rbalaji5
07-17 07:55 PM
Really Thank and Appreciate Mr Gonzales.
Thank you so much Mr. Emilio Gonzalez
Thank you so much Mr. Emilio Gonzalez
wallpaper Or Background Designs - 15
speddi
10-15 01:17 PM
this is the response I got from our company attorney..
If you use your EAD to work part time for another employer, then you would no longer be in H-1B status. However, the H-1B petition would remain valid but you would not be in H-1B status (your stay in the US would be as an applicant for adjustment).
If you use your EAD to work part time for another employer, then you would no longer be in H-1B status. However, the H-1B petition would remain valid but you would not be in H-1B status (your stay in the US would be as an applicant for adjustment).
scabal12
06-12 06:56 PM
Thanks for all the information. Mine and my spouse's I-140 was approved 2 years ago. So, I guess I can apply for my EAD and live in this country legally.
2011 alien-tattoo-designs-15
BharatPremi
11-30 06:05 PM
Guys,
If one IV member moves from State A to B, what would be the process of transferring membership to state chapter?
Will it merely be a deleting datbase record from one state and adding it to another state? Or would it be again filling up survey to new state chapter..?
Thanks.
If one IV member moves from State A to B, what would be the process of transferring membership to state chapter?
Will it merely be a deleting datbase record from one state and adding it to another state? Or would it be again filling up survey to new state chapter..?
Thanks.
more...
Lasantha
04-01 04:42 PM
Do you mean, file I-140 first and wait till it's approved before you file for 485? If that's what you are thinking, my advise is that filing for 485 is not a luxury that you can avail yourself whenever it suits you. You must grab the chance as soon as your PD is current becaue you never know when it would be current again unless of course you fall in to EB2 ROW or a higher category. And please note that these days I-140 takes much longer than 6 months to get approved and Premium Processing is no longer in the offer.
Hi All,
Are there any risks of filing 140 & 485 together? I just talked to an attorney & she said that it is better to get 140 approved 1st before filing 485, as when you file concurrent, the files go to inexperienced officers who will not judge your case properly.
When you file 140 separately, the file goes to officers who only deal with 140's.
Does anybody on here know of these risks/disadvantages of filing concurrently. I was under the impression that it was better to do this, but now I stand contradicted!
Hi All,
Are there any risks of filing 140 & 485 together? I just talked to an attorney & she said that it is better to get 140 approved 1st before filing 485, as when you file concurrent, the files go to inexperienced officers who will not judge your case properly.
When you file 140 separately, the file goes to officers who only deal with 140's.
Does anybody on here know of these risks/disadvantages of filing concurrently. I was under the impression that it was better to do this, but now I stand contradicted!
newuser
09-15 01:11 PM
I am in
more...
bijualex29
03-24 12:32 PM
Please read 140,000+290,000 as 290,000+480,000
2010 lori-dennis-designs-15
Hong12
02-06 01:58 PM
Thank you very much for your help. I really appreciate it. I actually tried to fill out the Forms DS 156 and DS 157 and got totally lost. The following is my background. I worked at the company A in US as an Electrical Engineer until May, 08 (the end of my 6 year H1). Then, I went back to Malaysia and worked on my family business as a store manager and business owner, selling electrical appliances. My PERM is currently pending over one year now. Accordingly, I got an approval for 1 year and 2 months on my H1. I will now come back to work at company A in US, starting March 5, 09 (the same US company that I worked until May, 08).
I have questions that I am unsure about the Forms DS 156 and DS 157 as the followings:
Form DS 156
- Question 28 (who will pay for your trip): does the trip need to be paid by the US Employer? Can I pay it myself? My concern is I am not sure if I have to pay it myself because of my H1 Status. Pls advise.
- Question 20 (Name and Address of Present Employer or School): I think this should be my current company. In this case, please advise if this should be Company A that I will be start working in March or my family business in Malaysia.
- Question 21 (Present Occupation): should this be Electrical Engineer or Store Manager (Business Owner) for my family business? I actually worked as an Electrical Engineer for over 8 years. I only worked on my family business as a Store manager (Business Owner) for one year. Please advise which one I should put.
- Question 25 (Name and Telephone Numbers of Person in US Who You Will Be Staying With or Visiting for Tourism or Business): I will go back to work at Company A in US, and my brother lives in the same area that I will be working. So, I�ll be staying at my brother�s place. In this case, should this Item be the company A�s address or my brother�s address? Otherwise, should I put �None�?
- Question 29 (Have you ever been in US?):
For How long?: would this be (6 year � 2 months) since I spent 2 month vacation outside US during this past 6 year H1?
Enter Additional Visits to US here: I made 3 trips to Malaysia and 2 trips to Canada during this past 6 years of my H1B. I also made one trip to Canada during my F1 visa. In this case, I�m not sure if this should be the date I returned back to US from my trips to Malaysia and Canada. Should I mention only the trips during my 6 year H1 or mention all the trips, including the period of my F1 Visa?
DS 157
- Question 12 (Not Including Current Employer, List Your Last Two Employers): I worked at company B in US till Jan, 07 and then moved to Company A in US until May, 08 (the end of my 6 year H1). Then, I came back to work on my family business till now. I will go back to work at Company A again in March, 09. I am not sure if my present company is my family business in Malaysia. My future company is Company A that I will start working in March, 09. My two previous companies are Company A that I worked from Jan, 07 to May, 08 and also Company B that I worked before Jan, 07. In this case, should I put Company A (Jan, 07 to May, 08) and Company B (before Jan, 07) as the last two companies? Please advise.
Another issue is that I worked on my family business as a Store Manager (Business Owner) for almost one year. This is not engineering work. Would this cause me any problems for my visa application because I will go back to work with company A as an electrical engineer? Note that I still get work from company A from time to time, but I just did not get pay during this time that I stay in Malaysia. Please advise.
Please help�. I am totally confused and need to use these two forms for the visa interview. Thank you very much.
I have questions that I am unsure about the Forms DS 156 and DS 157 as the followings:
Form DS 156
- Question 28 (who will pay for your trip): does the trip need to be paid by the US Employer? Can I pay it myself? My concern is I am not sure if I have to pay it myself because of my H1 Status. Pls advise.
- Question 20 (Name and Address of Present Employer or School): I think this should be my current company. In this case, please advise if this should be Company A that I will be start working in March or my family business in Malaysia.
- Question 21 (Present Occupation): should this be Electrical Engineer or Store Manager (Business Owner) for my family business? I actually worked as an Electrical Engineer for over 8 years. I only worked on my family business as a Store manager (Business Owner) for one year. Please advise which one I should put.
- Question 25 (Name and Telephone Numbers of Person in US Who You Will Be Staying With or Visiting for Tourism or Business): I will go back to work at Company A in US, and my brother lives in the same area that I will be working. So, I�ll be staying at my brother�s place. In this case, should this Item be the company A�s address or my brother�s address? Otherwise, should I put �None�?
- Question 29 (Have you ever been in US?):
For How long?: would this be (6 year � 2 months) since I spent 2 month vacation outside US during this past 6 year H1?
Enter Additional Visits to US here: I made 3 trips to Malaysia and 2 trips to Canada during this past 6 years of my H1B. I also made one trip to Canada during my F1 visa. In this case, I�m not sure if this should be the date I returned back to US from my trips to Malaysia and Canada. Should I mention only the trips during my 6 year H1 or mention all the trips, including the period of my F1 Visa?
DS 157
- Question 12 (Not Including Current Employer, List Your Last Two Employers): I worked at company B in US till Jan, 07 and then moved to Company A in US until May, 08 (the end of my 6 year H1). Then, I came back to work on my family business till now. I will go back to work at Company A again in March, 09. I am not sure if my present company is my family business in Malaysia. My future company is Company A that I will start working in March, 09. My two previous companies are Company A that I worked from Jan, 07 to May, 08 and also Company B that I worked before Jan, 07. In this case, should I put Company A (Jan, 07 to May, 08) and Company B (before Jan, 07) as the last two companies? Please advise.
Another issue is that I worked on my family business as a Store Manager (Business Owner) for almost one year. This is not engineering work. Would this cause me any problems for my visa application because I will go back to work with company A as an electrical engineer? Note that I still get work from company A from time to time, but I just did not get pay during this time that I stay in Malaysia. Please advise.
Please help�. I am totally confused and need to use these two forms for the visa interview. Thank you very much.
more...
vinki
10-27 01:31 PM
hi !
Thank you gurus for your quick response .... have one more question in mind ...
Is it a pre-requisite to have SSN before applying for a job ?
thanks
Vinki
Thank you gurus for your quick response .... have one more question in mind ...
Is it a pre-requisite to have SSN before applying for a job ?
thanks
Vinki
hair white bathroom designs 15-2.
RNGC
07-07 11:37 AM
^
more...
malibuguy007
10-01 06:33 PM
1) Check
The address to mail the checks to is:
Immigration Voice
P O Box 1372
Arcadia, CA 91077-1372
2) Online Payment through your bank
Login to your bank account (This is for BoA)
Go to Bill Pay>>Payees>>Add a Payee
You will see two options
1)Pay a company
2) Pay an Individual
Click the GO button next to Pay an Individual (without entering any information)
In the next page
You will see a small form
Payee- is the name- in whose favor the check will be made
Nickname is for your reference
In Identifying information- you can put your handle
Rest is obvious
Payee creation is one time setup
Once you have created a payee
Go to Bill Pay>>Overview
and here you will see an option to make a payment
3) PayPal
4) Google Checkout
The address to mail the checks to is:
Immigration Voice
P O Box 1372
Arcadia, CA 91077-1372
2) Online Payment through your bank
Login to your bank account (This is for BoA)
Go to Bill Pay>>Payees>>Add a Payee
You will see two options
1)Pay a company
2) Pay an Individual
Click the GO button next to Pay an Individual (without entering any information)
In the next page
You will see a small form
Payee- is the name- in whose favor the check will be made
Nickname is for your reference
In Identifying information- you can put your handle
Rest is obvious
Payee creation is one time setup
Once you have created a payee
Go to Bill Pay>>Overview
and here you will see an option to make a payment
3) PayPal
4) Google Checkout
hot mindblowing interior designs
irock
07-27 12:15 AM
if you qualified and filed for 485 depending on your PD, you most probably will get only 1 year extension. I just filed mine May 29th for 3 years and filed my 485 June 8th but when approved I got my H1 extension approved only for 1 year. I may be wrong, just referencing what my lawyer said..
Before they used to approve one or three years based on either Receive Date or
approval date (random) of your H1 extension application.
But in the latest FAQ http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf (question 17),
they announced that if your PD is not current at the time of your *date of filing/received date*, they will give
you three years extension.
I applied my extension on July 9th thinking that my PD is not current based on July 2nd VB. :(
Now it seems I get only one year extension.
Before they used to approve one or three years based on either Receive Date or
approval date (random) of your H1 extension application.
But in the latest FAQ http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf (question 17),
they announced that if your PD is not current at the time of your *date of filing/received date*, they will give
you three years extension.
I applied my extension on July 9th thinking that my PD is not current based on July 2nd VB. :(
Now it seems I get only one year extension.
more...
house Badrinath Movie Audio Poster
.JPG "Free tribal tattoo designs 15")
chanduv23
09-18 12:19 AM
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaH...Welcome to D.C. Thanks for posting all the encouraging words to get everyone to come!
:) Will see u all tomorrow, I am sharing room with Naveen (tnite) - what time do u all get there in the morning?
:) Will see u all tomorrow, I am sharing room with Naveen (tnite) - what time do u all get there in the morning?
tattoo roman numerals
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
more...
pictures Seema Tapakai Movie Poster
needhelp!
11-13 09:29 AM
> > apostrophe IS OUR 100TH MEMBER < <
dresses Grim-reaper-tattoo-designs-15.
qualified_trash
06-16 09:34 AM
why cant we set up a webfax/email for all members to be sent to CNN and FOX like the ones we setup for the senators?
more...
makeup lori dennis designs 15 Modern
indian111
06-02 05:04 PM
I went by my EAD expiration date and filed both EAD and AP renewals but only after filing , I saw my AP expiry date is mor ethan 120 days away .I am really worried abt this .I received my receipt notices but no birometrics yet.
Have anyone of you guys got other updates ?
Have anyone of you guys got other updates ?
girlfriend custom-sticker-designs-15
yabadaba
02-28 01:39 PM
Thanks Y,
I was thinking more along the lines of transfering from US Public education school system to either ICSE, CBSE or Maharashtra Sate Board.
Upto what standard would it be relatively eay for a child to adapt and integrate into the Indian system ?
nozerd,
honestly i dont know. when I changed schools and in the process boards, the most difficult transition for me was from the UK board to the ICSE system. but this was almost 18 years back (man..cant believe it) ...the indian system was still learning by rote...heavily focused on tests and exams. from what i have heard recently there have been major changes specially at the elementary school level. there is less emphasis on homework and tests and more of a focus on projects and learning by doing.
As a parent of a 13 month old, if I ever decide to go back, I would probably go back before my kid is in the 4th grade. This would be because they really start establishing their identities by the time they are 8-9 years old. They can still adapt fast enough but the major focus has to be on us as parents to smooth out the transition and give them the support system they need.
If you want a seamless transition, I would agree that 1st grade is probably the best bet. By that time their accents and all can easily be adapted, without a major crisis.
I was thinking more along the lines of transfering from US Public education school system to either ICSE, CBSE or Maharashtra Sate Board.
Upto what standard would it be relatively eay for a child to adapt and integrate into the Indian system ?
nozerd,
honestly i dont know. when I changed schools and in the process boards, the most difficult transition for me was from the UK board to the ICSE system. but this was almost 18 years back (man..cant believe it) ...the indian system was still learning by rote...heavily focused on tests and exams. from what i have heard recently there have been major changes specially at the elementary school level. there is less emphasis on homework and tests and more of a focus on projects and learning by doing.
As a parent of a 13 month old, if I ever decide to go back, I would probably go back before my kid is in the 4th grade. This would be because they really start establishing their identities by the time they are 8-9 years old. They can still adapt fast enough but the major focus has to be on us as parents to smooth out the transition and give them the support system they need.
If you want a seamless transition, I would agree that 1st grade is probably the best bet. By that time their accents and all can easily be adapted, without a major crisis.
hairstyles footwear designs 15 Strange
greyhair
05-19 07:46 AM
Another way to look at this - Someone in Eb-3 China is filing lawsuit to take away green card numbers from India.
I am very interested in reading the contents of this lawsuit because I suspect it argues that less visa numbers are allocated to China which means the lawsuit is saying more visa numbers are allocated to another country, which is most likely India. So the lawsuit is saying stop allocating as much visas to India.
People in this forum are blinded by their bias towards USCIS. Anytime anyone says or does anything against USCIS, this group tends to have a predictable reaction applauding the act. People running immigration businesses are very clever. Some of them have figured this out. That is why specific lawyers send out newsletters which literally belittle everything USCIS. Everyone here go estatic jumping with joy to see this lawyer berate USCIS in newsletters. All that he is doing is pandering to his customer base, even when behind the scene he is actually licking the boots of USCIS.
My take is - it is not a good idea to jump the gun every time USCIS is sued because last time someone said "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai", it did not turn out well for Indians.
I am very interested in reading the contents of this lawsuit because I suspect it argues that less visa numbers are allocated to China which means the lawsuit is saying more visa numbers are allocated to another country, which is most likely India. So the lawsuit is saying stop allocating as much visas to India.
People in this forum are blinded by their bias towards USCIS. Anytime anyone says or does anything against USCIS, this group tends to have a predictable reaction applauding the act. People running immigration businesses are very clever. Some of them have figured this out. That is why specific lawyers send out newsletters which literally belittle everything USCIS. Everyone here go estatic jumping with joy to see this lawyer berate USCIS in newsletters. All that he is doing is pandering to his customer base, even when behind the scene he is actually licking the boots of USCIS.
My take is - it is not a good idea to jump the gun every time USCIS is sued because last time someone said "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai", it did not turn out well for Indians.
gaz
07-23 02:26 PM
try talking to Alanita Travels
ALANITA TRAVEL - FLY WITH US TO INDIA (http://www.alanitatravel.com/)
PS - I am not affiliated in any way with them - other than having used their services in the past.
In my experience, going to the airlines respective websites get you a similar deal. Try
Emirates
Lufthansa
singapore
malaysian
British
American
delta
continental
jet
etc...
ALANITA TRAVEL - FLY WITH US TO INDIA (http://www.alanitatravel.com/)
PS - I am not affiliated in any way with them - other than having used their services in the past.
In my experience, going to the airlines respective websites get you a similar deal. Try
Emirates
Lufthansa
singapore
malaysian
British
American
delta
continental
jet
etc...
H1B-GC
02-18 06:12 PM
ragz4u and everyone-
My 1st 3 yrs of H1B is gonna be completed this year.My DL is valid until 2009 issued by Santa Clara DMV in CA State.If i move to PA State or for that matter other state in US would DMV deny me a new Driver's License until my new H1B is extended for 3 more years??
Pls. let me know your comments!!
My 1st 3 yrs of H1B is gonna be completed this year.My DL is valid until 2009 issued by Santa Clara DMV in CA State.If i move to PA State or for that matter other state in US would DMV deny me a new Driver's License until my new H1B is extended for 3 more years??
Pls. let me know your comments!!
No comments:
Post a Comment