GC_dd
06-11 11:56 AM
done
wallpaper Amy Winehouse wants to be a
gc_aspirant_prasad
06-22 04:46 PM
My attorney didnt ask for DL copies, but did require color copies of passport.
Guess, its different with each lawyer based on their experience.
Guess, its different with each lawyer based on their experience.
svr_76
06-10 02:04 PM
exactly..and our best approach would be to also reach other lobbying/groups that represents the employers impact by this to determine a directed/specific approach.
2011 Amy Winehouse#39;s rockabilly
guy03062
11-11 07:49 PM
This is great find. I am not sure why IV leadership (as an advocacy group) is not pursuing this to USCIS leadership as they are in touch with them regularly for other issues. Are we missing something here?
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
Under the regulation No reference to Calendar year. It mentions explicitly calendar quarter.
Immigration and Nationality Act: Section ACT 202 - Numerical Limitation to any single foreign state under Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]
(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
(5) 2/ RULES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
(B) LIMITING FALL ACROSS FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (e)- In the case of a foreign state or dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the state or area under section 203(b)consistent with subsection (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph),in applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 203(b).
more...
mahujam
10-15 04:51 PM
What are you suggesting? Please speak in lay man's terms.
All I am suggesting is that people who need copies of their LCA/I-140 should apply for that now before the queue gets saturated with this request.
Given this economy, there is a good chance that a whole lot of us will need to use EAD and do a AC-21. Not all of us have our job descriptions and O*net codes to do a successful AC-21 application.
And my question is: will sending multiple copies of this make any difference ?? How many copies are really required to get their attention??
All I am suggesting is that people who need copies of their LCA/I-140 should apply for that now before the queue gets saturated with this request.
Given this economy, there is a good chance that a whole lot of us will need to use EAD and do a AC-21. Not all of us have our job descriptions and O*net codes to do a successful AC-21 application.
And my question is: will sending multiple copies of this make any difference ?? How many copies are really required to get their attention??
willgetgc2005
02-15 08:05 PM
Retrohatao,
You are right. This seems more like a luck factor. If Your stars are good, name check is cleared. Else it just stays stuck. It is ridiculous, they should check a persons background at the time of issuing a visa to come into the USA. Not when he/she has been in the US for several years. IV should raise this issue. This is even more farcical than retrogression. At least in case of retrogression they publish cut off dates. Well, in the case of name check you just don�t know where u stand.
You are right. This seems more like a luck factor. If Your stars are good, name check is cleared. Else it just stays stuck. It is ridiculous, they should check a persons background at the time of issuing a visa to come into the USA. Not when he/she has been in the US for several years. IV should raise this issue. This is even more farcical than retrogression. At least in case of retrogression they publish cut off dates. Well, in the case of name check you just don�t know where u stand.
more...
gvenkat
10-21 12:38 PM
/* Last 8 years, Republicans have done nothing to improve GC system. Lets give democrats a chance this time. */
Do you have a voting right? Look whoever comes will not care abt EB3 India... for some time. The system has to fix itself or needs to be changed. If ppl with priority date of 2003 gets the GC around 2010. We should thank our stars and be happy.:)
Do you have a voting right? Look whoever comes will not care abt EB3 India... for some time. The system has to fix itself or needs to be changed. If ppl with priority date of 2003 gets the GC around 2010. We should thank our stars and be happy.:)
2010 Amy Winehouse tattoos that
sanju
10-20 01:17 AM
nojoke dont get emotional. we have no bone to pick with either obama or mcccain. We are talking about who is better for eb immigrants, so either you talk about what obama can offer or has offered to eb immigrants, unfortunately you cannot because obama is anti eb immigrants, so you are spewing the democratic talking points here and changing the topic. This is not a political site please dont bring politics here and concentrate on eb policies of the candidates.
Agree 100%. And this is what Obama has to offer. He will defer EB issue to Durbin. This is a single most important issue that will effect this community in the coming year, more than anything else. EB community is totally blind-sided at this time not realizing what is happening. Most people here are not connecting the dots to see what is in store for EB community if Obama wins this election. Here is a word of caution for this community, the light at the end of the tunnel IS FOR SURE the fast approaching train, and its very close, so be prepared and do what you can to protect yourself.
Regardless of the palin heart beat away from being president, qualification, charisma, campaign message, and other politics, just find out who introduced Obama at the DNC convention. Folks, not sure how one can prepare when one is sure to be hit by a train but I have to say - be prepared because you are about to be hit by a train.
.
Agree 100%. And this is what Obama has to offer. He will defer EB issue to Durbin. This is a single most important issue that will effect this community in the coming year, more than anything else. EB community is totally blind-sided at this time not realizing what is happening. Most people here are not connecting the dots to see what is in store for EB community if Obama wins this election. Here is a word of caution for this community, the light at the end of the tunnel IS FOR SURE the fast approaching train, and its very close, so be prepared and do what you can to protect yourself.
Regardless of the palin heart beat away from being president, qualification, charisma, campaign message, and other politics, just find out who introduced Obama at the DNC convention. Folks, not sure how one can prepare when one is sure to be hit by a train but I have to say - be prepared because you are about to be hit by a train.
.
more...
andycool
07-12 04:56 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
According to this there should be a quarterly spillover ...:confused: but it looks like spillover is happening only in last quarter :D
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
According to this there should be a quarterly spillover ...:confused: but it looks like spillover is happening only in last quarter :D
hair Amy Winehouse: Arm tattoos
prioritydate
12-20 07:03 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
more...
arbhaat
04-06 09:12 PM
good post ek_bechara!
ppl, think for yourself. don't believe in the rumor unless it happens to YOU!
btw, GCs are in separate immigration line at the airport, so I seriously doubt any H1B interview happened "right in front" of a GC holder. That's pure .. well you know what!
ppl, think for yourself. don't believe in the rumor unless it happens to YOU!
btw, GCs are in separate immigration line at the airport, so I seriously doubt any H1B interview happened "right in front" of a GC holder. That's pure .. well you know what!
hot Amy Winehouse: “Get It While
sanju
04-04 03:30 PM
Your argument may be true only some extent. If you keep on asking more H1b and GC without meaningful reform of H1b then it won't sell in the congress and they will try to keep staus quo and you have to wait years to get gc. How do you resolve the problem of Cap reached within few days? Will congress accept unlimited H1bs? What is the solution for this?
Your posts seem to suggest that because we (collectively all of us on the forum) have not yet agreed to a �meaningful reform� of H-1b,that has prevented fixes to the green card process? Is that what has truly delayed fixing the current green card backlog?
Secondly, we do not have to choose between the one and the other i.e. we do not have to choose between supporting Durbin-Grassley bill and delay with the green card. Do you think that supporting Durbin-Grassley bill that contains absolutely nothing to fix green card delays will somehow speed up the green card process?
We (all of us when calling lawmakers) HAVE to differentiate between increase/decrease in H-1b and green card delays. H-1b is not our issue and we will be better of staying as far away from that issue as possible. If we have to call, then we should call in to support a bill that has our provisions, rather than a bill that has nothing for us or maybe stuff that would hurt us.
Your posts seem to suggest that because we (collectively all of us on the forum) have not yet agreed to a �meaningful reform� of H-1b,that has prevented fixes to the green card process? Is that what has truly delayed fixing the current green card backlog?
Secondly, we do not have to choose between the one and the other i.e. we do not have to choose between supporting Durbin-Grassley bill and delay with the green card. Do you think that supporting Durbin-Grassley bill that contains absolutely nothing to fix green card delays will somehow speed up the green card process?
We (all of us when calling lawmakers) HAVE to differentiate between increase/decrease in H-1b and green card delays. H-1b is not our issue and we will be better of staying as far away from that issue as possible. If we have to call, then we should call in to support a bill that has our provisions, rather than a bill that has nothing for us or maybe stuff that would hurt us.
more...
house Amy Winehouse Wings Tattoo
varshadas
09-12 10:57 AM
Ajay, Shekhar, Sanjay where are you guys? I have not heard from you guys for a while. Is anyone of you going to the rally? If not, have you guys been spreading the message within your contacts?
tattoo Amy Winehouse Tattoo Sweater
coopheal
04-11 05:11 AM
EB3-I won't retrogress back to 2001 again. It will keep moving forward at slow but steady pace.
And you inferred this from EB3 Mexico becoming Unavailable in month of May.
And you inferred this from EB3 Mexico becoming Unavailable in month of May.
more...
pictures Amy Winehouse.
ewana
08-26 12:11 AM
Thanks willigetagc and sayantan76 for your reply.
According to company lawyer i am preliminary discussing this issue with, she mentioned the EB1 can take 12-18 months at best, that why the concern that the foreign office might be close by then. I'm not from India/China, so there should be no priority date issue. How realistic do you guys think is it to get the whole process done in 90 days or so as mentioned sayantan76 ?
willigetagc, you mentioned about getting the EAD quickly. Once you got your EAD , does it mean that you will be still be on status even if the foreign office is closed by that time ?
H1B is probably the last option due to low probability of success and I would probably be out of status by that time.
Can you guys recommend some good immigration lawyer that you or your friends used that I can probably consult (I'm in the LA area) ? My email is ewana@gmail.com (in case it is now allowed in the forum or for privacy purposes). I'm the only employee on working visa on the company and it seems like the company lawyer is not very adept with immigration stuff.
Thanks a lot for all your help. greatly appreciate it.
According to company lawyer i am preliminary discussing this issue with, she mentioned the EB1 can take 12-18 months at best, that why the concern that the foreign office might be close by then. I'm not from India/China, so there should be no priority date issue. How realistic do you guys think is it to get the whole process done in 90 days or so as mentioned sayantan76 ?
willigetagc, you mentioned about getting the EAD quickly. Once you got your EAD , does it mean that you will be still be on status even if the foreign office is closed by that time ?
H1B is probably the last option due to low probability of success and I would probably be out of status by that time.
Can you guys recommend some good immigration lawyer that you or your friends used that I can probably consult (I'm in the LA area) ? My email is ewana@gmail.com (in case it is now allowed in the forum or for privacy purposes). I'm the only employee on working visa on the company and it seems like the company lawyer is not very adept with immigration stuff.
Thanks a lot for all your help. greatly appreciate it.
dresses amy winehouse tattoo. tattoo
survu
06-20 02:20 PM
Got GC for me and for my wife.
It was a long frustrating wait time.I am glad its over now. My best wishes to those that are still waiting.
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, one time took infopass to just find out the status. Total Wait time 5 and half years.
Here are the dates:
I received the card order production mail on 9 June 2008.
Received the welcome letter on 13th June.2008
Received the Card on 16th June.
PD: June 2001 - EB2- India
I 484 applied on 28 th June 2007 - NSC.
Finger print on Aug 26 th. 2007- NSC.
Sep 26 Got EAD. 2007 - NSC.
Original Labor - Sep 2002, Approved in 2006
Labor substitution on May 1st week. 2007 - NSC.
140 approved on May 2nd week. 2007
Joined fulltime April 3rd week, 2008. New employer applied H1 and received.
I have not sent AC21 letter.
No LUD after finger print.
GC Card received- 16 June 2008, me and spouse.
Thanks,
It was a long frustrating wait time.I am glad its over now. My best wishes to those that are still waiting.
No RFE at any stage, straight forward case, one time took infopass to just find out the status. Total Wait time 5 and half years.
Here are the dates:
I received the card order production mail on 9 June 2008.
Received the welcome letter on 13th June.2008
Received the Card on 16th June.
PD: June 2001 - EB2- India
I 484 applied on 28 th June 2007 - NSC.
Finger print on Aug 26 th. 2007- NSC.
Sep 26 Got EAD. 2007 - NSC.
Original Labor - Sep 2002, Approved in 2006
Labor substitution on May 1st week. 2007 - NSC.
140 approved on May 2nd week. 2007
Joined fulltime April 3rd week, 2008. New employer applied H1 and received.
I have not sent AC21 letter.
No LUD after finger print.
GC Card received- 16 June 2008, me and spouse.
Thanks,
more...
makeup amy winehouse tattoos.
perm2gc
01-16 08:35 PM
Thanks. could you try yahoo, google and msn groups on immigration too.
when you type these words you will see several such forum names. Select the ones with more membership and become a member. Thgen post messages. Emails sent in these forums go to each member.
others, pls suggest more websites and help in posting IV messages on them.
sure will do it and will update as i post
when you type these words you will see several such forum names. Select the ones with more membership and become a member. Thgen post messages. Emails sent in these forums go to each member.
others, pls suggest more websites and help in posting IV messages on them.
sure will do it and will update as i post
girlfriend Amy Winehouse in Amy Winehouse
mikekanna
03-16 03:38 PM
EB1 - MNC Executive clause from the DOS Website
==============================
Certain executives and managers who have been employed
at least one of the three preceding years by the
overseas affiliate, parent, subsidiary, or branch of
the U.S. employer. The applicant must be coming to
work in a managerial or executive capacity. No labor
certification is required for this classification, but
the prospective employer must provide a job offer and
file a petition with the USCIS.
Q1) Can an H1-B visa holder apply under this category if all other conditions are satisfied?
Q2) Can the clause "Atleast 1 of the 3 preceding years" be
interpreted as "Atleast 365 days in the past 3 years" if all other conditions are satisfied?
The statement does not talk about 1 full year or 1 continuous year. Also if a person's job needs him to travel to the US for a week or so every year for business before completion of 1 year in an overseas country for the same orgn/subsidiary, he would never satisfy the criteria of completing 1 year.
Pls. let me know if anyone has responded to such a situation.
Thanks.
==============================
Certain executives and managers who have been employed
at least one of the three preceding years by the
overseas affiliate, parent, subsidiary, or branch of
the U.S. employer. The applicant must be coming to
work in a managerial or executive capacity. No labor
certification is required for this classification, but
the prospective employer must provide a job offer and
file a petition with the USCIS.
Q1) Can an H1-B visa holder apply under this category if all other conditions are satisfied?
Q2) Can the clause "Atleast 1 of the 3 preceding years" be
interpreted as "Atleast 365 days in the past 3 years" if all other conditions are satisfied?
The statement does not talk about 1 full year or 1 continuous year. Also if a person's job needs him to travel to the US for a week or so every year for business before completion of 1 year in an overseas country for the same orgn/subsidiary, he would never satisfy the criteria of completing 1 year.
Pls. let me know if anyone has responded to such a situation.
Thanks.
hairstyles Amy Winehouse Tattoos Fancy
xyz2005
07-18 10:37 AM
Its getting dicey here
My attorney says so far I have not received your rejection but not to say USCIS might have mailed one and we have not received it. If we get it then we will resubmit..if not then you will get receipt notice.
He did not address whether we will be able to retain our July 2nd queue number or not.
We all should be worried now.! Don't know what to say or recommend.
My attorney says so far I have not received your rejection but not to say USCIS might have mailed one and we have not received it. If we get it then we will resubmit..if not then you will get receipt notice.
He did not address whether we will be able to retain our July 2nd queue number or not.
We all should be worried now.! Don't know what to say or recommend.
sanju
10-20 02:21 PM
well said.. but wait a minute.. why are we all debating.. we dont have voting rights... :D:D:D.. but whoever thinks mccain is the savior... god help them
Look, no one is saying that McCain is the savior, but at the same time, it is important for us to understand that Obama is not the light at the end of the tunnel, its the fast approaching train towards us. So, some of us are just pointing to others that be prepared for the train wreck. That does not necessarily translate into saying that McCain is the savior. It just means what it means.
And you are right, none of us can vote. But if this community supports Obama, its like 300 million Americans voting for the President who works against the interest of majority of Americans. Won't we also be guided by the "misguided" ideology and rhetoric if we act in the same manner.
The irony of the situation is, we are caught between the rock and the hard place. Some of us are saying its better to stay on rocks, others are preaching that its better to be caught in the hard place. That's all.
.
Look, no one is saying that McCain is the savior, but at the same time, it is important for us to understand that Obama is not the light at the end of the tunnel, its the fast approaching train towards us. So, some of us are just pointing to others that be prepared for the train wreck. That does not necessarily translate into saying that McCain is the savior. It just means what it means.
And you are right, none of us can vote. But if this community supports Obama, its like 300 million Americans voting for the President who works against the interest of majority of Americans. Won't we also be guided by the "misguided" ideology and rhetoric if we act in the same manner.
The irony of the situation is, we are caught between the rock and the hard place. Some of us are saying its better to stay on rocks, others are preaching that its better to be caught in the hard place. That's all.
.
ujjvalkoul
03-07 03:24 PM
at the time when the PD becomes current....and u have used AC21 and now work for new employer. how would the USCIS know. Only way for them to know if to ask for a Employment letter(w/Job Duties, salary etc) and if they notice its not the sponsoring empoyer, they will look at it more closely....By the time all this happens you could be into the next month when you PD could have retrogressed back to 1900 again.....so as I see it....unless USCIS approved GC first thing w/o asking for additional info...is the best case scenario....
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar