akhilmahajan
09-26 10:45 AM
There is a non-profit organization (like Business & Media Institute (http://www.businessandmedia.org/about/about.aspx)) that reports on wrong media reports. They have lot of reports on Lou Dobbs.
The details were posted in one of the many Lou Dobbs Threads. I can not find it.
If anyone can find it please post details of the organization and send email to this organization also.
Misrepresentation of facts regarding the recent rally in Washington DC. The rally was about increasing the number of Green Cards, and not H1-Bs. This reporter - Eileen Zimmermann has clearly gotten the two distinct issues mixed up.
The intent of the rally was to garner support and highlight the inefficiencies in the immigrant visa(also known as green card) process. This is different from the H-1B issue.. H-1B is a highly-skilled temporary work visa.
I ask that CNN must immediately issue a correction to this article to reflect the correct information.
Please call with any questions,
{Name}
{Phone Number}
The details were posted in one of the many Lou Dobbs Threads. I can not find it.
If anyone can find it please post details of the organization and send email to this organization also.
Misrepresentation of facts regarding the recent rally in Washington DC. The rally was about increasing the number of Green Cards, and not H1-Bs. This reporter - Eileen Zimmermann has clearly gotten the two distinct issues mixed up.
The intent of the rally was to garner support and highlight the inefficiencies in the immigrant visa(also known as green card) process. This is different from the H-1B issue.. H-1B is a highly-skilled temporary work visa.
I ask that CNN must immediately issue a correction to this article to reflect the correct information.
Please call with any questions,
{Name}
{Phone Number}
wallpaper hairstyles wwe nexus 2011 cm punk. wwe nexus cm punk logo. out wwe nexus cm
mmrao2007
07-14 05:15 PM
May be you can submit AC 21 now. Just a wild guess
paskal
12-28 12:18 PM
i have never had that problem
may have been because you booked those flights separately, if they are on the same itinerary and both were booked through Thai, United should not do that, guess they don't care because you are not continuing on United. btw how could they demand money for the international part of the flight- they are not Thai and their rules don't apply...i also think the person you dealt with was ignorant...
the problem i have seen- you fly into the US and have a connecting flight onwards- if you take it withing 24 hrs ie same day- bags just continue- if not you are stuck with domestic rules. now it no longer matters on american carriers at least, intl allowance has also been decreased to 50 lbs.
may have been because you booked those flights separately, if they are on the same itinerary and both were booked through Thai, United should not do that, guess they don't care because you are not continuing on United. btw how could they demand money for the international part of the flight- they are not Thai and their rules don't apply...i also think the person you dealt with was ignorant...
the problem i have seen- you fly into the US and have a connecting flight onwards- if you take it withing 24 hrs ie same day- bags just continue- if not you are stuck with domestic rules. now it no longer matters on american carriers at least, intl allowance has also been decreased to 50 lbs.
2011 pictures CM Punk Jerry Lawler (c) vs. wwe nexus 2011 cm punk.
willigetgc?
08-10 10:30 PM
i feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that eb3 needs iv's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for eb3, as ins merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
I went to the advocacy days in DC this June, and the biggest push IV was/is making - country cap elimination. The biggest benefactor of this change is EB3 (eb2 will be helped too, but that is how INS preference system works) - again, the biggest benefactor of this legislative change is eb3. IV has been pushing this issue over and over - try reaching out about town hall meetings or any such meetings with lawmakers - and you will figure out how much iv is working on behalf of eb3. Unfortunately, not many eb3 were active until the last 2 vbs. So, please do not say, "nothing much can be done for eb3" or "IV is not working for EB3". Its just that you may not see value in the route that IV is pursuing. It is eb3 members' unwillingness to admit that IV needs grass root help more than ever now.
but, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The ina language says that until eb2 is not current, there will be no spillover to eb3. Agreed. but i would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. that is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all eb2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 eb3.
i am sorry to point this out, but you are looking at this from only your angle. Don't get me wrong, i would probably do the same. Having said that, logically this change will not fly with the uscis - 2 reasons - 1. Your contention that this rule is year to year - flawed contention 2. What does all eb2 satisfied mean? - these arguments will not work. I am not pulling you or the idea down - but simply stating my point of view based on what I know of the law.
is this something iv can point out and fight for? Can eb3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
now a days we are seeing more threads related to spill over allocation interpretation etc, but i have not seen any single post by iv core about this. I am from eb3 community and share the frustration among others.
i remember a time just a few months ago this year, eb2 were complaining about spillover not happening, and iv core disputed it, saying that spillover was happening.
i see a lot of people suggesting to port from eb3 to eb2, instead of wasting time on these discussions. Well, porting is not an option for most of us. It is either because we are working for big companies (who do not want to extra burden) or not able to find a small company which can help us.
just like you are seeing the ground realities of porting from eb3 to eb2, i believe that iv knows the ground reality of proposing new interpretations to the law. I would go a little further in saying that the proposals considered here are changes in the law than changes in the interpretation of the law.
I may be wrong on my thinking, but I do hope you take a suggestion - when reading the INS law, understand it independently first. Then go back to see, if it can be applied on your interpretation. Do not start out with it, everything looks red when wearing red tinted glasses.......
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
I went to the advocacy days in DC this June, and the biggest push IV was/is making - country cap elimination. The biggest benefactor of this change is EB3 (eb2 will be helped too, but that is how INS preference system works) - again, the biggest benefactor of this legislative change is eb3. IV has been pushing this issue over and over - try reaching out about town hall meetings or any such meetings with lawmakers - and you will figure out how much iv is working on behalf of eb3. Unfortunately, not many eb3 were active until the last 2 vbs. So, please do not say, "nothing much can be done for eb3" or "IV is not working for EB3". Its just that you may not see value in the route that IV is pursuing. It is eb3 members' unwillingness to admit that IV needs grass root help more than ever now.
but, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The ina language says that until eb2 is not current, there will be no spillover to eb3. Agreed. but i would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. that is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all eb2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 eb3.
i am sorry to point this out, but you are looking at this from only your angle. Don't get me wrong, i would probably do the same. Having said that, logically this change will not fly with the uscis - 2 reasons - 1. Your contention that this rule is year to year - flawed contention 2. What does all eb2 satisfied mean? - these arguments will not work. I am not pulling you or the idea down - but simply stating my point of view based on what I know of the law.
is this something iv can point out and fight for? Can eb3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
now a days we are seeing more threads related to spill over allocation interpretation etc, but i have not seen any single post by iv core about this. I am from eb3 community and share the frustration among others.
i remember a time just a few months ago this year, eb2 were complaining about spillover not happening, and iv core disputed it, saying that spillover was happening.
i see a lot of people suggesting to port from eb3 to eb2, instead of wasting time on these discussions. Well, porting is not an option for most of us. It is either because we are working for big companies (who do not want to extra burden) or not able to find a small company which can help us.
just like you are seeing the ground realities of porting from eb3 to eb2, i believe that iv knows the ground reality of proposing new interpretations to the law. I would go a little further in saying that the proposals considered here are changes in the law than changes in the interpretation of the law.
I may be wrong on my thinking, but I do hope you take a suggestion - when reading the INS law, understand it independently first. Then go back to see, if it can be applied on your interpretation. Do not start out with it, everything looks red when wearing red tinted glasses.......
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
more...
ItIsNotFunny
10-17 02:38 PM
What did we achieve? Didn't come out with common agenda!
ragu
02-19 09:03 PM
are nil. Politicians are not going to touch immigration even with a 10 foot pole right now.
I'm one of those who say with pride that I can create jobs and buy houses. Then why will not congress or policy makers not touch this. As some here said it depends upon what we think about ourselves. I know many people who like to work under someone even after 10-15 years, my brother is like that, and I know many more like me who want to start companies, employ many people, and do bigger things. Both may be right in their own ways, but if you project yourself like me, then the doors will open.. Show enterprise..
I'm one of those who say with pride that I can create jobs and buy houses. Then why will not congress or policy makers not touch this. As some here said it depends upon what we think about ourselves. I know many people who like to work under someone even after 10-15 years, my brother is like that, and I know many more like me who want to start companies, employ many people, and do bigger things. Both may be right in their own ways, but if you project yourself like me, then the doors will open.. Show enterprise..
more...
nomi
12-11 03:03 PM
When we file I485 its with Department of States and not USCIS which is part of Department of Home Land Security. In my opinion it is DOS who has to agree filing I 485 even if visa number not available.
How can we contact with Department of State about this rule. Can we meet with rule making department or its officers and see what they say about it ??
There should be someway or they are enough rights to change or make new rule. Like they decide everymonth visa numbers ?? what do you guys think ??
thx.
How can we contact with Department of State about this rule. Can we meet with rule making department or its officers and see what they say about it ??
There should be someway or they are enough rights to change or make new rule. Like they decide everymonth visa numbers ?? what do you guys think ??
thx.
2010 wwe nexus 2011 cm punk.
sugaur
01-17 10:27 AM
Key to happiness and peace of mind is to determine weather the things bothering you are under your control or not. The exact date when you will get your GC is not under your control, so worrying about it is useless. On the other hand making sure your applications are filed properly and in a timely manner is under your control. Similarly, getting laid off is not under your control. On the other hand it is under your control to constatntly try and acquire new skills that will make you more appealing to employers.
For things which are beyond our control, there is no point worrying. For things which are under our control, no point worrying either BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER OUR CONTROL!!!
I found this little pearl of philosophy in a little book about the Roman Slave Epictecus who went on to become one of the leading Stoic philosophers.
For things which are beyond our control, there is no point worrying. For things which are under our control, no point worrying either BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER OUR CONTROL!!!
I found this little pearl of philosophy in a little book about the Roman Slave Epictecus who went on to become one of the leading Stoic philosophers.
more...
syzygy
04-03 01:57 PM
These numbers are only for EB3?
This was already done before. Sorry to repost again.
I have downloaded the MS Access data(from Flatdatacenter..) and wrote queries :
I could get labor cases filed for INDIANS only for years 2007,2006,2005. For other years the data is not available.
Folloing are the details:
YEAR-TOTAL Cases Certified - INDIA count
-------------------------------------------
2000-70,000
2001-77921
2002-79784
2003-62912
2004-43,582
2005-6133-1350
2006-79,782- 22,298
2007-85112 - 24,573
This was already done before. Sorry to repost again.
I have downloaded the MS Access data(from Flatdatacenter..) and wrote queries :
I could get labor cases filed for INDIANS only for years 2007,2006,2005. For other years the data is not available.
Folloing are the details:
YEAR-TOTAL Cases Certified - INDIA count
-------------------------------------------
2000-70,000
2001-77921
2002-79784
2003-62912
2004-43,582
2005-6133-1350
2006-79,782- 22,298
2007-85112 - 24,573
hair wwe nexus cm punk logo. cm punk; cm punk. crazyghoda. 01-16 04:27 PM
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!
more...
dontcareanymore
08-10 03:04 PM
That means EB2 India/China will see drastic movement this year....may be to end or 2007 or 2008?
Wishful thinking ?:)
Wishful thinking ?:)
hot wwe nexus 2011 cm punk. CM Punk Jerry Lawler (c) vs.
ajm
10-22 04:22 PM
I sent the fax today afternoon.
more...
house CM Punk the new Nexus t
tabletpc
12-20 04:42 PM
..Yes, I did. In fact, many times...""
Then go have blast tonight...you are perfectly fine. Atleast now can we laugh..!!!!:)
Then go have blast tonight...you are perfectly fine. Atleast now can we laugh..!!!!:)
tattoo wwe nexus new logo 2011. wwe
gclabor07
03-15 10:50 AM
Hello,
I too am looking to carpool with someone driving from the Cockeysville area. I'm staying at a friend's place, but he is flying out that weekend to attend a job interview. So, I'm in need of a ride as well. If you find a ride, please let me know as well.
Thanks.
Hi ,
I am looking for carpool who is driving from Baltimore area.
I live on 18 exit on 83 north.
will be driving via 83 south/695/95south/
any one in this route please email me.
I too am looking to carpool with someone driving from the Cockeysville area. I'm staying at a friend's place, but he is flying out that weekend to attend a job interview. So, I'm in need of a ride as well. If you find a ride, please let me know as well.
Thanks.
Hi ,
I am looking for carpool who is driving from Baltimore area.
I live on 18 exit on 83 north.
will be driving via 83 south/695/95south/
any one in this route please email me.
more...
pictures 2011 a low blow on CM Punk,
kondur_007
07-12 04:30 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
This is simply the explanation as to why will EB2 India get a huge number and not so much for EB2 China (so when year end statistics come out, there would not be too much noise about why EB2 India got several thousands of visa numbers more than any other category).
Indication that EB2 India will get huge numbers...this is just explanation as to why:)
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
This is simply the explanation as to why will EB2 India get a huge number and not so much for EB2 China (so when year end statistics come out, there would not be too much noise about why EB2 India got several thousands of visa numbers more than any other category).
Indication that EB2 India will get huge numbers...this is just explanation as to why:)
dresses 2010 2010 wwe nexus 2011 cm
Jaime
09-10 03:41 PM
You always have to justify your existence - Like when you go through U.S. immigration after every trip abroad and the immigration officer grills you like you are a criminal on whether you are still working for your H1-B employer, what you do, etc and just plain old gives you a hard time, when your only sin was to briefly leave the U.S. on a business or pleasure trip.
more...
makeup wwe nexus cm punk wallpapers.
alterego
07-14 09:37 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as the poster above said the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
girlfriend wwe nexus cm punk logo.
grinch
02-14 04:44 PM
thanks soulty for the ideas!
Well guys, lets start submitting shall we?
and the battle is currently OPEN
Well guys, lets start submitting shall we?
and the battle is currently OPEN
hairstyles 2011 Cm punk websites on mark
GreenCard4US
06-11 02:54 PM
Should we contact the Indian Government?
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
Look I don't want to say this to you but I am left with no other choice. When CEOs such as Steve Ballmer and John Chambers are personally calling the Senators because they think this amendment is a real threat, it will be least of our worries what opponents would think about us getting scared. We are not scared, we are simply making our voices heard. If we were scared we won't be doing this.
Now, you have no freaking clue of what is going on behind the scenes, this is your third post in this forum and all these posts in opposition to our action item which we are coordinating with other coalition partners. Why do you think you know more than the folks who are right now speaking with the Senators?
royus77
08-11 10:58 PM
If there is a non-controversial immi. law change attempt I will donate $500. I will also bring my friends and the total may exceed $2000. We all willing to donate but only if we know that there is good chance of passing.
If there is an attempt to push ideas like recapture, forget it. It will not pass in this economy. I do not want to waste my money and time on those kind of ideas.
IMHO. Not to find fault with anyone. Please do not mistake me.
what is the percentage you are looking ? 50 -50 ?I know thousands of people who can write a check for 10K to support any law that can give them a GC in the next 3-6 months..
If there is an attempt to push ideas like recapture, forget it. It will not pass in this economy. I do not want to waste my money and time on those kind of ideas.
IMHO. Not to find fault with anyone. Please do not mistake me.
what is the percentage you are looking ? 50 -50 ?I know thousands of people who can write a check for 10K to support any law that can give them a GC in the next 3-6 months..
pitha
01-02 04:10 PM
Is there any way to find out the number of members in IV. I talked about IV with a lot of my friends and 6 of them have become members. It would be nice to know the number of members in IV just like we know the Percentage of Target Met for $ contributions.
