milind70
07-10 08:18 PM
My situation goes something like this.
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
There are two things
1. when you got your 7th year extension 797 with I 94 , you were supposed to submit that I 94 ( on 797) along with the i 94 in your passport.
This is important most people dont do it .
2. when u aplied for 8th year extension u submitted the 797 of the 7th year along with the i 94 attached to it( which you were suppose to submit when you left the country for 7th year stamping) hence the I 94 number did not change. Your I 94 are out of synch.
I would suggest to talk to an immigration attorney and i mean a real good one .
Otherwise you could talk to an immgration officer and expalin your case.
Or you could now go out get stamped and get a new I 94 9make sure this time you submit both the I 94s when you leave)
I had a very peculiar situation where i had to travel outside the country when my H1 extension was pending and it got approved when i was out of the country and when i got a new i 94 when i came back with a new number than the one with i 94 on 797 ( which was of a later date)
I spoke to immigrtaion officer and he heard me my circumstances and said i was in status and my i 94 were in order.
Last year i went to my home country and got stamped and got a new i 94 but i submiited the two i 94s when i left the country.
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
There are two things
1. when you got your 7th year extension 797 with I 94 , you were supposed to submit that I 94 ( on 797) along with the i 94 in your passport.
This is important most people dont do it .
2. when u aplied for 8th year extension u submitted the 797 of the 7th year along with the i 94 attached to it( which you were suppose to submit when you left the country for 7th year stamping) hence the I 94 number did not change. Your I 94 are out of synch.
I would suggest to talk to an immigration attorney and i mean a real good one .
Otherwise you could talk to an immgration officer and expalin your case.
Or you could now go out get stamped and get a new I 94 9make sure this time you submit both the I 94s when you leave)
I had a very peculiar situation where i had to travel outside the country when my H1 extension was pending and it got approved when i was out of the country and when i got a new i 94 when i came back with a new number than the one with i 94 on 797 ( which was of a later date)
I spoke to immigrtaion officer and he heard me my circumstances and said i was in status and my i 94 were in order.
Last year i went to my home country and got stamped and got a new i 94 but i submiited the two i 94s when i left the country.
wallpaper of a cartoon goldfish
GCOP
07-14 10:30 AM
I already mailed the Letter to Visa Section, DOS with a request to allocate some Visa Number to EB-3(India) to help to reduce the wait time. Did not mention about EB-2 or any other thing. Just a Request for EB-3 (India).
qasleuth
03-25 04:05 PM
Go back and read each and every line of what UN posted and you would understand.
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), .
I do not understand either...OP says he/she does not want to spend a grand (not sure if it costs that much) in attorney fees while he is willing to spend time/money trying to immigrate to Alberta. Taking a fatalistic approach and hoping for the best seems to be the idea. Again good luck to OP.
It is always good to utilize services of a good Attorney for complex situations. But anyways good luck.
Should something bad happen (Which I dont understand why it would), .
I do not understand either...OP says he/she does not want to spend a grand (not sure if it costs that much) in attorney fees while he is willing to spend time/money trying to immigrate to Alberta. Taking a fatalistic approach and hoping for the best seems to be the idea. Again good luck to OP.
It is always good to utilize services of a good Attorney for complex situations. But anyways good luck.
2011 evil goldfish cartoon.
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
more...
Legal
08-11 11:07 AM
I agree with yabadaba. We should also send feedback to CNN about the lies Lou Dobbs is perpetuating on national TV.
You can try...I am afraid CNN is not going to listen to you.
They know these things well. Lou Dobb's anti-immigrant frenzy/ fanaticism hasboosted the viewership..that's all matters to CNN.
You can try...I am afraid CNN is not going to listen to you.
They know these things well. Lou Dobb's anti-immigrant frenzy/ fanaticism hasboosted the viewership..that's all matters to CNN.
jonty_11
04-09 10:59 AM
What is IV's position on this bill?
more...
gcgreen
08-06 12:59 PM
Same as you, I saw your post and couldn't help responding :-)
For what its worth, I too have a PhD, and one would generally agree my academic credentials are impeccable, etc. etc. (Honest, I am not tooting my own horn)
But I think Rolling Flood is wrong. Way off base. The reason is simple. Work experience COUNTS. You are a fresh Ph.D. graduate, but believe me even you will feel the difference 5 years down the line (3 years in your case :-). If a person gains experience, the USCIS believes that allows a person to be eligible for a job that falls under EB2 classification.
Now as a very separate and distinct matter, the law says if a person already has a prior approved I140, then that priority date rules. That is the law.
Now the logical conclusion of the two separate concepts above is that if a person is the beneficiary for an EB2 job, which by dint of experience, he/she simply is per USCIS and most companies (which is why people get promoted to senior/management positions :-), then that person is allowed by law to port their priority date.
What RollingFlood and the other so-called (RollingFlood: I am not calling you one, but others have called you something similar ;-) smarter-than-thous are making a mistake on is to conflate two separate issues and making a ego-oriented mess in the process. Make no mistake, RollingFlood is very clear in delineating the skill of a person from the job requirements, which many of the EB3 IVians appear to have missed. But nonetheless, his logic is a bit mixed up on the law. It is incontrovertible (assuming that we have correct citations) that the language of the law is saying that an earlier priority date rules. The only issue is whether 5 years or more of experience required for a job makes that job worthy of an EB2 classification. RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.
I agree with "singhsa".
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
Having said that, I completely understand what "rolling flood" is trying to say. And I also agree to what his point of view is. When a person who initially agreed to apply with EB3, changes his mind/company/ or whatever and wants to apply in EB2, he should theoretically start over. Why is it reasonable that he/she cuts in line ahead of a person who was already there. There is a reason why these categories are formed.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US.
EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
For what its worth, I too have a PhD, and one would generally agree my academic credentials are impeccable, etc. etc. (Honest, I am not tooting my own horn)
But I think Rolling Flood is wrong. Way off base. The reason is simple. Work experience COUNTS. You are a fresh Ph.D. graduate, but believe me even you will feel the difference 5 years down the line (3 years in your case :-). If a person gains experience, the USCIS believes that allows a person to be eligible for a job that falls under EB2 classification.
Now as a very separate and distinct matter, the law says if a person already has a prior approved I140, then that priority date rules. That is the law.
Now the logical conclusion of the two separate concepts above is that if a person is the beneficiary for an EB2 job, which by dint of experience, he/she simply is per USCIS and most companies (which is why people get promoted to senior/management positions :-), then that person is allowed by law to port their priority date.
What RollingFlood and the other so-called (RollingFlood: I am not calling you one, but others have called you something similar ;-) smarter-than-thous are making a mistake on is to conflate two separate issues and making a ego-oriented mess in the process. Make no mistake, RollingFlood is very clear in delineating the skill of a person from the job requirements, which many of the EB3 IVians appear to have missed. But nonetheless, his logic is a bit mixed up on the law. It is incontrovertible (assuming that we have correct citations) that the language of the law is saying that an earlier priority date rules. The only issue is whether 5 years or more of experience required for a job makes that job worthy of an EB2 classification. RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.
I agree with "singhsa".
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
Having said that, I completely understand what "rolling flood" is trying to say. And I also agree to what his point of view is. When a person who initially agreed to apply with EB3, changes his mind/company/ or whatever and wants to apply in EB2, he should theoretically start over. Why is it reasonable that he/she cuts in line ahead of a person who was already there. There is a reason why these categories are formed.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US.
EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
2010 18 cute cartoon icon rounded
jonty_11
07-09 01:49 PM
Just follow the law. There are lots of protections in it for us.
Related question - if your I94 is expiring say 8/11/2007 and ur H1 is still valid until 11/11/2009; do you have to renew the I94..while in the US (given that you are not travelling outside US)
The H1B does have a I94 at the bottom corner with 11/11/2009 as Exp Date.
Related question - if your I94 is expiring say 8/11/2007 and ur H1 is still valid until 11/11/2009; do you have to renew the I94..while in the US (given that you are not travelling outside US)
The H1B does have a I94 at the bottom corner with 11/11/2009 as Exp Date.
more...
sledge_hammer
03-24 02:17 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
sledge_hammer,
Why don't you define what a "permanent" job is ?
You think FT job is a permanent job and consulting is a temporary job ? I don't think so.
There are consultants working for years in a consulting firm. ( Don't bring H1B into the picture) . There are many FT employees being laid off from companies before contractors are let go. Contractors are temporary from a client's perspective not from the sponsoring employer's perspective.
Try to define a permanent vs temporary job in US without bringing H1B into the picture.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
sledge_hammer,
Why don't you define what a "permanent" job is ?
You think FT job is a permanent job and consulting is a temporary job ? I don't think so.
There are consultants working for years in a consulting firm. ( Don't bring H1B into the picture) . There are many FT employees being laid off from companies before contractors are let go. Contractors are temporary from a client's perspective not from the sponsoring employer's perspective.
Try to define a permanent vs temporary job in US without bringing H1B into the picture.
hair cute middot; Cartoon Goldfish
micofrost
01-11 02:13 AM
Muslim World and Non-Muslim World.
Allothers saying abt secularism is just BS. I seriously doubt if the secular credentials will ever come from the heart.
All the muslims are now united. And the ignorant ones are brain washed to become Jihadis.
Problem is going to be more acute in the next 15-20 yrs. All these so called idiots( Jihadis, my balls), getting killed are leaving behind tonnes of kids. They will become even more fanatic and will go on rampage once they reach their teen age or youth state. How do we stop this cancerous issue is a trillion dollar question. The extent of hatred among these misguided youths have reached such a state, like a mad dog. Only treatment is to wipre them out.
Unfortunately like cancer, there is no cure to this problem either.
Countries like Israel, will kill a few muslims, all these false secular credential holding country will raise a hue and cry, and the war will stop. Will they succeed in even stopping the further malignant growth of this evil culture ?
I honestly think not possible. These homo mullahs, are hiding in the schools thinking its safe to attack the enemy from a UN school compund. And our IV friend, ID" RefugeeNew" is saying Isrel killed innocent kids.
Wht the f*** these Hamas guys dont openly fight with Israel. A terrorist organisation, by intimidating the people, was able to form a govt. NEither the govt nor the people who elected them as ovt, has no place in this free loving society or world.
I would like to ask Mr "RefugeeNew", about any comments on talibanisation of Afganistan. Can he explain abt the "Sharia Law".
You want to hear my views. Or even the world's opinion on this. "You idiot b****rd".
Allothers saying abt secularism is just BS. I seriously doubt if the secular credentials will ever come from the heart.
All the muslims are now united. And the ignorant ones are brain washed to become Jihadis.
Problem is going to be more acute in the next 15-20 yrs. All these so called idiots( Jihadis, my balls), getting killed are leaving behind tonnes of kids. They will become even more fanatic and will go on rampage once they reach their teen age or youth state. How do we stop this cancerous issue is a trillion dollar question. The extent of hatred among these misguided youths have reached such a state, like a mad dog. Only treatment is to wipre them out.
Unfortunately like cancer, there is no cure to this problem either.
Countries like Israel, will kill a few muslims, all these false secular credential holding country will raise a hue and cry, and the war will stop. Will they succeed in even stopping the further malignant growth of this evil culture ?
I honestly think not possible. These homo mullahs, are hiding in the schools thinking its safe to attack the enemy from a UN school compund. And our IV friend, ID" RefugeeNew" is saying Isrel killed innocent kids.
Wht the f*** these Hamas guys dont openly fight with Israel. A terrorist organisation, by intimidating the people, was able to form a govt. NEither the govt nor the people who elected them as ovt, has no place in this free loving society or world.
I would like to ask Mr "RefugeeNew", about any comments on talibanisation of Afganistan. Can he explain abt the "Sharia Law".
You want to hear my views. Or even the world's opinion on this. "You idiot b****rd".
more...
snathan
01-10 04:42 PM
With Israel on the offensive and so many jihadis getting whacked - don't you think that there'll be a serious shortage of virgins in jihadi heaven :D
they dont need virgins man....:p
they dont need virgins man....:p
hot Cartoon Goldfish middot; Cute animal
jonty_11
05-29 08:27 PM
Lobbying is like bribery - but legalized here in US....the smart people here didnt want to get caught....so legislators can make lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and ilk - scapegoats.....
more...
house Stock Photo: Gold fish cartoon
GCOP
07-13 10:11 AM
We are going to write the letter to DOS. All of us in EB3, request IV to step up the efforts to solve EB3 visa problem. EB2 has already advanced to 2006. We are happy for them. EB3 is still in 2001 . Nothing can be more serious than this. IV's concentrated efforts (Meeting with DOS or other authorities) in this situation will be highly admired, at this time when it's needed the most. Thanks in Advance.
tattoo Cute Cartoon Little Girl
sledge_hammer
06-26 04:55 PM
FYI - Historical Census of Housing Tables - Home Values (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html)
If you work based on the historic values of price and rent appreciation - it should not make any difference.
How? Just like the "fundamental" of any stocks price is how much money that company makes - the fundamental of a home price is the rent it can fetch in the market. So the home price and the rent will always increase at approximately the same rate.
With that assumption, you will benefit from a "fixed mortgage payment" only if your home price/rent increases > inflation. Based on historic numbers - I doubt we can assume this to be the case.
The period "right now" - is an aberration. I would caution everybody against using our intuitions honed in the debt fueled binge between 1980 to now. Cold hard numbers based on some quantifiable assumptions are better bets.
>> People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
Until inflation eats away at their "wealth" in the form of a house. :-). Markets are far more powerful and has a lot more tools at its disposal than people in denial.
If you work based on the historic values of price and rent appreciation - it should not make any difference.
How? Just like the "fundamental" of any stocks price is how much money that company makes - the fundamental of a home price is the rent it can fetch in the market. So the home price and the rent will always increase at approximately the same rate.
With that assumption, you will benefit from a "fixed mortgage payment" only if your home price/rent increases > inflation. Based on historic numbers - I doubt we can assume this to be the case.
The period "right now" - is an aberration. I would caution everybody against using our intuitions honed in the debt fueled binge between 1980 to now. Cold hard numbers based on some quantifiable assumptions are better bets.
>> People are not going to sell. They will just say put rather than take a 40% loss.
Until inflation eats away at their "wealth" in the form of a house. :-). Markets are far more powerful and has a lot more tools at its disposal than people in denial.
more...
pictures Cute Cartoon Centaur
pointlesswait
08-06 10:37 AM
too bad this discussion is still on!
its all about which side of the fence you are on!
i dont think anyone is cutting the line...there were already there..well before you ..they just rejoined with the right set of documents..
if you are willing to stick around for 10 years in the same job.. doing the same thing...hoping for ur GC to come thru...so that u can switch..then good luck to you..
i am sure WHEN USCIS formulated the law..they would have had this discussion...of how to accomodate "high skilled" workers..who climb the ladder ..and who aquire better qualification...and who have the b***s to change jobs and not be slaves to GC process.. this law is them..
Go ahead and file the case rolling stone...i will be the first to oppose it...c u in the battelground..;-)
in this context...i am a Pandu..u are a gandu..(pun intended)
I agree with "singhsa".
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
Having said that, I completely understand what "rolling flood" is trying to say. And I also agree to what his point of view is. When a person who initially agreed to apply with EB3, changes his mind/company/ or whatever and wants to apply in EB2, he should theoretically start over. Why is it reasonable that he/she cuts in line ahead of a person who was already there. There is a reason why these categories are formed.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US.
EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
its all about which side of the fence you are on!
i dont think anyone is cutting the line...there were already there..well before you ..they just rejoined with the right set of documents..
if you are willing to stick around for 10 years in the same job.. doing the same thing...hoping for ur GC to come thru...so that u can switch..then good luck to you..
i am sure WHEN USCIS formulated the law..they would have had this discussion...of how to accomodate "high skilled" workers..who climb the ladder ..and who aquire better qualification...and who have the b***s to change jobs and not be slaves to GC process.. this law is them..
Go ahead and file the case rolling stone...i will be the first to oppose it...c u in the battelground..;-)
in this context...i am a Pandu..u are a gandu..(pun intended)
I agree with "singhsa".
I was reading through this thread and couldn't help replying.
Before i voice my opinion, i would like to mention that I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering (2002-2006 from a very reputed univ. in the US). My husband's employer (non-IT) had applied for his GC in EB3 - in 2005 which makes sense since the job required a B.S (Even though he was MS and was working for this company since 2002). We have our 485s filed and are using our APs/EADs. Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005. The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
Having said that, I completely understand what "rolling flood" is trying to say. And I also agree to what his point of view is. When a person who initially agreed to apply with EB3, changes his mind/company/ or whatever and wants to apply in EB2, he should theoretically start over. Why is it reasonable that he/she cuts in line ahead of a person who was already there. There is a reason why these categories are formed.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US.
EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
dresses dead goldfish cartoon. funny
qualified_trash
05-17 01:51 PM
Qualified_trash,
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
Sounds good to me. I have also made my information available to the core group to be a volunteer. I believe it is more important to do some work rather than just give money. I understand that the work that IV is doing is going to benefit all of us tremendously.
As Sir Winston C once said -- "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Our fight may pale into comparison when you consider that he was discussing WWII. But the spirit needs to be the same from our side if we want to achieve the goal.
Nice blog entry by someone asking Mr Dobbs to put his money where his mouth is:
http://www.visalaw.com/05mar2/10mar205.html
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
Sounds good to me. I have also made my information available to the core group to be a volunteer. I believe it is more important to do some work rather than just give money. I understand that the work that IV is doing is going to benefit all of us tremendously.
As Sir Winston C once said -- "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Our fight may pale into comparison when you consider that he was discussing WWII. But the spirit needs to be the same from our side if we want to achieve the goal.
Nice blog entry by someone asking Mr Dobbs to put his money where his mouth is:
http://www.visalaw.com/05mar2/10mar205.html
more...
makeup Goldfish Cartoon Art middot; Cute
hpandey
09-26 09:59 AM
All this is going to happen in the very first year itself. Obama has already said CIR would be his priority for his first year. Dick Durbin and Obama will "reform" the EB system exactly the way you described below. In 2008 we have seen some eb friendly bills introduced by lofgren like visa recapture and exemption for STEM. Once Obama becomes president(which is almost a certainty) he will outsource the EB issues to Dick Durbin and he will make sure none of the EB friendly issues like visa recapture and exemption for STEM will happen. In addition obama and durbin will make our lives miserable with draconian restrictions on EB. We are alreday seeing USCIS denying AC21 485 (there is a seperate thread on this). If situation is like this now just imagine how horrible it would be with Obama and durbin.
Last time the CIR bill died because a lot of people are against granting amnesty to illegal immigrants ( both Republicans and democrats ) . The president alone ( read Obama ) cannot decide that he wants to pass this bill because remember last year Bush was strongly in favour of the CIR bill and even had a conference with Senate leaders to push it through but it failed . The politicians know that the American people don't like the bill but they have to show that they are concerned with solving the illegal immigrant issue. This CIR bill is only a political gimmick. It came into picture because of the upcoming elections and next year I am pretty sure with no more elections the interest would not be that much to get it passed ( although I am sure there will be a lot of people interested in getting it to the House and the Senate ).
As someone said before if they try to bring some anti - highly skilled workers bill then the big companies are sure to cry out loud ( Microsoft , Cisco , Oracle etc etc ) and the politicians don't listen to us but they will surely listen to them. They have got the clout to get themselves heard.
Last time the CIR bill died because a lot of people are against granting amnesty to illegal immigrants ( both Republicans and democrats ) . The president alone ( read Obama ) cannot decide that he wants to pass this bill because remember last year Bush was strongly in favour of the CIR bill and even had a conference with Senate leaders to push it through but it failed . The politicians know that the American people don't like the bill but they have to show that they are concerned with solving the illegal immigrant issue. This CIR bill is only a political gimmick. It came into picture because of the upcoming elections and next year I am pretty sure with no more elections the interest would not be that much to get it passed ( although I am sure there will be a lot of people interested in getting it to the House and the Senate ).
As someone said before if they try to bring some anti - highly skilled workers bill then the big companies are sure to cry out loud ( Microsoft , Cisco , Oracle etc etc ) and the politicians don't listen to us but they will surely listen to them. They have got the clout to get themselves heard.
girlfriend Super-cute cartoon bunny
bfadlia
01-07 12:55 PM
Guys,
I urge everyone to stop replying to this thread. I see a pattern going on, you discuss anything and discussion is diverted to muslim militancy.
Please stop these type of discussions. It will only divide us.
I agree, the conflict discussed here is a political conflict. It could have been resolved much easier if all sides stopped looking at it with the religious-end-of-times lens (jews: nile-to-euphrates empire belonged to us 3000 years ago, christians: jews from all over the world must be transfered back there for the messiah to return.. and muslims: end of times won't come until jews fight the muslims and we beat them)
I urge everyone to stop replying to this thread. I see a pattern going on, you discuss anything and discussion is diverted to muslim militancy.
Please stop these type of discussions. It will only divide us.
I agree, the conflict discussed here is a political conflict. It could have been resolved much easier if all sides stopped looking at it with the religious-end-of-times lens (jews: nile-to-euphrates empire belonged to us 3000 years ago, christians: jews from all over the world must be transfered back there for the messiah to return.. and muslims: end of times won't come until jews fight the muslims and we beat them)
hairstyles goldfish cartoon pictures.
chanduv23
02-15 10:58 AM
As we are not voting public and voting public are against us, and employers do little for us, what is the basis in which we can influence politicians buy our cause?
validIV
06-25 02:37 PM
And according to your theory, renting is a better investment? Throwing your money away is a good investment to you? Then I don't think we are on the same page.
There are many homeowners who are underwater but not foreclosed. That does not make it a good investment. All I'm pointing out is unless your property's rent covers your monthly mortgage+property tax+insurance+maintenance and upkeep it can not be called a good investment. You should have positive (at least non negative) cash flow out of your rental properties. Is this a general case? I think not. At least in my area I'm 100% sure rent does not cover mortgage and the difference between the two is significant.
If you have a negative cash flow on your rental properties then the only thing you are betting on is price appreciation of your properties (above inflation) in future which is speculation again.
There are many homeowners who are underwater but not foreclosed. That does not make it a good investment. All I'm pointing out is unless your property's rent covers your monthly mortgage+property tax+insurance+maintenance and upkeep it can not be called a good investment. You should have positive (at least non negative) cash flow out of your rental properties. Is this a general case? I think not. At least in my area I'm 100% sure rent does not cover mortgage and the difference between the two is significant.
If you have a negative cash flow on your rental properties then the only thing you are betting on is price appreciation of your properties (above inflation) in future which is speculation again.
sanju
12-18 12:46 PM
Guys..
If you believe in Science, you wont tend to believe in any religion or for that matter any God..
God was created by man..
Imagine this :
Take for ex : God is human.. How can a human being be supreme or whatever and manage other humans.. For ex if 1000 people commit crime how can a God being a instance of human being watch them.. Even if he watch them how can he punish them.. all not humanly possible.. so God cannot be human..
So let us take like what Islam says.. God is not human nor he is physically presence.. In that case how an Supreme being again watch all of our deeds when even a human kind of thing is not possible.. So God cannot be supremely supreme to watch us..
Earth all happened by itself and it evolved by itself.. It will destroy itself and it will retransform itself.. this is the absolute truth.. believe it or not..
Everyone has some kind of inner consciensus.. you be afraid to that and answerable to that.. (You can call it as God if you want..)
Other than that start believing in Science and be answerable to yourself.. Nothing else matters...
You are saying all this out of sheer ignorance and you yourself dont know what you are speaking about your own creator. If you know little science you will go away from religion, if you know more science, you will come towards religion. You are a victim of the former.
All through out the history, Religion has been in competition with science. Why? Because Religions want to be the answer to every question -why do we have day and night, earth is flat,...? Then came science, providing valid reasoning to these questions. So there was competition. In earlier years, as we all know, people who said that earth was round were executed by the religious people who felt thretened. That close mindedness did not end there, it still flows in everyone still praticing some form of oraganzied religion.
Human behavior is such that we try to make up reasons to explain everything around us. And for the things we don't understand, we go to our religion to find answers for the unknown. Religions always comes up with some answer, which is proved wrong 100% of the times as science progresses. It would be ok to believe religious view that earth is flat and "GOD" is spinning the earth on his/her fingers. But you see, we no longer live in medival period, and know better than that. Although, we have gained knowledge and we continue to find out more things, but the religious leader still wants mankind behave as if we are living in medivial period. Based on what the so called religious leaders tell us, people still follow these books litterally and blindly, because mankind continue to look towards religions whenever we are not able to find answers to our questions. And this bahvior pattern has gotten embrossed into our genes during 100s of generations.
And scientist do not have answers for everything, yet. And for the things they don't have answers, because of their genes and their lack of ability to answer every question, they look upon religion for answers to questions that they cannot explain. But great scientist have never relied on "a religion" to explain GOD, although most have acknowledged their believe in the existance of GOD. But that in itself is not enough for us to take the word of the book each religion preaches litterally, and call people from other faiths as non-believers, evil, kafirs or every other synonym out there. That's the same kind of ingorance and disease as demonstrated and abetted by people who killed scientist in the middle period for saying that earth is round. Its the same kind of behavior that tells others to riot because some newspaper published a cartoon in some part of the world and that cartoon offended my GOD. I mean, how shallow is that God or show narrow minded is that religion which gets offeneded by a cartoon. And that doesn't applies to one religion, it applies to evey organized religion out there. Just think ....
Following an organzied religion doesn't mean that you acknowledge the existance of GOD or you "believe" in GOD. It just means that you believe in the religion in which you were born, and inspite of everything you learned, you fall short of finding answers to your questions, and hence the narrow world view.
If you believe in Science, you wont tend to believe in any religion or for that matter any God..
God was created by man..
Imagine this :
Take for ex : God is human.. How can a human being be supreme or whatever and manage other humans.. For ex if 1000 people commit crime how can a God being a instance of human being watch them.. Even if he watch them how can he punish them.. all not humanly possible.. so God cannot be human..
So let us take like what Islam says.. God is not human nor he is physically presence.. In that case how an Supreme being again watch all of our deeds when even a human kind of thing is not possible.. So God cannot be supremely supreme to watch us..
Earth all happened by itself and it evolved by itself.. It will destroy itself and it will retransform itself.. this is the absolute truth.. believe it or not..
Everyone has some kind of inner consciensus.. you be afraid to that and answerable to that.. (You can call it as God if you want..)
Other than that start believing in Science and be answerable to yourself.. Nothing else matters...
You are saying all this out of sheer ignorance and you yourself dont know what you are speaking about your own creator. If you know little science you will go away from religion, if you know more science, you will come towards religion. You are a victim of the former.
All through out the history, Religion has been in competition with science. Why? Because Religions want to be the answer to every question -why do we have day and night, earth is flat,...? Then came science, providing valid reasoning to these questions. So there was competition. In earlier years, as we all know, people who said that earth was round were executed by the religious people who felt thretened. That close mindedness did not end there, it still flows in everyone still praticing some form of oraganzied religion.
Human behavior is such that we try to make up reasons to explain everything around us. And for the things we don't understand, we go to our religion to find answers for the unknown. Religions always comes up with some answer, which is proved wrong 100% of the times as science progresses. It would be ok to believe religious view that earth is flat and "GOD" is spinning the earth on his/her fingers. But you see, we no longer live in medival period, and know better than that. Although, we have gained knowledge and we continue to find out more things, but the religious leader still wants mankind behave as if we are living in medivial period. Based on what the so called religious leaders tell us, people still follow these books litterally and blindly, because mankind continue to look towards religions whenever we are not able to find answers to our questions. And this bahvior pattern has gotten embrossed into our genes during 100s of generations.
And scientist do not have answers for everything, yet. And for the things they don't have answers, because of their genes and their lack of ability to answer every question, they look upon religion for answers to questions that they cannot explain. But great scientist have never relied on "a religion" to explain GOD, although most have acknowledged their believe in the existance of GOD. But that in itself is not enough for us to take the word of the book each religion preaches litterally, and call people from other faiths as non-believers, evil, kafirs or every other synonym out there. That's the same kind of ingorance and disease as demonstrated and abetted by people who killed scientist in the middle period for saying that earth is round. Its the same kind of behavior that tells others to riot because some newspaper published a cartoon in some part of the world and that cartoon offended my GOD. I mean, how shallow is that God or show narrow minded is that religion which gets offeneded by a cartoon. And that doesn't applies to one religion, it applies to evey organized religion out there. Just think ....
Following an organzied religion doesn't mean that you acknowledge the existance of GOD or you "believe" in GOD. It just means that you believe in the religion in which you were born, and inspite of everything you learned, you fall short of finding answers to your questions, and hence the narrow world view.
