mundada
07-02 03:23 PM
$1000 roughly
wallpaper lancome makeup set
svr_76
03-11 10:49 PM
Are you so powerful to make all these changes ? You don't have to do so many things for me. Just get me a GC. I won't ask for anything else from you.
Take it easy.
I think these baby steps on enforcing due-diligence will get us all there....
Take it easy.
I think these baby steps on enforcing due-diligence will get us all there....
nixstor
12-14 04:42 PM
Hey brother,
I am not trying to question your intent just trying to get some knowledge of facts. However your reasoning suggests that there are numbers available to overflow from EB2 World to EB2 India. What if there are just enough numbers to keep EB2 World rolling. I will be interesting in learning more about how these allocations work. Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.
If you are really interested in learning more how these allocations work, You might want to talk to 2 depts in Bureau of Consular Affairs.
1) OFFICE OF FIELD SUPPORT LIAISON (CA/VO/F)
2) OFFICE OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND LIAISON (CA/VO/I)
Their numbers as per foia
http://foia.state.gov/Phonebook/OrgDirectory/OrgDir.asp?ID=27
Try your luck and enlighten all of us. Tell them that the VB is more exciting than the BCS rankings.
I am not trying to question your intent just trying to get some knowledge of facts. However your reasoning suggests that there are numbers available to overflow from EB2 World to EB2 India. What if there are just enough numbers to keep EB2 World rolling. I will be interesting in learning more about how these allocations work. Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.
If you are really interested in learning more how these allocations work, You might want to talk to 2 depts in Bureau of Consular Affairs.
1) OFFICE OF FIELD SUPPORT LIAISON (CA/VO/F)
2) OFFICE OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND LIAISON (CA/VO/I)
Their numbers as per foia
http://foia.state.gov/Phonebook/OrgDirectory/OrgDir.asp?ID=27
Try your luck and enlighten all of us. Tell them that the VB is more exciting than the BCS rankings.
2011 Discount Lancome 5 PCS Makeup
ronhira
07-21 08:46 PM
hey asshole, stop posting these idiotic messages using different ids..... no one is scared of this shit.... if you really don't want people to call.... stop posting this bullshit..... otherwise people will call in.... and u can't do a jack shit about it..... if u r for real and u think anyone here is scared of this shit...... u r just old school which means u need basic lessons of what's going on in this world ..... probably that's y even slumdogs can take u'r job and u r unemployed.... just image, if according to u "slumdogs" like us can take u'r job.... what does that make you.... worst than a slumdog.... maybe poop of slumdog... do u have any shame..... stop spamming now.....
no one here cares for u'r stupid call of bunch of slumdog poops ..... u'r impotent and u'll continue to be impotent.... go to hell.... with luv from a slumdog
The host would ask u to introduce yourself and ur phone
number. Ur accent and name expose yourself. They record ur info and deport u if u r on h1b. Antis know a lot of h1b get layoff lately.
Be careful, it would be a prank call.
no one here cares for u'r stupid call of bunch of slumdog poops ..... u'r impotent and u'll continue to be impotent.... go to hell.... with luv from a slumdog
The host would ask u to introduce yourself and ur phone
number. Ur accent and name expose yourself. They record ur info and deport u if u r on h1b. Antis know a lot of h1b get layoff lately.
Be careful, it would be a prank call.
more...
chanduv23
06-19 10:12 PM
Here is another part of story.
My PD was current back in 2004, this attorney/employer ignored my calls/emails from Oct to Dec 15. They filed my 485 during christmas week end, they screwed up something and USCIS rejected my application (thats what they say). Thanks to retrogession from Jan 2005. All my documents were ready by Oct. I would have had my EAD since 2005.
De javu, again I am being mandated to file thru same attorney. I don't have problem paying more money for a good attorney and good service.
I don't know if I am in a trap or something.
I think u r in a trap here. I recently talked to a HR of a desi company and he clearly told me his boss does not want to file for 485 for all eligible applicants and is working on strategies to fool his employees into prolonging things till dates retrogress.
U can choose ur lawyer, u don't have to let employer know u applying for 485 at all. Do not link ur lawyer and employer for any reason. Keep them both away. U already have 140 approved and u have nothing to lose.
Don't fall into ur employer - lawyer trap
My PD was current back in 2004, this attorney/employer ignored my calls/emails from Oct to Dec 15. They filed my 485 during christmas week end, they screwed up something and USCIS rejected my application (thats what they say). Thanks to retrogession from Jan 2005. All my documents were ready by Oct. I would have had my EAD since 2005.
De javu, again I am being mandated to file thru same attorney. I don't have problem paying more money for a good attorney and good service.
I don't know if I am in a trap or something.
I think u r in a trap here. I recently talked to a HR of a desi company and he clearly told me his boss does not want to file for 485 for all eligible applicants and is working on strategies to fool his employees into prolonging things till dates retrogress.
U can choose ur lawyer, u don't have to let employer know u applying for 485 at all. Do not link ur lawyer and employer for any reason. Keep them both away. U already have 140 approved and u have nothing to lose.
Don't fall into ur employer - lawyer trap
ramudu
11-02 07:21 AM
amitjoey, Thanks. I have sent a request to my senator yesterday and also mailed them all the copies of the documents. Just hoping that will also help. I was told that my file is already assigned to an IO and you will soon hear from USCIS. "Soon" in USCIS dictionary seems to be 30 to 45 days and thats very scary s that means it will about 130 days. I am just hoping they will approve soon. After approving it seems they are taking additonal 30 days to print the card.
more...
Kitiara
02-05 05:10 AM
Wow, I've got three votes now... :)
Love the castle, and the background work for it.. Kinda looks like one of those Aztec Mayan thingers you see in the mountains or whatever Thank you very much... It's actually a castle from here in England, near Gloucester. Used to go up around there on holiday when I was a kid, and I had some old holiday snaps.
There's lots of ruined castles round here (there's one 15 minutes from where I live in fact, called Rochester Castle) so I wanted to draw one of those, do something a bit different.
But Soul and Eilsoe are in a whole new league with their pixel art. :)
Love the castle, and the background work for it.. Kinda looks like one of those Aztec Mayan thingers you see in the mountains or whatever Thank you very much... It's actually a castle from here in England, near Gloucester. Used to go up around there on holiday when I was a kid, and I had some old holiday snaps.
There's lots of ruined castles round here (there's one 15 minutes from where I live in fact, called Rochester Castle) so I wanted to draw one of those, do something a bit different.
But Soul and Eilsoe are in a whole new league with their pixel art. :)
2010 Lancome knocked it out of the
abhidos37
08-22 12:48 PM
best of luck to you too
more...
jsb
01-05 01:02 PM
...We are even more screwed because since our dates are current we can not even get 2 Yr EAD or 3 yr H1 extension but you have to renew both annually....
That is not true. In my case, when I sent my EAD renewal my PD was Current. They sent me a 2 yrs EAD instead of processing my GC. So weird.
That is not true. In my case, when I sent my EAD renewal my PD was Current. They sent me a 2 yrs EAD instead of processing my GC. So weird.
hair Lancôme#39;s Make-Up Artist,
gc_on_demand
06-12 09:33 AM
I am creating this new thread to post all hearing for today and one on June 23rd. Those who can see c-span please post commentry as it goes.
Lets see how it works out for US. BEST OF LUCK TO ALL.
Lets see how it works out for US. BEST OF LUCK TO ALL.
more...
factoryman
06-21 11:22 AM
for folks even if PD is not current, then it CF went away. Now not there for such folks.
CF only if PD is current.
Isn't concurrent filing still available?
CF only if PD is current.
Isn't concurrent filing still available?
hot LANCOME makeup brush
gsc999
05-22 03:51 PM
Lol, Agree with this. We need to include this amendment in the agenda :D
---
We have been model "future citizens" by paying all our taxes, abiding by civic laws and meticulously making sure that we never get out of our precarious H-1 B visa status. This is how we are rewarded. This isn't a "grand bargain" it is not even an "amnesty" as many anti-immigrants are labeling it, this is worse, it is a "travesty." Bravo US Senate, you just proved that playing by the rules is such an unAmerican trait. We learn that from your grand bargain. Better late than never. We know now what to do.
On a different note. We could request these senators to introduce an amendment that will create a new category of visa called "H-2-Z" visa for people who give up on getting a green card based on employment based system but may find it easier to refile under Z visa category by becoming illegals.
---
We have been model "future citizens" by paying all our taxes, abiding by civic laws and meticulously making sure that we never get out of our precarious H-1 B visa status. This is how we are rewarded. This isn't a "grand bargain" it is not even an "amnesty" as many anti-immigrants are labeling it, this is worse, it is a "travesty." Bravo US Senate, you just proved that playing by the rules is such an unAmerican trait. We learn that from your grand bargain. Better late than never. We know now what to do.
On a different note. We could request these senators to introduce an amendment that will create a new category of visa called "H-2-Z" visa for people who give up on getting a green card based on employment based system but may find it easier to refile under Z visa category by becoming illegals.
more...
house Aaron De Mey « Lancome Make-up
coloniel60
08-20 06:39 PM
I wish you all the best. This kind of cheating from the employer hurts the most. I wish some immigration lawywer or ILA steps up and advises what employees can do in these kind of situations. I know labor substitution is legal but in this case the employer gave false hopes to the employee that he will sponsor his GC and that should be illegal and could be used as an excuse to sue the employer.
Most of us hesitate to hire lawyer to go after these sc** bag employers because we are scared of the lawyers as well. We don't know how much it will cost us and we don't know what the outcome will be. That's why it will be helpful if some reputed lawyer or ILA comes out and tell us what our options are when these kind of things happen.
But then employers and these lawyers go hand in hand so I doubt if one goes against the other. I wish atleast USCIS gives us some guidelines.
I bet that if we can successfully sue one cheating employer then we will see hundreds of similar cases and the employers will be scared to even think about doing this again.
Most of us hesitate to hire lawyer to go after these sc** bag employers because we are scared of the lawyers as well. We don't know how much it will cost us and we don't know what the outcome will be. That's why it will be helpful if some reputed lawyer or ILA comes out and tell us what our options are when these kind of things happen.
But then employers and these lawyers go hand in hand so I doubt if one goes against the other. I wish atleast USCIS gives us some guidelines.
I bet that if we can successfully sue one cheating employer then we will see hundreds of similar cases and the employers will be scared to even think about doing this again.
tattoo lacome makeup. Lancôme#39;s newest mascara; Lancôme#39;s newest mascara
GCard_Dream
12-13 04:05 PM
That may be but do you actually think this practice is fair and should be legal. To me and hundreds of thousands of other folks who are patiently waiting in line, it is fraud because you are cutting in line. The sad part is we see that you are cutting in line but we can't do s**t about it just because it's legal.
Why do we all start complaining when illegals get preferential treatment than us? We all start saying that we came here legally, we pay taxes, we waited in line, we did everything by the book.. bla bla bla. Well .. they are also getting their gc legally so then why do we complain?
How is this fraud ? What he is doing is legal ;)
Why do we all start complaining when illegals get preferential treatment than us? We all start saying that we came here legally, we pay taxes, we waited in line, we did everything by the book.. bla bla bla. Well .. they are also getting their gc legally so then why do we complain?
How is this fraud ? What he is doing is legal ;)
more...
pictures HOLIDAY: Lancome Makeup Train
dazed
07-19 10:29 AM
No she cant becuase her visa appointment is on Aug 13.
If her visa app. is Aug 13 (I assume it is at a consulate in your home country), she will not get her passport with visa stamped for atleast a few days. This is from FAQ section of chennai consulate in India. So plan accordingly.
When will I get my passport after the interview?
If you qualify for a visa, the passport with the visa will be returned to you by courier in a few days.
Can I get my passport immediately after the interview?
It is the policy of the Consulate to send your visa to you using our courier service.
If her visa app. is Aug 13 (I assume it is at a consulate in your home country), she will not get her passport with visa stamped for atleast a few days. This is from FAQ section of chennai consulate in India. So plan accordingly.
When will I get my passport after the interview?
If you qualify for a visa, the passport with the visa will be returned to you by courier in a few days.
Can I get my passport immediately after the interview?
It is the policy of the Consulate to send your visa to you using our courier service.
dresses Lancome Other 30ml1oz Renergie
realizeit
02-11 10:34 AM
I personally think Mr. MPADAPA's assumption is wrong. Last year (2008), the spillover came from Family quota of 2008. Spillover from Family or Employment quota of a particular year cannot be given to the following year. So the fact that there is nothing left from the family quota of 2008 doesn't change any situation here.
So, this year the spillover that Employment category can get from Family quota will be the unused numbers of 2009 Family quota.
This is just my thought!
DOS recently released the visa usage statistics for FY 2008 (http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf). For once USCIS managed to use up all the visas allocated for the year. Kudos to USCIS :D But it comes with a price for EB folks. For the past few years, forward movement of PD during the last months of the FY has been propelled due to the spillover of unused FB visa's from prior year. Remember last year almost 23k FB visas got spilled over to the EB limit and caused significant forward movement of PD's for EB2 I/C. Unfortunately in 2008 USCIS used up all of the FB visa's, hence there will be no visa's to spillover:mad: I had consolidated the visa usages in the past few years, Here is a link to the document (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p_liYSUcqZRXA9OjuWUNRag&hl=en). The document has hyper link to the source for all the data.
If you are EB3 I/C and wondering why dates didn't move in 2008. Here is the answer,
EB3-C and EB3-I got 1,985 and 3,576 visa's respectively. With such kind of visa allocation there is no doubt about why the dates aren't moving.
If you are EB2 I/C and dreaming that somehow the new spillover would take care of things. You might be pleasantly surprised by the usage of EB1 and EB2-ROW in 2008. Last year many were dreaming that all of the 23K FB visa's would directly go to EB2-I/C but the data shows otherwise. EB2-C and EB-I got 6,967 and 14,819 visa's respectively for the entire 2008. If all the 23K visa's were used by EB2-I/C then their respective numbers would have been much higher.
Bottom line: Without significant change in the EB limit through recapture or increase in EB limit. The forward movement of PD will be a trickle atleast for the rest of the year. We can pray and do whatever before every bulletins, but the numbers cannot lie and hence the bulletins would be a disappointment (for many) until we grasp the reality.
Let us get our acts together and start working together towards some constructive actions like a bill or an amendment. Let us have a healthy debate on what needs to be done.
So, this year the spillover that Employment category can get from Family quota will be the unused numbers of 2009 Family quota.
This is just my thought!
DOS recently released the visa usage statistics for FY 2008 (http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf). For once USCIS managed to use up all the visas allocated for the year. Kudos to USCIS :D But it comes with a price for EB folks. For the past few years, forward movement of PD during the last months of the FY has been propelled due to the spillover of unused FB visa's from prior year. Remember last year almost 23k FB visas got spilled over to the EB limit and caused significant forward movement of PD's for EB2 I/C. Unfortunately in 2008 USCIS used up all of the FB visa's, hence there will be no visa's to spillover:mad: I had consolidated the visa usages in the past few years, Here is a link to the document (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p_liYSUcqZRXA9OjuWUNRag&hl=en). The document has hyper link to the source for all the data.
If you are EB3 I/C and wondering why dates didn't move in 2008. Here is the answer,
EB3-C and EB3-I got 1,985 and 3,576 visa's respectively. With such kind of visa allocation there is no doubt about why the dates aren't moving.
If you are EB2 I/C and dreaming that somehow the new spillover would take care of things. You might be pleasantly surprised by the usage of EB1 and EB2-ROW in 2008. Last year many were dreaming that all of the 23K FB visa's would directly go to EB2-I/C but the data shows otherwise. EB2-C and EB-I got 6,967 and 14,819 visa's respectively for the entire 2008. If all the 23K visa's were used by EB2-I/C then their respective numbers would have been much higher.
Bottom line: Without significant change in the EB limit through recapture or increase in EB limit. The forward movement of PD will be a trickle atleast for the rest of the year. We can pray and do whatever before every bulletins, but the numbers cannot lie and hence the bulletins would be a disappointment (for many) until we grasp the reality.
Let us get our acts together and start working together towards some constructive actions like a bill or an amendment. Let us have a healthy debate on what needs to be done.
more...
makeup cosmetics Lancome makeup
Marphad
06-17 10:04 AM
I support.
girlfriend Lancôme counter in Saks
Macaca
09-03 08:50 AM
In a key finding, government data document that a moratorium on legal immigrants entering the country could devastate the Social Security system by ballooning the size of the actuarial deficit by almost one-third -- 31 percent -- over a 50-year period. (page 1)
To compensate for the loss of revenue caused by a moratorium would require increasing Social Security taxes on Americans by $506 billion in present value over 50 years and $611 billion over 75 years. Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $1,860 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years.
