gcdreamer05
08-05 05:04 PM
A man goes skydiving. After a fantastic free fall he pulls the rip cord to open his parachute but nothing happens. He tries everything but can't get it open.
Just then another man flies by him, going UP. The skydiver yells, "Hey, you know anything about parachutes?" The man replies, "No, you know anything about gas stoves?"
ha ha ha cannot stop replying for me the guy going up is EB2 and the guy going down is EB3, unfortunately im going down...... :p
Just then another man flies by him, going UP. The skydiver yells, "Hey, you know anything about parachutes?" The man replies, "No, you know anything about gas stoves?"
ha ha ha cannot stop replying for me the guy going up is EB2 and the guy going down is EB3, unfortunately im going down...... :p
wallpaper Chad - Chad Michael Murray
sanju
05-17 10:08 AM
You have no arguments that make sense. You are arguing that doing something illegal is a great thing to do. Not so. And yes, I do support the bill as it will weed out some fraudsters from amongst us, who give the H-1B program a very bad rep.
The problem is not that it will "weed out some fraudsters from amongst us", the problem is that it will also force deserving people to leave, people waiting in line for 6 or more years in green card line. No one is arguing that "something illegal is a great thing to do" but the argument is, it is justified to implicate and screw-up someone who has done nothing wrong. Durbin-Grassley bill says that it intends to stop abuse and it goes ahead to screw-up everybody. Do you think that everybody here waiting for employment based green card is "illegal"???
The problem is not that it will "weed out some fraudsters from amongst us", the problem is that it will also force deserving people to leave, people waiting in line for 6 or more years in green card line. No one is arguing that "something illegal is a great thing to do" but the argument is, it is justified to implicate and screw-up someone who has done nothing wrong. Durbin-Grassley bill says that it intends to stop abuse and it goes ahead to screw-up everybody. Do you think that everybody here waiting for employment based green card is "illegal"???
gcisadawg
12-27 01:31 AM
Why do you want to involve the world in a matter between Pakistan and India?
I see what you are saying. But I don't think I agree with you.
The world probably doesn't give much of a damn about it. At the end of the day, a few million nuked and dead Pakistanis and Indians are not going to be the West's headache. They will be the headache for India and Pakistan. So, nukes DO impact the options.
Yes, there would be a few million nuked pakistanis and Indians. As you said, if the world doesn't give a damn why would Rice, Brown, US Military JCOS and a bunch of others visited India and urged it to restrain caution. I challnge the Indian Govt. to widely publish the statement " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"...See how the world reacts.
The world is more worried about Militants getting their hands on Nukes and has some confidence in India's caution. Madeline Albright recently said pakistan is like a migraine for the world. How many times we have seen stories where leaders after leader, strategists after strategists express concerns that Militants may get the nuke trigger. I believe the world has a stake in neutralizing Pak's Nukes. Do you believe the Nukes are partially controlled by US at present? Or is it Zardari who has the complete control?
I see what you are saying. But I don't think I agree with you.
The world probably doesn't give much of a damn about it. At the end of the day, a few million nuked and dead Pakistanis and Indians are not going to be the West's headache. They will be the headache for India and Pakistan. So, nukes DO impact the options.
Yes, there would be a few million nuked pakistanis and Indians. As you said, if the world doesn't give a damn why would Rice, Brown, US Military JCOS and a bunch of others visited India and urged it to restrain caution. I challnge the Indian Govt. to widely publish the statement " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"...See how the world reacts.
The world is more worried about Militants getting their hands on Nukes and has some confidence in India's caution. Madeline Albright recently said pakistan is like a migraine for the world. How many times we have seen stories where leaders after leader, strategists after strategists express concerns that Militants may get the nuke trigger. I believe the world has a stake in neutralizing Pak's Nukes. Do you believe the Nukes are partially controlled by US at present? Or is it Zardari who has the complete control?
2011 Chad Michael Murray at 2008
kaisersose
04-15 03:10 PM
Are people seriously arguing that a child will not be happier in a bigger home, everything else remaining constant? Seriously, is someone actually arguing this?
Seriously? Yes.
Not me as I am arguing that a home is better than an apt, but some people here disagree for their own reasons.
Seriously? Yes.
Not me as I am arguing that a home is better than an apt, but some people here disagree for their own reasons.
more...
CreatedToday
01-06 05:39 PM
Oh! you were so saddened and shocked about the killings happening far way!
And you condemned the killings of innocent people in Mumbai by Pak terrorists (Though I checked and didn�t see any post from you in that thread)
Where you shocked when religious fanatics attacked and killed poor tribals in Orissa? The government itself accepted that 50,000 people fled the villages to forest? Even nuns were raped. These are not reported by CNN/Fox, but by all mainstream news media in India.
OR you get shock only when people of your faith are involved, ONLY when they get killed (and NOT when they go on a killing spree)?
Tomplate,
I am not angry or anything. I am just sitting quitely, surfing net and enjoying my evening coffee.
But i was so shocked when i read about school bombing and innocent school kids being murdered within seconds.
If you have kids then you will realize how hard it is to loose kids. Kids are innocent and wonderful thing, but these murderers are not sparing even kids.
So called peace loving nations and so called peace loving leaders and sitting and watching this massacre quitely. Thats what hurts me most.
And you condemned the killings of innocent people in Mumbai by Pak terrorists (Though I checked and didn�t see any post from you in that thread)
Where you shocked when religious fanatics attacked and killed poor tribals in Orissa? The government itself accepted that 50,000 people fled the villages to forest? Even nuns were raped. These are not reported by CNN/Fox, but by all mainstream news media in India.
OR you get shock only when people of your faith are involved, ONLY when they get killed (and NOT when they go on a killing spree)?
Tomplate,
I am not angry or anything. I am just sitting quitely, surfing net and enjoying my evening coffee.
But i was so shocked when i read about school bombing and innocent school kids being murdered within seconds.
If you have kids then you will realize how hard it is to loose kids. Kids are innocent and wonderful thing, but these murderers are not sparing even kids.
So called peace loving nations and so called peace loving leaders and sitting and watching this massacre quitely. Thats what hurts me most.
gc_chahiye
08-02 06:44 PM
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
this is interesting: If I invoke AC21, and get a letter from a new employer, they can still ask me for a letter from old employer saying they intended to hire me?? The fact that they submitted a future employment letter with my 485 and did not revoke the approved I-140 for 6 months not enough to prove that the intent remained at the end of 6 months?
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
this is interesting: If I invoke AC21, and get a letter from a new employer, they can still ask me for a letter from old employer saying they intended to hire me?? The fact that they submitted a future employment letter with my 485 and did not revoke the approved I-140 for 6 months not enough to prove that the intent remained at the end of 6 months?
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
more...
Madhuri
05-16 11:08 AM
Very well said Sanju. You put everything in right perspective.
2010 Chad Michael Murray 020
2008FebEb2
08-05 01:35 PM
I a EB2-I with PD 2008 Feb.
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
I think everybody has the right to port to a different category if they qualify for it.
I feel for Eb3 guys who have been waiting in the queue for ever now.
The Original thread starter is a sh*t stirrer who knows nothing. :mad:
Good luck to everyone. :p
more...
GC08
02-01 09:00 PM
It is time for IV to do its job by letting the truth out. The claim that H1Bs do not pay any taxes are outrageous. They should know that H1Bs pay all the tax but do not enjoy the benefits, e.g., when they get laid off, they have to leave the coutry right away without getting a penny of unemployment benefits. They will not get the social socurity benefits if they do not work in the U.S. for at least 10 years while their visas only allow them to work 6 years in a row. Such unfairness can go on and on...:mad:
hair Chad Michael Murray
ramaonline
02-02 05:21 PM
Both L1 and H1 visa holders pay taxes just like any othe US Citizen
more...
Macaca
12-27 12:34 PM
The following appeared in NYT yesterday. It was discussed by Pat Buchanan (hosting Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC) last evening. Pat was surprised that Demz were considering it.
It is available here http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/washington/26immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 � Counting on the support of the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and their Republican allies are working on measures that could place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship than would a bill that the Senate passed in the spring.
The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.
The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.
Details of the bill, which would be introduced early next year, are being drafted. The lawmakers, who hope for bipartisan support, will almost certainly face pressure to compromise on the issues from some Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Still, the proposals reflect significant shifts since the November elections, as well as critical support from the Homeland Security Department.
Proponents said the prospects for such a measure, which would include tougher border security and a guest worker plan, had markedly improved since Nov. 7.
The Senate plans to introduce its immigration bill next month with an eye toward passage in March or April, officials said. The House is expected to consider its version later. President Bush said last week that he hoped to sign an immigration bill next year.
The major lawmakers drafting the legislation include Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, along with Representatives Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, and Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois. The four met this month, and their staffs have begun working on a bill.
�I�m very hopeful about this, both in terms of the substance and the politics of it,� said Mr. Kennedy, the incoming chairman of the Senate Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship Subcommittee.
Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that there would be hurdles. But he and other lawmakers say Republicans and Democrats are now more likely to work together to repair a system widely considered as broken.
House Republicans blocked consideration of the bill that passed the Senate this year, saying it amounted to an amnesty for lawbreakers and voicing confidence that a tough stance would touch off a groundswell of support in the Congressional elections. The strategy largely failed.
Hispanic voters, a swing constituency that Republicans covet, abandoned the party in large numbers. Several Republican hardliners, including Representatives John Hostettler of Indiana and J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, lost their seats. After the dismal showing, House Republicans denied F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the departing chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an architect of the House immigration approach, a senior position on any major committee in the new Congress.
Domestic security officials have voiced support for important elements of the framework under consideration. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has repeatedly raised doubts about the effectiveness of border fencing in remote desert areas. Mr. Bush signed the fence bill this year, but Congress did not appropriate enough money for it. Officials say they would also prefer a less burdensome process than the original Senate bill outlined.
That bill divided the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants into three groups, those living here for five years or more, those here for two to five years and those here for less than two years.
All but the illegal immigrants living here for five years or more, roughly seven million, would have to leave the country briefly to be eligible for legal status. Those here for fewer than two years would have to leave the country and would not even be guaranteed a slot in a guest worker plan.
Domestic security officials said the original plan would have been enormously difficult to administer because many illegal immigrants lacked documentation to prove how long they had been in the United States.
The officials said it would have fueled a market in fraudulent documents as illegal immigrants scrambled to offer proof of residency.
The three-tiered approach would also discourage millions of illegal immigrants from registering, driving millions deeper underground.
�We do have concerns over breaking it down into that tiered system,� said a domestic security official who insisted on anonymity. �When you do that, you run the risk of people trying to create false documentation that would get them the highest benefits.�
Also expected to have prominent roles in the debate are Representatives Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who is likely to head the House Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee; Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who has followed immigration issues closely for many years; and Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is set to lead the House Homeland Security Committee and has said he plans to re-evaluate the 700-mile fence.
But Mr. Flake described himself as optimistic, saying the elections had disabused many Republicans of the notion that opposing legalization and guest worker plans would win widespread support.
�That illusion is gone,� he said.
The percentage of Hispanics who voted for Republicans fell to 29 percent, from 44 percent in 2004, and some Republicans say passing immigration bills is a crucial part of the effort to win them back.
Mr. Flake warned that some Republicans might balk at proposals like broadening the number of illegal immigrants eligible for a less burdensome path to citizenship, making passage of bipartisan legislation potentially �politically more difficult.�
The prospects for a bill that contains such a proposal remain particularly uncertain in the House, where many prominent Democrats want to ensure broad bipartisan backing as part of their efforts to maintain their majority in 2008, Congressional aides said.
The House Democrats are concerned about protecting newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats, some of whom had campaigned against legalizing illegal immigrants.
It is also unclear whether Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Flake will produce the only House legislation on immigration and whether their plan will ultimately become the basis for the bill that emerges.
In the Senate, Mr. Kennedy�s bill certainly has the backing of the Democratic leadership, Congressional aides said.
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, argued that expanding citizenship eligibility and abandoning financing for the fence would alienate moderates in both parties. The three-tier legalization system, a hard-fought compromise, was critical for moderate Republican support for the original bill.
The plan under consideration would allow 10 million or 11 million illegal immigrants to become eligible to apply for citizenship without returning home, up from 7 million in the original Senate bill. To be granted citizenship, they would have to remain employed, pass background checks, pay fines and back taxes, and enroll in English classes.
�I think it�s a nonstarter,� said Mr. Cornyn, who opposes a path to citizenship for illegal workers, but supports a plan for temporary workers that would let foreigners work here temporarily before returning home.
Congressional aides and lawyers familiar with the proposed bills emphasize that it will be very difficult for a smaller group of illegal immigrants, those who arrived after a certain date, perhaps 2004, to become citizens. The aides said the bill might include incentives for illegal immigrants to leave the country. While they hope such elements may ease concerns, many challenges remain.
Some powerful unions, which expect to exert more leverage in the new Congress, remain deeply opposed to the temporary worker program in the Senate bill. The unions say it threatens American jobs.
Officials at the A.F.L.-C.I.O. say they can scuttle such a plan next year, even though Mr. Bush and businesses say it is critical to ensure an adequate labor force.
There is also the political clock to consider. Supporters of immigration measures acknowledge that the prospects for a bipartisan bill will dim significantly if a bill is not passed before the presidential primaries of 2008 are in full swing.
Some Congressional aides and immigrants� advocates worry about the commitment of Mr. McCain, a likely presidential candidate in 2008.
Mr. McCain has long supported legalization that would not require illegal immigrants to leave the United States. Some advocates fear that his ambitions may lead to a shifting of that stance to avoid alienating moderate Republicans.
A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain said last week that he was not available to comment on the bill being drafted.
Many lawmakers say their hope is growing that Congress will pass an immigration bill next year.
�There are going to be hard choices that are going to be made, because we need to build a bipartisan, broad-based coalition,� said Mr. Gutierrez, who leads the House Democratic immigration group. �But I�m hopeful that in the environment in which we�re working now we can get it done.�
It is available here http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/washington/26immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 � Counting on the support of the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and their Republican allies are working on measures that could place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship than would a bill that the Senate passed in the spring.
The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.
The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.
Details of the bill, which would be introduced early next year, are being drafted. The lawmakers, who hope for bipartisan support, will almost certainly face pressure to compromise on the issues from some Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Still, the proposals reflect significant shifts since the November elections, as well as critical support from the Homeland Security Department.
Proponents said the prospects for such a measure, which would include tougher border security and a guest worker plan, had markedly improved since Nov. 7.
The Senate plans to introduce its immigration bill next month with an eye toward passage in March or April, officials said. The House is expected to consider its version later. President Bush said last week that he hoped to sign an immigration bill next year.
The major lawmakers drafting the legislation include Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, along with Representatives Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, and Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois. The four met this month, and their staffs have begun working on a bill.
�I�m very hopeful about this, both in terms of the substance and the politics of it,� said Mr. Kennedy, the incoming chairman of the Senate Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship Subcommittee.
Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that there would be hurdles. But he and other lawmakers say Republicans and Democrats are now more likely to work together to repair a system widely considered as broken.
House Republicans blocked consideration of the bill that passed the Senate this year, saying it amounted to an amnesty for lawbreakers and voicing confidence that a tough stance would touch off a groundswell of support in the Congressional elections. The strategy largely failed.
Hispanic voters, a swing constituency that Republicans covet, abandoned the party in large numbers. Several Republican hardliners, including Representatives John Hostettler of Indiana and J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, lost their seats. After the dismal showing, House Republicans denied F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the departing chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an architect of the House immigration approach, a senior position on any major committee in the new Congress.
Domestic security officials have voiced support for important elements of the framework under consideration. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has repeatedly raised doubts about the effectiveness of border fencing in remote desert areas. Mr. Bush signed the fence bill this year, but Congress did not appropriate enough money for it. Officials say they would also prefer a less burdensome process than the original Senate bill outlined.
That bill divided the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants into three groups, those living here for five years or more, those here for two to five years and those here for less than two years.
All but the illegal immigrants living here for five years or more, roughly seven million, would have to leave the country briefly to be eligible for legal status. Those here for fewer than two years would have to leave the country and would not even be guaranteed a slot in a guest worker plan.
Domestic security officials said the original plan would have been enormously difficult to administer because many illegal immigrants lacked documentation to prove how long they had been in the United States.
The officials said it would have fueled a market in fraudulent documents as illegal immigrants scrambled to offer proof of residency.
The three-tiered approach would also discourage millions of illegal immigrants from registering, driving millions deeper underground.
�We do have concerns over breaking it down into that tiered system,� said a domestic security official who insisted on anonymity. �When you do that, you run the risk of people trying to create false documentation that would get them the highest benefits.�
Also expected to have prominent roles in the debate are Representatives Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who is likely to head the House Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee; Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who has followed immigration issues closely for many years; and Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is set to lead the House Homeland Security Committee and has said he plans to re-evaluate the 700-mile fence.
But Mr. Flake described himself as optimistic, saying the elections had disabused many Republicans of the notion that opposing legalization and guest worker plans would win widespread support.
�That illusion is gone,� he said.
The percentage of Hispanics who voted for Republicans fell to 29 percent, from 44 percent in 2004, and some Republicans say passing immigration bills is a crucial part of the effort to win them back.
Mr. Flake warned that some Republicans might balk at proposals like broadening the number of illegal immigrants eligible for a less burdensome path to citizenship, making passage of bipartisan legislation potentially �politically more difficult.�
The prospects for a bill that contains such a proposal remain particularly uncertain in the House, where many prominent Democrats want to ensure broad bipartisan backing as part of their efforts to maintain their majority in 2008, Congressional aides said.
The House Democrats are concerned about protecting newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats, some of whom had campaigned against legalizing illegal immigrants.
It is also unclear whether Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Flake will produce the only House legislation on immigration and whether their plan will ultimately become the basis for the bill that emerges.
In the Senate, Mr. Kennedy�s bill certainly has the backing of the Democratic leadership, Congressional aides said.
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, argued that expanding citizenship eligibility and abandoning financing for the fence would alienate moderates in both parties. The three-tier legalization system, a hard-fought compromise, was critical for moderate Republican support for the original bill.
The plan under consideration would allow 10 million or 11 million illegal immigrants to become eligible to apply for citizenship without returning home, up from 7 million in the original Senate bill. To be granted citizenship, they would have to remain employed, pass background checks, pay fines and back taxes, and enroll in English classes.
�I think it�s a nonstarter,� said Mr. Cornyn, who opposes a path to citizenship for illegal workers, but supports a plan for temporary workers that would let foreigners work here temporarily before returning home.
Congressional aides and lawyers familiar with the proposed bills emphasize that it will be very difficult for a smaller group of illegal immigrants, those who arrived after a certain date, perhaps 2004, to become citizens. The aides said the bill might include incentives for illegal immigrants to leave the country. While they hope such elements may ease concerns, many challenges remain.
Some powerful unions, which expect to exert more leverage in the new Congress, remain deeply opposed to the temporary worker program in the Senate bill. The unions say it threatens American jobs.
Officials at the A.F.L.-C.I.O. say they can scuttle such a plan next year, even though Mr. Bush and businesses say it is critical to ensure an adequate labor force.
There is also the political clock to consider. Supporters of immigration measures acknowledge that the prospects for a bipartisan bill will dim significantly if a bill is not passed before the presidential primaries of 2008 are in full swing.
Some Congressional aides and immigrants� advocates worry about the commitment of Mr. McCain, a likely presidential candidate in 2008.
Mr. McCain has long supported legalization that would not require illegal immigrants to leave the United States. Some advocates fear that his ambitions may lead to a shifting of that stance to avoid alienating moderate Republicans.
A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain said last week that he was not available to comment on the bill being drafted.
Many lawmakers say their hope is growing that Congress will pass an immigration bill next year.
�There are going to be hard choices that are going to be made, because we need to build a bipartisan, broad-based coalition,� said Mr. Gutierrez, who leads the House Democratic immigration group. �But I�m hopeful that in the environment in which we�re working now we can get it done.�
hot Chad lt;3
i_have_a_dream
08-09 04:33 PM
UN, thanks for the time you spend giving us your educated advice.
I would greatly appreciate a response on my situation.
I currently work in a big IT consulting firm (company A) thru H1. My uncle owns a very small (less than 100 ppl) consulting shop (company B). I want to join his company, but i dont want to transfer my h1 since B is small and there is lot more job stability in company A. S i want to go through the route of future employment.
I will be joining company B in the same job desc as im working in company A. As it looks right now, I might have to take a small cut in salary to join company B, however im sure that salary difference will be a lot more once it gets to the 485 stages.
What do you think are the risks as compared to having a GC sponsored through a company where u already hold a H1? I understand that my intention to join might become an issue because of the salary issue, but wouldn't that be the case even if i filed for Company A, since company A would file a LC based on current wage and by the time of 485, I will be making a lot more.
I would greatly appreciate a response on my situation.
I currently work in a big IT consulting firm (company A) thru H1. My uncle owns a very small (less than 100 ppl) consulting shop (company B). I want to join his company, but i dont want to transfer my h1 since B is small and there is lot more job stability in company A. S i want to go through the route of future employment.
I will be joining company B in the same job desc as im working in company A. As it looks right now, I might have to take a small cut in salary to join company B, however im sure that salary difference will be a lot more once it gets to the 485 stages.
What do you think are the risks as compared to having a GC sponsored through a company where u already hold a H1? I understand that my intention to join might become an issue because of the salary issue, but wouldn't that be the case even if i filed for Company A, since company A would file a LC based on current wage and by the time of 485, I will be making a lot more.
more...
house Chad Michael Murray
rsdang
08-22 11:59 AM
new lecturer (also a Bihari professor) was unable to control the class. The guys were just talking without giving any attention to him. So he wanted to send a guy who was creating most of the problem out. But he doesn't know how to put it in English. He went near the guy. Shouted, "follow me" .The guy followed him till he went out of the class. Now the lecturer turned back and again shouted, "Don't follow me" and went inside the class..........
# Giving a punishment:
*You, rotate the ground four times...
* You, go and under-stand the tree...
* You three of you, stand together separately.
* Why are you late - say YES or NO....(?)
# Sir at his best:
Sir had once gone to a film with his wife. By chance, he happened to see one of our boys at the theatre, though the boy did not see them. So the next day at school... (To that boy) - " Yesterday I saw you WITH MY WIFE at the Cinema Theatre"
# Giving a punishment:
*You, rotate the ground four times...
* You, go and under-stand the tree...
* You three of you, stand together separately.
* Why are you late - say YES or NO....(?)
# Sir at his best:
Sir had once gone to a film with his wife. By chance, he happened to see one of our boys at the theatre, though the boy did not see them. So the next day at school... (To that boy) - " Yesterday I saw you WITH MY WIFE at the Cinema Theatre"
tattoo to long.
sc3
07-14 05:29 PM
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
yes, we should continue with the campaign. However, I am more concerned about getting what has been already made available to us. While I am willing to play by the rules and wait, I am not willing to cede my place in the line.
Asking for 2 to 1 ratio etc. is something new, and will require legislative process, on that I am not an ardent supporter, there we can just request (and hope for the best), but in making sure we are getting what we were promised is demanding the best.
more...
pictures Chad Michael Murray
suavesandeep
06-26 03:05 PM
Would you share what calculator are you using.
I used one here:
Mortgage Calculator - Bankrate.com (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx)
Loan Amount: 600K (Note much less than million dollars)
Period: 30 years fixed
Interest Rate: 5% (On the lower side using historical averages)
Monthly Payment: 3220.93
Total Interest Paid across 30 years: 559,534.71
In general the thumb rule is across 30 years you will always pay interest which is approx equal to the principal you signed up for.
Am i missing something here ?
Yes its not clear cut but lets replace your X, Y and others with numbers
Suppose your rent is 1500$ a month
You pay 540,000 $ in 30 years
so your point 1 - the interest payment is always going to be less than rent if you look over the 30 year term of mortgage since there is no way to pay 540,000 dollars in interest in 30 years looking at the amortization table unless you are buying a million dollar plus house. ( I assumed 5 % rate of interest )
I used one here:
Mortgage Calculator - Bankrate.com (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx)
Loan Amount: 600K (Note much less than million dollars)
Period: 30 years fixed
Interest Rate: 5% (On the lower side using historical averages)
Monthly Payment: 3220.93
Total Interest Paid across 30 years: 559,534.71
In general the thumb rule is across 30 years you will always pay interest which is approx equal to the principal you signed up for.
Am i missing something here ?
Yes its not clear cut but lets replace your X, Y and others with numbers
Suppose your rent is 1500$ a month
You pay 540,000 $ in 30 years
so your point 1 - the interest payment is always going to be less than rent if you look over the 30 year term of mortgage since there is no way to pay 540,000 dollars in interest in 30 years looking at the amortization table unless you are buying a million dollar plus house. ( I assumed 5 % rate of interest )
dresses Chad Michael Murray Wedding
chanduv23
04-08 07:18 PM
Look what really does not make sense about the "Consulting company" portion is that management consulting companies like BCG, Mckenzie or the Big 4 consulting firms have a business model where they "outsource" employees for projects to other companies. So, as it stands, these companies will not be able to hire anyone from top business schools. And we are not talking about desi consulting companies here (no pun intended).
Again, this bill embodies the basic principle that displaces US workers do not want to understand:
"What is good for the economy may not be good for an individual".
And I say that because I have been myself displaces 2 times in my life, and every time, I have fallen (or stumbled), I have walked an extra mile to get a better life.
I just feel sorry for people like me and many others who came to this country with a different mindset and now find themselves in the midst of the worst anti-immigrant clime that has existed in a long time.
That said, I feel obligated to remind everyone - "Do yourself a favor and do everything within your means to make a meaningful change, self-help is the best help you will get"
- Raj
What about professional services? Like IBM global services, Oracle consulting etc.... all these companies thrive on after sales customization and support based on professional services contract and there are thousands of h1b visa holders doing professional services. It is also outsourcing of a employee to a client implementing their system. Look at SAP, Siebel consultants, they are outsourced at client places for years together to finish implementations and their work locations are changed based on client's needs from time to time in between jobs - this is again a huge pool of H1bs.
I used to work fulltime for a company in their professional services group and travelled on the job to a lot of places. The company thrives on h1b resources for their high pressured jobs and they always bring in people from outside the country to do their jobs.
I think outsourcing employees to a different location is a part and parcel of H1b, and this bill is nailing exactly on that. It is aimed solely to purge out H1bs from the country.
So all said and done, we may now go down based on a racially motivated bill. I am not sure what it takes to educate the law makers, I would like to see the senior personnel at IV and more analysts to look into what can be done on this bill.
Again, this bill embodies the basic principle that displaces US workers do not want to understand:
"What is good for the economy may not be good for an individual".
And I say that because I have been myself displaces 2 times in my life, and every time, I have fallen (or stumbled), I have walked an extra mile to get a better life.
I just feel sorry for people like me and many others who came to this country with a different mindset and now find themselves in the midst of the worst anti-immigrant clime that has existed in a long time.
That said, I feel obligated to remind everyone - "Do yourself a favor and do everything within your means to make a meaningful change, self-help is the best help you will get"
- Raj
What about professional services? Like IBM global services, Oracle consulting etc.... all these companies thrive on after sales customization and support based on professional services contract and there are thousands of h1b visa holders doing professional services. It is also outsourcing of a employee to a client implementing their system. Look at SAP, Siebel consultants, they are outsourced at client places for years together to finish implementations and their work locations are changed based on client's needs from time to time in between jobs - this is again a huge pool of H1bs.
I used to work fulltime for a company in their professional services group and travelled on the job to a lot of places. The company thrives on h1b resources for their high pressured jobs and they always bring in people from outside the country to do their jobs.
I think outsourcing employees to a different location is a part and parcel of H1b, and this bill is nailing exactly on that. It is aimed solely to purge out H1bs from the country.
So all said and done, we may now go down based on a racially motivated bill. I am not sure what it takes to educate the law makers, I would like to see the senior personnel at IV and more analysts to look into what can be done on this bill.
more...
makeup chad michael murray 4897
Macaca
03-06 09:02 PM
General Process for FY 2006 and Subsequent Fiscal Year H-1B Filings (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=3f06c12454f6742a078d4244f6905 45e)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html) Report of the Visa Office Department of State
The Report of the Visa Office is an annual report providing statistical information on immigrant and non-immigrant visa issuances by consular offices, as well as information on the use of visa numbers in numerically limited categories.
Visa Statistics (http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/) Department of Homeland Security
Nonimmigrant Visas Issued by Classification (Including Crewlist Visas and Border Crossing Cards): Table XVI(B)
Fiscal Years 2002-2006 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableXVIA.pdf)
Fiscal Years 2001-2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableXVIb.pdf)
Fiscal Years 2000-2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableXVIb.pdf)
Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf) November 2006
Visa Statistics (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html) Report of the Visa Office Department of State
The Report of the Visa Office is an annual report providing statistical information on immigrant and non-immigrant visa issuances by consular offices, as well as information on the use of visa numbers in numerically limited categories.
Visa Statistics (http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/) Department of Homeland Security
Nonimmigrant Visas Issued by Classification (Including Crewlist Visas and Border Crossing Cards): Table XVI(B)
Fiscal Years 2002-2006 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06AnnualReportTableXVIA.pdf)
Fiscal Years 2001-2005 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableXVIb.pdf)
Fiscal Years 2000-2004 (http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY04tableXVIb.pdf)
girlfriend Chad Michael Murray Hot
mrajatish
07-08 11:01 AM
The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Particularly worried about what you just mentioned about USCIS using other means to deny application - this seems to go against the principle of 245(K) which was to allow folks to get GC irrespective of a violation in the past. If the intent is to not let folks use 245(K), why even publish such a law? MOre importantly, for folks who have been staying and working in a country for many years (read > 5 yrs), it is possible that they might have some glitches and 245(K) was there to cover that (I am not saying every one has gone through this but a lot of people in 2000/01/02 went through this).
What are the grounds for I-485 denial if my I-140 is approved?
The followings are the grounds for an I-485 denial.
a. Some crimes committed by the applicant.
b. The applicant is out of status or illegally worked for over 180 days.
c. If the I-140 is employer-sponsored, the applicant changes job before I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
d. The applicant drastically changes occupation or job field.
e. The applicant travels abroad without Advance Parole (H/L visa or status is excepted).
f. The applicant’s failure to RFE or fingerprint.
However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.
I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.
Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.
To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.
Particularly worried about what you just mentioned about USCIS using other means to deny application - this seems to go against the principle of 245(K) which was to allow folks to get GC irrespective of a violation in the past. If the intent is to not let folks use 245(K), why even publish such a law? MOre importantly, for folks who have been staying and working in a country for many years (read > 5 yrs), it is possible that they might have some glitches and 245(K) was there to cover that (I am not saying every one has gone through this but a lot of people in 2000/01/02 went through this).
