satishku_2000
07-13 07:36 PM
Taking up the DREAM Act issue will strengthen the IV cause...by showing how legals are getting short-changed from every angle on the entire immigration issue.
It requires a very small change in the DREAM Act as contained in CIR. Just remove the clause that says it will apply to Z visa holders. In any case, Z visa no longer exists since CIR failed. But I am afraid the will replace it by some condition requiring undocumented presence. Remaining conditions apply to legals as well:
(from the failed CIR)
� Have maintained continuous physical presence in the U.S. since 1/1/07
� Was under 30 years of age on date of enactment
� Was under age 16 at time of initial entry into U.S.
� Have obtained U.S. high school diploma or GED
� Have not been absent from the U.S. for more than 365 total days during period of conditional residence (except those absent due to U.S. military service)
� Have acquired a degree from a U.S. higher ed institution; or completed 2 years in Bachelor�s degree program or higher at such an institution; or have served at least 2 years in the U.S. military
� Has provided a list of all of the secondary educational institutions he or she has attended in the U.S
If the push is for amendment to include legal kids , I would be more than happy to support any effort. I can only offer tepid support if it is exclusively for kids of undocumented people. Both kind of kids are here because of their parents' actions.
Agree with you on the point that any request for amendments to include documented kids should increase the visibility for IV ..
It requires a very small change in the DREAM Act as contained in CIR. Just remove the clause that says it will apply to Z visa holders. In any case, Z visa no longer exists since CIR failed. But I am afraid the will replace it by some condition requiring undocumented presence. Remaining conditions apply to legals as well:
(from the failed CIR)
� Have maintained continuous physical presence in the U.S. since 1/1/07
� Was under 30 years of age on date of enactment
� Was under age 16 at time of initial entry into U.S.
� Have obtained U.S. high school diploma or GED
� Have not been absent from the U.S. for more than 365 total days during period of conditional residence (except those absent due to U.S. military service)
� Have acquired a degree from a U.S. higher ed institution; or completed 2 years in Bachelor�s degree program or higher at such an institution; or have served at least 2 years in the U.S. military
� Has provided a list of all of the secondary educational institutions he or she has attended in the U.S
If the push is for amendment to include legal kids , I would be more than happy to support any effort. I can only offer tepid support if it is exclusively for kids of undocumented people. Both kind of kids are here because of their parents' actions.
Agree with you on the point that any request for amendments to include documented kids should increase the visibility for IV ..
wallpaper 2011 derrick rose tattoos.
satishku_2000
01-04 12:57 PM
I wish....;)
Think twice before what you wish for :)
Think twice before what you wish for :)
little_willy
09-19 04:29 PM
So those guys who attended the hearings or met with senators. what was the result? what did they accomplished? did they get the opportunity to participate with the senator or law maker in an action plan? or we just wasted that opportunity asking for autographs? please those guys post your comments.
So, with this posting I assume that you neither attended the rally nor put in any effort towards it cause. I sincerely wish I am wrong. Don't be so dumb and also claim that you are high skilled, they don't go together. Yes, we did get our autographs and we have the right to flaunt for what we did at DC. You have the right to post what you wish but don't ever again ridicule the people who put in the efforts.
So, with this posting I assume that you neither attended the rally nor put in any effort towards it cause. I sincerely wish I am wrong. Don't be so dumb and also claim that you are high skilled, they don't go together. Yes, we did get our autographs and we have the right to flaunt for what we did at DC. You have the right to post what you wish but don't ever again ridicule the people who put in the efforts.
2011 2011 Derrick Rose On MVP
abhijitp
08-27 07:25 PM
Very good effort Drona.... go IV, go California!
All other states, raise to the occasion... show that you can beat us!
If you need assistance with logistics, help yourself by going here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12441
All other states, raise to the occasion... show that you can beat us!
If you need assistance with logistics, help yourself by going here:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12441
more...
GCard_Dream
06-26 04:26 PM
Great. Thanks. That's what I had thought until someone came out and said that digital photos are unacceptable.
Check the photo guidelines from USCIS website here is blurb
"For U.S. passport and visa photographs, a digital camera with a resolution of 1 mega-pixel will be more than adequate for capturing the image and producing the final photo that conforms to the dimensions specified on this web site.
and the link is
http://travel.state.gov/passport/guide/digital/digital_880.html
digital photos are OK if printed prpoerly.