A forty-one percent reduction in legal immigration, which Congress considered in 1996, would increase the actuarial deficit by 13 percent over 50 years and require $212 billion in tax increases (in present value) over 50 years (and $246 billion over 75 years) to make up for the lost revenue caused by the severe legal immigration reductions.
A thirty-three percent reduction in legal immigration would increase the actuarial deficit by 10 percent over 50 years and result in lost revenues of $163 billion in present value over 50 years and $207 billion over 75 years, which would need to be made up for through higher taxes or other means.
Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $720 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years, in the case of a 41% reduction in legal immigration, and $600 over the next 10 years for a 33% legal immigration reduction.
Increases in legal immigration would provide a significant boost to Social Security. The size of the actuarial deficit would be reduced over 50 years by 10 percent if legal immigration increased 33 percent (an additional 264,000 immigrants a year) and by 6 percent for a 20 percent rise in legal immigration annually (160,000 more immigrants a year.)
A 33 percent increase in legal immigration would increase revenues to Social Security by a present value of $169 billion over 50 years and $216 billion over 75 years. A 20 percent legal immigration increase would add $101 billion in present value to the trust fund over 50 years and $128 billion over a 75-year period.
A thirty-three percent increase in legal immigration would mean that an
American earning $60,000 in 2004 could have their Social Security taxes reduced by $600 over 10 years (or $360 in the case of a 160,000 legal immigration rise) and Social Security would maintain the actuarial balance that is currently projected over that period.
Halting legal immigration to the United States would reduce both the growth rate of the U.S. labor force and the rate of the country�s economic growth (the rate of growth of the nation�s Gross Domestic Product) by approximately one quarter of one percent (0.25%) per year, initially, a notable amount.
To compensate for the loss of revenue caused by a moratorium would require increasing Social Security taxes on Americans by $506 billion in present value over 50 years and $611 billion over 75 years. Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $1,860 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years.
A forty-one percent reduction in legal immigration, which Congress considered in 1996, would increase the actuarial deficit by 13 percent over 50 years and require $212 billion in tax increases (in present value) over 50 years (and $246 billion over 75 years) to make up for the lost revenue caused by the severe legal immigration reductions.
A thirty-three percent reduction in legal immigration would increase the actuarial deficit by 10 percent over 50 years and result in lost revenues of $163 billion in present value over 50 years and $207 billion over 75 years, which would need to be made up for through higher taxes or other means.
Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $720 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years, in the case of a 41% reduction in legal immigration, and $600 over the next 10 years for a 33% legal immigration reduction.
Increases in legal immigration would provide a significant boost to Social Security. The size of the actuarial deficit would be reduced over 50 years by 10 percent if legal immigration increased 33 percent (an additional 264,000 immigrants a year) and by 6 percent for a 20 percent rise in legal immigration annually (160,000 more immigrants a year.)
A 33 percent increase in legal immigration would increase revenues to Social Security by a present value of $169 billion over 50 years and $216 billion over 75 years. A 20 percent legal immigration increase would add $101 billion in present value to the trust fund over 50 years and $128 billion over a 75-year period.
A thirty-three percent increase in legal immigration would mean that an
American earning $60,000 in 2004 could have their Social Security taxes reduced by $600 over 10 years (or $360 in the case of a 160,000 legal immigration rise) and Social Security would maintain the actuarial balance that is currently projected over that period.
Halting legal immigration to the United States would reduce both the growth rate of the U.S. labor force and the rate of the country�s economic growth (the rate of growth of the nation�s Gross Domestic Product) by approximately one quarter of one percent (0.25%) per year, initially, a notable amount.
hairstyles campaign “Lancôme Make Up”
makemygc
08-21 10:55 AM
Who'z OP?
Original Poster (OP)... a lingua franca for forums..
Original Poster (OP)... a lingua franca for forums..
nepaliboy
11-10 11:30 AM
no fp notice yet i am july 2nd filler
tnite
08-09 10:51 PM
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
Miss. Murthy reports that LS was rejected for some folks.
How does one get to know if his Labor Substitution was rejected? If a Receipt Notice was received does that mean that it was accepted? And, can they reject it later?
you missed the word "wrongly" rejected.
Miss. Murthy reports that LS was rejected for some folks.
How does one get to know if his Labor Substitution was rejected? If a Receipt Notice was received does that mean that it was accepted? And, can they reject it later?
you missed the word "wrongly" rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment