ajm
10-31 01:20 PM
Mailed all 4 letters this morning.
wallpaper What is trey songz brother
kgundamaraju@hotmail.com
05-22 09:39 AM
Would anyone be able to advise if I can travel out of the country after I've filed the 485 if I have an approved I-797 approval notice (for H-1B) but old H-1B stamp in pp has already expired?
If I travel out and then get the H-1B visa stamp at an outside consulate, I would be able to travel back in, but would I have considered have abandoned the 485 application? (since I travelled out without a valid H-1B stamp in pp)??
Can I travel out even before my AP arrives? Or does having an AP make a difference? I would prefer to stay on H-1B status since you never know what happens to the 140/485 application.
Thanks for the help guys.
I am in the same situation as yours. The visa stamp on my passport expired last year and I have an approved I-797, which is valid till Oct'07. I am planning to file for I-485 on June 1st and I want to travel to India as soon as I can. My attorney's advise was to wait for receipt of I-485 application and then travel to India and get H-1B stamped on my passport from a US consulate in India. According to him this is not considered as abandoning I-485.
If I travel out and then get the H-1B visa stamp at an outside consulate, I would be able to travel back in, but would I have considered have abandoned the 485 application? (since I travelled out without a valid H-1B stamp in pp)??
Can I travel out even before my AP arrives? Or does having an AP make a difference? I would prefer to stay on H-1B status since you never know what happens to the 140/485 application.
Thanks for the help guys.
I am in the same situation as yours. The visa stamp on my passport expired last year and I have an approved I-797, which is valid till Oct'07. I am planning to file for I-485 on June 1st and I want to travel to India as soon as I can. My attorney's advise was to wait for receipt of I-485 application and then travel to India and get H-1B stamped on my passport from a US consulate in India. According to him this is not considered as abandoning I-485.
hpandey
06-10 10:53 AM
Thanks guys .... for coming behind me .. Shane Warne or Purple Haze won't satisfy you guys .. Y dont we discuss how Kanimozhi's discontent couldn't play spoil sport for the new govt and how Azhagiri got cornered with chemicals and fertilizers (these 2 are not any interntaional fame for an american 'tunnel rat' to know abt them).
Above all I am here to get some information to bring a company which violates rules to authorities, nothing more nothing less and not here to do any name calling of mud slinging.
Don't worry buddy.. I am sure these guys were only pulling your leg.
Yeah I am sure everyone should stand up against violations . It doesn't matter if it is done by Americans or Indians or any other national. Just because most of the L1's in this particular case are Indians there is no reason to turn a blind eye to someone breaking the law.
Above all I am here to get some information to bring a company which violates rules to authorities, nothing more nothing less and not here to do any name calling of mud slinging.
Don't worry buddy.. I am sure these guys were only pulling your leg.
Yeah I am sure everyone should stand up against violations . It doesn't matter if it is done by Americans or Indians or any other national. Just because most of the L1's in this particular case are Indians there is no reason to turn a blind eye to someone breaking the law.
2011 Trey Songz in Emporio Armani
FinalGC
01-07 11:03 PM
The more than half million highly-skilled legal immigrants already working productively in the United States find themselves trapped in a system that is taking years longer than intended.
It should read as, "There are more than half million highly-skilled legal immigrants already working productively in the United States who find themselves trapped in a system that is taking years longer than intended.
It should read as, "There are more than half million highly-skilled legal immigrants already working productively in the United States who find themselves trapped in a system that is taking years longer than intended.
more...
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
transpass
08-18 12:34 PM
We received the snail mail welcome notice today after receiving the email ADIT stuff last Tuesday (August 10). That makes it five business days. On the notice it says that we should receive our permanent resident card within three weeks. Anybody who actually received it within three weeks?
I received it within a week...
CIS sent welcome notice on 8/2, and they sent the cards on 8/9...
But this was early Aug. Now it may take few days more due to many approvals in the pipeline..When you receive another update (like post decision activity) saying that they mailed decision notice, that usually means they mailed the cards...
I received it within a week...
CIS sent welcome notice on 8/2, and they sent the cards on 8/9...
But this was early Aug. Now it may take few days more due to many approvals in the pipeline..When you receive another update (like post decision activity) saying that they mailed decision notice, that usually means they mailed the cards...
more...
InTheMoment
10-06 01:31 AM
caliguy,
The final option 4 that you press is correct. Sometimes you can get an IIO that is not happy to give status info (and it is a good idea that the status word is not mentioned by the caller...it kind of hurts their ego! for the reason below)
Remember reaching the Service Center directly (thro this "POJ" method) puts you in touch with not a CSR but an actual Immigration Information Officer (these at the Service Centers are positions that are rotated, they usually also do simple cases at other times like I-765, I-131 etc.) They have full access to all databases and systems that a Adjudication Officer handling you file has, unlike the regular contractor non-POJ CSR's.
@ fatjoe
Well, I dont think politeness works with USCIS, but do we really have a choice?
Yes, lets write to Secretary Napolitino. I will also send a copy of the letter to the first lady. I am not sure what else we can do besides that.
Once I get the sequence to call TSC using the POJ method, I will try calling them tomorrow.
The final option 4 that you press is correct. Sometimes you can get an IIO that is not happy to give status info (and it is a good idea that the status word is not mentioned by the caller...it kind of hurts their ego! for the reason below)
Remember reaching the Service Center directly (thro this "POJ" method) puts you in touch with not a CSR but an actual Immigration Information Officer (these at the Service Centers are positions that are rotated, they usually also do simple cases at other times like I-765, I-131 etc.) They have full access to all databases and systems that a Adjudication Officer handling you file has, unlike the regular contractor non-POJ CSR's.
@ fatjoe
Well, I dont think politeness works with USCIS, but do we really have a choice?
Yes, lets write to Secretary Napolitino. I will also send a copy of the letter to the first lady. I am not sure what else we can do besides that.
Once I get the sequence to call TSC using the POJ method, I will try calling them tomorrow.
2010 2011 Trey Songz made an
pappu
10-02 04:03 PM
I got only one set of A# for both the applications. When I filed my second application I didn't have my A#. But we have mentioned clearly that there is another application that is filed on behalf of same applicant on MM/DD/YYYY.
You are lucky. Else the case goes for this conflict resolution and can take few weeks to resolve. If someone is getting such error they can post here and I can help.
You are lucky. Else the case goes for this conflict resolution and can take few weeks to resolve. If someone is getting such error they can post here and I can help.
more...
EndlessWait
01-24 02:46 PM
It is not good disparaging the countries needing TV by calling them idiotic and asking for boycott etc. Please know that you are living in a country (USA) which is far worse than those "idiotic" countries in this respect since 2003. US needs C1 visa for transiting through its airports even when you have a valid VISA stamp in your passport to a destination country and you need to fill eqaully gruelling application (DS 156). Also you need to carry documents for travel purposes and financial support.
i'm utterly shocked.. dude ...u like to live in pain..u like injustice.. u should see a doctor asap!
i'm utterly shocked.. dude ...u like to live in pain..u like injustice.. u should see a doctor asap!
hair Trey Songz Pictures - 2011
Saralayar
01-06 12:07 AM
^^^ BUMP^^^
Don't know how to make this thread as sticky. Wanted all the members of IV to see and comment on this...
Don't know how to make this thread as sticky. Wanted all the members of IV to see and comment on this...
more...
indianabacklog
06-18 08:10 PM
Why do we need 325A?- i thought this was for people in illegal status. Our son entered the US on valid H4 visa. Also do we need to request in application to attach the file to mother or anything like that. I will give the USCIS a call and share that information here if I find anything more.
thanks
krishna
I was unable to file for my son since he aged out over a year ago because of long delay in labor cert. However, I filed for my spouse and we both submitted G325A in accordance with instructions from my international services division at work.
thanks
krishna
I was unable to file for my son since he aged out over a year ago because of long delay in labor cert. However, I filed for my spouse and we both submitted G325A in accordance with instructions from my international services division at work.
hot 5 June 2011 trey songz
newuser
07-11 01:28 PM
People who know telugu can read this -
http://andhrajyothy.com/mainshow.asp?qry=/2007/jul/11new37
http://andhrajyothy.com/mainshow.asp?qry=/2007/jul/11new37
more...
house snoop diddy trey songz waka
geesee
08-20 11:30 AM
Karthik,
what is DH....? means
go to Vonage - VoIP Internet Phone Service for Home, Business and International Calling: Vonage - A Better Way to Phone for Less (http://www.vonage.com) and click on plans
Its D**KH**D honey
Btw, gr8 post! Repped! Will check out the offer today itself
what is DH....? means
go to Vonage - VoIP Internet Phone Service for Home, Business and International Calling: Vonage - A Better Way to Phone for Less (http://www.vonage.com) and click on plans
Its D**KH**D honey
Btw, gr8 post! Repped! Will check out the offer today itself
tattoo trey songz 2011. girlfriend
neerajkandhari
11-22 04:52 PM
Have You Heard About Hope For Homeowners Programme
Try Going To Fha.gov
Try Going To Fha.gov
more...
pictures Rob Kardashian, Trey Songz
drona
07-10 11:52 PM
Murthy Law Firm reports the Flower Campaign on their website:
http://murthy.com/index.html
http://murthy.com/index.html
dresses makeup 2011 Ready Trey Songz
whitecollarslave
09-10 01:08 PM
Ok, I called the following urging them to support HR 5882:
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
more...
makeup LAS VEGAS trey songz 2011
pappu
01-12 10:27 AM
Hello Pappu,
I feel we should have some banners up in different Indian stores, specially targeting some selfish EAD holders, who already feel they got their green cards irrespective of the current visa bulletin
1. Setting up banners will not only attract new members, but will make these EAD holders think from a rational perspective.
2.Also IV administration should send out a personal email to all it members, informing them about the importance of coming together, this way the EAD members who have stopped coming to IV will get the message.
3. We should contact the Indian newspaper editors, to print about our rally on March1st 2009, I believe more awareness we spread a better result we get.
Thank you
Some ideas are good. In order to implement them, we need support from members. Pls volunteer and take up the ideas to lead them. For example I have mentioned about poster and banner campaign. If each one of us, prints them and post them in various places, we can get good publicity.
We have to make do with such low cost volunteer work. Someone pointed out that we should contact newspapers and get articles published. Wish it was so easy. We have written tons of mails but that alone does not work. You need to issue press releases and publish them online. Publishing them each online costs a couple hundred dollars by publishing services who distribute, and there is no guarantee it will be picked up. Thus you need a focussed campaign for it. There are services where you can contact reporters and media on a specific topic and send them email, press release directly. If they are already writing article you can know the deadline. If you have an idea, you can pitch a story idea to the reporter directly. A good service I know costs 5K for non profits for one year. If you need access to International reporters database add 2k to it. All this is possible only if we have these kinds of resources. When we can hardly get contributions of 5k in 4 months after collecting $5 each, it is tough to plan a big media campaign. The reason why other big organizations and big anti immigrant orgs can get so much publicity is that they probably can spend their huge resources on such services. They can also afford a full time staff. We do not have all that and run IV along with our full time day time jobs. So the first thing we need to do before we run any campaign is to get more members and more contributions and monthly signups. Without that ideas may only remain on the forums.
I feel we should have some banners up in different Indian stores, specially targeting some selfish EAD holders, who already feel they got their green cards irrespective of the current visa bulletin
1. Setting up banners will not only attract new members, but will make these EAD holders think from a rational perspective.
2.Also IV administration should send out a personal email to all it members, informing them about the importance of coming together, this way the EAD members who have stopped coming to IV will get the message.
3. We should contact the Indian newspaper editors, to print about our rally on March1st 2009, I believe more awareness we spread a better result we get.
Thank you
Some ideas are good. In order to implement them, we need support from members. Pls volunteer and take up the ideas to lead them. For example I have mentioned about poster and banner campaign. If each one of us, prints them and post them in various places, we can get good publicity.
We have to make do with such low cost volunteer work. Someone pointed out that we should contact newspapers and get articles published. Wish it was so easy. We have written tons of mails but that alone does not work. You need to issue press releases and publish them online. Publishing them each online costs a couple hundred dollars by publishing services who distribute, and there is no guarantee it will be picked up. Thus you need a focussed campaign for it. There are services where you can contact reporters and media on a specific topic and send them email, press release directly. If they are already writing article you can know the deadline. If you have an idea, you can pitch a story idea to the reporter directly. A good service I know costs 5K for non profits for one year. If you need access to International reporters database add 2k to it. All this is possible only if we have these kinds of resources. When we can hardly get contributions of 5k in 4 months after collecting $5 each, it is tough to plan a big media campaign. The reason why other big organizations and big anti immigrant orgs can get so much publicity is that they probably can spend their huge resources on such services. They can also afford a full time staff. We do not have all that and run IV along with our full time day time jobs. So the first thing we need to do before we run any campaign is to get more members and more contributions and monthly signups. Without that ideas may only remain on the forums.
girlfriend Tank, Ne-Yo, and Trey Songz
brshankar
08-07 11:47 AM
Ok guys, I got a bunch of red dots.. what more can you expect from people whose comments are as below...
********************
bitch, wtf "Rolling_Flood"
stop making dumb arguments. if you don't like this thread stay away from it.
you have no clue who gives you reds and greens, don't presume. plenty of people quietly read and can spot out the rubbish. and no one can give two reds in a row, so i'm another person. Glad to see acceptance finally that PhDs are being disadvantaged
****************************
1. Rolling_Flood, with this temper I am sure you are going to piss off your lawyer with whom you would be working (if at all you do..) on getting portability removed.
2. �if you don't like this thread stay away from it. Lots of people disagree, that does not mean that only people who agree with you can post here. Also, how will I know if I am going to like the thread or not without visiting it?.
NKR Dude,
I give you a green.
Some guys dont have the guts to come out openly in the forum to accuse us because they know that they will be banned by moderators. They just give us red dots and call us all sorts of names like moron and ....... in private.
Everybody has the right to disapprove a post but they have no right to use bad language.
Hope these guys understand this is a forum for good cause and they are misusing it.
Thanks
********************
bitch, wtf "Rolling_Flood"
stop making dumb arguments. if you don't like this thread stay away from it.
you have no clue who gives you reds and greens, don't presume. plenty of people quietly read and can spot out the rubbish. and no one can give two reds in a row, so i'm another person. Glad to see acceptance finally that PhDs are being disadvantaged
****************************
1. Rolling_Flood, with this temper I am sure you are going to piss off your lawyer with whom you would be working (if at all you do..) on getting portability removed.
2. �if you don't like this thread stay away from it. Lots of people disagree, that does not mean that only people who agree with you can post here. Also, how will I know if I am going to like the thread or not without visiting it?.
NKR Dude,
I give you a green.
Some guys dont have the guts to come out openly in the forum to accuse us because they know that they will be banned by moderators. They just give us red dots and call us all sorts of names like moron and ....... in private.
Everybody has the right to disapprove a post but they have no right to use bad language.
Hope these guys understand this is a forum for good cause and they are misusing it.
Thanks
hairstyles pictures of trey songz 2011.
gccovet
11-07 10:37 AM
How can we get this issue more visible to IV members? Just 64 letter is not enough. We are a community of 30K strong!!!
Folks,
Please start ending letters, ask/encourage your peers to send them as well.
Looks like most of IV members are being ignorant of these issue, this will be a big issue if not acted fast. We need to get it corrected before it becomes a major one. Look at DOL's unemployment figures 6.5% unemployment was announced!!!! Worst since 1994.
Please act on these.
Thanks for your support.
GCCovet
Folks,
Please start ending letters, ask/encourage your peers to send them as well.
Looks like most of IV members are being ignorant of these issue, this will be a big issue if not acted fast. We need to get it corrected before it becomes a major one. Look at DOL's unemployment figures 6.5% unemployment was announced!!!! Worst since 1994.
Please act on these.
Thanks for your support.
GCCovet
snathan
08-20 12:06 PM
Dear IV friends,
One news, call to india free for 24.99 from vonage plan starts today.
Thanks.
Nice one thanks....
One news, call to india free for 24.99 from vonage plan starts today.
Thanks.
Nice one thanks....
h1b_forever
06-10 01:48 PM
We as a community should oppose major violation done by these consulting firms.
The only reason these companies send people on L1 is to keep them as bonded labour giving them no chance to switch jobs. These companies can always apply for H1b for such folks, there are enough H1 visas available this year.
There is a reason there are two visa categories L1 and H1. They should not be used to circumvent immigration laws.
The only reason these companies send people on L1 is to keep them as bonded labour giving them no chance to switch jobs. These companies can always apply for H1b for such folks, there are enough H1 visas available this year.
There is a reason there are two visa categories L1 and H1. They should not be used to circumvent immigration laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment