simple1
05-12 02:53 PM
http://www.geteducated.com/online-college-ratings-and-rankings/best-buy-lists/best-buy-mba-regional
http://www.geteducated.com/online-college-ratings-and-rankings/best-buy-lists/best-buy-online-masters-mba-aacsb
accreditation check
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.aspx
http://www.geteducated.com/online-college-ratings-and-rankings/best-buy-lists/best-buy-online-masters-mba-aacsb
accreditation check
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.aspx
wallpaper charlie-sheen-winning.jpg
sri1309
02-14 09:57 AM
IV Core,
Can you please monitor the threads more closely and remove anytning like this. If you are running out of resources, please add some more guys who can do this. There are many guys who always post constructive threads all the time. I may be one of them, if you look at all my previous posts. I can help in cleansing some bad threads here. This thread is insulting to us all, and more to you who maintain this forum, if I am not wrong.
Can you please monitor the threads more closely and remove anytning like this. If you are running out of resources, please add some more guys who can do this. There are many guys who always post constructive threads all the time. I may be one of them, if you look at all my previous posts. I can help in cleansing some bad threads here. This thread is insulting to us all, and more to you who maintain this forum, if I am not wrong.
ItIsNotFunny
12-10 08:45 AM
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
EB3-India moved for 15 days. This sucks.
EB3-India moved for 15 days. This sucks.
2011 charlie sheen, winning
masouds
02-15 05:09 PM
US government thinks that Indians and Chinese don't mix up with other races. Are u on drugs ??????????????????:mad:
Look, I don't want to enter a pissing match with anyone here. Go read your history (http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/limiting_the_huddled_masses) before jumping to conclusions.
Look, I don't want to enter a pissing match with anyone here. Go read your history (http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/limiting_the_huddled_masses) before jumping to conclusions.
more...
gccovet
09-10 11:08 AM
There were discussing the first bill - something about horses.
They have gone to recess and will be back at 1pm. I guess they will start with the horses again and then the next two bills concerning humans and we are next - the aliens :)
funny ... but true..
aliens comes after humans and animals :)
They have gone to recess and will be back at 1pm. I guess they will start with the horses again and then the next two bills concerning humans and we are next - the aliens :)
funny ... but true..
aliens comes after humans and animals :)
GreeNever
06-13 11:22 AM
Folks! MSNBC is organizing a gut check on the immigration issue (though this appears to be on issues related to illegal immigration). It's a message board inviting opinions on immigration with an expert panel set to reply to the meesages posted. Eventually, messages will be short-listed for publishing. We may be able to make an opportunity out of this.
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18826755/
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18826755/
more...
ingegarcia
02-15 04:40 PM
How is ROW getting screwed?. Look at the situation as individuals applying irrespective of country of birth. Last Year, there were 120,000(approx) applicants and only 60,000(approx) H1-b1 visas. NOW: It just happens that a lot or 60%were natives of one country. But that does not mean anything... There could be more ROW applicants who could apply, no body is stopping them. There are just not enough ROW applicants that employers can find.
Also remember countries like India, China do not qualify for diversity visas. So an ROW applicant also has that advantage. Most people from small african countries and others qualify to apply there. China, India, Phillipines, Mexico are also backlogged in the family category. ROW has that advantage too.
This is not true otherwise EB3 ROW would not be in 2005.
Also remember countries like India, China do not qualify for diversity visas. So an ROW applicant also has that advantage. Most people from small african countries and others qualify to apply there. China, India, Phillipines, Mexico are also backlogged in the family category. ROW has that advantage too.
This is not true otherwise EB3 ROW would not be in 2005.
2010 Charlie Sheen – Winning
diptam
08-15 04:25 PM
Some of the recent GC and EAD achievers takes up a job at USCIS... How does this sound - Huh ??
I think we will GC sooner than anticipated. I think those who filed in July/Aug will get in three/four years. Just a rough estimate. Any one agrees with me?
I think we will GC sooner than anticipated. I think those who filed in July/Aug will get in three/four years. Just a rough estimate. Any one agrees with me?
more...
dvb123
02-19 12:12 AM
This radical idea will end retrogression radically. This concept is little tough for people who have no knowledge of country quota to understand.
1. There is a bill in the house now
HR 264 Introduced to Congress
Section A - It will grant GC to people with > 5 years in US
Section B - For EB skilled immigration for people with <5 years in US, it makes LC process more difficult.
2. We must encourage this bill with some amendments. Section A which automatically gives green card to people > 5 years in US should be ELIMINATED. Section B should remain.
3. This causes a reduction in I-485's and CP's because you need to be resident in United States for a minimum of 5 years to apply for Labor. Then ROW people would be able to apply for I-140 and I-485 automatically.