What are the grounds for I-485 denial if my I-140 is approved?
The followings are the grounds for an I-485 denial.
a. Some crimes committed by the applicant.
b. The applicant is out of status or illegally worked for over 180 days.
c. If the I-140 is employer-sponsored, the applicant changes job before I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
d. The applicant drastically changes occupation or job field.
e. The applicant travels abroad without Advance Parole (H/L visa or status is excepted).
f. The applicant’s failure to RFE or fingerprint.
hairstyles sophia bush amp; chad michael
langagadu
12-26 11:29 PM
I would say india should start war and move every a** out of POK.
Amma,
I agree with you. We can start the war. But what next? How to end it? US is struggling to end the war in Iraq. And India is not US and Pakistan is not Iraq. It would be a closely fought battle although we have some edge.
Whenever talka bout war breaks out, Pakistan does nuclear sabre-rattling.
Indian leadership should tell the world in no uncertain terms that if pakistan uses any unconventional weapons, then all pakistan's cities and towns would be wiped off. Yes, we may loose people but 'proud nation' of pakistan would disappear from the map. I'm against death of innocent but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
India should say that our options are not limited by presence of absence of nuclear weapons. If pakistan uses nuclear weapons, then the guy that pulls the trigger should know that there wont be pakistan anymore. We shud deploy some of the weapons in South and in Sea to give a fitting reply in case one is lobbed at us. This response should be the default option and ingrained into the psyche of Military leaders. And PM and all military chief should sign a declaration to that effect. Again, I'm against innocents but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
We need to do all we could do to tell Pakistan that this wont be a free ride ANYMORE!!
One of the Pakistani General remarked to Benazir saying "Madam, creating trouble in Kashmir using Jihadis is like maintaining an extra brigade with no cost to tax payers"
We need to show that it comes with a COST. War is not an option.
Typically, the media and Indians living abroad beat the drums of war a bit more than people actually living there now.
If you have any Pakistani friends/neigbors/colleagues in USA, how many of you have talked to them about this situation? And what is the response?
Peace,
G
Amma,
I agree with you. We can start the war. But what next? How to end it? US is struggling to end the war in Iraq. And India is not US and Pakistan is not Iraq. It would be a closely fought battle although we have some edge.
Whenever talka bout war breaks out, Pakistan does nuclear sabre-rattling.
Indian leadership should tell the world in no uncertain terms that if pakistan uses any unconventional weapons, then all pakistan's cities and towns would be wiped off. Yes, we may loose people but 'proud nation' of pakistan would disappear from the map. I'm against death of innocent but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
India should say that our options are not limited by presence of absence of nuclear weapons. If pakistan uses nuclear weapons, then the guy that pulls the trigger should know that there wont be pakistan anymore. We shud deploy some of the weapons in South and in Sea to give a fitting reply in case one is lobbed at us. This response should be the default option and ingrained into the psyche of Military leaders. And PM and all military chief should sign a declaration to that effect. Again, I'm against innocents but my point is to remove the threat of nuclear weapons.
Having said that, we need to do a conventional warfare. But I guess that, it would be more of a dogfight that would bleed us economically. Meanwhile, we need to strengthen the laws but also ensure it is not abused ( corruption and bias are something that is prevalent among people with power..it wud be very hard but people with power shud be very disciplined). Diplomatically pressurize the failed nation of Pakistan and do undercover ops in Balochistan and NWFP. Collaborate with Sindhi Mujahirs and create a division between Urdu speaking Punjabis and Sindhi speaking Mujahirs and Pashutun groups.
IK Gujral stopped the covert ops. It need to be restarted.
We need to do all we could do to tell Pakistan that this wont be a free ride ANYMORE!!
One of the Pakistani General remarked to Benazir saying "Madam, creating trouble in Kashmir using Jihadis is like maintaining an extra brigade with no cost to tax payers"
We need to show that it comes with a COST. War is not an option.
Typically, the media and Indians living abroad beat the drums of war a bit more than people actually living there now.
If you have any Pakistani friends/neigbors/colleagues in USA, how many of you have talked to them about this situation? And what is the response?
Peace,
G
unitednations
03-26 04:51 PM
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
jonty_11
08-07 03:35 PM
UN,
I understand u had a topsy turvy ride to GC urself...and ur story is posted somewhere....Can you or someone who may know point me to it...ur GC interview and what not?
I understand u had a topsy turvy ride to GC urself...and ur story is posted somewhere....Can you or someone who may know point me to it...ur GC interview and what not?