-category spill over numbers must be used within the category before flowing out of the category.
Unfortunately, when they realized it, they seem to now ignore (or have always ignored) the wording of EB1&EB2 numbers flowing in EB3. A lot of people here don't agree with this interpretation, but I am very sure that USCIS is misreading the law and is shafting EB3 big time.
I dont know how to word a letter to USCIS that shows them their oversight, and yet word it in a positive (or a non-confrontational) manner. If you have any idea's, lets work on a letter campaign to make USCIS aware of this. However, let us do this through personal PMs while we work out the details, as this is a very contentious issue and you will spend a lot of time responding to distracting arguments.
That is true. USCIS behaviour no longer (or never has) assumes the meaning of EB1&EB2 wording in the law text.
Previously a lot of visas flowed into EB3 because USCIS misinterpreted ( rather did not take into account) the AC21 change, which suggests that the per-category spill over numbers must be used within the category before flowing out of the category.
Unfortunately, when they realized it, they seem to now ignore (or have always ignored) the wording of EB1&EB2 numbers flowing in EB3. A lot of people here don't agree with this interpretation, but I am very sure that USCIS is misreading the law and is shafting EB3 big time.
I dont know how to word a letter to USCIS that shows them their oversight, and yet word it in a positive (or a non-confrontational) manner. If you have any idea's, lets work on a letter campaign to make USCIS aware of this. However, let us do this through personal PMs while we work out the details, as this is a very contentious issue and you will spend a lot of time responding to distracting arguments.
hair links golden retriever dog
gc_chahiye
10-17 03:30 PM
My 140 and 485s (with my wife as derivative )are from Nebraska and have a set of A#s,
again My wife's 140 and 485s (with me as derivative ) are from Texas and have a different set of A#s..
how to combine them and make uscis inform abt it???
Anybody any thoughts !!!
my lawyer is basically saying: if we get lucky then one gets approved and the other one can be withdrawn at that point; otherwise at some point USCIS is going to issue an RFE asking us to pick one of those two petitions and force us to withdraw one before they make a decision on the other. For now we are sitting tight, waiting to see what USCIS does.
again My wife's 140 and 485s (with me as derivative ) are from Texas and have a different set of A#s..
how to combine them and make uscis inform abt it???
Anybody any thoughts !!!
my lawyer is basically saying: if we get lucky then one gets approved and the other one can be withdrawn at that point; otherwise at some point USCIS is going to issue an RFE asking us to pick one of those two petitions and force us to withdraw one before they make a decision on the other. For now we are sitting tight, waiting to see what USCIS does.
more...
vdlrao
04-05 03:50 PM
I am posting this from Ron Gotcher's forum-
"Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11040563 (posted Apr. 5, 2011)"
Following-up ----------------------------------------are used. However, a rapid advance could spur a surge in demand that could impact the cut-off dates later in the year. The May Visa Bulletin, --------------of the year.
Is that mean they are going to move the PDs much further and again move back during the end of the year!!
So isn't this implying that the PDs will advance very very further than the available visa numbers!!!!!!!!!!
.
"Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 11040563 (posted Apr. 5, 2011)"
Following-up ----------------------------------------are used. However, a rapid advance could spur a surge in demand that could impact the cut-off dates later in the year. The May Visa Bulletin, --------------of the year.
Is that mean they are going to move the PDs much further and again move back during the end of the year!!
So isn't this implying that the PDs will advance very very further than the available visa numbers!!!!!!!!!!
.
hot The Golden Retriever is one of
priderock
07-10 10:58 AM
I understand each and every part of that DOS statement.
Peace! Relax! Let's wait and watch!
I thought so too :) :). Your's was just wishful thinking.
Peace! Relax! Let's wait and watch!
I thought so too :) :). Your's was just wishful thinking.
more...
house Mixed reed dog between Golden
ashshef
09-24 04:15 PM
"7% country speciific limit for primary applicants" and "2% country specific dependent limit" is mentioned in every bulletin published so far and so actually it is 9% limit - country specific together.
But question is " what is the meaning of it?" and "How to read it?"
Now the tables what are published in bulletin and we smash our heads daily on them are meant for "Visa number availability" not for "Physical Green card orderering".
So numbers (28.6% divided by 5 per each preference-country) are meant for USCIS to process and assign visa numbers till that limit reached.
"7% + 2%" country specific limit is meant for "Sending Greencard /Ordering Greencard".
In simplest form, EB-I will have 8008 X 3 (Without spilied over) = 24024 applications assigned Visa number this year and out of that ( 9% X 140000 = 12600) lucky ones will get their physical green cards THIS YEAR. The rest will get their physical green cards next year though their files have been assigned numbers (Pre-adjudicated.) this year.
Above mentioned explanation is the real meaning of this bullshit.
calculating and interpreting 0.07 x 0.286 for particular country is a wrong concept and I know millions of us follow that in their analysis and arguments but that is completely wrong.
I don't get how you are getting the 8008 figure. Based on the 9%, you are right about the cap for any country being 12,600 for all EB categories combined.
Pre-adjudication has nothing to do with country quota. And 'assigning a number' is still based on country quota. With all the pre-adjudication, it is likely that 'assigned numbers' = GC approvals. The 'assigned numbers' concept was a lot more relevant till last year, when they had numbers, but still had to 'process' the applications. Now most applications seem to have been 'pre-processed'(pre-adjudicated)
I do appreciate your work. Just trying to help achieve a more accurate figure.
But question is " what is the meaning of it?" and "How to read it?"
Now the tables what are published in bulletin and we smash our heads daily on them are meant for "Visa number availability" not for "Physical Green card orderering".
So numbers (28.6% divided by 5 per each preference-country) are meant for USCIS to process and assign visa numbers till that limit reached.
"7% + 2%" country specific limit is meant for "Sending Greencard /Ordering Greencard".
In simplest form, EB-I will have 8008 X 3 (Without spilied over) = 24024 applications assigned Visa number this year and out of that ( 9% X 140000 = 12600) lucky ones will get their physical green cards THIS YEAR. The rest will get their physical green cards next year though their files have been assigned numbers (Pre-adjudicated.) this year.
Above mentioned explanation is the real meaning of this bullshit.
calculating and interpreting 0.07 x 0.286 for particular country is a wrong concept and I know millions of us follow that in their analysis and arguments but that is completely wrong.
I don't get how you are getting the 8008 figure. Based on the 9%, you are right about the cap for any country being 12,600 for all EB categories combined.
Pre-adjudication has nothing to do with country quota. And 'assigning a number' is still based on country quota. With all the pre-adjudication, it is likely that 'assigned numbers' = GC approvals. The 'assigned numbers' concept was a lot more relevant till last year, when they had numbers, but still had to 'process' the applications. Now most applications seem to have been 'pre-processed'(pre-adjudicated)
I do appreciate your work. Just trying to help achieve a more accurate figure.
tattoo You could name the reed
nivasch
01-27 09:52 AM
I don't know is it right Thread or not.
But i found this information in Rajiv's website.
The Mesg says:-
New Volunteer Organization Formed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some members of this portal and others have come together to form a new organization supporting legal mmigration with special focus on issues faced by employment-based applicants. Please visit:
www.immigrationvoice.org
DISCLAIMER: The Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, PC cannot endorse or verify the activities of any organization. Please use your own judgment.
==================================
If we really not get his Endorsement, then we should remove that Information from our website.
Think about it
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/announcement.php?f=235&announcementid=84
But i found this information in Rajiv's website.
The Mesg says:-
New Volunteer Organization Formed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some members of this portal and others have come together to form a new organization supporting legal mmigration with special focus on issues faced by employment-based applicants. Please visit:
www.immigrationvoice.org
DISCLAIMER: The Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna, PC cannot endorse or verify the activities of any organization. Please use your own judgment.
==================================
If we really not get his Endorsement, then we should remove that Information from our website.
Think about it
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/announcement.php?f=235&announcementid=84
more...
pictures and golden retrievers; dog
gc_bulgaria
01-13 10:15 PM
Sent.
dresses a Golden Retriever puppy,
alias
08-07 11:52 AM
No, I have the conviction, but don't have money...
HAHAHAHAHAH......WHAT A JOKER!
HAHAHAHAHAH......WHAT A JOKER!
more...
makeup White Golden Retriever Looking
anilsal
01-24 12:30 PM
http://anilgeneral.blogspot.com/2008/01/india-in-1835.html
Someone forwarded this recently.
This may not be true, as told by pegasus.
Someone forwarded this recently.
This may not be true, as told by pegasus.
girlfriend golden retriever 1
eb_retrogession
02-09 02:45 PM
Guest-worker program on Bush radar
By Mike Madden
The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), February 6, 2006
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0206gop-immigration0206.html
By Mike Madden
The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), February 6, 2006
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0206gop-immigration0206.html
hairstyles golden retriever 3
micofrost
07-10 01:48 PM
guys,
lets not make this a Smitha bashing thread. This is what democracy in true sense. We should have an honest opposition , even if it is a ridiculous one to a constructive effort by the IV members.
Carry On IV Forum.
Sent flowers to be delivered on july 10th.
lets not make this a Smitha bashing thread. This is what democracy in true sense. We should have an honest opposition , even if it is a ridiculous one to a constructive effort by the IV members.
Carry On IV Forum.
Sent flowers to be delivered on july 10th.
ramus
01-09 08:04 PM
bump...
SunnySurya
08-07 02:17 PM
Of course you can do leagally, the GC is for the fututre job. We were able to do away with labor sub and we can do the same here.
Though, it is unfair one can not do legally, as long as USCIS recoconoze the the job offered at desi consulting companies are genuine and real "fulltime permanant job". They may be gaming the system..it is their model of bussiness to make money..and it is well supported by lawyers, lobbyists and ofcourse benefit seeking employees. You cant break this strong wall before the uscis. You should have witnessed how much resistance they created when DOL/USCIS abolished labor subsitution. In nut shell, if you close one loophole, they will find another. You are in wrong forum..
Though, it is unfair one can not do legally, as long as USCIS recoconoze the the job offered at desi consulting companies are genuine and real "fulltime permanant job". They may be gaming the system..it is their model of bussiness to make money..and it is well supported by lawyers, lobbyists and ofcourse benefit seeking employees. You cant break this strong wall before the uscis. You should have witnessed how much resistance they created when DOL/USCIS abolished labor subsitution. In nut shell, if you close one loophole, they will find another. You are in wrong forum..
