people wallpaper
images Graffiti People Wallpaper
aknynd
12-28 11:28 AM
Hi,
I-140 approved - June 2006
I-485 Filed in July 2007
AP- Approved Oct 2007
FP - Done in Oct 2007
Can someone tell me how to check whether Finger Printing is cleared and case has been sent/approved from FBI Name Check
I-140 approved - June 2006
I-485 Filed in July 2007
AP- Approved Oct 2007
FP - Done in Oct 2007
Can someone tell me how to check whether Finger Printing is cleared and case has been sent/approved from FBI Name Check
wallpaper Chinese people Wallpaper
DoggyStyle
07-21 11:28 PM
thank u for posting the conversation that I miss. that saves me few bucks. u have the nerve to dial in that other IVians don't
have. u r the hero. (dial-in-hero) :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
have. u r the hero. (dial-in-hero) :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
abqguy
06-18 02:43 PM
Let me know when you have the action item for us. Thanks snathan.
2011 crew people Wallpaper,
zoozee
08-28 03:46 PM
Waiting_4_gc,
I m flying to Pittsburgh on Saturday 15th Sept and will drive to Wa-DC on 17th Monday - and will schedule to meet lawmaker on Monday.
Enjoy and see you in the rally
Zoozee,
Even I'm flying from San Jose airport on Monday evening.My flight is at 6:30 pm (AA airlines). Can you tell me about your flight schedule?
I m flying to Pittsburgh on Saturday 15th Sept and will drive to Wa-DC on 17th Monday - and will schedule to meet lawmaker on Monday.
Enjoy and see you in the rally
Zoozee,
Even I'm flying from San Jose airport on Monday evening.My flight is at 6:30 pm (AA airlines). Can you tell me about your flight schedule?
more...
pappu
04-21 12:44 PM
Here is some analysis from Immigration Policy Center
---------------------------------
How Much Will Arizona's Immigration Bill (SB1070) Cost?
April 21, 2010
Washington, D.C.- Frustrated by Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, states across the country continue considering legislation that relies heavily on punitive, enforcement-only measures which not only fail to end unauthorized immigration but also have the potential to dig their state's finances deeper into a hole. The latest example of this kind of policy nose dive is in Arizona. A recent bill, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070), was passed by the Arizona State legislature and awaits the signature of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. As the Governor ponders whether or not to put her signature on SB 1070, she should consider the potential economic impact of the bill, which would require police to check a person's immigration status if they suspect that person is in the United States illegally. This bill, if it becomes law, will likely affect not only unauthorized immigrants, but all immigrants and Latinos in general. Given the vital role that immigrants and Latinos play in Arizona's economy, and considering Arizona's current budget deficit of $3 billion dollars, enacting SB 1070 could be a perilous move.
At a purely administrative level, Gov. Brewer should take into consideration the potential costs of implementation and defending the state against lawsuits. As the National Employment Law Project (NELP) points out in the case of other states that have passed harsh local immigration laws, Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted. This is in addition to the cost of implementation. For instance, NELP observes that "in Riverside, New Jersey, the town of 8,000 had already spent $82,000 in legal fees defending its ordinance" by the time it was rescinded in September, 2007. Also in 2007, the county supervisors in Prince William County, Maryland were unwilling to move forward with the police enforcement portion of an immigration law after they found that the price tag would be a minimum of $14 million for five years.
More broadly, Gov. Brewer should keep in mind that, if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002 - the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group also estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well.
With Arizona facing a budget deficit of more than $3 billion, Gov. Brewer might want to think twice about measures such as SB 1070 that would further imperil the state's economic future and try instead to find ways in which she can bring additional tax revenue to her state while pursuing smart enforcement that will actually protect Arizonans.
-----------------------------------------
---------------------------------
How Much Will Arizona's Immigration Bill (SB1070) Cost?
April 21, 2010
Washington, D.C.- Frustrated by Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, states across the country continue considering legislation that relies heavily on punitive, enforcement-only measures which not only fail to end unauthorized immigration but also have the potential to dig their state's finances deeper into a hole. The latest example of this kind of policy nose dive is in Arizona. A recent bill, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070), was passed by the Arizona State legislature and awaits the signature of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. As the Governor ponders whether or not to put her signature on SB 1070, she should consider the potential economic impact of the bill, which would require police to check a person's immigration status if they suspect that person is in the United States illegally. This bill, if it becomes law, will likely affect not only unauthorized immigrants, but all immigrants and Latinos in general. Given the vital role that immigrants and Latinos play in Arizona's economy, and considering Arizona's current budget deficit of $3 billion dollars, enacting SB 1070 could be a perilous move.