4. In the last quarter of every year the leftover visas(EB1 and EB2 ROW people will not be able to apply for labor->I-140+I-485 until they stayed in US for 5 years) will be spilled to EB 2 and EB 3 India and China. EB3 ROW, India and China visa retrogression issue will be solved because we will have spillovers for atleast 5 years. This bill is not against ROW people. EB3 ROW people will benefit immensely.
5. The restrictionists will be happy because nobody can start the green card process without staying in US for atleast 5 years (F1 + h1, j1 + h1, f1 only, j1 only, h1 only statuses)
So, we should support HR 264 bill with a few amendments if possible.
1. There is a bill in the house now
HR 264 Introduced to Congress
Section A - It will grant GC to people with > 5 years in US
Section B - For EB skilled immigration for people with <5 years in US, it makes LC process more difficult.
2. We must encourage this bill with some amendments. Section A which automatically gives green card to people > 5 years in US should be ELIMINATED. Section B should remain.
3. This causes a reduction in I-485's and CP's because you need to be resident in United States for a minimum of 5 years to apply for Labor. Then ROW people would be able to apply for I-140 and I-485 automatically.
4. In the last quarter of every year the leftover visas(EB1 and EB2 ROW people will not be able to apply for labor->I-140+I-485 until they stayed in US for 5 years) will be spilled to EB 2 and EB 3 India and China. EB3 ROW, India and China visa retrogression issue will be solved because we will have spillovers for atleast 5 years. This bill is not against ROW people. EB3 ROW people will benefit immensely.
5. The restrictionists will be happy because nobody can start the green card process without staying in US for atleast 5 years (F1 + h1, j1 + h1, f1 only, j1 only, h1 only statuses)
So, we should support HR 264 bill with a few amendments if possible.
hair Jimmy Fallon as Charlie Sheen
mayhemt
02-10 10:28 AM
Can anyone suggest hotels and/or if already booked can you post those hotel name & locations?
Also, just a suggestion, this thread is getting complicated as far as matching donors with travelers is concerned... May be create a Google spreadsheet with all the donors (miles, accommodations) and match them with travelers from just one central location?
Also, just a suggestion, this thread is getting complicated as far as matching donors with travelers is concerned... May be create a Google spreadsheet with all the donors (miles, accommodations) and match them with travelers from just one central location?
more...
leoindiano
03-17 01:05 PM
As i said, eb3 to eb2 porting is not easy....Unless, there is very strong case, like applicant having US Masters degree but employer filed in EB3 for reasons they only know....
Read this story...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13810
Read this story...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13810
hot #Winning (Charlie Sheen)
meridiani.planum
03-16 04:32 PM
what i am saying is how and why is it that inspite of the PD having been current as I detailed in my original post for so long during 2000-2005 for EB 2 India, why are there applicants from way back in 2002 and 2003 still waiting?
Honestly, I thought they should have been already processed and gotten their Green cards by now.
All I am trying to figure out is how many applicants from 2004-2005 are still in the proverbial 'PIPELINE' waiting. Unless they are done, the PD is not gonna move.
If we can have it move conclusively to 2005-2006 regions relatively quickly, most problems are solved.
most people who filed LC in 2004/2005 before PERM got approvals in 2006 and 2007 and have only got a chance to apply for 485 in July VB. There are 10s of thousands of such people with that LC and EB2-India. When was the opportunity to get approval?
BTW, what are the chances that the PD may become "Current" again for EB2/EB3 India over the next 40 months?
without an administrative fix, and with the current levels of demand and supply I would say its NIL. It needs to be a mistake...
Also, with H1 quota possibly going up this year or next, expect even more demand, and the dates will probably not be current for atleast a decade. The demand is going to go up (more H1s filing for greencards) and supply remaining the same (140k + country-limits etc)
Honestly, I thought they should have been already processed and gotten their Green cards by now.
All I am trying to figure out is how many applicants from 2004-2005 are still in the proverbial 'PIPELINE' waiting. Unless they are done, the PD is not gonna move.
If we can have it move conclusively to 2005-2006 regions relatively quickly, most problems are solved.
most people who filed LC in 2004/2005 before PERM got approvals in 2006 and 2007 and have only got a chance to apply for 485 in July VB. There are 10s of thousands of such people with that LC and EB2-India. When was the opportunity to get approval?
BTW, what are the chances that the PD may become "Current" again for EB2/EB3 India over the next 40 months?
without an administrative fix, and with the current levels of demand and supply I would say its NIL. It needs to be a mistake...