Check the photo guidelines from USCIS website here is blurb
"For U.S. passport and visa photographs, a digital camera with a resolution of 1 mega-pixel will be more than adequate for capturing the image and producing the final photo that conforms to the dimensions specified on this web site.
and the link is
http://travel.state.gov/passport/guide/digital/digital_880.html
digital photos are OK if printed prpoerly.
fcres
07-19 02:33 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFactSheet041207.pdf
(Have updated my original post with this link. Thanks for pointing out.)
Thanks, but seems like this is not what i was looking for. I was looking for the Jun 16/17th memo about initial evidence. Do you have that one?
(Have updated my original post with this link. Thanks for pointing out.)
Thanks, but seems like this is not what i was looking for. I was looking for the Jun 16/17th memo about initial evidence. Do you have that one?
more...
gianik
05-25 01:23 PM
Does anyone know how Quebec compares to Ontario. Specifically Montreal to Toronto. Economically, culturaly, etc.?
I would appreciate any comment. Thanks
I would appreciate any comment. Thanks
2010 Power Balance Team Member
sanju
09-09 11:25 AM
sanju,
you said: at some point uscis would send a request to you for employer verification?
why would they need that: as we have submitted that at the time flinig 485?
i dont know if the above is true only for consultancies?
i work in a big software corp and never heard of any queries at all?
approved 140, file 485, wait for 180 days, change jobs, no queries at all (irrespective of whether you change jobs or not)
am i missing something here?
thx
If 485 application is pending for longer time, say more than 2 years, I have seen that USCIS wants a reconfirmation from the employer that they continue to support the green card application for the position for which the application was originally applied. This is not just applicable to consulting companies alone. Any types of companies and applicants in any categories (Eb-1,2&3) could get RFE at the last stage of the process. So to have your application processed without a shred of a doubt, it is best to be in a position to reply that RFE anytime during the process.
you said: at some point uscis would send a request to you for employer verification?
why would they need that: as we have submitted that at the time flinig 485?
i dont know if the above is true only for consultancies?
i work in a big software corp and never heard of any queries at all?
approved 140, file 485, wait for 180 days, change jobs, no queries at all (irrespective of whether you change jobs or not)
am i missing something here?
thx
If 485 application is pending for longer time, say more than 2 years, I have seen that USCIS wants a reconfirmation from the employer that they continue to support the green card application for the position for which the application was originally applied. This is not just applicable to consulting companies alone. Any types of companies and applicants in any categories (Eb-1,2&3) could get RFE at the last stage of the process. So to have your application processed without a shred of a doubt, it is best to be in a position to reply that RFE anytime during the process.
more...
rvr_jcop
02-14 11:42 AM
I got LUDs on 2/10 on both mine and my wife's 485. My wife got an RFE email on 02/13. I do not know what this means either...
Looks like lot of EB-3 applications who filed 485 at the end of june got LUDs last week, some with RFE and some just soft LUD.
I got LUD on 2/10 for both my 485 and my wife's 485., though no RFE so far.
Looks like lot of EB-3 applications who filed 485 at the end of june got LUDs last week, some with RFE and some just soft LUD.
I got LUD on 2/10 for both my 485 and my wife's 485., though no RFE so far.
hair pictures derrick rose tattoos
deardar
07-02 03:42 PM
I don't understand about this fees.. I mean, you guys would have spent that money anyway. You may be loosing money for medical examination because it may expire. But the rest is something you would have done anyway.. I don't understand the logic of this thread..
Had we know that this was going to happen, at least for July 4 week, we would have planned a vacation and then used that money that we spent.
Had we know that this was going to happen, at least for July 4 week, we would have planned a vacation and then used that money that we spent.
more...
sunny1000
02-27 07:22 PM
Yes it is just like someone asking labor sub to be allowed again in admin fixes so that they can get a sustitute labor and cut in line.
I don't think it is the CP filers' fault. They are not cutting in line. It is the USCIS who is sitting on their ass on these 485s while the state dept processes the CP files at the normal pace. It should have been the state dept who should have processed the I-485 and CP (just like how they used to do the H/L visa revalidation inside U.S 4 years ago) and we would not have this issue or the visa bulletin fiasco.
It is a gamble to go with CP just like any other application in this GC mess. I know of guys who got their green card in 18 months while I spent 5.5 years in labor dept alone. But, that does not warrant chastising of the CP filers or anybody else for the Government's ineffiency (except in the case of labor sub).
But, I agree that the requests by the original poster should not be a part of IV's letter campaign.
I don't think it is the CP filers' fault. They are not cutting in line. It is the USCIS who is sitting on their ass on these 485s while the state dept processes the CP files at the normal pace. It should have been the state dept who should have processed the I-485 and CP (just like how they used to do the H/L visa revalidation inside U.S 4 years ago) and we would not have this issue or the visa bulletin fiasco.
It is a gamble to go with CP just like any other application in this GC mess. I know of guys who got their green card in 18 months while I spent 5.5 years in labor dept alone. But, that does not warrant chastising of the CP filers or anybody else for the Government's ineffiency (except in the case of labor sub).
But, I agree that the requests by the original poster should not be a part of IV's letter campaign.
hot Derrick Rose
NKR
02-13 10:26 AM
I was on 5th year
Sorry Shana,
I am a bit confused now, are you in your 5th year extension?.. In which year did your H1 expire?.
Thanks,
Sorry Shana,
I am a bit confused now, are you in your 5th year extension?.. In which year did your H1 expire?.
Thanks,
more...
house Derrick Rose
ragz4u
04-01 11:46 AM
Everyone,
We have received information that the Comprehensive Immigration Bill will be voted soon and the bill will be closed for amendments on Wednesday. That leaves only 2 working days to get something done
The text for the bill was only released in the evening on March 28th
As you have seen from the document released by IV that H2A workers will now be able to get citizenship in 11 years and self petition themselves. But legal skilled workers
1) will not be able to self petition
2) the wait to citizenship as it stands today is definitely more than 11 years
3) and all the left-over visas from EB1, EB2 and EB3 will now go to EB5 category
We really need to make sure that everyone is aware of the unfair treatment meted out to legal skilled immigrants and will be doing the following
1) We will be putting up webfaxes to send to senators asking for similar treatment to legal skilled immigrants too. They should be up by 5.00 PM EST. Make sure you login and send a webfax ASAP.
How can I send the fax?
a) Login,
b) click on the 'Home' link on the top of the page,
c) then click on the 'WebFax' link on the left hand side menu options,
d) enter your information,
e) Select webfax # 10 and #11 and your state
f) Send the fax
2) We need to contact each and every company like Microsoft/Intel (and any other to which IV members belong) that depends on skilled immigrants for their functioning. We need to make sure that their HR and CEO know about this.
a) If you are not comfortable with speaking about this to your HR/CEO (and we don't see any reason why), please send us the email id of the right person in HR and your CEO. We will not put your name anywhere but send a polite email to them on behalf of Immigration Voice. We will NOT spam them (just a single email) and will not name any person in the email. Remember that this is just to get their attention so that they can do the right thing.
Email shrey@immigrationvoice.org or nagaraj@immigrationvoice.org with the subject - Contacts for <Company Name>
b) On the other hand if you are comfortable speaking about this directly to your HR/CEO that carries a lot more weightage. Contact us and we will give you all the material you need to talk to your company decision makers. In that case, email shrey@immigrationvoice.org or nagaraj@immigrationvoice.org with the subject - Willing to speak to folks from <Company Name>
A list of companies where there are already IV members willing to speak to their employers is in the second post (summary post). Send us an email and we will put the folks in the same company in touch with each other so that they can approach their HR/CEO collectively
3) We need to contact each and every media person that we know of so that they also realize the urgency of the situation. If you have any leads for any media contact, please send an email to rajesh@immigrationvoice.org or sunil@immigrationvoice.org with the subject Media contact for <media Name>
4) Last time we sent about 385 faxes. This time 385 will not cut it. We need atleast a couple thousand faxes to get our job done. We need every member of IV + spouse and much more to achieve the kind of deluge we intend. Get atleast 5 new members to IV. I am sure most of us can call up atleast 5 more friends who might not know of IV but will be affected by the above. This may, for all practical reasons, be the final push from IV and we need as much support from everyone as possible.
5) If you have any other idea to get our information out to everyone, email shrey@immigrationvoice.org or jay@immigrationvoice.org or nagaraj@immigrationvoice.org with the subject line Other Ideas
Also a quick note, please do not expect a reply from IV core members to your emails unless you are speaking to your firm's folks and need some info from IV. We are really busy in getting everything going. Thanks for understanding.
Please spread the word.
We have received information that the Comprehensive Immigration Bill will be voted soon and the bill will be closed for amendments on Wednesday. That leaves only 2 working days to get something done
The text for the bill was only released in the evening on March 28th
As you have seen from the document released by IV that H2A workers will now be able to get citizenship in 11 years and self petition themselves. But legal skilled workers
1) will not be able to self petition
2) the wait to citizenship as it stands today is definitely more than 11 years
3) and all the left-over visas from EB1, EB2 and EB3 will now go to EB5 category
We really need to make sure that everyone is aware of the unfair treatment meted out to legal skilled immigrants and will be doing the following
1) We will be putting up webfaxes to send to senators asking for similar treatment to legal skilled immigrants too. They should be up by 5.00 PM EST. Make sure you login and send a webfax ASAP.
How can I send the fax?
a) Login,
b) click on the 'Home' link on the top of the page,
c) then click on the 'WebFax' link on the left hand side menu options,
d) enter your information,
e) Select webfax # 10 and #11 and your state
f) Send the fax
2) We need to contact each and every company like Microsoft/Intel (and any other to which IV members belong) that depends on skilled immigrants for their functioning. We need to make sure that their HR and CEO know about this.
a) If you are not comfortable with speaking about this to your HR/CEO (and we don't see any reason why), please send us the email id of the right person in HR and your CEO. We will not put your name anywhere but send a polite email to them on behalf of Immigration Voice. We will NOT spam them (just a single email) and will not name any person in the email. Remember that this is just to get their attention so that they can do the right thing.
Email shrey@immigrationvoice.org or nagaraj@immigrationvoice.org with the subject - Contacts for <Company Name>
b) On the other hand if you are comfortable speaking about this directly to your HR/CEO that carries a lot more weightage. Contact us and we will give you all the material you need to talk to your company decision makers. In that case, email shrey@immigrationvoice.org or nagaraj@immigrationvoice.org with the subject - Willing to speak to folks from <Company Name>
A list of companies where there are already IV members willing to speak to their employers is in the second post (summary post). Send us an email and we will put the folks in the same company in touch with each other so that they can approach their HR/CEO collectively
3) We need to contact each and every media person that we know of so that they also realize the urgency of the situation. If you have any leads for any media contact, please send an email to rajesh@immigrationvoice.org or sunil@immigrationvoice.org with the subject Media contact for <media Name>
4) Last time we sent about 385 faxes. This time 385 will not cut it. We need atleast a couple thousand faxes to get our job done. We need every member of IV + spouse and much more to achieve the kind of deluge we intend. Get atleast 5 new members to IV. I am sure most of us can call up atleast 5 more friends who might not know of IV but will be affected by the above. This may, for all practical reasons, be the final push from IV and we need as much support from everyone as possible.
5) If you have any other idea to get our information out to everyone, email shrey@immigrationvoice.org or jay@immigrationvoice.org or nagaraj@immigrationvoice.org with the subject line Other Ideas
Also a quick note, please do not expect a reply from IV core members to your emails unless you are speaking to your firm's folks and need some info from IV. We are really busy in getting everything going. Thanks for understanding.
Please spread the word.
tattoo Derrick Rose
vin13
06-24 01:32 PM
Source: Frank Sharry: Memo to the President: Yes, Move Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-sharry/memo-to-the-president-yes_b_220072.html)
On June 25th, President Obama is convening a bi-partisan meeting to discuss the prospects for moving on comprehensive immigration reform later this year. If he asked me about the politics of immigration reform in this economic climate, this is the memo I would send to him:
Mr. President, with so many challenges facing America, is it too much to tackle immigration reform this year?
Reform advocates point to the pledge you made on the campaign trail, to make immigration reform a "top priority in my first year." Yet skeptics argue that the economic crisis makes your campaign promise moot. They believe you should delay immigration legislation and focus on the economy and your other legislative priorities. While addressing immigration may seem to be heaping another issue onto an already-full plate of priorities, there are four compelling reasons for you to move forward with reform this year.
First, the public support for immigration reform is growing stronger notwithstanding the conventional wisdom advanced by the political class. For a big majority of Americans, the failure to address immigration is a symbol of Washington's failure to confront and solve tough problems. Comprehensive immigration reform - the key elements of which require strong enforcement at the borders and in the workplace, coupled with a mechanism for unauthorized immigrants to get legal, learn English and pay taxes - is viewed by the majority of Americans as the most practical approach to addressing this complicated problem.
And in this economic downturn, voters are actually more supportive of immigration reform than at any other time. As pollster Celinda Lake tells it, "voters are very focused on finding solutions to our problems. They support comprehensive immigration reform as a practical, common-sense solution and have no patience for politicians who want to point fingers and score points rather than fix the problem."
The evidence for this point of view is growing. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 61% support for giving undocumented immigrants the right to live in the U.S. "if they pay a fine and meet other requirements," a 12% increase since 2007. The Pew Research Center recently found that 63% of respondents supported a pathway to citizenship, up 5% from 2007.
In polling conducted in May by Pete Brodnitz of Benenson Strategies for the organization I direct, 64% of voters support comprehensive immigration reform before it is described, and a whopping 86% support comprehensive reform after it is described. In response to a head-to-head question that pits comprehensive reform against the enforcement-only approach favored by most Republicans and some conservative Democrats, comprehensive wins 67% to 31%. Among those voters who describe themselves as undecided for the 2010 Congressional elections, they not only favor comprehensive reform at the same levels as Democratic voters, by a 69% - 28% they want their elected leaders to tackle immigration reform this year.
The second reason you should move forward is that your commitment to move on immigration reform has created enormous expectations in the Latino community. Your campaign promise was a galvanizing factor in motivating Latinos - especially Latino immigrant voters - to turn out in record numbers in 2008 and swing decisively to the Democratic column. These new voters helped flip at least four states that voted for George W. Bush in 2004 to Obama states in 2008 (Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada).
While some like to point out that polls of Hispanics put issues related to the economy as higher on the priority list than immigration reform, the fact is that Immigration reform is a defining issue for Latinos the way civil rights is for many African-American voters, choice is for many female voters, and Israel is for many Jewish voters. For example, in a recent poll of Latino voters conducted by Bendixen and Associates on behalf of America's Voice, 82% called the issue personally important and 87% said they would not consider voting for a Congressional candidate who favors forcing most of those in the U.S. illegally to leave the country. Moreover, expectations are sky-high: three out of four Latino voters expect you to keep your pledge to move on immigration reform in the first year.
The third reason you should move forward is that fixing immigration is a critical component of fixing the economy. Immigration reform will benefit American taxpayers by requiring workers and their employers to get legal and comply with their tax obligations; it will benefit American workers whose wages and working conditions are depressed by unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers; and it will benefit law-abiding employers currently undercut by bad-actor competitors by significantly reducing the incentive to underpay workers and pay them off the books in order to win business. As for increased revenues, get this: a Congressional Budget Office study of a legalization component included in the 2006 McCain-Kennedy bill projected increased revenues over 10 years totaling $66 billion. Not bad at a time of squeezed budgets.
Finally, the moral stakes are high and getting higher. How we as a nation deal with illegal immigration has become a defining moral issue for our nation. Ultimately, the question we face is this: are we going to allow hardliners who want nothing less than the expulsion of millions of immigrant families already living in our communities to dominate the debate? Or are we going to live up to our tradition as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws and write a new chapter in the American story of how including "them" makes for a stronger "us?"
Immigration reform will not be easy, and yet, this is the kind of big issue that led you to proclaim the fierce urgency of now and run for President.
This is your kind of fight, Mr. President. History is calling.
On June 25th, President Obama is convening a bi-partisan meeting to discuss the prospects for moving on comprehensive immigration reform later this year. If he asked me about the politics of immigration reform in this economic climate, this is the memo I would send to him:
Mr. President, with so many challenges facing America, is it too much to tackle immigration reform this year?
Reform advocates point to the pledge you made on the campaign trail, to make immigration reform a "top priority in my first year." Yet skeptics argue that the economic crisis makes your campaign promise moot. They believe you should delay immigration legislation and focus on the economy and your other legislative priorities. While addressing immigration may seem to be heaping another issue onto an already-full plate of priorities, there are four compelling reasons for you to move forward with reform this year.
First, the public support for immigration reform is growing stronger notwithstanding the conventional wisdom advanced by the political class. For a big majority of Americans, the failure to address immigration is a symbol of Washington's failure to confront and solve tough problems. Comprehensive immigration reform - the key elements of which require strong enforcement at the borders and in the workplace, coupled with a mechanism for unauthorized immigrants to get legal, learn English and pay taxes - is viewed by the majority of Americans as the most practical approach to addressing this complicated problem.
And in this economic downturn, voters are actually more supportive of immigration reform than at any other time. As pollster Celinda Lake tells it, "voters are very focused on finding solutions to our problems. They support comprehensive immigration reform as a practical, common-sense solution and have no patience for politicians who want to point fingers and score points rather than fix the problem."
The evidence for this point of view is growing. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 61% support for giving undocumented immigrants the right to live in the U.S. "if they pay a fine and meet other requirements," a 12% increase since 2007. The Pew Research Center recently found that 63% of respondents supported a pathway to citizenship, up 5% from 2007.
In polling conducted in May by Pete Brodnitz of Benenson Strategies for the organization I direct, 64% of voters support comprehensive immigration reform before it is described, and a whopping 86% support comprehensive reform after it is described. In response to a head-to-head question that pits comprehensive reform against the enforcement-only approach favored by most Republicans and some conservative Democrats, comprehensive wins 67% to 31%. Among those voters who describe themselves as undecided for the 2010 Congressional elections, they not only favor comprehensive reform at the same levels as Democratic voters, by a 69% - 28% they want their elected leaders to tackle immigration reform this year.
The second reason you should move forward is that your commitment to move on immigration reform has created enormous expectations in the Latino community. Your campaign promise was a galvanizing factor in motivating Latinos - especially Latino immigrant voters - to turn out in record numbers in 2008 and swing decisively to the Democratic column. These new voters helped flip at least four states that voted for George W. Bush in 2004 to Obama states in 2008 (Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada).
While some like to point out that polls of Hispanics put issues related to the economy as higher on the priority list than immigration reform, the fact is that Immigration reform is a defining issue for Latinos the way civil rights is for many African-American voters, choice is for many female voters, and Israel is for many Jewish voters. For example, in a recent poll of Latino voters conducted by Bendixen and Associates on behalf of America's Voice, 82% called the issue personally important and 87% said they would not consider voting for a Congressional candidate who favors forcing most of those in the U.S. illegally to leave the country. Moreover, expectations are sky-high: three out of four Latino voters expect you to keep your pledge to move on immigration reform in the first year.
The third reason you should move forward is that fixing immigration is a critical component of fixing the economy. Immigration reform will benefit American taxpayers by requiring workers and their employers to get legal and comply with their tax obligations; it will benefit American workers whose wages and working conditions are depressed by unscrupulous employers who exploit unauthorized workers; and it will benefit law-abiding employers currently undercut by bad-actor competitors by significantly reducing the incentive to underpay workers and pay them off the books in order to win business. As for increased revenues, get this: a Congressional Budget Office study of a legalization component included in the 2006 McCain-Kennedy bill projected increased revenues over 10 years totaling $66 billion. Not bad at a time of squeezed budgets.
Finally, the moral stakes are high and getting higher. How we as a nation deal with illegal immigration has become a defining moral issue for our nation. Ultimately, the question we face is this: are we going to allow hardliners who want nothing less than the expulsion of millions of immigrant families already living in our communities to dominate the debate? Or are we going to live up to our tradition as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws and write a new chapter in the American story of how including "them" makes for a stronger "us?"
Immigration reform will not be easy, and yet, this is the kind of big issue that led you to proclaim the fierce urgency of now and run for President.
This is your kind of fight, Mr. President. History is calling.
more...
pictures Picture 216 Derrick Rose
ItIsNotFunny
04-16 08:34 AM
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3219.html
You are too early to post this :)
You are too early to post this :)
dresses Derrick Rose
ragz4u
04-03 12:44 PM
Guys, we need much more help. In spite of having 2000+ members, less than half are even ready to click their mouse buttons 5 times.
The folks who have not sent the webfax till now, if you are not ready to send a simple webfax, why are you expecting a senator to bring in an amendment. This is for your benefit, not the senator's.
The folks who have not sent the webfax till now, if you are not ready to send a simple webfax, why are you expecting a senator to bring in an amendment. This is for your benefit, not the senator's.
more...
makeup powerbalance
FinalGC
01-05 12:07 PM
Hi FinalGC,
What is your defintion of a large project ? How much budget/people/schedule etc should we use for that definition.
I would say it depends from organization to organization. The way I have seen operating in the industry, one could consider a project large if it has a $1 million budget or more. However, organizations could also consider a program with mutiple small projects with a total budget value greater than $1 million as a large project, where the PM may handle mutiple small projects which will cumulatively have a budget greater than $1mill.
