enver
06-13 04:00 PM
Im from Turkey.
wallpaper rest in peace tattoos. Rest In Peace Tattoos For
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
desi3933
02-18 07:55 PM
One of my close friend and her husband both had Greencard. She delivered baby in India in 2002. They were not able to get their son to US. They tried visitors visa for the baby but the consulate rejected the visa. The baby is still in India with his grandparents. They filed for his greencard (family based). They are counting days to get their son to US. He is already 6 years old. It is very tough for the parents and kid. I am not sure about the other options that people has mentioned. But I see my friend family directly who are facing this problem. I don't think it is a good idea.
Parents must have made a trip to US without kid. The rule is very clear. It must be parents' first trip back to US with the kid.
Parents must have made a trip to US without kid. The rule is very clear. It must be parents' first trip back to US with the kid.
2011 Rest In Peace Cross Tattoos
cableching
10-20 11:44 AM
You can go visit India after your AP has been applied for, and you can ask your lawyer ( if you are using one ) to send the docs to you in India , so that you can come back with the new approved AP, off course you can't enter USA on an expired AP.
My lawyer has confirmed that one is only required to be present in the USA when applying and it's recommended that one is in US when it's approved, but due to the varying time USCIS is taking to process AP applications that is not a requirement and they can forward the documents to someone not in US.
You can go out of Country after applying for an AP, using an old unexpired AP, but you must return before the old AP expires??? This is what I read somewhere. You may not be able to use the New AP which is approved after you leave the country.
I read it somewhere! Just take openion of a good lawyer, before taking such an action.
My lawyer has confirmed that one is only required to be present in the USA when applying and it's recommended that one is in US when it's approved, but due to the varying time USCIS is taking to process AP applications that is not a requirement and they can forward the documents to someone not in US.
You can go out of Country after applying for an AP, using an old unexpired AP, but you must return before the old AP expires??? This is what I read somewhere. You may not be able to use the New AP which is approved after you leave the country.
I read it somewhere! Just take openion of a good lawyer, before taking such an action.
more...
arsh007
12-08 06:05 PM
BTW, what are some of the online MS / MBA schools that the H1B community is attending ? Please share this information as I plan to take up one, and wanted to learn from your experirnce.
Thanks in advance.
My immigration status is H1 (485 pending EB2/INDIA). I am on the verge of completing my 2 year Masters in Computer Information Systems (MS-CIS) from Missouri State in Springfield, Missouri. Its a distance education Masters program with one week of on-campus residency every semester. The program is geared towards working IT professionals and its accredited by AACSB. The quality of education is excellent and fees is very nominal. I even got my employer to reimburse me for the tuition. Please see the following website for additional information on the program.
http://missouristate.edu/
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/default.asp
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/applicationprocess.asp
Please email me at arshstl@gmail.com for additional information.
Thanks in advance.
My immigration status is H1 (485 pending EB2/INDIA). I am on the verge of completing my 2 year Masters in Computer Information Systems (MS-CIS) from Missouri State in Springfield, Missouri. Its a distance education Masters program with one week of on-campus residency every semester. The program is geared towards working IT professionals and its accredited by AACSB. The quality of education is excellent and fees is very nominal. I even got my employer to reimburse me for the tuition. Please see the following website for additional information on the program.
http://missouristate.edu/
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/default.asp
http://mscis.missouristate.edu/applicationprocess.asp
Please email me at arshstl@gmail.com for additional information.
morchu
08-01 12:12 AM
Anything you will take for your H1 stamping + documents to prove that she is your wife. Her H4 status depends on your H1 status, your relationship and your ability to support her.
My wife is planning to go for H4 visa stamping in October. My question is can she go alone and what kind of documents she need. Our I-485 applications have reached USCIS on July 2nd. Any reply will be greatly appreciated.
My wife is planning to go for H4 visa stamping in October. My question is can she go alone and what kind of documents she need. Our I-485 applications have reached USCIS on July 2nd. Any reply will be greatly appreciated.
more...
chanduv23
04-08 04:25 PM
Literally anyone is IV. IV is you and me. We are all collectively IV.
A lot of us have done media interviews in past. Some brought in media contacts, some gave media interviews .... so if you are interested, why don't YOU represent IV and contact media personnel.
This was supposed to be addressed to the OP.
A lot of us have done media interviews in past. Some brought in media contacts, some gave media interviews .... so if you are interested, why don't YOU represent IV and contact media personnel.
This was supposed to be addressed to the OP.
2010 Rest In Peace Marine Tattoos
akhilmahajan
11-14 08:28 PM
December visa bulletin is out and everybodys knows what they are in for. Truth is always bitter.
Joy and happiness of EAD's/AP's have turned sour. The reality is out. This bulletin has shown us what kind of time line we can expect to get our GC's. It's no more 1-2 years as people think and lawyers have been saying. Its years and years of wait.
Folks this is the time to fight it out. Lets fight for ourselves.
The first step in doing so is meeting lawmwkers. We need to educate the lawmakers of our problems. Till the time they dont understand, how can we expect any kind of relief from them.
The whole idea is to highlight our problem. If we dont highlight it, then noone is going to do anything for us.
There is no more spoon feeding. Now we need to rise for ourselves. Either its time to do something or the old choice of hiding inside the closet
Lets take a step forward in making everyone aware of our problems. Lets strengthen the state chapters. With a good base we can build up momentum and get more coverage for our issue.
Think about it.
Go IV Go. Together we can.
Joy and happiness of EAD's/AP's have turned sour. The reality is out. This bulletin has shown us what kind of time line we can expect to get our GC's. It's no more 1-2 years as people think and lawyers have been saying. Its years and years of wait.
Folks this is the time to fight it out. Lets fight for ourselves.
The first step in doing so is meeting lawmwkers. We need to educate the lawmakers of our problems. Till the time they dont understand, how can we expect any kind of relief from them.
The whole idea is to highlight our problem. If we dont highlight it, then noone is going to do anything for us.
There is no more spoon feeding. Now we need to rise for ourselves. Either its time to do something or the old choice of hiding inside the closet
Lets take a step forward in making everyone aware of our problems. Lets strengthen the state chapters. With a good base we can build up momentum and get more coverage for our issue.
Think about it.
Go IV Go. Together we can.
more...
indianindian2006
02-17 10:59 AM
Well, no other sites have posted this. Murthy, AILA etc. so its difficult establishing credibility. Also, dont you find it strange that he says EB3 India wont move? It has been at 2001 since long time (excluding anomalies). If that wont move this year when will it move. Are there so many eb3s ? especially with ppl porting to eb2s?
The reason for only him reporting so far could be that it was a Southern California chapter meeting and he is the local attorney out there.
The reason for only him reporting so far could be that it was a Southern California chapter meeting and he is the local attorney out there.
hair Rest in Peace Skull Tattoo T-
sc3
01-09 12:43 PM
No the current one!
No, you are supposed to return all I-94s!!.
No, you are supposed to return all I-94s!!.
more...
samshah
07-14 09:34 PM
We are in Houston and are interested to join.
hot My Tattoo. Rest In Peace Luke
pbojja
02-26 04:45 PM
If you call a nurse help line and tell them that "my kid living farfaraway city, he is sick, what options do I have to make him recover?" - The answer would be take him to a doctor. Same analogy applies here, Just mentioning 'some more document', 'doubts', 'working on getting those documents' does not give any of us the big picture. Consult an attorney and decide your course of action.
wandmaker ..Please read Phony postings and do not respond to these guys , they are just playing .. I m surprised senior members are not understanding the intend of the posts .
What can we help if he had problems with employer ? what can we help if he had h1-h4-h1 issues ? Every one just relax and stop replying .
I know every one wants to help others in our community but think twice before replying
wandmaker ..Please read Phony postings and do not respond to these guys , they are just playing .. I m surprised senior members are not understanding the intend of the posts .
What can we help if he had problems with employer ? what can we help if he had h1-h4-h1 issues ? Every one just relax and stop replying .
I know every one wants to help others in our community but think twice before replying
more...
house R.I.P. Tattoos!
newuser
08-17 12:10 PM
For renewal they did not even ask me for any documentation. Renewed online, went to DMV and got it for 4 years.
I agree with ashkam. If you renew online, you can get it for 4 years. But if you go in person to DMV, they will issue based in EAD.
I agree with ashkam. If you renew online, you can get it for 4 years. But if you go in person to DMV, they will issue based in EAD.
tattoo rip tattoos middot; rip tattoo
nda050325
07-16 06:22 PM
Sangeetha
This seems to be a new requirement specificed by the consulate.
I havent seen any prespecified format of this letter. But it should contain as much information as possible about your past employment. Some key points would be
Name
Title:
DOJ:
Skillset
Primary duties handled (be as descriptive as possible).
HR Contact Info:
You may want to modify the following template to your skillset:
This letter serves to confirm that Mr. First Name Last name was employed full time in Company name from MM_DD_YYYY to MM_DD_YYYY, in the capacity of OFFICIAL DESIGNATION.
His roles included MENTION ATLEAST 5 BULLET POINTS.
His skill sets included MENTION ALL YOUR SKILLS
He has successfully completed the TRAININGS DONE, and is a Certified GIVE DETAILS.,
Please let us know if you have any questions
Sincerely,
HUMAN RESOURCES
===
This seems to be a new requirement specificed by the consulate.
I havent seen any prespecified format of this letter. But it should contain as much information as possible about your past employment. Some key points would be
Name
Title:
DOJ:
Skillset
Primary duties handled (be as descriptive as possible).
HR Contact Info:
You may want to modify the following template to your skillset:
This letter serves to confirm that Mr. First Name Last name was employed full time in Company name from MM_DD_YYYY to MM_DD_YYYY, in the capacity of OFFICIAL DESIGNATION.
His roles included MENTION ATLEAST 5 BULLET POINTS.
His skill sets included MENTION ALL YOUR SKILLS
He has successfully completed the TRAININGS DONE, and is a Certified GIVE DETAILS.,
Please let us know if you have any questions
Sincerely,
HUMAN RESOURCES
===
more...
pictures Rest In Peace Tattoo Tattoos
Pineapple
10-10 09:44 PM
Yes, I did. That is how I came to know that I had to send the card back, with a fresh I765 (but no fees), and a letter explaining the error (as it it wasn't obvious).. my worry was (still is) that my application would join the pile of applications, and would sit there in the bottom.. another potential wait of six months..
So, I did all I could. I called up USCIS a couple of times, took an Info Pass appointment, and talked to an official at ASC when I went for my finger printing appointment.. They were all sorry about it, but could not do much to help. Returning and re-applying are the only options. However, I was told (not sure how much to believe), that since it is obviously their error, it would not take long to fix and they'll send me a corrected card earlier than it would have taken if it were a regular fresh application.
Anyway, my lawyer did her own checking and calling - we gave her the EAD and two fresh photos, and a copy of proof of identity (drivers license)
, and she promised to take care of it.
Will post if it works out well.. :)
So, I did all I could. I called up USCIS a couple of times, took an Info Pass appointment, and talked to an official at ASC when I went for my finger printing appointment.. They were all sorry about it, but could not do much to help. Returning and re-applying are the only options. However, I was told (not sure how much to believe), that since it is obviously their error, it would not take long to fix and they'll send me a corrected card earlier than it would have taken if it were a regular fresh application.
Anyway, my lawyer did her own checking and calling - we gave her the EAD and two fresh photos, and a copy of proof of identity (drivers license)
, and she promised to take care of it.
Will post if it works out well.. :)
dresses Rest in Peace
pakrish
06-22 09:29 AM
My laywer has adviced me that the skin test is mandatory
more...
makeup Rip Name And Date Tattoos
kaisersose
08-06 09:19 AM
capturing visa numbers would put an end to our misery. and increasing the employment based visa will pave way for future immigrants. handling a few thousand more cases is not a big deal for USCIS(there may be performance issues but not like difficulty of hiring more people to do the stuff!). don't get panicky about the number. it should be lot less than you would think.
I think 700K is an exaggeration too. One top attorney was saying that he has filed only a few hundred cases in July. if you assign an average of 250 cases for every attorney in the US, we need two thousand attorneys to arrive at 500K.
If DOS/USCIS can recapture unused visa numbers and stop assigning visa numbers to family members of EB category applicants, I think that will work very well without increasing EB quota.
I think 700K is an exaggeration too. One top attorney was saying that he has filed only a few hundred cases in July. if you assign an average of 250 cases for every attorney in the US, we need two thousand attorneys to arrive at 500K.
If DOS/USCIS can recapture unused visa numbers and stop assigning visa numbers to family members of EB category applicants, I think that will work very well without increasing EB quota.
girlfriend mom-tattoo-campbell.jpg
sina
04-16 08:47 AM
I am also planning on changing location from one state to another but the job is still with the same company (just moving to a different branch). My lawyer said it will not affect my GC but I have to get a new LCA for my H1. I still do not understand how this will not affect my GC (I have a approved 140 and waiting to file 485). Is there a way this is possible like if the labor is filed from the corporate office and has nothing do with branch locations?
I just want to make sure it is safe before I move.
Any help is appreciated.
I just want to make sure it is safe before I move.
Any help is appreciated.
hairstyles Delgado#39;s flesh rip tattoo
rimzhim
02-09 04:02 PM
Please keep this thread alive ...
sledge hammer:
can you explain if the new labors being cleared in the BEC centers (approximately 150K are still pending) are from 2001-2003?
In 2003, there should be a demand of 23% of 300K (couting spouses)=69K. Total visas are about 140K per annum. So there should be some movement. i dont understand why there will be no movement.
sledge hammer:
can you explain if the new labors being cleared in the BEC centers (approximately 150K are still pending) are from 2001-2003?
In 2003, there should be a demand of 23% of 300K (couting spouses)=69K. Total visas are about 140K per annum. So there should be some movement. i dont understand why there will be no movement.
gsc999
06-26 12:41 PM
Lou Doubs live on CSPAN Live from National Press Club in Washington D.C. :rolleyes:
This surely is a desperate measure on Lou's part.
Lou, as expected, bashing the passage of cloture. Says amendments haven't been distributed among the Senators. Says, strong possibility of passage in the Senate. Doubs uses his regular tool of fear, says common Americans should be concerned by this.
This surely is a desperate measure on Lou's part.
Lou, as expected, bashing the passage of cloture. Says amendments haven't been distributed among the Senators. Says, strong possibility of passage in the Senate. Doubs uses his regular tool of fear, says common Americans should be concerned by this.
FredG
August 27th, 2004, 08:57 AM
I'm with Don.. although I have a camera in phone, it's got less resolution that a hungover coke bottle dipped in vaseline jelly peering through the polar ice cap after a three night binge on beer, whisky and crack. ...
resolution lower than a cockroaches left testicle and more shakey than a sneezing 99 year old geriatric having a seisure.....Rob, What have you been eating? :D
resolution lower than a cockroaches left testicle and more shakey than a sneezing 99 year old geriatric having a seisure.....Rob, What have you been eating? :D
No comments:
Post a Comment