Also, with H1 quota possibly going up this year or next, expect even more demand, and the dates will probably not be current for atleast a decade. The demand is going to go up (more H1s filing for greencards) and supply remaining the same (140k + country-limits etc)
more...
house Charlie Sheen Winning Shirt by
GCBy3000
01-16 11:55 AM
pls update your profile so that we can confirm.
Update your signature also with your pledge. This will help a lot when others see these kind of signatures. It is all psychological factor to make members feel confident about IV and to make them realize they are not the only one who contributes often.
Every member has the potential to contribute. It is not a million dollar per month. But how to make them to realize the importance and to make them feel comfortable with IV to contribute matters the most. Adding up your pledge in the signature is a most important for this one.
Update your signature also with your pledge. This will help a lot when others see these kind of signatures. It is all psychological factor to make members feel confident about IV and to make them realize they are not the only one who contributes often.
Every member has the potential to contribute. It is not a million dollar per month. But how to make them to realize the importance and to make them feel comfortable with IV to contribute matters the most. Adding up your pledge in the signature is a most important for this one.
tattoo ___Charlie Sheen
puddonhead
08-10 02:25 PM
I think it will be a lot easier to focus out energies to port ourselves to EB2/EB1.
Most of us would have bachelors + 5 years. So EB2 shouldn't be any problem as long as you are willing to change jobs and the employer is willing to file for GC.
Personally, the next time I'm in a position to drive a hard bergain for a job negotiation (still difficult in the current economic environment) - I will try to shoot for a 1 year foreign assignment -> EB1 route. I still curse myself for letting go of one such opportunity in 2006 becuase I did not want to go to London.
So if anybody knows companies that have started filing for GCs again after the freeze of last year - please let us know.
I think that discussion will be far more productive than any wishful reinterpretation of the law.
Most of us would have bachelors + 5 years. So EB2 shouldn't be any problem as long as you are willing to change jobs and the employer is willing to file for GC.
Personally, the next time I'm in a position to drive a hard bergain for a job negotiation (still difficult in the current economic environment) - I will try to shoot for a 1 year foreign assignment -> EB1 route. I still curse myself for letting go of one such opportunity in 2006 becuase I did not want to go to London.
So if anybody knows companies that have started filing for GCs again after the freeze of last year - please let us know.
I think that discussion will be far more productive than any wishful reinterpretation of the law.
more...
pictures The Madness of Charlie Sheen
greyhair
02-08 06:01 PM
Frankly I think that this lawyer is just posting provocative material to make himself popular. He has made many predictions and number of "useful" analysis in the past, most of which were found to be untrue. I used to read his posts until recently I figured out that the analysis was unreliable. This is just my opinion.
dresses Charlie Sheen Winning for
alex99
04-08 02:24 PM
(EB1)
2007 2006 2005
26,697 36,960 64,731
(EB2)
44,162 21,911 42,597
(EB3)
85,030 89,922 129,070
How come EB3 is getting major share from the annual limit for last three years(2007,2006, and 2005)
Gurus : please through some light on this?
2007 2006 2005
26,697 36,960 64,731
(EB2)
44,162 21,911 42,597
(EB3)
85,030 89,922 129,070
How come EB3 is getting major share from the annual limit for last three years(2007,2006, and 2005)
Gurus : please through some light on this?
more...
makeup drug Charlie+sheen+winning
vandanaverdia
09-11 12:54 PM
The road to GC is not easy...
Support IV & come to DC!!
Lets get together & support a common cause...
Go IV!!!!
Support IV & come to DC!!
Lets get together & support a common cause...
Go IV!!!!
girlfriend Tags: Charlie Sheen
h1techSlave
07-28 03:04 PM
Would you be offended if the image of Ganesh is used on a sack of rice or sugar or a bottle of cooking oil? If not, then what's the problem in using it on an alcoholic beverage bottle?
I always thought in the same angle. Why people are so jittery about alcohol? Alcohol is harmless in reasonable quantities. It is bad when consumed excessively; so are oil, rice etc. What's the big deal about alcohol alone?
I always thought in the same angle. Why people are so jittery about alcohol? Alcohol is harmless in reasonable quantities. It is bad when consumed excessively; so are oil, rice etc. What's the big deal about alcohol alone?
hairstyles charlie sheen winning
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
mugwump
01-18 12:29 PM
2 years ago, I had to go to EWR (newark airport) to give my room mate his passport, he was stopped. eversince then, i always carry my passport even for domestic travel
Legal
07-04 08:40 PM
I dont think lost GC numbers can be revived, After a Fiscal year is over the GC's are dead.
new legislation is needed to change that.
new legislation is needed to change that.
No comments:
Post a Comment