cn0568
07-23 12:09 PM
Thanks for your replies.
Following are the clarifications.
1. Currently I have only the L1-A Visa stamped on my passport. Also I have the I-94 which is of L1-A Visa (I entered USA on L1-A Visa).
2. I have received the receipt issued by the USCIS for the H1B and it is valid from Oct-07.
Hope this helps.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.
Following are the clarifications.
1. Currently I have only the L1-A Visa stamped on my passport. Also I have the I-94 which is of L1-A Visa (I entered USA on L1-A Visa).
2. I have received the receipt issued by the USCIS for the H1B and it is valid from Oct-07.
Hope this helps.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.
wallpaper (funny mobile 3gp video clips
pappu
07-01 09:32 PM
At this time, IV is analyzing the impact of the speculation around the July visa bulletin closure, and is reaching out to attorneys, including AILA and planning next steps. tomorrow being a working day will also help us get more information and opportunity to reach appropriate levels of government . We will share more information with you as soon as there are developments. In the meanwhile, you should go about business as usual, and file your 485/140 applications as planned.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
IMPORTANT: At this time, you are encouraged to update your user profiles on IV with the most current information and the best way to reach you. If we have an urgent action item, we may also send newsletters to all members.
Libra
06-13 10:33 AM
Yaar JohnAmit.........they are making fun of those who are crying about cheap labor and immigration system....they created it for fun.
I have seen this same footage months ago and to it don't look real, its cooked. Some facts there are just un-digestible like the gora guy will take job of a waiter immediately after working as senior exec. cmon market is not that bad unless he don't know anything else and don't have ability to get other similar job, then he should be fired anyways. and then that carlos guy, his dress up don't seems convincing that other execs will give me good response after presentation. its all cooked... showing 600k+ numbers are all bogus.
I have seen this same footage months ago and to it don't look real, its cooked. Some facts there are just un-digestible like the gora guy will take job of a waiter immediately after working as senior exec. cmon market is not that bad unless he don't know anything else and don't have ability to get other similar job, then he should be fired anyways. and then that carlos guy, his dress up don't seems convincing that other execs will give me good response after presentation. its all cooked... showing 600k+ numbers are all bogus.
2011 Funny Video Clips.
vgayalu
10-07 02:41 PM
Mine and spouse I 485 are approved on 5th Oct 2010 after RFE and answering it.
But Kids one is not approved showing online status as initial review.
I called USCIS and came to know that I can not create second SR until I complete 30 days after answering first SR.
But I did not get answer for first SR. They are saying There is RFE on principal candidate application.
But that one is cleared and approved.
I escalated the issue to second level and then they are mentioning my kids one is also approved on last Monday. But still the online status is showing as initial review.
Is it or same kind of thing happened to any one else?
Please guide your experience.
But Kids one is not approved showing online status as initial review.
I called USCIS and came to know that I can not create second SR until I complete 30 days after answering first SR.
But I did not get answer for first SR. They are saying There is RFE on principal candidate application.
But that one is cleared and approved.
I escalated the issue to second level and then they are mentioning my kids one is also approved on last Monday. But still the online status is showing as initial review.
Is it or same kind of thing happened to any one else?
Please guide your experience.
more...
ramus
07-04 08:20 AM
Veerug,
I understand your concern. But $5000 was just number put by me as target.. I am sure we need more then that.. I feel if we put some target then people contribute and try to achieve it. But core member never said we just need $5000. So please don't stick with that number.. That number was just target that I thought we could meet. If you ask core members they going to say that we need more then that. As you know everything needs money.. Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody.. At least we can do is act on their action items.
Hope this makes little sense.
Thanks.
I have great respect for some of the core members i know. They have done lot of work to make this forum successful. But i always think that you can increase participation if you make things more clear and take comments in a positive way.
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
I understand your concern. But $5000 was just number put by me as target.. I am sure we need more then that.. I feel if we put some target then people contribute and try to achieve it. But core member never said we just need $5000. So please don't stick with that number.. That number was just target that I thought we could meet. If you ask core members they going to say that we need more then that. As you know everything needs money.. Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody.. At least we can do is act on their action items.
Hope this makes little sense.
Thanks.
I have great respect for some of the core members i know. They have done lot of work to make this forum successful. But i always think that you can increase participation if you make things more clear and take comments in a positive way.
I am sure many guest members or other frequent visitors to IV website get the impression that there is always a fund drive for something or the other on the IV Website homepage and there is always a target amount which never seems to be met.
I understand that there are expenses to maintain the website etc, but here we are talking about fund drive for lawsuit. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if you can not collect $5000 so will you wait to file a lawsuit until you collect $5000? May it will be too late then. What if you collect only say $4000? How do you decide these arbitrary numbers?
Are you planning for a separate litigation from that of AILF? How will you complement the effort by AILF with money?
Hey, who am I to ask these questions! These are some of the questions on behalf of hundreds of members who need to know more to actively participate to make it a success. There is no reason you should take it in a negative way.
Veeru
I will sleep less stupid tonight!!
svr_76
07-29 11:51 AM
Filing H1 and GC(Perm) are 2 different problems. H1 is temporarily hiring a skilled resource whereas GC is the intent to sponser for permanent immigration. And hence PERM processing is more involved.
Big corporation, which have to maintain accurate HR job descriptions/codes etc find that during PERM advertisement, they do find qualified applicants. At that point they cannot continue the process. This "recruitment" process is the most costly of the entire GC process and if they "find/receive" applications from qualified citizens/GC holders/Or ppl who dont need sponsership (read EAD) then they have to stop that process....
So saying that we will do GC is fine..but the current ground realities are different. You can get GC done from Desi consultant bcos the skirt the whole issue and "make" up the job requirement they want..well (read hell) they will even run fake pay stubs for u...so they can do wonders.
Big corporation, which have to maintain accurate HR job descriptions/codes etc find that during PERM advertisement, they do find qualified applicants. At that point they cannot continue the process. This "recruitment" process is the most costly of the entire GC process and if they "find/receive" applications from qualified citizens/GC holders/Or ppl who dont need sponsership (read EAD) then they have to stop that process....
So saying that we will do GC is fine..but the current ground realities are different. You can get GC done from Desi consultant bcos the skirt the whole issue and "make" up the job requirement they want..well (read hell) they will even run fake pay stubs for u...so they can do wonders.
more...
.jpg "funny video clips | funny")
vghc
07-03 11:23 AM
The point is to not 'distribute pain', it is to reduce the pain of a group.
Again, even though the benefits may go to one 'group', let me tell you that it is not a formal group and just as all ROW applicants are not one group, non-ROW applicants too are individuals and IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ONE INDIVIDUAL HOW MUCH OTHERS GOT BENEFITED.
So your point of saying that one group is benefited is irrelevant, because GCs aren't given to groups and only to individual applicants.
Your other point is absolutely right! Family should not be counted, and I'm in 100% agreement with that!
I am sure if the EB GC's goes to the principle applicant we all won't be in this bad of a shape. Its because of the addition of wife or kids, the number pool dries up faster. So if one wants to petition of elimination of country quote under the notion that EB community is needed because of our skills, take out the family members, then it makes sense, if not, don't. My 2 cents.
Again, even though the benefits may go to one 'group', let me tell you that it is not a formal group and just as all ROW applicants are not one group, non-ROW applicants too are individuals and IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ONE INDIVIDUAL HOW MUCH OTHERS GOT BENEFITED.
So your point of saying that one group is benefited is irrelevant, because GCs aren't given to groups and only to individual applicants.
Your other point is absolutely right! Family should not be counted, and I'm in 100% agreement with that!
I am sure if the EB GC's goes to the principle applicant we all won't be in this bad of a shape. Its because of the addition of wife or kids, the number pool dries up faster. So if one wants to petition of elimination of country quote under the notion that EB community is needed because of our skills, take out the family members, then it makes sense, if not, don't. My 2 cents.
2010 funny video clips
belmontboy
05-23 02:28 PM
By computer operator i mean people who try to speak english but sound as if they are speaking telugu.
what the f**k ?
Who taught you this definition idiot?
what the f**k ?
Who taught you this definition idiot?
more...
pbojja
12-11 10:17 AM
Stop the non-sense . As if USCIS-DOL knows exactly how many portings are going on ..do you think all the movement of this dates make sense ? just check last year movements .. they have no theory no logic or no numbers they just move with no logic ... At the end of year they move to 2006 or 2007and back to 2003 next year ..
I m EB2 2006 and I have no problems with portings ..go for it EB3 folks ..I know it will be a year or more process but worth it , I think EB3 early 2000 folks deserve GC than a 2006-2007 EB2 folks(Dont think you are genious just because you are EB2 ..we know we all do same jobs).
I m ready for reds and dont care a bit .
Some one left a nasty message for this post with a red. I m not even worried about red but your comment made me sick and here is the message for you .
Looks like you are grown up wrong ? either you lived in a environment like the one in your message or completely out of your mind after you grow up .
I m surprsied you are educated and made it to US and waiting for GC ..wow what a sick idiot ..
I m EB2 2006 and I have no problems with portings ..go for it EB3 folks ..I know it will be a year or more process but worth it , I think EB3 early 2000 folks deserve GC than a 2006-2007 EB2 folks(Dont think you are genious just because you are EB2 ..we know we all do same jobs).
I m ready for reds and dont care a bit .
Some one left a nasty message for this post with a red. I m not even worried about red but your comment made me sick and here is the message for you .
Looks like you are grown up wrong ? either you lived in a environment like the one in your message or completely out of your mind after you grow up .
I m surprsied you are educated and made it to US and waiting for GC ..wow what a sick idiot ..
hair The Landlord, funny or die
seahawks
06-10 05:49 PM
sent, also forwarded to friends.
more...
saro28
07-12 06:48 PM
Same boat as you! Legally in this country for more than 11 years! Hope they approve on time. Debating whether to extend the EAD or wait for the card
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
understandably so.. but I am now current after a looooong time. EB3 Dec 2001 PD. I can finally file the AOS for my wife who has been on H4 for the last 2 yrs... excellent!
hot FUNNY VIDEO CLIPS
days_go_by
11-07 07:55 PM
Hello NJ members,
Please introduce yourself here.
I am a volunteer for IV, I live in Newport, Jersey City.
I have a May 2001 PD stuck at BEC and a 2004 PD labo approved but can't file 485.
Regards,
dgb.
Please introduce yourself here.
I am a volunteer for IV, I live in Newport, Jersey City.
I have a May 2001 PD stuck at BEC and a 2004 PD labo approved but can't file 485.
Regards,
dgb.
more...
house Funny Video Clips For
485InDreams
09-26 09:47 AM
Guys,
Choke the CNN editorial site with the mail stating tht its for Green card...Green card.
Also, send the link to other editorial site like NYTimes, Washingtonpost, Businessweek to them...so that they will learn wht to right correctly....
For the people who Attended /(didn't attend) the rally...Please do this...
Choke the CNN editorial site with the mail stating tht its for Green card...Green card.
Also, send the link to other editorial site like NYTimes, Washingtonpost, Businessweek to them...so that they will learn wht to right correctly....
For the people who Attended /(didn't attend) the rally...Please do this...
tattoo FUNNY VIDEO CLIPS OF CHEAP
pv2715
07-13 09:13 AM
March 1 is NOT included.......See attachment Page 1 paragraph 5....
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number.
Hopefully next round of spillover buddy....hang in there...:-)
Thanks...Excerpt from the same document
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number.
Hopefully next round of spillover buddy....hang in there...:-)
Thanks...Excerpt from the same document
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the fourteenth under the 8th, etc.)
more...
pictures funny video clips | funny
kunkie
07-23 08:24 AM
Hi,
You can surely do so, and that too at your own convenience, that is until you get the project with your second employer you need not bother with leaving the first job. H1 Visa does not come in effect until you move to other employer's payroll.
What I write.. I know for a fact, you may still want to check for any latest changes with attorney or some one in legal world.
Regards,
kunkie
You can surely do so, and that too at your own convenience, that is until you get the project with your second employer you need not bother with leaving the first job. H1 Visa does not come in effect until you move to other employer's payroll.
What I write.. I know for a fact, you may still want to check for any latest changes with attorney or some one in legal world.
Regards,
kunkie
dresses The extracted clips will be
gc28262
06-10 04:05 PM
Done !
more...
makeup cartoons,Funny video clips
sammas
07-12 03:57 PM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF �OTHERWISE UNUSED� NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
For example, let us assume that 11,600 Employment Second preference numbers are available in a calendar quarter. There is heavy Employment Second preference demand by China-mainland born and India applicants; however, each country is oversubscribed and would ordinarily be limited to about 800 of the available numbers due to the prorating provisions of INA Section 202(e). Applicants from other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit have reported a total demand of 6,500 numbers. After taking the worldwide demand into account, it is determined that as a result of the China-mainland born and India per-country limits only 8,100 of the total available Employment Second preference numbers would be used in that quarter. In this instance, the otherwise unused 3,500 numbers could then be made available to China-mainland born and India regardless of their per-country limits. Should that occur, the same cut-off date would be applied to each country, since numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability. In this instance, greater number use by one country would indicate a higher rate of demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.
girlfriend Receive fun video clips
gcbeku
08-10 03:35 PM
I think this is a brilliant idea and might even fly esp because it still preserves USCIS/DOS EB caste system while providin some relief to the EB3s.
While porting is still an option, it is in EB3 filers' interest to push forward on this idea.
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
While porting is still an option, it is in EB3 filers' interest to push forward on this idea.
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
hairstyles Funny Video – Instant Expert
chanduv23
12-26 04:02 PM
Dubai - no issues without valid stamp
Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg - I heard no issues now, if u have valid i 797 - waiting forr some comments
Amsterdam/Schiphol - No issue without valid stamp
London - ?????
Seoul - ?????
Singapore - ??????
Bangkok - ?????
Kuwait - ?????
Zurich -- ????
Geneva -- ???
Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg - I heard no issues now, if u have valid i 797 - waiting forr some comments
Amsterdam/Schiphol - No issue without valid stamp
London - ?????
Seoul - ?????
Singapore - ??????
Bangkok - ?????
Kuwait - ?????
Zurich -- ????
Geneva -- ???
paskal
12-28 12:18 PM
i have never had that problem
may have been because you booked those flights separately, if they are on the same itinerary and both were booked through Thai, United should not do that, guess they don't care because you are not continuing on United. btw how could they demand money for the international part of the flight- they are not Thai and their rules don't apply...i also think the person you dealt with was ignorant...
the problem i have seen- you fly into the US and have a connecting flight onwards- if you take it withing 24 hrs ie same day- bags just continue- if not you are stuck with domestic rules. now it no longer matters on american carriers at least, intl allowance has also been decreased to 50 lbs.
may have been because you booked those flights separately, if they are on the same itinerary and both were booked through Thai, United should not do that, guess they don't care because you are not continuing on United. btw how could they demand money for the international part of the flight- they are not Thai and their rules don't apply...i also think the person you dealt with was ignorant...
the problem i have seen- you fly into the US and have a connecting flight onwards- if you take it withing 24 hrs ie same day- bags just continue- if not you are stuck with domestic rules. now it no longer matters on american carriers at least, intl allowance has also been decreased to 50 lbs.
letstalklc
06-11 12:21 PM
Thanks IV, great tool to send out emails.