Legal
07-25 09:13 PM
Next years numbers are not consequential to EB2I movement to be honest. Any realistic movement will depend on spillover. Consider that EB2I is statutorily limited to about 2800 visas(inclusive of family members) without spillover. Whereas spillover has the potential to contribute tens of thousands of visas.
Very true. My speculation :) is most EB2-I upto mid 2006 will be cleared up and the puny new numbers will trickle to keep the PD around June 2006, or slightly earlier rather than going to 2004 or earlier.
Very true. My speculation :) is most EB2-I upto mid 2006 will be cleared up and the puny new numbers will trickle to keep the PD around June 2006, or slightly earlier rather than going to 2004 or earlier.
wallpaper Lady Gaga#39;s performance at
cinqsit
01-14 01:51 PM
V true.
Folks, the memo clearly empowers USCIS to crack down on consulting firms which don't have any in-house infrastructure (other than contractors) to execute projects.
H1B is misused for a long time now by these firms and it was high time they put the screws on these "job shops" as they call it. Unfortunately some talented workers will get impacted.
But if they are talented they will find opportunities elsewhere. Trust me on that. And better opportunities.
Nathan is exactly right. These firms have created a mess by bending rules everywhere.
Don't start speculating that USCIS is trying to throw out all immigrants from this country. I'm surprised that folks don't take a proper view of the situation (yeah..bring the reds on and call me an anti-immigrant).
I agree with a1b2c3.
USCIS is going after these "job-shops" nowhere do they have a blanket policy written down to stop all H1-B's or greencards.
Please dont get riled up and think that its going to affect your greencards etc too.
Actually if you have been following these forums, last two years have been tough for small consulting companies to get renewals/new H1's approved anyways. They were asking for client letter and denying renewals left and right. Some
were getting H1's denied saying the company office space is too small to fit 100 employees, your product/business plan seems to have been copy-pasted from online sources and what not. Please browse through H1 denied threads on this forums.
I know its harsh on the employees but they will have to find employment with direct vendors.
Contracting is a way-of-life for some big financial/insurance companies (if you are from NYC area you will know) its not going away nor is need for H1B's going away.
USCIS is simply laying down the rules on paper (or in this memo) for what it has already been practicing for more than 2 years now with respect to H1B processing.
I know its harsh on some employees who will be affected but you will soon realize that
you will find better paying jobs/contracts. If there is a need and you are good at what ou do you are going to land up a job/contract no matter what even when you are on H1.
These "job-shop" companies will be going away (good riddance) not you.
You will still find work you will still find contracts with better pay
If you are working on a contract directly for direct vendor isnt that much better than being 3-4 "layers" of these middleman "job-shop" companies who each take
a significant cut out of your share?
cinqsit
Folks, the memo clearly empowers USCIS to crack down on consulting firms which don't have any in-house infrastructure (other than contractors) to execute projects.
H1B is misused for a long time now by these firms and it was high time they put the screws on these "job shops" as they call it. Unfortunately some talented workers will get impacted.
But if they are talented they will find opportunities elsewhere. Trust me on that. And better opportunities.
Nathan is exactly right. These firms have created a mess by bending rules everywhere.
Don't start speculating that USCIS is trying to throw out all immigrants from this country. I'm surprised that folks don't take a proper view of the situation (yeah..bring the reds on and call me an anti-immigrant).
I agree with a1b2c3.
USCIS is going after these "job-shops" nowhere do they have a blanket policy written down to stop all H1-B's or greencards.
Please dont get riled up and think that its going to affect your greencards etc too.
Actually if you have been following these forums, last two years have been tough for small consulting companies to get renewals/new H1's approved anyways. They were asking for client letter and denying renewals left and right. Some
were getting H1's denied saying the company office space is too small to fit 100 employees, your product/business plan seems to have been copy-pasted from online sources and what not. Please browse through H1 denied threads on this forums.
I know its harsh on the employees but they will have to find employment with direct vendors.
Contracting is a way-of-life for some big financial/insurance companies (if you are from NYC area you will know) its not going away nor is need for H1B's going away.
USCIS is simply laying down the rules on paper (or in this memo) for what it has already been practicing for more than 2 years now with respect to H1B processing.
I know its harsh on some employees who will be affected but you will soon realize that
you will find better paying jobs/contracts. If there is a need and you are good at what ou do you are going to land up a job/contract no matter what even when you are on H1.
These "job-shop" companies will be going away (good riddance) not you.
You will still find work you will still find contracts with better pay
If you are working on a contract directly for direct vendor isnt that much better than being 3-4 "layers" of these middleman "job-shop" companies who each take
a significant cut out of your share?
cinqsit
sidbee
02-13 07:46 PM
I am with you guys.Read my old posts, i have been thinking on this from day one.
2011 me to let down Lady Gaga,
go_guy123
03-19 05:34 PM
It is easy. www.cic.gc.ca
BTW, the job situation is not great there. Others can input too
Yes true. I am planning to do MBA at U of T for 2 years out of the 3
needed for citizenship. In fact half of U of T Rotman (high rank as per businessweek ) look at US job market after graduation.
Its good for Finance and Toronto is close to new york area.
Yes for IT jobs it isnt that good.
BTW, the job situation is not great there. Others can input too
Yes true. I am planning to do MBA at U of T for 2 years out of the 3
needed for citizenship. In fact half of U of T Rotman (high rank as per businessweek ) look at US job market after graduation.
Its good for Finance and Toronto is close to new york area.
Yes for IT jobs it isnt that good.
more...
ashutrip
06-26 02:11 PM
Hey...No one can predict anything about Aug and Sept. You just have to wait till you get your LC and then check where dates are and file accordingly. There is nothing you can do about it, so relax and don't worry too much.
If it makes you feel better, then people from 2001/2002/2003 are still still in line. You are lucky at least you have hope that you can file 485 if you get your LC in time.
it tough to so relax and don't worry too much when I am aware that there are people from 2001/2002/2003 are still still in line doesnot make me happy but I can feel for these blokes.:( :(
If it makes you feel better, then people from 2001/2002/2003 are still still in line. You are lucky at least you have hope that you can file 485 if you get your LC in time.
it tough to so relax and don't worry too much when I am aware that there are people from 2001/2002/2003 are still still in line doesnot make me happy but I can feel for these blokes.:( :(
newtogc
10-03 01:54 AM
Hi All,
One company offered me pre-approved labour, with PD as Dec-2004. They are mentioning that I can file i140 immediately as soon as
my H1-B transffered to new company.
I have been hearing the news about LC substitution elimination from DOL.
Has they announced any dead line for filing the Labor Substitutions ? or expecting soon.
Has they announced any validity period on approved LCs to regularise this process?
If yes - How is it going to effect my case?
Is it better to take this LC( all the criteria required for sub is matched) or apply a new labour under PERM process.
Currently I am in my first H1-B and valid till Oct 2007.
Please need experts advice in this regard.
Thanks,
BNR.
One company offered me pre-approved labour, with PD as Dec-2004. They are mentioning that I can file i140 immediately as soon as
my H1-B transffered to new company.
I have been hearing the news about LC substitution elimination from DOL.
Has they announced any dead line for filing the Labor Substitutions ? or expecting soon.
Has they announced any validity period on approved LCs to regularise this process?
If yes - How is it going to effect my case?
Is it better to take this LC( all the criteria required for sub is matched) or apply a new labour under PERM process.
Currently I am in my first H1-B and valid till Oct 2007.
Please need experts advice in this regard.
Thanks,
BNR.
more...
amitga
02-15 08:32 AM
Very well said & I just feel the same...I have already lost hope on this GC and can not predict how long its going to take but for sure before I leave this place and go back to home country I will contribute my best of share in this fight for justice and full support...count me in with out any doubt!!
The current situation is a gross voilation of the constitutional right of employment at will. This amounts to Involuntary servitude which is a more techincal term for slavery. Read yourself the definition of both and make your own judgement.
In my view (though crazy and totaly impractical) the law suit should be against all the employers because they are the one who represent Govt/USCIS in processing our Green cards. Employers told us that we will process your greencard and you will be a PR in x number of years and now that x is infinite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will)
At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:
“ any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude :
Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.
The current situation is a gross voilation of the constitutional right of employment at will. This amounts to Involuntary servitude which is a more techincal term for slavery. Read yourself the definition of both and make your own judgement.
In my view (though crazy and totaly impractical) the law suit should be against all the employers because they are the one who represent Govt/USCIS in processing our Green cards. Employers told us that we will process your greencard and you will be a PR in x number of years and now that x is infinite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will)
At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:
“ any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude :
Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.
2010 Lady Gaga arrives on the red
knowDOL
08-03 04:21 PM
The comment period ended April 17th 2006. I heard, Many top companies were against elimination, probably, because they had plenty of labors using which they could attract senior and bright H-1B's. Also, I think USCIS needs to publish an elimination of substitution in this respect which will again have to go through comment period, only after all this the elimination will come into place.
But the reason why elimination proposal came in is because of fraud and not because of unfair ness to people who are in line or FIFO because of transfer of PD. DOL and USCIS noticed that companies are sellling Labors which is fraud. There was some memo that USCIS will not publish until last quarter, soeveryone expected the rule will become effective by August September time frame. But I have not read anything as of today that the USCIS published anything in Federal register relatting substituion elimination.
Probably we should wait and watch. My guess is that something may come by October 1st, 2006. Only an assumption.
But the reason why elimination proposal came in is because of fraud and not because of unfair ness to people who are in line or FIFO because of transfer of PD. DOL and USCIS noticed that companies are sellling Labors which is fraud. There was some memo that USCIS will not publish until last quarter, soeveryone expected the rule will become effective by August September time frame. But I have not read anything as of today that the USCIS published anything in Federal register relatting substituion elimination.
Probably we should wait and watch. My guess is that something may come by October 1st, 2006. Only an assumption.
more...
GCard_Dream
10-18 07:21 PM
You are right. You are allowed to stay 3 years out of last 5 years outside of Canada. Your PR should still be good.
Dear Folks,
I got my Canadian PR in Sep 2005. I did the landing and gave a canadian address after which I got my PR. After that I was under the assumption that I have to spend atleast 2 years in a span of five years and did not take any attempt to land into Canada using PR. I am thinking of applying for SIN by post while I reside in US.
I am not sure now if my PR is still valid??
Can someone advice?
Dear Folks,
I got my Canadian PR in Sep 2005. I did the landing and gave a canadian address after which I got my PR. After that I was under the assumption that I have to spend atleast 2 years in a span of five years and did not take any attempt to land into Canada using PR. I am thinking of applying for SIN by post while I reside in US.
I am not sure now if my PR is still valid??
Can someone advice?
hair Here#39;s Lady Gaga#39;s performance
geve
11-09 09:17 AM
You are right my friend. In fact you explained every thing. Your concerns are valid. However as you said you are overreacting. In other words you are stretching your strengths.
You said 4 of them are your friends. By giving complaint on company i do not know what is the outcome. Can also effect the approved GC candidates.
There is fine line between DHARMAM AND NYAYAM. Personnally i do not think they did wrong. Neither the company nor the candidates. They just used the available system.
We can argue or put our opinion to the law makers. One of my friend who came along with me on the same flight, same day from india throught same company can apply for citizenship next year.
where as me
EB3 -- May 2003
I-140 approved Mar 2006
We are all on same page. Forget about what happened to others. Think what we can do? I am not trying to teach, just trying to coll you down.
You said 4 of them are your friends. By giving complaint on company i do not know what is the outcome. Can also effect the approved GC candidates.
There is fine line between DHARMAM AND NYAYAM. Personnally i do not think they did wrong. Neither the company nor the candidates. They just used the available system.
We can argue or put our opinion to the law makers. One of my friend who came along with me on the same flight, same day from india throught same company can apply for citizenship next year.
where as me
EB3 -- May 2003
I-140 approved Mar 2006
We are all on same page. Forget about what happened to others. Think what we can do? I am not trying to teach, just trying to coll you down.
more...
Marphad
04-01 01:07 PM
I remeber how brutal Imran used to be to Indian openers with his deadly in-swinger. Those were days of good cricket ... a classy cricket. Outside cricket Imran still commands respect for being honorable and honest person.
On other hand our Azhar is one of those who will sell his own mother for money. A disgrace to cricket world. Comparing him to Imran is like comparing Lion in Jungle to a Hyenna ( no disrespect to reading Hyenna).
Few years back bunch of cricketers originating from AP here in MI sponsored him and his wife to visit here. I was invited by come and shake hand and photograph with this bookie and his beautiful wife. Majority of people having self-respect politely rejected the invitation. Now I hear he is trying to become bookie in New Delhi. Good Luck!
I think Azhar is the best candidate. He has a long experience of bribing, corruption, managing team of corrups and deceiving the country :).
On other hand our Azhar is one of those who will sell his own mother for money. A disgrace to cricket world. Comparing him to Imran is like comparing Lion in Jungle to a Hyenna ( no disrespect to reading Hyenna).
Few years back bunch of cricketers originating from AP here in MI sponsored him and his wife to visit here. I was invited by come and shake hand and photograph with this bookie and his beautiful wife. Majority of people having self-respect politely rejected the invitation. Now I hear he is trying to become bookie in New Delhi. Good Luck!
I think Azhar is the best candidate. He has a long experience of bribing, corruption, managing team of corrups and deceiving the country :).
hot I love Lady GaGa..but ummm WTH
Googler
02-16 04:24 PM
Note that early PD applications of all categories will be freed from the FBI Namecheck blackhole, so the old situation of not-stuck later PDs getting greencards because early PDs were stuck won't happen any more. That is what created the mad, lottery like situation. So there should be slow cutoff date movements in future barring yet another f&#$ up by USCIS.
When a category becomes "Unavailable" it means that the entire annual supply for that category has been used up for that fiscal year (which ends Sept 2008). Given the degree of the EB-3 ROW retrogression, I very very much doubt there will be ANY spillover from ROW to India. At present, DOS plans to move EB-2 India only if EB-1 India has excess visas. The quota for for EB-1 India is 2803 (including dependents) in any fiscal year. So let us consider some scenarios -- say half the EB-1 India are available, so 1401 are given to EB-2 India -- do I think there are 1401 EB-2 India applicants with dependents ahead of me -- average family size of 2.2 means approx 636 applicants? Yep! No doubt about it! Hell I'm sure that there are 2803 EB-2 India applicants ahead of me.
Remember also, that the DOL backlog was FINALLY cleared. All those unlucky people with PDs even earlier than mine were FINALLY able to file their I-485s. They are all in the mix now and deserve to get their greencard before I do.
The earlier situation with the FBI blackhole meant that USCIS could rob Peter (stuck w, early PD) to give greencards to Paul (not stuck w. late PD), hence the wild movements in cutoff dates and the idea that oh, my date will come any day. Now we will really feel the supply constraint, there simply aren't enough greencards to satisfy long retrogressed EB-3 ROW and the permanently oversubscribed countries. Which means that recapture is the ONLY that too partial solution for this mess. Everything we do should be towards achieving that aim.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
When a category becomes "Unavailable" it means that the entire annual supply for that category has been used up for that fiscal year (which ends Sept 2008). Given the degree of the EB-3 ROW retrogression, I very very much doubt there will be ANY spillover from ROW to India. At present, DOS plans to move EB-2 India only if EB-1 India has excess visas. The quota for for EB-1 India is 2803 (including dependents) in any fiscal year. So let us consider some scenarios -- say half the EB-1 India are available, so 1401 are given to EB-2 India -- do I think there are 1401 EB-2 India applicants with dependents ahead of me -- average family size of 2.2 means approx 636 applicants? Yep! No doubt about it! Hell I'm sure that there are 2803 EB-2 India applicants ahead of me.
Remember also, that the DOL backlog was FINALLY cleared. All those unlucky people with PDs even earlier than mine were FINALLY able to file their I-485s. They are all in the mix now and deserve to get their greencard before I do.
The earlier situation with the FBI blackhole meant that USCIS could rob Peter (stuck w, early PD) to give greencards to Paul (not stuck w. late PD), hence the wild movements in cutoff dates and the idea that oh, my date will come any day. Now we will really feel the supply constraint, there simply aren't enough greencards to satisfy long retrogressed EB-3 ROW and the permanently oversubscribed countries. Which means that recapture is the ONLY that too partial solution for this mess. Everything we do should be towards achieving that aim.
And then there this piece of info from Ron Gotcher posted on Feb 14, 2008
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285
"Last night, at a meeting of the American Immigration Lawyer's Assocation Southern California chapter, Charles Oppenheim spoke. Mr. Oppenheim is the officer within the Visa Office tasked with calculating visa bulletin cutoff dates each month. He offered the following thoughts as to cutoff date movement in the upcoming months:
In April, India and China EB2 will be set at 12/01/2003
EB3 for India and China will slow down for the rest of the fiscal year."
I am riveted by this because I spoke to Oppenheim just the day before this meeting (he referred to it). This was the conversation in which he told me that at present EB-2 India would only get numbers leftover from EB-1 India -- the problem is he doesn't know either exactly how many EB-2 India adjudicated applications there are in any specific PD range -- so every month he makes wild guesses, with the intent of using up visas. So I guess at least as of 2/14/08 he thought moving the date to 12/1/03 would more than mop up whatever was leftover from EB-1 India. Given the end of the FBI boondoggle (the effects of which have not been quantified by Oppenheim or USCIS) I'd predict that even a date in early 2002 would be good enough to mop up. Let us see if he changes his mind by mid March.
more...
house of Lady Gaga#39;s 2009 VMA
saketh555
09-15 06:08 PM
I guess the priority dates for EB2 will hoover around 2nd Q of 2005. I came to this assumption after seeing mass approvals of 04 applications, looks like they are cleaning all 04 applications:rolleyes:.
Can't really guess EB3, not even GOD.
Can't really guess EB3, not even GOD.
tattoo Lady Gaga MTV VMA#39;s
delax
07-24 09:23 PM
If this is indeed true, isn't it unfair to issue visas to Feb 2006 dates at a Consulate while people with 2005 dates are waiting for AOS. Can this be challenged in court?
Everything is fair in love and war and Immigration my friend! Cheers.
Everything is fair in love and war and Immigration my friend! Cheers.
more...
pictures IMAGESLady Gaga in the
test101
07-04 10:33 AM
I have more emial addresses if you want them.....
2020@abc.com
360@cnn.com
48hours@cbsnews.com
60m@cbsnews.com
aaron.brown@turner.com
aaron.zitner@latimes.com
abc.news.magazines@abc.com
abenfer@salon.com
abenitez@univision.net
abramowitz@washpost.com
abramsreport@msnbc.com
achenbachj@washpost.com
ahrensf@washpost.com
aizenmann@washpost.com
alan.miller@latimes.com
alan@alan.com
alastair@scoop.co.nz
alevin@usatoday.com
allenh@washpost.com
allenm@washpost.com
amity.shlaes@ft.com
amontgomery@salon.com
andrea.koppel@turner.com
andrew@scoop.co.nz
aradelat@gns.gannett.com
aranam@washpost.com
areiter@salon.com
argetsinger@washpost.com
armstrongs@csps.com
arshad.mohammed@reuters.com
asherm@washpost.com
astone@usatoday.com
ataylor@npr.org
atc@npr.org
axtmank@csps.com
ayork@salon.com
bakerp@washpost.com
balzd@washpost.com
barbara.serrano@latimes.com
barbashf@washpost.com
barkerk@washpost.com
barkinr@washpost.com
barrj@washpost.com
barrs@washpost.com
barry.siegel@latimes.com
bduffy@usnews.com
bersellie@washpost.com
betsy.fischer@nbc.com
beyersd@washpost.com
bill.rempel@latimes.com
bill.schneider@turner.com
billy.house@arizonarepublic.com
bjapsen@tribune.com
blumj@washpost.com
bnaylor@npr.org
bnichols@usatoday.com
bobherb@nytimes.com
boehlert@salon.com
bonesteelm@washpost.com
boustanyn@washpost.com
bpc@cbsnews.com
bredemeier@washpost.com
brelis@globe.com
brennanp@washpost.com
brian_hill@metronetworks.com
brian.williams@msnbc.com
brinkerbob@aol.com
brooksd@washpost.com
browar57@aol.com
brownw@washpost.com
bruce.morton@turner.com
bslavin@usatoday.com
bsteigerwald@tribweb.com
burns@nytimes.com
buzzflash@buzzflash.com
bwelch@usatoday.com
bwilson@npr.org
bwyman@salon.com
candy.crowley@turner.com
carlsonp@washpost.com
carol.lin@turner.com
castanedar@washpost.com
cavendishs@washpost.com
cchocano@salon.com
ccolin@salon.com
cflintoff@npr.org
cgarrett@tribune.com
chandlerc@washpost.com
chans@washpost.com
charlierose@pbs.org
cheaterry@washpost.com
chinnid@csps.com
chod@washpost.com
chris.matthews@msnbc.com
chuck.babbington@washingtonpost.com
cj@msnbc.com
claiborneb@washpost.com
clarkp@washpost.com
cochs@ap.org
cohensh@washpost.com
cohnd@washpost.com
colmes@foxnews.com
comments@foxnews.com
connectionweb@wbur.bu.edu
contact@pacifica.org
cookd@csps.com
coopermana@washpost.com
copelandl@washpost.com
corrections@npr.org
countdown@msnbc.com
crossfire@cnn.com
csimpson@tribune.com
cushman@nytimes.com
cweiser@gns.gannett.com
cwindham@npr.org
dabrahms@gns.gannett.com
dabrooks@nytimes.com
dakirk@nytimes.com
danschiedel@kozk.pbs.org
dardalan@npr.org
daryl@salon.com
daryn.kagan@turner.com
dasang@nytimes.com
dastor@editorandpublisher.com
dateline@nbc.com
davenportc@washpost.com
2020@abc.com
360@cnn.com
48hours@cbsnews.com
60m@cbsnews.com
aaron.brown@turner.com
aaron.zitner@latimes.com
abc.news.magazines@abc.com
abenfer@salon.com
abenitez@univision.net
abramowitz@washpost.com
abramsreport@msnbc.com
achenbachj@washpost.com
ahrensf@washpost.com
aizenmann@washpost.com
alan.miller@latimes.com
alan@alan.com
alastair@scoop.co.nz
alevin@usatoday.com
allenh@washpost.com
allenm@washpost.com
amity.shlaes@ft.com
amontgomery@salon.com
andrea.koppel@turner.com
andrew@scoop.co.nz
aradelat@gns.gannett.com
aranam@washpost.com
areiter@salon.com
argetsinger@washpost.com
armstrongs@csps.com
arshad.mohammed@reuters.com
asherm@washpost.com
astone@usatoday.com
ataylor@npr.org
atc@npr.org
axtmank@csps.com
ayork@salon.com
bakerp@washpost.com
balzd@washpost.com
barbara.serrano@latimes.com
barbashf@washpost.com
barkerk@washpost.com
barkinr@washpost.com
barrj@washpost.com
barrs@washpost.com
barry.siegel@latimes.com
bduffy@usnews.com
bersellie@washpost.com
betsy.fischer@nbc.com
beyersd@washpost.com
bill.rempel@latimes.com
bill.schneider@turner.com
billy.house@arizonarepublic.com
bjapsen@tribune.com
blumj@washpost.com
bnaylor@npr.org
bnichols@usatoday.com
bobherb@nytimes.com
boehlert@salon.com
bonesteelm@washpost.com
boustanyn@washpost.com
bpc@cbsnews.com
bredemeier@washpost.com
brelis@globe.com
brennanp@washpost.com
brian_hill@metronetworks.com
brian.williams@msnbc.com
brinkerbob@aol.com
brooksd@washpost.com
browar57@aol.com
brownw@washpost.com
bruce.morton@turner.com
bslavin@usatoday.com
bsteigerwald@tribweb.com
burns@nytimes.com
buzzflash@buzzflash.com
bwelch@usatoday.com
bwilson@npr.org
bwyman@salon.com
candy.crowley@turner.com
carlsonp@washpost.com
carol.lin@turner.com
castanedar@washpost.com
cavendishs@washpost.com
cchocano@salon.com
ccolin@salon.com
cflintoff@npr.org
cgarrett@tribune.com
chandlerc@washpost.com
chans@washpost.com
charlierose@pbs.org
cheaterry@washpost.com
chinnid@csps.com
chod@washpost.com
chris.matthews@msnbc.com
chuck.babbington@washingtonpost.com
cj@msnbc.com
claiborneb@washpost.com
clarkp@washpost.com
cochs@ap.org
cohensh@washpost.com
cohnd@washpost.com
colmes@foxnews.com
comments@foxnews.com
connectionweb@wbur.bu.edu
contact@pacifica.org
cookd@csps.com
coopermana@washpost.com
copelandl@washpost.com
corrections@npr.org
countdown@msnbc.com
crossfire@cnn.com
csimpson@tribune.com
cushman@nytimes.com
cweiser@gns.gannett.com
cwindham@npr.org
dabrahms@gns.gannett.com
dabrooks@nytimes.com
dakirk@nytimes.com
danschiedel@kozk.pbs.org
dardalan@npr.org
daryl@salon.com
daryn.kagan@turner.com
dasang@nytimes.com
dastor@editorandpublisher.com
dateline@nbc.com
davenportc@washpost.com
dresses Lady Gaga VMA Pictures
jackrabbit
03-26 04:37 PM
Has it passed? I cant wait for it to happen. Once it does, I will feel more confident leaving my employer knowing....
more...
makeup Lady Gagahad
485_se_dukhi
07-26 08:54 PM
I think the reason people get defensive is because love for your country is an emotional topic (some might call it patriotism)...just as love for your mother (or parents) or religion or political party etc. These are deeply personal issues. When you question any of these, expect fireworks.
Many people migrate for better opportunity/ better lifestyle. Is that enough reason to question why they still love their original country? I might move from Lucknow to Bombay (for those of you who don't know these places, please substitute Wichita to New York) for the same reasons. Does it mean I stop being nostalgic about Lucknow? or stop loving it? How does migrating affect my love for the place one was born and brought up in?
Needless to mention there are people from different countries in this forum. So lets refrain from implying that people who immigrate should not love their original motherland/fatherland etc.
Actually its getting quite ridiculous now. So may I again request the moderators/ admin to pls close this thread. Thank you.
I think this thread has definitely deviated from its main theme.
?[/B]
Many people migrate for better opportunity/ better lifestyle. Is that enough reason to question why they still love their original country? I might move from Lucknow to Bombay (for those of you who don't know these places, please substitute Wichita to New York) for the same reasons. Does it mean I stop being nostalgic about Lucknow? or stop loving it? How does migrating affect my love for the place one was born and brought up in?
Needless to mention there are people from different countries in this forum. So lets refrain from implying that people who immigrate should not love their original motherland/fatherland etc.
Actually its getting quite ridiculous now. So may I again request the moderators/ admin to pls close this thread. Thank you.
I think this thread has definitely deviated from its main theme.
?[/B]
girlfriend Lady Gaga#39;s performance was
xyz
06-27 07:47 AM
This is what my very very high profile attorney wrote in her email to me today....
" We have heard that there will be a visa regression the first week of July "
And in immigration matters I trust her more than anybody in this whole country. So guys be ready and prepared. Do what u have to do. Be proactive.
My post is not to spread rumors or scare people but to help them to grab this golden opportunity.
I am ready to send papers for July 1st.
Visa regression (visa dates' retrogression) does not mean that there are no visa numbers for any priority date. If USCIS runs out of visa numbers (i.e. the world-wide quota for the fiscal year) for anybody in EB categories, USCIS will stop accepting further applications. But, if I understand correctly, if mere visa dates retrogress and still there are visa numbers available for some older priority dates, USCIS will keep accepting applications in entire July month.
" We have heard that there will be a visa regression the first week of July "
And in immigration matters I trust her more than anybody in this whole country. So guys be ready and prepared. Do what u have to do. Be proactive.
My post is not to spread rumors or scare people but to help them to grab this golden opportunity.
I am ready to send papers for July 1st.
Visa regression (visa dates' retrogression) does not mean that there are no visa numbers for any priority date. If USCIS runs out of visa numbers (i.e. the world-wide quota for the fiscal year) for anybody in EB categories, USCIS will stop accepting further applications. But, if I understand correctly, if mere visa dates retrogress and still there are visa numbers available for some older priority dates, USCIS will keep accepting applications in entire July month.
hairstyles Lady-gaga-vma.jpg
grupak
02-13 01:34 PM
Finally you hit the nail on its head. That’s why the per country limit is there so no one country with larger population can monopolize any agenda the way you are trying to do with IV.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
I don't understand this logic. We are talking about employment based GC.
Lets be clear that we are talking about people who are employed in the US and their employers have sponsored their green cards (except the EB2-NIW, EB1_EA). These people are employed because of their skill at jobs not their national origin.
Are you suggesting that somehow people of some countries have monopolized the foreign worker pool by born in the same country and NOT because of their skill.
Since we are talking about a privilege and benefit that comes from being employed in the US, you are actually suggesting that US employers should consider country of birth and not just skill in the employment.
Tell me how did the Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino workers unfairly monopolized the foreign worker pool. As far as I am aware, these countries have large populations and a lot of Science and Engineering graduates happen to be from these countries.
The country cap makes sense in family based immigration system when extended beyond the immediate family members. IV is not for FB GC issues.
Again, employment in the US is based on skill not country of birth. The foreign workers are here because they are needed, and US will benefit by keeping these skilled workers long term. What IV is doing benefits all employment based GC.
kalyan
07-21 04:12 PM
If PD moves to last quarter of 2007 within a year, then there would be no candidates (EB2), since all will still be stuck in PERM audits which will take 6-12 more months to clear + I-140 processing time.
So, they move PD dates faster but freeze PERM apps. I am confused:confused: Any insights?
where are they freezing perm Apps. Mine was filed in march and got out in May '08. This was my first LC.
I am glad they cleared in 2 months. I know couple of guys who got out in 2 months for their LC.
There are lot of people who filed after Augst 2007 but not that many as influx when everything is made current.
So, they move PD dates faster but freeze PERM apps. I am confused:confused: Any insights?
where are they freezing perm Apps. Mine was filed in march and got out in May '08. This was my first LC.
I am glad they cleared in 2 months. I know couple of guys who got out in 2 months for their LC.
There are lot of people who filed after Augst 2007 but not that many as influx when everything is made current.
tempgc
09-15 03:39 PM
EB2 approval of LCA or 140 is almost next to impossible now. I can dare to say this.
So consider new EB2ROW is almost negligible unless the one in the 140 stage get approved from EB2ROW (here also tough for approval but I can give chance to approval) come into the queue of EB2ROW.
This is a very big assumption which impact the EB2I progress a lot.
Also EB1 movement -- new EB1 filings should come down due to economy, so I see some EB1 numbers definitely more than previous year i.e 2009 coming to EB2.
So consider new EB2ROW is almost negligible unless the one in the 140 stage get approved from EB2ROW (here also tough for approval but I can give chance to approval) come into the queue of EB2ROW.
This is a very big assumption which impact the EB2I progress a lot.
Also EB1 movement -- new EB1 filings should come down due to economy, so I see some EB1 numbers definitely more than previous year i.e 2009 coming to EB2.
No comments:
Post a Comment