ngaheer
09-09 04:52 PM
Here is a small contribution of $100.00 towards the rally. Go IV.
Transaction ID: 3C843613FY738681B
Transaction ID: 3C843613FY738681B
wallpaper Running Man clip art vector
h1gc
09-17 10:38 AM
I just registered for IV. I wish I could come to DC rally on 18th. But due to certain unavoidable circumstances I may not be able too. Though not an excuse But I feel very guilty about it and this guilt will always remain there that I was not part of rally on 18th. I am contributing a small amount of $ 100 by google order # 309818904607579
snathan
12-16 01:07 PM
we need to write to Sen Joe Lofgren now more than ever..she will try to push the legal bill..also we need to write to her to compensate for some of the waiting time ...so that it gets counted for the citizenship..at least from when the I-485 was applied..I think we will see some sort of push for this ..my only concern is that we again will get caight with the illegals and our issue will be pushed to the side
Can some IV members in CA meet Sen Joe..?..and see what the Sen plans to do..
time for some action now..
One small correction. Zoe Lofgren is congress woman and not a senator.
Can some IV members in CA meet Sen Joe..?..and see what the Sen plans to do..
time for some action now..
One small correction. Zoe Lofgren is congress woman and not a senator.
2011 people running away clip art.
reachtoravi
07-20 12:23 AM
Donated one time $100 ...
Just now signed up for $50 a month recurring contribution ...
Thanks to IV for all great work.
Just now signed up for $50 a month recurring contribution ...
Thanks to IV for all great work.
more...
bombay
02-09 09:39 PM
When a girl comes to US for a job as a nurse and starts earning a good salary. The parents try to get some money from her. they build good house to make a show. Once the money starts pouring in, the (brother)son wants to do some business, build a house, the relatives start. My wifes relatives (dad's sisters) called up for money. " you guys are earning good in US, we want to build a house. When can you send me couple of lakhs".
I hate south indian nurses who came to US alone for jobs and more than that their parents who send them to earn money. I married a south indian nurse. The expectation from a daugther is more than a son because they tell their daughters once you become a nurse and go to US/UK or elsewhere i will start a business. "Our neighbour's daughter is in UK and they have a good house." Another great thing is once the girl is a nurse, guys come running to marry them and enjoy their life raising kids and the wife works at the hospital. I know several guys who got a green card through a nurse, works part time and take care of the kids. In that case the girl buys property at her dads house settles under her dad's wishes and should not do so when they married a person who earns the same salary as hers.
I really don't understand the meaning of marriage if its like a slavery.
My suggestion to those who are not married,
Marriage is very good if both of them know their responsibilities. Before marriage know each other for more than 3 years then get married. talk about whats their thinking about marriage. IS she going to change her last name after marriage. This seems small but the surroundings make the life miserable after some years. How are you going to control the finances etc..
As one of the old hindi dialogues, before marriage ... like moon(chand), after marriage .. like suraj (sun) and after having a baby - like a fire(juala).
I hate south indian nurses who came to US alone for jobs and more than that their parents who send them to earn money. I married a south indian nurse. The expectation from a daugther is more than a son because they tell their daughters once you become a nurse and go to US/UK or elsewhere i will start a business. "Our neighbour's daughter is in UK and they have a good house." Another great thing is once the girl is a nurse, guys come running to marry them and enjoy their life raising kids and the wife works at the hospital. I know several guys who got a green card through a nurse, works part time and take care of the kids. In that case the girl buys property at her dads house settles under her dad's wishes and should not do so when they married a person who earns the same salary as hers.
I really don't understand the meaning of marriage if its like a slavery.
My suggestion to those who are not married,
Marriage is very good if both of them know their responsibilities. Before marriage know each other for more than 3 years then get married. talk about whats their thinking about marriage. IS she going to change her last name after marriage. This seems small but the surroundings make the life miserable after some years. How are you going to control the finances etc..
As one of the old hindi dialogues, before marriage ... like moon(chand), after marriage .. like suraj (sun) and after having a baby - like a fire(juala).
WillIBLucky
12-18 02:59 PM
I think you do have to change your ideas in this case. Its very simple we cannot do what you plan to do. Lobbying is the only way for us. Illegals did that because they did not anything to loose. We are not in that situation, GC would be nice to have else we can go home or another country and we can survive.
So instead of waisting our time in talking about this, we should try to add members and contribute. I know you are an active member but I am just telling.
first, I don't know what you mean by "Senior Member like you coming up with this idea". Seniority on this site I think is by how long the have been registered. Second, even if it means older members, what does age have to do with this idea?
I have already said that most IV members (clearly you are one) are opposed to this.
My thoughts happen to be different from yours, and I dont plan on changing my ideas anytime soon.
Of course for this to work there has to be a signficant number of participants, otherwise actually nothing is going to work. And even with significant participation, there are no guarantees: look at how many people called Sen Sessions, but still made no difference.
Last, dont you guys get vacation?? Who is talking abut losing money? If you are paid hourly then dont take part.
and if you dont agree you dont need me to tell you dont be a part of this.
But, as mentioned many, many, many times before, I am for this idea, or something that gets attention in a big way.
So instead of waisting our time in talking about this, we should try to add members and contribute. I know you are an active member but I am just telling.
first, I don't know what you mean by "Senior Member like you coming up with this idea". Seniority on this site I think is by how long the have been registered. Second, even if it means older members, what does age have to do with this idea?
I have already said that most IV members (clearly you are one) are opposed to this.
My thoughts happen to be different from yours, and I dont plan on changing my ideas anytime soon.
Of course for this to work there has to be a signficant number of participants, otherwise actually nothing is going to work. And even with significant participation, there are no guarantees: look at how many people called Sen Sessions, but still made no difference.
Last, dont you guys get vacation?? Who is talking abut losing money? If you are paid hourly then dont take part.
and if you dont agree you dont need me to tell you dont be a part of this.
But, as mentioned many, many, many times before, I am for this idea, or something that gets attention in a big way.
more...
jung.lee
09-12 12:41 AM
Great idea, although I prefer the "Whatever Clock (http://www.amazon.com/California-Clock-Co-Whatever/dp/B00103ON5Y/ref=pd_sbs_k_5)" since their [USCIS] forward and backward movements happen for no apparent rhyme or reason.
2010 Old man running a marathon
john2255
07-20 04:35 PM
Kindly understand that
Yea- YES
Nay- NO
Not- Absent from voting.
Obama was absent from voting- A clever diplomacy.
Hilary Clinton- Nay(double talk)
Senators from California- both no ( Big Surprise)
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Text of the amemdment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110xIKs1t:e32253:
Here is the Senators and their voting pattern.
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
That means we have lost around 2,40,000 unused visas. I heard that there is a total amount of 3,00,000 unused employment visas of the previous years due to the great efficiency of USCIS. Out of this 61,000 is kept apart for Schedule A nurses and PT's and the remaining 2,40,000 thousand would have been divided amoung employment catagories if the amendment had passed,clearing lot of our backloggs.
REMEMBER, THE RECAPTURE OF UNUSED VISAS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITIES OF CORE AND THE DOOR IS SLAMMED ON OUR FACES AGAIN BY HYPOCRITES LIKE HILARY AND CALIFORNIA SENATORS.
Its the high time we convince the senators who said NAYS. Lets start SOME KIND OF CAMPAIN aiming these guys. I am sure that core's hands are there behind this amendment. Well done IV. Don't get dissappointed, keep trying for Skill bill or for similar amendments. Its really unfortunate that we lost a very very big chance. Lets do something immediately.
Following is the text of amendment.
`(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
Yea- YES
Nay- NO
Not- Absent from voting.
Obama was absent from voting- A clever diplomacy.
Hilary Clinton- Nay(double talk)
Senators from California- both no ( Big Surprise)
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Text of the amemdment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110xIKs1t:e32253:
Here is the Senators and their voting pattern.
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
That means we have lost around 2,40,000 unused visas. I heard that there is a total amount of 3,00,000 unused employment visas of the previous years due to the great efficiency of USCIS. Out of this 61,000 is kept apart for Schedule A nurses and PT's and the remaining 2,40,000 thousand would have been divided amoung employment catagories if the amendment had passed,clearing lot of our backloggs.
REMEMBER, THE RECAPTURE OF UNUSED VISAS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITIES OF CORE AND THE DOOR IS SLAMMED ON OUR FACES AGAIN BY HYPOCRITES LIKE HILARY AND CALIFORNIA SENATORS.
Its the high time we convince the senators who said NAYS. Lets start SOME KIND OF CAMPAIN aiming these guys. I am sure that core's hands are there behind this amendment. Well done IV. Don't get dissappointed, keep trying for Skill bill or for similar amendments. Its really unfortunate that we lost a very very big chance. Lets do something immediately.
Following is the text of amendment.
`(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF VISAS.--The total number of visas made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 2006 shall be distributed as follows:
``(I) The total number of visas made available for immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor shall be 61,000.
``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members accompanying or following to join).''.
(b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.
more...
p1234
09-13 06:46 PM
I want everybody to get their GCs. but now interfiling/porting is hurting out position in the queue.
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
Are you July 07 filer who got the EAD out of turn? I bet you are.
And if you are, keep your loud mouth shut! Before you pontificate, look at people and others like you who got in and created a mess!
If you are not aware, a good bunch of EB3s are now trying to interfile & port their PDs which are between 2001 - 2005 to EB2.
This will potentially put tens of thousands of people in the EB2 queue before most people in EB2 who are waiting.
These people were not eligible for EB2 when they filed their own labor.. so they should NOT BE ALLOWED TO PORT THEIR OLD PDs. Sure EB3 can Interfile .. but you will get a new PD ... the date you interfile.
If we just keep looking... there will be a huge retrogression in EB2. And its not like these EB3 people will get through with the interfiling/porting. Most of them will be issued RFEs. Their labor apps will be audited and their primary EB3 apps will be cancelled. Infact, 85% of interfiling will never successfully make it through. And its not like it will help the EB3 brothers. That queue will still be long... because they are not going to withdraw their EB3 apps.
Also, while they will not succeed in interfiling/porting, they still will have their apps with USCIS and USCIS will sit on them before eventually issuing NOID. Sad part is they will count these when giving numbers to DOS for setting visa bulletins.
This PD porting is the last "not so ethical & legal" thing after labor substitution.. that we need to Put a cork on.
If we don't act now... then we can all expect to stay in AOS for the next 5 years. This holds for both EB2 and EB3.
I want everybody to get their GCs. I also am OK with the wait.
But anything that threatens my position in the queue is not acceptable.
Are you July 07 filer who got the EAD out of turn? I bet you are.
And if you are, keep your loud mouth shut! Before you pontificate, look at people and others like you who got in and created a mess!
hair Running Blue Stick Man clip
snathan
08-12 02:25 PM
aiming london shooting tokyo, thats exactly what this bill is doing. The vast majority of nonsense is created by small "con"sulting companies, i.e shell companies with less than 50 employees. Infact Schummer if he wanted a solution for h1b missue should have gone after these small "con"sulting companies rather than real multi national companies like infosys,tcs, wipro etc. I am not a fan of this bill but if you going to put restrictions on h1b do it the right way. it is these small "con"sulting companies with less than 50 employees that did illegal things like selling approved labor until using approved labor was abolished, it is these small "con"sulting companies which work on 80 20 model which are bringing disrepute to h1b and people working on h1b. by putting this rediculous rule which says only comapnies having more than 50 employess will be targetted by this law schummer inadvertently is encouraging the setup of more "con"sulting companies. The vast majority of green cards issued in the last 5 years (may be as hight as 80% of green cards) have been issued to the "con"sultants" working in these "con"sulting companies. People working in fortune 500 companies abide by all rules like it is the job responsibily which determines eb1, eb2 or eb3 and not your educational qualifications and therefore i have seen phd recepients applying in eb3 whereas the "con"sultants working in these "con"sulting companies who have sometimes b.sc bcom or btech degrees applying in eb2 by faking experience to show 5 years requirement, they work in SAP but they advertise the position as someone needing java or any programming experience. this is outright lying, how can people working in fortune 500 and legitemate companies complete with these "con"sultants and these "con"sulting companies with less than 50 employees for green cards.
For green card reform the biggest culprit is per country limit\quota, the above issue is small compared to the country quota but it still needs to be solved.
before somebody says illogical things like crab dragging another crab down etc etc, let me tell you something all i am saying is everybody should play by the rules, "con"sulting companies especially with less than 50 employees and the "con"sultants who work there are the ones which have brought disrepute to the h1b profession by indulging in labor selling and buying, applying for eb1, eb2 irrespective of job requirements and flouting the rules, for the most part big It majors infy, wipro etc did not indulge in these illegal activities.
Do not generalise all consulting companies...At least people working in these consulting companies sponsored GC and buying house and spending their money here. Most of the fradulent GC process was done by these croocked indian companies. They exploited the EB1C system to the maximum extend. Most of the times, they are not filing the GC and keep the employees as slaves or they exploit the EB1c fo their boot lickers.
For green card reform the biggest culprit is per country limit\quota, the above issue is small compared to the country quota but it still needs to be solved.
before somebody says illogical things like crab dragging another crab down etc etc, let me tell you something all i am saying is everybody should play by the rules, "con"sulting companies especially with less than 50 employees and the "con"sultants who work there are the ones which have brought disrepute to the h1b profession by indulging in labor selling and buying, applying for eb1, eb2 irrespective of job requirements and flouting the rules, for the most part big It majors infy, wipro etc did not indulge in these illegal activities.
Do not generalise all consulting companies...At least people working in these consulting companies sponsored GC and buying house and spending their money here. Most of the fradulent GC process was done by these croocked indian companies. They exploited the EB1C system to the maximum extend. Most of the times, they are not filing the GC and keep the employees as slaves or they exploit the EB1c fo their boot lickers.
more...
ivgoodluck
09-13 08:07 PM
I made my first time $100 contribution
Order Details - Sep 13, 2007 8:26 PM EDT
Google Order #573069996350097
Thank you IV for all your efforts. Keep up the good work.
Thanks
Subbbaiah
Order Details - Sep 13, 2007 8:26 PM EDT
Google Order #573069996350097
Thank you IV for all your efforts. Keep up the good work.
Thanks
Subbbaiah
hot of people running (vector
db12320
03-30 06:04 PM
here is the IRS link which says all non resident aliens will not receive the check, irrespective if they have a SSN or not. Last I knew every H1 is a non-resident alien.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179181,00.html
Snippet from the site:-
Q: I know some people won�t get a stimulus payment. How do I know if I�m one of them?
A: You won�t get a stimulus payment in 2008, if any of the following apply to you:
*
You don�t file a 2007 tax return.
*
Your net income tax liability is zero and your qualifying income is less than $3,000. To determine your qualifying income, add together your wages, net self-employment income, nontaxable combat pay, Social Security benefits, certain Railroad Retirement benefits and certain veterans� payments.
*
You can be claimed as a dependent on someone else�s return. For example, this would include a child or student who can be claimed on a parent�s return.
*
You do not have a valid Social Security Number.
*
You are a nonresident alien.
*
You file Form 1040NR or Form 1040NR-EZ, Form 1040PR or Form 1040SS for 2007.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179181,00.html
Snippet from the site:-
Q: I know some people won�t get a stimulus payment. How do I know if I�m one of them?
A: You won�t get a stimulus payment in 2008, if any of the following apply to you:
*
You don�t file a 2007 tax return.
*
Your net income tax liability is zero and your qualifying income is less than $3,000. To determine your qualifying income, add together your wages, net self-employment income, nontaxable combat pay, Social Security benefits, certain Railroad Retirement benefits and certain veterans� payments.
*
You can be claimed as a dependent on someone else�s return. For example, this would include a child or student who can be claimed on a parent�s return.
*
You do not have a valid Social Security Number.
*
You are a nonresident alien.
*
You file Form 1040NR or Form 1040NR-EZ, Form 1040PR or Form 1040SS for 2007.
more...
house /clip-art/3161/Running-Man
dummgelauft
03-04 02:07 PM
(1)EAD is NOT a status. Your status should be AOS, or H1B, L1, TN or whatever.
(2) I personally know more than a dozen people (including myself) who hgot mortgages, and this was not even an issue.
(3) You have a horse's ass for a lender. Just go to another bank. Countrywide is quite good, in my opinion. Go directly to them, not through a broker.
(2) I personally know more than a dozen people (including myself) who hgot mortgages, and this was not even an issue.
(3) You have a horse's ass for a lender. Just go to another bank. Countrywide is quite good, in my opinion. Go directly to them, not through a broker.
tattoo Running Man | Running stick
bsbawa10
03-18 02:10 AM
Both people listed on a "married filing jointly" return must have valid SSNs to qualify for the payment � if only one has a valid SSN, neither can receive the payment.
more...
pictures See below to download clip art
GCard_Dream
07-06 01:59 PM
Are you guys digging this story as well .. or just talking about it.
Please go ahead and digg it.
Please go ahead and digg it.
dresses clip art running man
gcformeornot
11-08 04:56 PM
please
more...
makeup Run clip art
ind_game
05-20 04:30 PM
Did any of you get the same letter with the same content below .........what baffles me is the last sentence that says "The application will be reopened and the processing continued. Once the processing is completed, you will receive a notice under separate cover."
Your help is really appreciated in this.........Sorry I am little bit pessimistic here......
FINAL UPDATE
HURRAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
My I-485 case got reopened after being in denial status for three months............ My attorney got a letter from USCIS.
::::::::::::::::::To recap::::::::::::::
I went to the Congressional office on 05/14/2009 morning.
Congressional office made a call to Nebraska Service Center regarding the case on the same day afternoon (05/14/2009 afternoon)
USCIS sent letter to my attorney on Friday (05/15/2009).
My attorney received it this morning (05/19/2009).
Looks like magic........Whoever has been working on my case from the past three months made a huge reversal decision in just a few hours on 05/14/2009 afternoon with atmost attention........I like this sudden surge in commitment and care on my case.......
Here is the wording:
Quote""""""""""""""""""""""""
Reference is made to the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) filed on April 23, 2009. You are seeking reopen the decision rendered by USCIS on February 17, 2009, denying application filed by you.
The motion as submitted has been reviewed. It meets the requirements of Title 8, COde of Federal Regulations, $103.5 concerning the proper filing of a motion. Accordingly, the request to reopen the previous decision will be and is hereby granted.
The facts and issues in this matter were properly discussed in the decision, supra, and need not be repeated here as they are a matter of record.
After a complete review of the record of proceedings, including your motion, the grounds for denial have been overcome.
The application will be reopened and the processing continued. Once the processing is completed, you will receive a notice under separate cover.
Sincerely
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Unquote
Your help is really appreciated in this.........Sorry I am little bit pessimistic here......
FINAL UPDATE
HURRAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
My I-485 case got reopened after being in denial status for three months............ My attorney got a letter from USCIS.
::::::::::::::::::To recap::::::::::::::
I went to the Congressional office on 05/14/2009 morning.
Congressional office made a call to Nebraska Service Center regarding the case on the same day afternoon (05/14/2009 afternoon)
USCIS sent letter to my attorney on Friday (05/15/2009).
My attorney received it this morning (05/19/2009).
Looks like magic........Whoever has been working on my case from the past three months made a huge reversal decision in just a few hours on 05/14/2009 afternoon with atmost attention........I like this sudden surge in commitment and care on my case.......
Here is the wording:
Quote""""""""""""""""""""""""
Reference is made to the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) filed on April 23, 2009. You are seeking reopen the decision rendered by USCIS on February 17, 2009, denying application filed by you.
The motion as submitted has been reviewed. It meets the requirements of Title 8, COde of Federal Regulations, $103.5 concerning the proper filing of a motion. Accordingly, the request to reopen the previous decision will be and is hereby granted.
The facts and issues in this matter were properly discussed in the decision, supra, and need not be repeated here as they are a matter of record.
After a complete review of the record of proceedings, including your motion, the grounds for denial have been overcome.
The application will be reopened and the processing continued. Once the processing is completed, you will receive a notice under separate cover.
Sincerely
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Unquote
girlfriend Outline Of People Running
h1techSlave
10-01 01:42 PM
IV is looking in the right direction in the long term.
IV, sure is looking at a long term solution. I did not criticize that strategy. IV should continue to work for a permanent fix.
Currently for IV, this long term fix is the #1 priority. I was suggesting that IV should make the long term fix a #2 priority. And make #1 priority as improving efficiency at USCIS.
IV, sure is looking at a long term solution. I did not criticize that strategy. IV should continue to work for a permanent fix.
Currently for IV, this long term fix is the #1 priority. I was suggesting that IV should make the long term fix a #2 priority. And make #1 priority as improving efficiency at USCIS.
hairstyles #28479 Clip Art Graphic of a
GeetaRam
11-30 03:28 PM
Hi,
I was following this thread and it has good information.
I have EB3 labor and I-140 approved with priority date March 2005. I couldn't file my I-485 in 2007.
Recently thru same employer I filed EB2 labor which got approved in Sept 2010. I have filed my I-140 under regular processing. I asked my attorney and he said as I already have one I-140 approved I should file this one under regular processing. USCIS might reject premium processing. Any advice.
My 6th year of H1-B is getting completed on Sept 2011.
Please suggest should I file my I-140 under premium processing? Should I try to convert it???
9 years and VayuMahesh any inputs... congratulations to u both for successful I-140 approval and porting....
Thanks in advance...
I was following this thread and it has good information.
I have EB3 labor and I-140 approved with priority date March 2005. I couldn't file my I-485 in 2007.
Recently thru same employer I filed EB2 labor which got approved in Sept 2010. I have filed my I-140 under regular processing. I asked my attorney and he said as I already have one I-140 approved I should file this one under regular processing. USCIS might reject premium processing. Any advice.
My 6th year of H1-B is getting completed on Sept 2011.
Please suggest should I file my I-140 under premium processing? Should I try to convert it???
9 years and VayuMahesh any inputs... congratulations to u both for successful I-140 approval and porting....
Thanks in advance...
BharatPremi
04-16 02:22 PM
Yes, my status is changed to 'RIR-In Process' from 'TR-In Process' on 04/13/2007. Victim of PBEC
- BharatPremi
EB3-state:MA-PD:July'2003- Original TR-NowRIR
Anyone has their case converted to RIR recently at PBEC ?
Mine pending since Jan 2007.
- BharatPremi
EB3-state:MA-PD:July'2003- Original TR-NowRIR
Anyone has their case converted to RIR recently at PBEC ?
Mine pending since Jan 2007.
Asian
08-10 10:44 AM
No. It is true to some extent that we are paying more taxes.
Take my case for an example. My kid is not an American citizen. She moved with us when she was a baby and currently under H-4 status. So she could not obtain social security number that is good for "authorized to work". Without the SSN, we were not eligible for certain child tax credit, which was hundreds of dollars. I tried an ITIN but I got a formal response from IRS that the child still needs to have a SSN to be eligible for the credit.
If you ever filed your tax return yourself and have a kid, you will know what I mean.
just one correction:
I do not think the above is true.
Take my case for an example. My kid is not an American citizen. She moved with us when she was a baby and currently under H-4 status. So she could not obtain social security number that is good for "authorized to work". Without the SSN, we were not eligible for certain child tax credit, which was hundreds of dollars. I tried an ITIN but I got a formal response from IRS that the child still needs to have a SSN to be eligible for the credit.
If you ever filed your tax return yourself and have a kid, you will know what I mean.
just one correction:
I do not think the above is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment