narendra_modi
02-09 11:54 PM
Really? Narendra Modi is great? And thats why he has been banned from visiting USA...WOW
hahaha...who said that..I am here with you sitting with you guys - in the heart of capital of the world ....I don't need any entry permit ....And in India, no body can dare me even touch to me..they know the consequences ....Sooner or later you will see me in New Delhi's PM chair..believe it or not ..Let them indict me in Godhara & post Godhara & world will remember that day as a turning point of Indian politics !!!
hahaha...who said that..I am here with you sitting with you guys - in the heart of capital of the world ....I don't need any entry permit ....And in India, no body can dare me even touch to me..they know the consequences ....Sooner or later you will see me in New Delhi's PM chair..believe it or not ..Let them indict me in Godhara & post Godhara & world will remember that day as a turning point of Indian politics !!!
wallpaper Kawasaki Ninja 150R Fairing
balakishore
07-20 10:27 AM
Could some one please tell me on how to contribute for this issue ?
I am ready to contribute a little.
I hope everybody will contribute a little, so that AMAN will come out of this issue.
--Balakishore
( Contributed $100 till today )
I am ready to contribute a little.
I hope everybody will contribute a little, so that AMAN will come out of this issue.
--Balakishore
( Contributed $100 till today )
delhiguy
07-07 08:33 AM
There is no wrong doing by DOS by changing the VB, but the timing is wrong. They should have changed it as soon as they released it or else atleast by 25th or 26th to prevent some damage.
Totally agree.. Can you tell which law has been broken by them.
They didnt break a single law.
USCIS broke a law last month by not accepting the EB3 Other workers, even when the bulletin said that the numbers were avaible.
But this time , they just did something morally wrong ( that 2 i am not sure, based upon what i have read so far, which are more or less speculations)
DOS updated the bulletin , for which they have full legal rights,
and USCIS just follwed it, No Law was broken,atleast i cant see, which law was broken.
If you go for a lawsuit , you would get those damages back, but as i said USCIS being a fees funded organisation, its will come back to you.
Totally agree.. Can you tell which law has been broken by them.
They didnt break a single law.
USCIS broke a law last month by not accepting the EB3 Other workers, even when the bulletin said that the numbers were avaible.
But this time , they just did something morally wrong ( that 2 i am not sure, based upon what i have read so far, which are more or less speculations)
DOS updated the bulletin , for which they have full legal rights,
and USCIS just follwed it, No Law was broken,atleast i cant see, which law was broken.
If you go for a lawsuit , you would get those damages back, but as i said USCIS being a fees funded organisation, its will come back to you.
2011 tattoo Kawasaki Ninja 150 krr
abracadabra
07-07 11:03 PM
Where you getting your number from? Did you already set up poll?
I appreciate your time in answering in asking this question. I am real serious about this issue. I am positive I can get more, as you know we desi have a very sleepy community, if we kick their as*** they all will come.
I appreciate your time in answering in asking this question. I am real serious about this issue. I am positive I can get more, as you know we desi have a very sleepy community, if we kick their as*** they all will come.
more...
jnraajan
02-08 06:58 PM
Pappu
The link on your message to donate seems to be broken. can you check into it, or can I just donate to IV through Paypal.
The link on your message to donate seems to be broken. can you check into it, or can I just donate to IV through Paypal.
bhobama
05-10 11:46 AM
I think it is ironic that we (from India) complain about quota on GC when we are the masters of quotas whether it be in education, workplace, politics etc. I myself was not affected by quotas in India, but I know several friends who were, simply because they were born in "upper caste" and therefore had to be denied opportunities as "revenge" for the injustice meted out by their ancestors several centuries ago, instead of being based on economics.
I personally think GC quota has a rationale behind it. It allows for a reasonable share to go to smaller countries so that the US population maintains its diversity. Besides, near the end of the year, if the numbers are unused, they are rolled over to larger countries like India and China, thereby automatically eliminating the quota.
I personally think GC quota has a rationale behind it. It allows for a reasonable share to go to smaller countries so that the US population maintains its diversity. Besides, near the end of the year, if the numbers are unused, they are rolled over to larger countries like India and China, thereby automatically eliminating the quota.
more...
100mya
11-17 08:21 PM
Sent the email
2010 images kawasaki ninja 150 krr.
bobzibub
07-08 12:13 AM
It gets interesting. Doesn't it? Even if the court agrees that this is a fiasco and would like to compensate the beneficiaries by allowing us to file for 485, it would be in direct violation of the law that " there must be a number available on the day of filing ".We don't have any numbers. Do we? My point is, will a judicial system go out of the box and allow us to file when there are no visa numbers available? The only way is get numbers and make every one file and the only way for that is to undo what the USCIS has done in the last 2 weeks of June. Just my thoughts. I am ready to take anything positive out of this because I have least hopes pegged on the law suit.
If there must be a number at the day of filing, who's responsibility is it to manage that then? The applicant's? I filed my eb-485 based upon *their* indication that there were numbers available. I relied upon them in good faith that there were. Now I understand that they did their best to use them up as soon as they issued the visa bulletin--probably because the July 485s would not be at the higher fee schedule.
I think a judge would have no option but to allow the filings. It is not that allowing the 485s to stand would break the "numbers must be available" law. That law has already been broken, when they put Cs all over the visa bulletin.
Cheers,
-b
If there must be a number at the day of filing, who's responsibility is it to manage that then? The applicant's? I filed my eb-485 based upon *their* indication that there were numbers available. I relied upon them in good faith that there were. Now I understand that they did their best to use them up as soon as they issued the visa bulletin--probably because the July 485s would not be at the higher fee schedule.
I think a judge would have no option but to allow the filings. It is not that allowing the 485s to stand would break the "numbers must be available" law. That law has already been broken, when they put Cs all over the visa bulletin.
Cheers,
-b
more...
mmanurker
02-09 02:03 PM
Here is my $100 contribution
Dt: 02/09/09
Receipt ID: 5524-9117-6391-1389.
Dt: 02/09/09
Receipt ID: 5524-9117-6391-1389.
hair dresses kawasaki ninja 150 krr
diptam
06-27 10:33 AM
May end i had 11 day bench but they paid in full... They are good in some aspects that's why i stayed with them for 2.5 yrs....
But signing a binding contract for an indeterminate period ( I yr after GC)
is making me worried !!
If you are consulting and not getting bench period salary, try to be out of project for some time and ask him to pay for that period. According to H1B he supposed to pay the salary. Probably at that point he has to let you go.
But signing a binding contract for an indeterminate period ( I yr after GC)
is making me worried !!
If you are consulting and not getting bench period salary, try to be out of project for some time and ask him to pay for that period. According to H1B he supposed to pay the salary. Probably at that point he has to let you go.
more...
nat23
02-05 03:40 PM
"Naitik, you just completed your payment.
Your receipt number for this payment is: 1607-9931-0030-0509."
Donated $50
Your receipt number for this payment is: 1607-9931-0030-0509."
Donated $50
hot pictures kawasaki ninja 150
saimrathi
07-02 08:37 AM
Sent by UPS on June 30. UPS website shows recd at Lincoln, NE at 7.30am on 7/2/07 signed by Hindera.
more...
house kawasaki ninja 150 krr.
sparklinks
08-18 09:57 PM
June 18th still waiting, No LUDs... PD EB2-I; 03/2006
tattoo Kawasaki Ninja 150 Krr.
rahulpaper
10-03 11:43 AM
bump
more...
pictures KRR ZX150
BharatPremi
09-21 12:20 PM
Which number to call?? Do they ask all the details of lawyer as well??
Thanks
Call USCIS on 1-800-375-5283. Then sequence to get the "Human" on line is 1-2-2-6-2-2-1.
Thanks
Call USCIS on 1-800-375-5283. Then sequence to get the "Human" on line is 1-2-2-6-2-2-1.
dresses 2010 Kawasaki ninja zx RR
setpit_gc
06-13 12:27 AM
My 485 application was filed with NSC on June 4th, 2007. I know it is too early to expect receipt notice.
Who will receive the original approval notice?. Attorney or me?. Who will receive the FP notice?.
Thanks a lot
Ram
Who will receive the original approval notice?. Attorney or me?. Who will receive the FP notice?.
Thanks a lot
Ram
more...
makeup untuk KAWASAKI NINJA 150RR
feedfront
08-26 03:10 PM
You will see a date on I-485 only if you filed I-140 & I-485 concurrently. Even my I-485 does not have any priority date.
is this pattern (missing PD on I-485) for people who've PD current and not got greened?
is this pattern (missing PD on I-485) for people who've PD current and not got greened?
girlfriend kawasaki ninja 150 krr.
newuser
05-23 07:37 AM
I am about to e-mail to the Senators based on the new letter.
Folks, but I have a simple question. Is the following provision addressed by IV when contacting the Senators or not ?
Placement of employees at client site(Consulting business practices): Under the proposed bill one cannot place H1B employees at another employer�s site (common in consulting business) whether you are H1B-dependent-employer or not. Today, the law places that restriction only on H1B-dependent-employers. This proposed law applies that restriction of outplacement on all employers across the board.
Folks, but I have a simple question. Is the following provision addressed by IV when contacting the Senators or not ?
Placement of employees at client site(Consulting business practices): Under the proposed bill one cannot place H1B employees at another employer�s site (common in consulting business) whether you are H1B-dependent-employer or not. Today, the law places that restriction only on H1B-dependent-employers. This proposed law applies that restriction of outplacement on all employers across the board.
hairstyles kawasaki ninja 150 krr
when
10-02 02:02 PM
:-|
royus77
07-06 07:55 PM
TSC reached 07/02 @ 10.23pm signed by L. Amrstrong
is it am or pm
is it am or pm
delax
07-27 12:33 AM
That is your take ....or they could end up distributing the spill over Visas equally among all EB categories because the original quota is equally distributed too. This benefits both EB3 and EB2.
Please do not try to pass on your opinions as facts ...they are not.
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
Please do not try to pass on your opinions as facts ...they are not.
It is true that the original number is broken up equally among all categories but the INA clearly states that if the demand within a category is not sufficient to use up all the visas in that category then the excess should be made available without any regard to country limit in that category. Here's a fact from the July bulletin - not an opinion:
There have been questions raised regarding the way numbers have been provided to the China and India in the Employment Second preference categories beginning in April. Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if total demand for visas in an Employment preference category is insufficient to use all available visa numbers in that category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limit. (For example: If the second preference annual limit were 40,000, number use by �All Other Countries� were estimated to be only 25,000, and the China/India combined number use based on their per-country limits were 6,000, then there would be 9,000 numbers unused. Those 9,000 numbers could then be made available to China and India applicants without regard to their per-country limits.)
I dont buy the argument that length of wait (as implied in the letter) should determine eligibility for approval disregarding the clear categorization established by law AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. I have always maintained that any logic used to justify shifting visas between EB2 and EB3 purely based on the length of wait can also easily be used between EB2 and EB1. The fact that EB1 has never retrogressed does not matter. Unfortunately LAW is an absolute entity - there is no compassionate interpretation in civil and common law.
If a EB3-2002 is approved before EB2-2004 purely based on length of wait and ignoring the categorization after the initial handout then the same logic or rationale can be used to approve EB2-2004 before EB1-2007 by 'holding back' the visa from the EB1 candidate and giving it to EB2.
I dont think either of us is interested in going down the path of EB2 versus EB3 but to the extent this letter implies/attempts to do that, it is detrimental to the functioning of this group. Cheers