At a purely administrative level, Gov. Brewer should take into consideration the potential costs of implementation and defending the state against lawsuits. As the National Employment Law Project (NELP) points out in the case of other states that have passed harsh local immigration laws, Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted. This is in addition to the cost of implementation. For instance, NELP observes that "in Riverside, New Jersey, the town of 8,000 had already spent $82,000 in legal fees defending its ordinance" by the time it was rescinded in September, 2007. Also in 2007, the county supervisors in Prince William County, Maryland were unwilling to move forward with the police enforcement portion of an immigration law after they found that the price tag would be a minimum of $14 million for five years.
More broadly, Gov. Brewer should keep in mind that, if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002 - the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group also estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well.
With Arizona facing a budget deficit of more than $3 billion, Gov. Brewer might want to think twice about measures such as SB 1070 that would further imperil the state's economic future and try instead to find ways in which she can bring additional tax revenue to her state while pursuing smart enforcement that will actually protect Arizonans.
-----------------------------------------
h1techSlave
04-10 02:25 PM
If any one is meeting law makers from Maryland, I am also interested.
Thanks guys,
h1techSlave
Thanks guys,
h1techSlave
more...
walking_dude
11-18 08:44 PM
Wishful thinking has never produced any results. If you desire something, work for it. Only hard work produces results.
2010 Desktop-Wallpapers by
rajakannan
06-28 08:02 PM
if everyone is so confident tht "USCIS has to accept 485 thru JULY 31 no matter what" then why the rush by few to file on july 1st are they selfish and don;t care about others ??, can everyone join together and file on a particular day for the benefi of all ?
more...
mirage
12-07 02:07 PM
I got my PF money back from Lucknow without a penny paid in bribe or anything.
hair 2009 funny people wallpaper
Prasad_FL
10-12 11:12 AM
I am sorry for you. But this issue is on IV's list. Infact we discussed this issue also with lawmakers on Sep 17th & 18th campaign. This point was included in the material that we gave to lawmakers. So it is very important for us to do our active role/participation for IV's action items. Please join state chapters and motivate other people who are in same situation. We can make a difference.
Thats true..everybody are bothered about EAD and FP. I am here for more than 8 years in this country. IV should emphasise this and USICS should allow affected candidates like us to file I-485 and atleast get EAD. we have priority date earlier compared to others.
Thats true..everybody are bothered about EAD and FP. I am here for more than 8 years in this country. IV should emphasise this and USICS should allow affected candidates like us to file I-485 and atleast get EAD. we have priority date earlier compared to others.
more...
pd_recapturing
08-13 10:03 PM
Suppose we know the current job code attached to LC and we have job duties of the new job. How do we know the job code of this new job ? Can anybody throw some light ?
hot People Wallpaper 2
akbose
03-21 02:21 PM
I am from NYC too. Lets team up.
more...
house Funny People Wallpaper
kothari_rupesh
02-22 12:08 AM
FYI, I got my RFE today too and it is for the same exact thing as my wife's, which I shared yesterday below.
I got LUD 2/17 and 2/18, same for my wife, 2/17 was RFE message, got my wife's RFE in mail today it was for a serological HIV test which was supposedly required but was not done.
Have yet to receive my RFE yet, hopefully tomorrow.
I got LUD 2/17 and 2/18, same for my wife, 2/17 was RFE message, got my wife's RFE in mail today it was for a serological HIV test which was supposedly required but was not done.
Have yet to receive my RFE yet, hopefully tomorrow.
tattoo Funny People Wallpaper
Almond
07-17 11:02 AM
Almond: what browser are you using ?
Firefox but I tried it in IE too and nothing. I did a disk cleanup as well. Mystery:confused:
Firefox but I tried it in IE too and nothing. I did a disk cleanup as well. Mystery:confused:
more...
pictures Funny People Wallpaper
chanduv23
03-09 08:10 AM
Bump
dresses Cool People Wallpapers
anshal
12-30 08:13 PM
R u serious? Is this really a serious question??? R u soooooooooo desperate to change ur employer that u cant wait for one more day? And that too a holiday...LOL joke of the day!!!
31st is a working day for me, if 180th day is 31st than does the employer lose the ability to revoke 140 from the 31st or 1st?, Does it mean than USCIS should receive revokation request by 31st or that the request can be postmarked by the 180th day?
31st is a working day for me, if 180th day is 31st than does the employer lose the ability to revoke 140 from the 31st or 1st?, Does it mean than USCIS should receive revokation request by 31st or that the request can be postmarked by the 180th day?
more...
makeup wallpaper of girls.
akgind
07-13 08:24 PM
I completely empathize with you, salcom3. My daughter is in similar boat.
Apart from what IV might do, each of us should write immediately to as many Senators and House Members as possible with our own story, pointing out the unfair treatment of those who are trying to play by the rules.
I totally agree with you akgind.
Here is my daughter's case:
1994 she was 8 years old when we brought her to USA
2002 asylum case was denied, we had to go back to our country (we didn't stay illegaly)
2002 after one month we came back, with H-1 visa, daughter with H-4
2003 I applied for LC
2006 My daughter turned 21 - She had to change status to F-1 (of course college fees were triple). She is out of LC process because of her age.
2007 LC approved, she is still F-1 and paying a lot of money in tuition.
I mean, these kids like my daughter (and I am sure there are thousands like her), deserve a break too. If the DREAM ACT is going to benefit illegal persons, it should also benefit children that have waited for their parents' LC process for long years only to see their hopes destroyed.
Apart from what IV might do, each of us should write immediately to as many Senators and House Members as possible with our own story, pointing out the unfair treatment of those who are trying to play by the rules.
I totally agree with you akgind.
Here is my daughter's case:
1994 she was 8 years old when we brought her to USA
2002 asylum case was denied, we had to go back to our country (we didn't stay illegaly)
2002 after one month we came back, with H-1 visa, daughter with H-4
2003 I applied for LC
2006 My daughter turned 21 - She had to change status to F-1 (of course college fees were triple). She is out of LC process because of her age.
2007 LC approved, she is still F-1 and paying a lot of money in tuition.
I mean, these kids like my daughter (and I am sure there are thousands like her), deserve a break too. If the DREAM ACT is going to benefit illegal persons, it should also benefit children that have waited for their parents' LC process for long years only to see their hopes destroyed.
girlfriend The Beautiful People.wallpaper
pappu
11-02 02:58 PM
Questions for everyone to research and post the answers------
-- Is there any real example on any internet forum, website or blog where someone faced problem in citizenship because they left their sponsor employer before 6 months expired? Do not find opinion but a real proof.
-- Can any lawyer provide a case example to illustrate the above. We can go into detail, talk to USCIS and seek clarification.
-- Is there anywhere in the law, memo or rulebook that says 6 month employment is needed after getting green card.
I will repeat again that I said earlier.
Again, do not quote some lawyer's opinion on this issue from his/her website.
-- Is there any real example on any internet forum, website or blog where someone faced problem in citizenship because they left their sponsor employer before 6 months expired? Do not find opinion but a real proof.
-- Can any lawyer provide a case example to illustrate the above. We can go into detail, talk to USCIS and seek clarification.
-- Is there anywhere in the law, memo or rulebook that says 6 month employment is needed after getting green card.
I will repeat again that I said earlier.
Again, do not quote some lawyer's opinion on this issue from his/her website.
hairstyles Tamil people Wallpaper
old_hat
03-09 12:58 PM
My wife travelled to India via Munich (Lufthansa) in Feb end and she had no issues with transit visa. She was never asked about it. The I-94 had expired and we have a valid AP and approved H1 (unstamped). She has not returned yet, so any requirement on return journey is untested.
I was nervous before she left and was wondering if I need a transit visa for her. Thanks everyone who posted their experiences.
I was nervous before she left and was wondering if I need a transit visa for her. Thanks everyone who posted their experiences.
belmontboy
05-18 07:08 PM
I ONLY believe in MERITT based system.
I never voted against anything so far!!:D
going by the visa bulletin u will never get a chance to vote in USA :p
on a serious note, its due time that we accept not getting anywhere with one magical EB reform. we should stop waiting for the magic bullet and rather focus on getting our issues resolved in bits and pieces
I never voted against anything so far!!:D
going by the visa bulletin u will never get a chance to vote in USA :p
on a serious note, its due time that we accept not getting anywhere with one magical EB reform. we should stop waiting for the magic bullet and rather focus on getting our issues resolved in bits and pieces
emulux
12-29 01:38 AM
I tend to agree with your interpretation that "NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE" refers to those beyond 140K. The language of law is always beautiful, isn't it?:)
Anyhow, I still think it merits a deeper investigation and consultation with attorneys.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Please read the above section carefully. The additional visas mentioned above refers to visas in excess of 140k visas set by the annual quota; i.e. it refers to recaptured visa numbers, IMHO.
Anyhow, I still think it merits a deeper investigation and consultation with attorneys.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Please read the above section carefully. The additional visas mentioned above refers to visas in excess of 140k visas set by the annual quota; i.e. it refers to recaptured visa numbers, IMHO.
