krishmunn
03-27 10:04 AM
I seriously doubt the genuinity of this poster. No authority will hold a valid passport of a foreign country, no country will allow to let one in with a copy of passport heck the airline will not even allow to board without a passport.
This guy may be here just to play some scare tactics.
This guy may be here just to play some scare tactics.
wallpaper hair styles for women over 60 years old. cute short haircuts for women
yabadaba
06-01 01:54 PM
i dont get it...how come programmers guild gets a say in everything when they cant even get members to join or to even get people to be on their board of directors?
i have not seen one resume of an american tech worker that lists programmers guild as an association they belong to. Still.. how to they get solicited for opinions every day and Kim Berry keeps using strong rheotric to influence public opinion? What about his war on legal immigrants?
"Board Members
Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
John Miano (New Jersey)
Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
(three openings)
Officers
President: Mr. Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Secretary: (open)
Treasurer: John Miano (New Jersey)
Membership Chairman: Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
V.P. Governmental Relations: Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
Newsletter Editor: Open
Newsletter Coeditor: Open
V.P. Public Relations: Open
V.P. Advertising: Open
Press Releases: Open
Assistant webmaster: Open
(If you would like to contribute to our cause in another way, please contact us.)
The Programmers Guild is incorporated "
i have not seen one resume of an american tech worker that lists programmers guild as an association they belong to. Still.. how to they get solicited for opinions every day and Kim Berry keeps using strong rheotric to influence public opinion? What about his war on legal immigrants?
"Board Members
Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
John Miano (New Jersey)
Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
(three openings)
Officers
President: Mr. Kim Berry (Sacramento, CA)
Secretary: (open)
Treasurer: John Miano (New Jersey)
Membership Chairman: Valerie Chau (San Diego, CA)
V.P. Governmental Relations: Mark Powell (Westminster, CA)
Newsletter Editor: Open
Newsletter Coeditor: Open
V.P. Public Relations: Open
V.P. Advertising: Open
Press Releases: Open
Assistant webmaster: Open
(If you would like to contribute to our cause in another way, please contact us.)
The Programmers Guild is incorporated "
gcdreamer05
08-05 05:11 PM
Guys n Girls,
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
I would like to listen to your views or experience in this matter. As we know, the employer is now required to pay for all fees associated with filing a labor certification (first step in the GC application). Is it legit for the employer to engage the employee in a contract that requires the employee to reimburse all immigration related fees (including the labor cert fee) to the employer if the employee quits the company when the GC petition is pending?
I guess DOL wants the employer to pay for the labor cert fee. Is it ok for the employer to get it back, say a year later, when the employee quits the company, which in sense would mean that the employee ended up paying for the labor cert.
Comments please.
Thanks!
that is totally illegal and if it happens and if someone complains to DOL then the employer will be in "Lake Soup"
2011 haircuts for women over
Friend
02-18 10:21 PM
Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything in your wife's matter. The people you are referring to as the ones whose cases got accepted are the ones with bounced checks. There is a difference between the manner in which USCIS treats cases with bounced checks and cases where checks are missing, are in an incorrect amount, there is a mismatch between words and figures in the check, check is not dated, check is not signed, etc.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
more...
snram4
06-25 04:49 PM
what you mean by qualified people? Are you expecting a dynamic person with master degree or above with more than 5 years
but less than 10 years and those willing to work 16 hours a day and ready to relocate any time and for the QA analyst
position with the pay range of 30 to 40K? Then you will never get except some unemployed H1bs. I am seeing so
many unemployed Citizens/GCs/EAD and existing H1bs are available in USA. The slow movement of H1b cap shows that
That's correct.
There are many unemployed, but there are not many qualified willing people available.
Trying hard to recruit IT people for a month. Hardly finding any.
but less than 10 years and those willing to work 16 hours a day and ready to relocate any time and for the QA analyst
position with the pay range of 30 to 40K? Then you will never get except some unemployed H1bs. I am seeing so
many unemployed Citizens/GCs/EAD and existing H1bs are available in USA. The slow movement of H1b cap shows that
That's correct.
There are many unemployed, but there are not many qualified willing people available.
Trying hard to recruit IT people for a month. Hardly finding any.
nav_kri
04-01 08:09 PM
Yes, the info is right
Found this text at http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/srsvisaholder.html
Important note: A new and updated version of the AINP Occupations Under Pressure List for the Strategic Recruitment Stream � U.S. Visa Holder Category will be posted to this site on April 15, 2009. Any applications postmarked before April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the list currently posted. All applications postmarked on or after April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the revised list that will be posted on April 15, 2009.