This is also one way to justify the need of a PM.
What is the budget of the project is one of the questions that a PM should ask during an interview, so that he/she will know the stability of the project and its longevity.
Hope that helps.
What is your defintion of a large project ? How much budget/people/schedule etc should we use for that definition.
I would say it depends from organization to organization. The way I have seen operating in the industry, one could consider a project large if it has a $1 million budget or more. However, organizations could also consider a program with mutiple small projects with a total budget value greater than $1 million as a large project, where the PM may handle mutiple small projects which will cumulatively have a budget greater than $1mill.
This is also one way to justify the need of a PM.
What is the budget of the project is one of the questions that a PM should ask during an interview, so that he/she will know the stability of the project and its longevity.
Hope that helps.
girlfriend Derrick Rose
learning01
03-16 12:46 PM
Newt said Nothing is going to happen on this Specter or any other immigration bills in Senate. The conference with House will not agree to anything.
I also sincerely believe that Nothing is going to happen I say, these senators are doing CYAs; they will bitch it to media, their constituents, hey look, we did attempt these immigration reforms.
I am talking from my long experience and wisdom and take it from me. The only force that can improve the pitiable conditions of Indian and Chinese due to retrogression and lack of visa numbers is the big corporate employers . Each one whose LC is approved, whose I-140 is approved, who is waiting to file for adjustment of status AND who are indispensable to the employer / work at this stage should write to the HR/ Immigration/ Attorney.
I am in such a position. I am a technical lead in my IT department. PD Nov 2001. I write about these issues and the difficulties once in a month my team manager, or project manager or Immigration department.
I also sincerely believe that Nothing is going to happen I say, these senators are doing CYAs; they will bitch it to media, their constituents, hey look, we did attempt these immigration reforms.
I am talking from my long experience and wisdom and take it from me. The only force that can improve the pitiable conditions of Indian and Chinese due to retrogression and lack of visa numbers is the big corporate employers . Each one whose LC is approved, whose I-140 is approved, who is waiting to file for adjustment of status AND who are indispensable to the employer / work at this stage should write to the HR/ Immigration/ Attorney.
I am in such a position. I am a technical lead in my IT department. PD Nov 2001. I write about these issues and the difficulties once in a month my team manager, or project manager or Immigration department.
hairstyles girlfriend derrick rose dunks
chanduv23
08-14 05:21 AM
This is called OBSSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER
lazycis
12-28 06:44 PM
so is it the notice date or recipt date that counts.. If someone filed on July 2nd, but the notice date is August 15, where do I coutn 180 days from.
Look at the notice and find "Received Date". That's the start date.
Look at the notice and find "Received Date". That's the start date.
Mount Soche
12-18 09:16 AM
This is not to oppose your message - I am just trying to figure out where these arguments comes from because I don't think I believe in this whole fraud thing. AC21 is meant for one to change jobs after working for the original sponsoring company for 180 days. Also, there are no clear guidelines stating that one must inform the USCIS - so what will this fraud be based on? How can one be committing fraud if there are no guidelines to tell you what is considered fraudulent? I think one is fraudulant when one actually violates some set rules etc. I don't think the USCIS can have a basis for suspecting someone of fraud when they don't even have a definition of what may constitute fraud in this case because of the lack of guidelines. Plus, I have never, ever heard of anyone be denied or suspected of anything like this during citizenship, I just don't believe this is a factor AT ALL. I see these comments a lot and they just don't make any sense to me. To me, it is like breaking a law that doesn't exist. And you say one may be "suspected", well, suspicion is just that, suspicion. The USCIS needs to show proof that you intended to be fraudulent and for as long as there are no AC21 guidelines that tell you that you must inform the USCIS upon invoking AC21, the USCIS will not and cannot have a case against you.
The disadvantage of not filing for AC21 is if your AoS is approved with USCIS believing that you will be working for the original petitioner after approval.
That is the disadvantage. USCIS will not know that you intended to port to new employer by invoking AC21 and come the time your apply for Naturalization, USCIS will discover it and may suspect you of fraud.
The disadvantage of not filing for AC21 is if your AoS is approved with USCIS believing that you will be working for the original petitioner after approval.
That is the disadvantage. USCIS will not know that you intended to port to new employer by invoking AC21 and come the time your apply for Naturalization, USCIS will discover it and may suspect you of fraud.
No comments:
Post a Comment