seahawks
09-13 02:03 AM
Tri-State and neighboring states, you can definitely make it to DC easily! What's stopping you? Let's go! Let's make the rally a historic event!!!! TOGETHER WE CAN!!!!
Tri-State, Tri-cities, Tri-Counties:D
lets all go to D.C!!!
Tri-State, Tri-cities, Tri-Counties:D
lets all go to D.C!!!
wallpaper images cartoon girl child.
nawlinspoboys
09-28 08:39 AM
Good writeup on your brother's experience in India. My brother went to India (for a visit) after 8 years in USA. What he found was great stuff and real bad stuff going on at the same time. Good stuff includes amazing money and prosperity coming to middle and lower middle class of India(ofcourse the poor are left out of all this and suffer). 10 years back middle and lower middle class kids were suffering and getting a manufacturing or civil job for 1000 Rs (after reference from a company insider). Now they get 30 or 40 thousand to begin with. Thats amazin. Downside is lots of cars, tremendous amount of pollution, congestion and same bureaucracy as before. The infrastucture is getting worse and no relief in sight. Also Indian professionals complain about long hours to support US clients. They have no normal family life. Most people stay in the offices till 10 in the night. So I guess it all depends on what each one of us wants. Returning to India is a good idea if you dont mind all the bad things. If you want to live a easy life stick to USA. Ofcourse you will need to diversify in career in coming years.
DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON EU..THEY SUCK A**!!!! TOO LIBERAL (AND RACIST) FOR THEIR OWN DEMISE!!
DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON EU..THEY SUCK A**!!!! TOO LIBERAL (AND RACIST) FOR THEIR OWN DEMISE!!
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
2011 stock vector : Small girl with
calgirl
07-20 02:40 PM
you don't need PD's to be current to apply for interim benefits like EAD/AP
Thanks WeShallOvercome. I panicked for a few minutes. :)
Thanks WeShallOvercome. I panicked for a few minutes. :)
more...
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
InTheMoment
05-26 07:13 PM
Actually entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada and the coast.
I feel the 100 mile rule is very reasonable and Border Patrol has every right to conduct random searches, question or detain whoever they suspect is breaking the law. Since it is clear that they could do that in this area, it is absolutely no burden for me to carry my papers when traveling here. At least it is easy when I know where the enforcement will be tighter. Harassment... absolutely not! I would so encourage something similar in my own country :)
I myself was once stopped on a cold December night in 2003 in VT on I-91 by the border patrol and all 4 occupants in the car were questioned about citizenship. We showed our I-94's. We felt good that there is someone is actually doing the enforcement of immigration laws.
Found this when I googled. Borderpatrol seems to have the authority to do whatever they did within 100 miles off any international border. It falls under 8 CFR 287.1. Entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada.
http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol608_2.htm
I feel the 100 mile rule is very reasonable and Border Patrol has every right to conduct random searches, question or detain whoever they suspect is breaking the law. Since it is clear that they could do that in this area, it is absolutely no burden for me to carry my papers when traveling here. At least it is easy when I know where the enforcement will be tighter. Harassment... absolutely not! I would so encourage something similar in my own country :)
I myself was once stopped on a cold December night in 2003 in VT on I-91 by the border patrol and all 4 occupants in the car were questioned about citizenship. We showed our I-94's. We felt good that there is someone is actually doing the enforcement of immigration laws.
Found this when I googled. Borderpatrol seems to have the authority to do whatever they did within 100 miles off any international border. It falls under 8 CFR 287.1. Entire state of NH is within 100 miles of Canada.
http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol608_2.htm
more...
tabletpc
12-20 04:24 PM
Prioritydate,
I din;t mean to be so funny as you have realzied from my response.
My comment was just on the other post.
Having said that let me also say that....everyone one is tensed in some way or the other just realted with immigration. That does not mean we should stop laughing. of course i don't mean to say this at others cost here..!!!!
As of your situation....based on what i know....you might be issued RFE..jsut be prepared for a right reason..if you have any.
I din;t mean to be so funny as you have realzied from my response.
My comment was just on the other post.
Having said that let me also say that....everyone one is tensed in some way or the other just realted with immigration. That does not mean we should stop laughing. of course i don't mean to say this at others cost here..!!!!
As of your situation....based on what i know....you might be issued RFE..jsut be prepared for a right reason..if you have any.
2010 Cute Little Girl Picture (3d,
meridiani.planum
03-03 01:36 PM
I just sent a request to CNN to take a look at this thread. A formal letter may be sent soon. So please continue to vote and participate.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
whats the point? 33 out of 23000 members have voted. Any result here is well beyond all statistical margins of error. Unless atleast 5000 people vote, this poll has no point. The mathematicians among us can derive the exact number, but participation has to be much greater than 33 if this has to be representative of the IV membership.
more...
mrdelhiite
07-23 03:47 PM
485 is not for employer, its for employee. AOS.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
If you don't submit, they'll ask you as RFE.
Please do not scare anybody with half knowledge.
All you can say politely is there might be a chance instead of rejected.
Have some dignity.
""Have some dignity."" ??? just read the replies below your reply.
hair as Cartoon+girl+and+boy
niklshah
07-13 09:27 PM
murthy was too scared too give any statemant before, this statemant was ok but it was too late when she saw that the momentum is getting strong she jumped in.
more...
waitnwatch
07-28 04:10 PM
Its amazing how the self proclaimed defenders of Hinduism think that the religion is so fragile. Last I checked Hinduism is known to be >5000 years old, withstood countless aggressors/forced conversions for over 1000s of years, absorbed various cultures and ethnicities to remain one of the dominant religions in the world.
Its asinine to think that the religion/culture that withstood Aurangzeb will be diminished by a freakin IPA.
It is my view that folks who get offended by something as trivial as this, are reflecting their own insecurities or even their lack of faith in something they have been led to believe in.
There is an excellent article on Hinduism and why and how it has survived over the millenia by Amartya Sen. This is one of many excellent articles which are compiled in a book titled "The Argumentative India". If you get a chance please read this article and, even better, the whole book.
There is a lot of information about India's history and culture (with references) and might help throw some light on this discussion of gods on a toilet seat or beer bottle.
I also see a business opportunity from this discussion--caps with Ganesha embroidered on them - would sell like hot cakes! :)
Its asinine to think that the religion/culture that withstood Aurangzeb will be diminished by a freakin IPA.
It is my view that folks who get offended by something as trivial as this, are reflecting their own insecurities or even their lack of faith in something they have been led to believe in.
There is an excellent article on Hinduism and why and how it has survived over the millenia by Amartya Sen. This is one of many excellent articles which are compiled in a book titled "The Argumentative India". If you get a chance please read this article and, even better, the whole book.
There is a lot of information about India's history and culture (with references) and might help throw some light on this discussion of gods on a toilet seat or beer bottle.
I also see a business opportunity from this discussion--caps with Ganesha embroidered on them - would sell like hot cakes! :)
hot girl, cartoon, child,
quizzer
08-15 04:02 PM
In fact better than expected for EB2
more...
house white lover boy, girl children
diptam
06-30 08:18 PM
He is probably stressed out man ! Lets not fight within ourselves.
Most of us wont get GC easily for 5-6 yrs even though our's is accepted
July 2nd .... But at least we will get EAD & AP and work and travel freely
with our choice of employers and clients. :)
Lets take 1 step at a time - Now our goal is to get the EAD at least.
Everybody knows this.. I didn't quite understand what you meant to convey. What I meant was that even if my I-485 is accepted(i did not say even if I get my GC)
Most of us wont get GC easily for 5-6 yrs even though our's is accepted
July 2nd .... But at least we will get EAD & AP and work and travel freely
with our choice of employers and clients. :)
Lets take 1 step at a time - Now our goal is to get the EAD at least.
Everybody knows this.. I didn't quite understand what you meant to convey. What I meant was that even if my I-485 is accepted(i did not say even if I get my GC)
tattoo (Girl - Child Small 4-6)
yetanotherguyinline
05-15 03:23 PM
That's bull. Online at top-rated university costs as much as full-time but definitely not more. Most of the top-notch universities don't even differentiate in-state and out-of-state. M.B.A is a money printing machine for them. Assistantships, in full-time schools, are very few and scarce and competition for them is pretty high. I have friends going to Darden School of Business as full-time students and they are paying close to $70k in fee alone. Add to this the cost of living, books etc. Times are pretty bad now and few of them couldnot even get internships for this summer and few who got had had their offers rescinded. For full-time school you have to consider something called "Opportunity Cost". There was a article in Businessweek which mentioned that a Harvard full-time M.B.A will take 15 years to break-even on his M.B.A investment. The reason for this is that he will be spending $80k on fee alone, another $20-30k for living expenses for 2 years, another 10-20k in books and other expenses. At the same time he would have lost on a average $160-200k in 2 year salary and benefits. Combines together it adds upto $300k which can be invested at average 6% interest, if you are a savvy investor, and get good returns. Assuming a Harvard M.B.A graduate on a average make $120k out-of-school if would take 15 years for him to break-even even with all the increments and bonuses.
Dont take current year as a standard (unless you believe that things will get only worse from here). About your ROI description, it is very generic. Each person has to take his or her personal circumstances into consideration before making this calculation. Another problem with this ROI calculation being applied to engineers (I am one too) is that our initial salaries tend to be high but we tend to hit a ceiling around the time we hit 30 (what next after project manager or product manager?).
One more important thing to think about is what do you want to do in life. If MBA can get you there, there is probably not much meaning to this ROI calculation as you cannot put a price on ability to do what you wanted to (and be happy). This is precisely why I said find out why do you want an MBA in the prior post. That is the most important part of this discovery process. I understand that lives change and people change, which is why it is important to talk to people who have "been there and done that".
Dont take current year as a standard (unless you believe that things will get only worse from here). About your ROI description, it is very generic. Each person has to take his or her personal circumstances into consideration before making this calculation. Another problem with this ROI calculation being applied to engineers (I am one too) is that our initial salaries tend to be high but we tend to hit a ceiling around the time we hit 30 (what next after project manager or product manager?).
One more important thing to think about is what do you want to do in life. If MBA can get you there, there is probably not much meaning to this ROI calculation as you cannot put a price on ability to do what you wanted to (and be happy). This is precisely why I said find out why do you want an MBA in the prior post. That is the most important part of this discovery process. I understand that lives change and people change, which is why it is important to talk to people who have "been there and done that".
more...
pictures face cartoon girl woman
unseenguy
08-22 09:03 AM
luvschocolates: Ignore what everyone has said and do exactly what is written on RFE you got. If you do not do it, your 485 will be denied and you risk deportation if you do not do what USCIS has asked you to do. They are very powerful and I hope you understand this.
If you are not able to afford it by money there are volunteer organizations that will do the medical exam. The medical exam will cost about 300-400 $ but you can reduce the cost by taking shots at public hospitals/facilities and by taking help from volunteer support organizations.
Also if the family of the person you care for really loves you, they have to understand that this is the cost of keeping you to take care of the person. So they have to pay. I know you dont want to ask them for money, but talk to them , they might be willing afterall.
You also need to prove evidence of valid entry. Do you have a copy of your original boarding pass , airline ticket etc? When you entered US through airline, they would have given you a green I-94 W card. A small green card to keep as a proof. Do you have that? If so send in the photocopy of that. If not , for the nerdy institution USCIS is, your chances are slim, so you will need to consult an attorney.
Again, there are volunteer organizations that help people who can not afford costs. They should have local presence wherever you live.
Do not listen to the mean attitude of guys on this forum, let USCIS be the judge on your case and not the guys on this forum.
Now hurry up and start getting the paperwork done. You do not have much time to respond.
If you are not able to afford it by money there are volunteer organizations that will do the medical exam. The medical exam will cost about 300-400 $ but you can reduce the cost by taking shots at public hospitals/facilities and by taking help from volunteer support organizations.
Also if the family of the person you care for really loves you, they have to understand that this is the cost of keeping you to take care of the person. So they have to pay. I know you dont want to ask them for money, but talk to them , they might be willing afterall.
You also need to prove evidence of valid entry. Do you have a copy of your original boarding pass , airline ticket etc? When you entered US through airline, they would have given you a green I-94 W card. A small green card to keep as a proof. Do you have that? If so send in the photocopy of that. If not , for the nerdy institution USCIS is, your chances are slim, so you will need to consult an attorney.
Again, there are volunteer organizations that help people who can not afford costs. They should have local presence wherever you live.
Do not listen to the mean attitude of guys on this forum, let USCIS be the judge on your case and not the guys on this forum.
Now hurry up and start getting the paperwork done. You do not have much time to respond.
dresses Child, boy, girl, cartoon,
gc_kaavaali
12-10 05:33 PM
I am sorry to ask you...i think you need to get SSN inorder to work...if u allowed to work on what bases you pay tax...
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
Hi friends,
I need your help!!!
I'm here at California with L-2 visa. I can stay legally in US but i can not get a SSN number, i can work too.But For a driver license they ask for SSN. Do i still get the Driver License or no?
Thank you very much...
more...
makeup Girl Child Playing Ice Hockey
r2i2009
11-14 09:06 PM
Guys,
Let us wait till April 09. Pres has more priorities....if he does not revive the economy.....there is no user of our GCs.....let him work on that for a while
With such a bad economy.......ECONOMY takes the highest.
Why are we bothered ....we have EADs....so relax.
If he takes up the immigration issue next year....people will get pissed off
Not for us but for some one they will meet and discuss
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
If Zoe can bring this up then we may be able to push for HR 5882. Seems like no one is interested in HR 5882.
Come on ! some one from california should help us in this one.. Call Zoe's office and find out where we are on HR 5882.
Let us wait till April 09. Pres has more priorities....if he does not revive the economy.....there is no user of our GCs.....let him work on that for a while
With such a bad economy.......ECONOMY takes the highest.
Why are we bothered ....we have EADs....so relax.
If he takes up the immigration issue next year....people will get pissed off
Not for us but for some one they will meet and discuss
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
If Zoe can bring this up then we may be able to push for HR 5882. Seems like no one is interested in HR 5882.
Come on ! some one from california should help us in this one.. Call Zoe's office and find out where we are on HR 5882.
girlfriend cartoon girl child. girl kids
RajahRajah
02-06 02:53 PM
To change the country quota.. you will have the change the entire US theory of melting pot. just a quick search on wiki will enlighten you about the history behind the country quota.. which was first enacted in 1924.
SO IV will look like Don quixote..trying to go after the unthinkable.
i agree with this quota system.. US has seen London become Londonisthan.. i am sure they wont let US to be overwhelmed by ppl from one country..
our best bet would be:
a.) Ask for transparency
b.) One time capture of unused GC from past 10 years.
something more realistic..
That's absolutely true. Immigration quotas were originally designed to keep people out, which meant if you were a white, Western European come on in. If you were not, you need not apply. The per country limit was instituted to redress this issue and assure diversity in the immigration process. Eliminating the per country limit would require a massive paradigm shift, that in the end would only be more harmful to those groups who perceive a short term benefit.
SO IV will look like Don quixote..trying to go after the unthinkable.
i agree with this quota system.. US has seen London become Londonisthan.. i am sure they wont let US to be overwhelmed by ppl from one country..
our best bet would be:
a.) Ask for transparency
b.) One time capture of unused GC from past 10 years.
something more realistic..
That's absolutely true. Immigration quotas were originally designed to keep people out, which meant if you were a white, Western European come on in. If you were not, you need not apply. The per country limit was instituted to redress this issue and assure diversity in the immigration process. Eliminating the per country limit would require a massive paradigm shift, that in the end would only be more harmful to those groups who perceive a short term benefit.
hairstyles cartoon girl child.
wizkid732
07-29 04:02 PM
I hope the process is improved. There cannot be so many loopholes where in some get it some dont. Everyone is hardworking and deserve a GC. The waiting game is too painful.
I edited my post as i didnt want to offend anyone. I was just chiding not to crib.
Remember you always have two options for everything. It depends on which one you take.
wizkid , You are absolutely right. Reading your story is just a great inspiration.
I edited my post as i didnt want to offend anyone. I was just chiding not to crib.
Remember you always have two options for everything. It depends on which one you take.
wizkid , You are absolutely right. Reading your story is just a great inspiration.
insbaby
05-26 05:11 PM
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
Yes sir. You have to carry atlest a copy of your papers, H1/L1 approval notice, copy of passport, visa page, I-94 while travelling.
Just keep a copy of those papers in your office bag or in car's dashboard.
Don't take it in the wrong sense. It is WORTH.
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
An officer's duty is to ask for papers. And for just few questions you are upset.
Just think about in the other way.
What if the officer gets upset when you remain silent....
You don't have to post such experience as everybody knows what would happen.
Yes sir. You have to carry atlest a copy of your papers, H1/L1 approval notice, copy of passport, visa page, I-94 while travelling.
Just keep a copy of those papers in your office bag or in car's dashboard.
Don't take it in the wrong sense. It is WORTH.
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
An officer's duty is to ask for papers. And for just few questions you are upset.
Just think about in the other way.
What if the officer gets upset when you remain silent....
You don't have to post such experience as everybody knows what would happen.
greyhair
02-09 03:42 PM
And reply you will never get.
I'm not holding my breath any more.
I'm not holding my breath any more.
0 comments:
Post a Comment