Found this text at http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/srsvisaholder.html
Important note: A new and updated version of the AINP Occupations Under Pressure List for the Strategic Recruitment Stream � U.S. Visa Holder Category will be posted to this site on April 15, 2009. Any applications postmarked before April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the list currently posted. All applications postmarked on or after April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the revised list that will be posted on April 15, 2009.
more...
saileshdude
06-25 12:55 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
2010 Haircuts for women over 60
delax
07-16 08:20 PM
Check this post from logiclife
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=117422#post117422
Originally Posted by logiclife
IV core stands by the information it provided this afternoon about a solution that will be announced soon. If not on Monday, it will be annouced on Tuesday or Wednesday (Latest). These things could take time to process because of numerous departments and agencies involved and various procedures involved.
AILA has reported that decision has not yet been reached and wont be reached without lawsuit.
That information is not true based on what we know and we stick to our assertion that a solution that gives us relief has been worked out and a lawsuit will not be needed.
AILA/AILF is free to file its lawsuit if it feels the need to do that, however we have been hearing about them filing the lawsuit since July 2nd. And if they are so sure that lawsuit is the only way that solution will come out, then why dont we see the lawsuit yet ? After all, private parties and smaller lawfirms have filed lawsuit so what's the hold-up at AILA/AILF if they are so sure that no solution is possible without lawsuits ?
Logiclife - I think it was a great idea to delete your post above - I truly think that the efforts of IV need to be commended but lets not forget that it was equally a combined effort of ALL stakeholders involved. Lets be humble during this hour of aniticipation.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=117422#post117422
Originally Posted by logiclife
IV core stands by the information it provided this afternoon about a solution that will be announced soon. If not on Monday, it will be annouced on Tuesday or Wednesday (Latest). These things could take time to process because of numerous departments and agencies involved and various procedures involved.
AILA has reported that decision has not yet been reached and wont be reached without lawsuit.
That information is not true based on what we know and we stick to our assertion that a solution that gives us relief has been worked out and a lawsuit will not be needed.
AILA/AILF is free to file its lawsuit if it feels the need to do that, however we have been hearing about them filing the lawsuit since July 2nd. And if they are so sure that lawsuit is the only way that solution will come out, then why dont we see the lawsuit yet ? After all, private parties and smaller lawfirms have filed lawsuit so what's the hold-up at AILA/AILF if they are so sure that no solution is possible without lawsuits ?
Logiclife - I think it was a great idea to delete your post above - I truly think that the efforts of IV need to be commended but lets not forget that it was equally a combined effort of ALL stakeholders involved. Lets be humble during this hour of aniticipation.
more...
BharatPremi
03-17 10:26 AM
Substitute labors for EB2 should not IMPACT the delay more than 3 to 6 months. The reason is total EB2 labor india cases approved with PD in 2004 itself is 3500(Straight out of DOL database, published on this forum last year). Some of these cases may have been substituted, worst case, lets say 100% of them applied to I-485. Now the number is 3 times that of 3500. that is 10500(including spouse and 1 child on average).
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
Another thing you need to consider is If anycase had a PD before sept 2004 and was filed for I-485 before July 2007. That must have got the approval unless there was a namecheck delay.
That should reduce the number to half., 5500(including dependent cases). This is my educated guess, Please dont pick on me. It wont help anybody.
Below are 3 categories left in 2004 as per my analysis....
1) the applications filed in or after july 2007 OR
2) applications had a PD after sept 2004
3) Namecheck delayed cases.
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW, assuming equal number of each country category applied during july though in reality max. applicants should have been from China and India) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
hair Haircuts for women over 60
chintals
09-03 01:33 PM
How did you do that? can you please provide info?
The phone number to call and would they need any information from me?
1) Call 800 and convince the person to escalate to 2nd level and speak to IIO
2) Call 800 and choose cases were seperated option which will go to respective service center and talk to IO.
Some folks are helpful and some are not.. It all depends how you approach and how you can convince.. good luck. Other option is go to Infopass.
The phone number to call and would they need any information from me?
1) Call 800 and convince the person to escalate to 2nd level and speak to IIO
2) Call 800 and choose cases were seperated option which will go to respective service center and talk to IO.
Some folks are helpful and some are not.. It all depends how you approach and how you can convince.. good luck. Other option is go to Infopass.
more...
NKR
03-17 01:02 PM
I have a priority date of March 2004 (EB2 India) and I am still waiting for my Green Card. I think majority of the 2004 filers are in the same boat except for a lucky few who were able to get the green card after the July fiasco.
Good Luck!!
I agree. Remember there were two backlog elimination centers and the processing from Philly center was slow. So a person with a later 2004 EB2 PD application and whose LC was cleared from Dallas must have got his GC where as someone with an earlier PD was stuck in Philly. Most of the Dallas guys got their GC around that time.
Good Luck!!
I agree. Remember there were two backlog elimination centers and the processing from Philly center was slow. So a person with a later 2004 EB2 PD application and whose LC was cleared from Dallas must have got his GC where as someone with an earlier PD was stuck in Philly. Most of the Dallas guys got their GC around that time.
hot pictures of hair styles for women over 60. quot;hairstyles for women over
maverick_joe
02-12 02:46 PM
it wudnt be automatic simply because the primary on the 485 might not be ROW but the secondary would be ROW.
I would think Cross-Charegeability is automatic. I mean if one spouse is birth country India/China and one is ROW, I would think cross charegeability is automatic but then again not a 100% sure.
I would think Cross-Charegeability is automatic. I mean if one spouse is birth country India/China and one is ROW, I would think cross charegeability is automatic but then again not a 100% sure.
more...
house short hair styles for women
dbevis
March 15th, 2004, 11:28 AM
Steven brings up a good point about those camera phones. I fear them to a degree. Someone told me recently that they had read/heard advice that when you're using a credit card at a store make sure you keep the numbers covered up. Apparently, people with camera phones have been known to take a picture of your card to get the numbers and expiration date.
Gary
Yeah, saw that on the news, too. My card has a hologram over the last 4 digits which should help foil (oooh, bad pun) this type of thing. Heck unless the light's just right I can't always read it. :)
I did hear one report where they got a robber's license plate from someone's cam-phone, so there's a good aspect to them, too.
Gary
Yeah, saw that on the news, too. My card has a hologram over the last 4 digits which should help foil (oooh, bad pun) this type of thing. Heck unless the light's just right I can't always read it. :)
I did hear one report where they got a robber's license plate from someone's cam-phone, so there's a good aspect to them, too.
tattoo short haircuts for women over
hopefulgc
08-13 03:28 PM
actually its a great movie title "vdlrao kaun hai"
who is vld rao?
who is vld rao?
more...
pictures hair styles for women over 60 years old. short hair styles for women
rangakutta
02-10 11:56 AM
I have a masters in Electrical engineering. And my job duties is system administration or say system analyst.
dresses hair styles for women over
clazale
04-07 03:26 PM
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/28005017/
Its not easy but can be done. The cover letter in my case didn't work - no way of knowing because my application was filed in July when EVERYONE was current. Lawyer screwed up and didnt file in February 07 with the I 140. Below is what I got back from TSC re: cross charge- I had to jump through the hoops for them to consider it. There are some good and informative posts on .
"Today I received an email from my lawyers office who had requested a congressional inquiry with TSC. Good news is that my congresswoman's office is really efficient - they followed up till they got the confirmation. Now atleast I know they will consider it as CC.
Below is what TSC wrote back. Now the wait for visa bulletins and processing dates resumes!
"The message was sent to management. Yes they can be charge cross chargeability. However, at this time the files can not be request due to the large volume of work the unit has. Cases are process accordingly and chronological.
Will sent another message to management, but this request in expediting these cases does not meet the service criteria.
Thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further questions regarding this case.
Texas Service Center
Congressional Relations " "
I am trying to get TSC to accept my cross-chargeability without much luck. I would really appreciate it if you could spare few mins to answer a few questions:
1. Will an infopass appointment help or a call to customer service help?
2. Do you have the format of the letter sent by your congresswomen's office?
3. Is it better if my lawyer requests the congressman's office or should i do it?
4. If i speak to my congressmans office, should i inform my attorney? I hope the letters sent by the congressmans office do not undo any work my attorney might have done.
5. How do we know that cross chargeability has been accepted. Does USCIS always send a letter informing that they have accepted the request for cross-chargeability?
Any help is really appreciated.
Its not easy but can be done. The cover letter in my case didn't work - no way of knowing because my application was filed in July when EVERYONE was current. Lawyer screwed up and didnt file in February 07 with the I 140. Below is what I got back from TSC re: cross charge- I had to jump through the hoops for them to consider it. There are some good and informative posts on .
"Today I received an email from my lawyers office who had requested a congressional inquiry with TSC. Good news is that my congresswoman's office is really efficient - they followed up till they got the confirmation. Now atleast I know they will consider it as CC.
Below is what TSC wrote back. Now the wait for visa bulletins and processing dates resumes!
"The message was sent to management. Yes they can be charge cross chargeability. However, at this time the files can not be request due to the large volume of work the unit has. Cases are process accordingly and chronological.
Will sent another message to management, but this request in expediting these cases does not meet the service criteria.
Thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further questions regarding this case.
Texas Service Center
Congressional Relations " "
I am trying to get TSC to accept my cross-chargeability without much luck. I would really appreciate it if you could spare few mins to answer a few questions:
1. Will an infopass appointment help or a call to customer service help?
2. Do you have the format of the letter sent by your congresswomen's office?
3. Is it better if my lawyer requests the congressman's office or should i do it?
4. If i speak to my congressmans office, should i inform my attorney? I hope the letters sent by the congressmans office do not undo any work my attorney might have done.
5. How do we know that cross chargeability has been accepted. Does USCIS always send a letter informing that they have accepted the request for cross-chargeability?
Any help is really appreciated.
more...
makeup hair styles for women over 60.
fromnaija
07-20 04:43 PM
If your friend maintains H status, she could bring her baby back on H4 visa.
Same question. My friend is pregnant and wants to deliver the baby in India. They have filed for AoS now. Howevr they are not sure how to bring ther baby in if they deliver in India.
Same question. My friend is pregnant and wants to deliver the baby in India. They have filed for AoS now. Howevr they are not sure how to bring ther baby in if they deliver in India.
girlfriend pictures of hair styles for women over 60. quot;hairstyles for women over
SlowRoasted
06-13 01:18 PM
i dunno, its probably some crazy formula it goes by. Any math wizes here?
hairstyles hair styles for women over 60
gctoget
09-10 06:08 PM
Placed a google order for $100
Google Order #570596617489866
Google Order #570596617489866
sagittariusarm
08-27 12:45 PM
Can we go in person, I thought they would encourage only in case of emergency. Any one know that if we can go to the consulate and get the passport renewed quickly for sure.
Thanks
Govardhan
I am not sure, if you can go in person to houston, mine was sent to washington dc and I got it in 10 days. I had tough time for a different case.
Try to avoid Houston, you will not get any response or anyhelp, I guess they are sleeping for ever.
Thanks
Govardhan
I am not sure, if you can go in person to houston, mine was sent to washington dc and I got it in 10 days. I had tough time for a different case.
Try to avoid Houston, you will not get any response or anyhelp, I guess they are sleeping for ever.
Green.Tech
08-06 11:00 AM
Didn't you know for sure that you were going to stay with employer before asking them to apply GC.
It may be illegal by Law by asking you to give the money back, but where would you put your action of wasting somebody's money?
Not sure the contracting terms between you and your employer, but surely he was not the one forcing you to join the company, its you joined.
If he was ready to help you to get GC, ready to invest atleast 9K on the process, why would you think his money is there just for you to play.
Of course, you have valid points by law, you may escape from the latch now, but make sure this is not an repeating event.
Calm down buddy, no need to get excited!
FYI. I have been with the employer for ever. It's just that they are now revisiting/revising their GC policy, and I am trying to make sure that the policy makes sense for both the employer and any future employees. And who knows I may have to agree to this policy in future if I decide to redo my GC application :)
It may be illegal by Law by asking you to give the money back, but where would you put your action of wasting somebody's money?
Not sure the contracting terms between you and your employer, but surely he was not the one forcing you to join the company, its you joined.
If he was ready to help you to get GC, ready to invest atleast 9K on the process, why would you think his money is there just for you to play.
Of course, you have valid points by law, you may escape from the latch now, but make sure this is not an repeating event.
Calm down buddy, no need to get excited!
FYI. I have been with the employer for ever. It's just that they are now revisiting/revising their GC policy, and I am trying to make sure that the policy makes sense for both the employer and any future employees. And who knows I may have to agree to this policy in future if I decide to redo my GC application :)
No comments:
Post a Comment