yrspassby
08-07 04:46 PM
An old man visits his doctor and after thorough examination the doctor tells him: "I have good news and bad news, what would you like to hear first?"
Patient: "Well, give me the bad news first."
Doctor: "You have cancer, I estimate that you have about two years left."
Patient: "Oh no! That's awefull! In two years my life will be over! What kind of good news could you probably tell me, after this??"
Doctor: "You also have Alzheimer's. In about three months you are going to forget everything I told you."
Patient: "Well, give me the bad news first."
Doctor: "You have cancer, I estimate that you have about two years left."
Patient: "Oh no! That's awefull! In two years my life will be over! What kind of good news could you probably tell me, after this??"
Doctor: "You also have Alzheimer's. In about three months you are going to forget everything I told you."
wallpaper Different hairstyles look good
virald
08-05 10:33 AM
A man flying in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. Reducing altitude, he spotted a man on the ground and descended to shouting range.
Good One:D
Good One:D
maine_gc
09-26 09:21 AM
I love to see Obama in White House too. My only concern is who drives his Immigration Policy. Sen. Durbin? We all know what provisions were added to CIR 2007.
I am here legally in this country for 8 years. Applied for 9th year extension this month and waiting in line for Green Card since 2004. I strongly beleive that with Sen. Obama in WH, the US economy will get out of the current crisis and we can see the good old days of 90's again.
I am also looking after the backup plans now just in case if Sen. Obama's immigration policy is based on the CIR 2007 and all the provisions that are against the EB community are included then i do not have any choice other than to leave the country. I am getting ready to apply for Canadian PR whcih would not take more than a year and by that time i believe we will have a good picture of Obama's immigration policy.
I am here legally in this country for 8 years. Applied for 9th year extension this month and waiting in line for Green Card since 2004. I strongly beleive that with Sen. Obama in WH, the US economy will get out of the current crisis and we can see the good old days of 90's again.
I am also looking after the backup plans now just in case if Sen. Obama's immigration policy is based on the CIR 2007 and all the provisions that are against the EB community are included then i do not have any choice other than to leave the country. I am getting ready to apply for Canadian PR whcih would not take more than a year and by that time i believe we will have a good picture of Obama's immigration policy.
2011 Long Hairstyle for Oval Face
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.
more...
apt7
05-30 05:16 PM
According to wikipedia the def of a consultant is..
"The main difference between a consultant and a 'normal' expert is that the consultant is not himself employed with his client, but instead is in business for himself or for a consultancy firm, usually with multiple and changing clients. Thus, his clients have access to deeper levels of expertise than would be feasible for them to retain in-house, especially if the speciality is needed comparatively rarely. It is generally accepted good corporate governance to hire consultants as a check to the Principal-Agent problem."
Consultants have more exposure to the corporate environment than the full time empolyees who do the work as same old same old. Consultants usually and rapidly cater to the needs to the corporate needs of course chanrging huge fees unlike the FTEs.
"The main difference between a consultant and a 'normal' expert is that the consultant is not himself employed with his client, but instead is in business for himself or for a consultancy firm, usually with multiple and changing clients. Thus, his clients have access to deeper levels of expertise than would be feasible for them to retain in-house, especially if the speciality is needed comparatively rarely. It is generally accepted good corporate governance to hire consultants as a check to the Principal-Agent problem."
Consultants have more exposure to the corporate environment than the full time empolyees who do the work as same old same old. Consultants usually and rapidly cater to the needs to the corporate needs of course chanrging huge fees unlike the FTEs.
pitha
09-26 06:49 PM
You are not a citizen, you are not even a green card holder, you and I are H1, and whatever i said is from an h1 point of view. Dont think like a citizen or green card holder, think like a H1b and you will realize obama will roast us. with mccain it might be 4 more years of bush nothing good for eb but definetely nothing bad. The reason behind this thread is not to discuss socialism or capitalism in the general sense but through the lense of eb folks. Once we agree that obama\durbin CIR would spell dooom for us we can decide either
1. We contribute to IV and put one last fight
2. pack our bags and leave or
3. waste our time arguing about capitalism and socialism in the general sense, argue about health care, jobs, etc etc etc when we dont even have a green card.
This is complete non-sense. See the fact of capitalistic approch. Reckless free market approch brought the country to (wall) street. If no regulation and control by the government, the CEOs/Captialist screw you and me. see Enron. See WAMU. The CEO of WAMU walks away with millions of $ after screwing the bank. Where did you studied socialist goverment do not create high tech job? Captalistic form of government is good only if, the CEOs/capitalists are Gandi/Budda.
1. We contribute to IV and put one last fight
2. pack our bags and leave or
3. waste our time arguing about capitalism and socialism in the general sense, argue about health care, jobs, etc etc etc when we dont even have a green card.
This is complete non-sense. See the fact of capitalistic approch. Reckless free market approch brought the country to (wall) street. If no regulation and control by the government, the CEOs/Captialist screw you and me. see Enron. See WAMU. The CEO of WAMU walks away with millions of $ after screwing the bank. Where did you studied socialist goverment do not create high tech job? Captalistic form of government is good only if, the CEOs/capitalists are Gandi/Budda.
more...
gc28262
03-24 03:03 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!
All your assumptions about H1B is only for full time jobs is flawed. USCIS has not said that. There is no law that says that.
BTW why do you think LCA requirements are meant only for consulting companies ? It is applicable to all H1B candidates. That has been the law for a long time. Nothing new here for you to be happy about.
Your posts are driven by your ignorance than any legal base. You need to educate yourself in immigration perspective.
Why USCIS audits are focused on consulting companies ?
It is not because consulting is not allowed on H1B. It is because they figured out that H1B violation are more prominent among small companies.
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!
All your assumptions about H1B is only for full time jobs is flawed. USCIS has not said that. There is no law that says that.
BTW why do you think LCA requirements are meant only for consulting companies ? It is applicable to all H1B candidates. That has been the law for a long time. Nothing new here for you to be happy about.
Your posts are driven by your ignorance than any legal base. You need to educate yourself in immigration perspective.
Why USCIS audits are focused on consulting companies ?
It is not because consulting is not allowed on H1B. It is because they figured out that H1B violation are more prominent among small companies.
2010 short hairstyles heart shaped
snathan
01-11 01:38 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
I don�t agree with your argument. Who is holing up the innocents..? Hamas using the kids and civilians as human shield. I also don�t consider the civilians as innocent there. They are whole heartedly support and elected Hamas -the terror organization. They are the one poisoning the kids with hatred. But I feel very sorry for the kids and the developments are very much disturbing.
The Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria � the devil�s club will never achieve their goal � wipe out ISREAL from the map. ISREAL is IS REAL and this mullahs needs to understand that.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
I don�t agree with your argument. Who is holing up the innocents..? Hamas using the kids and civilians as human shield. I also don�t consider the civilians as innocent there. They are whole heartedly support and elected Hamas -the terror organization. They are the one poisoning the kids with hatred. But I feel very sorry for the kids and the developments are very much disturbing.
The Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria � the devil�s club will never achieve their goal � wipe out ISREAL from the map. ISREAL is IS REAL and this mullahs needs to understand that.
more...
unitednations
07-08 06:10 PM
Thanks!
The outstanding questions, i guess, are:
They allotted the visa numbers prior to actual approvals. This contravened their clearly stated policy. In fact the ombudsman mentions this policy and suggests change. If they allotted the numbers prematurely, and are still in the process of approving those petitions and sending out the decisions...should the numbers have remained current UNTIL THE LAST PETITION IS APPROVED?
---------------------this is an age old problem for uscis. If when a case is filed and they allocate a visa to it; then there would be a massive amount of visas that would go unused. A 2006 visa number cannot spill over to 2007 because the carryover effect is not available. If a person is stuck in name check, didn't get fingerprints; case got denied and is in appeal then that visa would be lost forever if it didn't get approved by the end of the fiscal year; and someone else wouldn't be able to file. You would only have forward movement of visa dates until beginning of next fiscal year when they release visas and then they could move them back to let other people file who just got their labors approved or follow to join, etc.
---------------------the current administration is fond of re-defining many things in law; they have re-defined torture; geneva conventions; bill of rights; even though those laws have not changed.
----------------------now they are re-defining the visa bulletin. Look back at June 2005; when eb3 visas went unavailable for july; they still allowed people to file until end of june. When October 2005 visa bulletin came out and eb2 india went back to 1998 they had used up all the visas by september but still allowed filing. When eb2 india went unavailable in August 2006 they still allowed people to file in July 2006.
----------------------therefore, the law hasn't changed but they have re-defined it. I haven't met anyone yet who actually had their case approved on the week-end. Just knowing systems the way I know them; they probably aren't allowed to do transactions on week-ends or holidays. Therefore, whatever happens on the week-end could have happened on the friday or the following monday. It will be interesting to see how many people actually get their greencard and it says "permanent reident since.... June 29, 30 or July 1".
----------------------the stakes were big enough for uscis that they were willing to re-define how they look at things. Hundreds of millions or billions of dollars would have been a big enough stake for uscis/dos to re-define the relevant laws/regulations and long standing process. Interesting thing is how would things have changed if the actual fee strcture went into affect on July 2. Maybe uscis wouldn't have been so overzealous in approving cases at lightning speeds.
One could argue that per USCIS policy and stated process the visa numbers are still available till that day- a petition could be rejected at the last moment- sending a number back to the pool....
the other question is- did they allot >81% of the numbers (27% per quarter) even before the fourth quarter began? Can they allot numbers on sunday while not accepting applications that day because they are "closed" thus denying petitioners from getting in while the numbers are current?
i would be surprised if they went over the country cap- they have treated that as religion of late.
===============they definitely went over the country cap. EB1 ROW and EB2 row have never been retrogressed and eb3 row was retrogressed in June itself.
the dates for india/china will only move after EB3 ROW becomes current. any ideas how far that is?
===============I was surpirsed myself in the perm labor filings. There is actually a very high number of cases filed by ROW people. ROW people will always get preference. 2007 ROW priority date in eb3 would get preference over the 2,802 person from india even if that person's date is 2003.
see answers within text.
The outstanding questions, i guess, are:
They allotted the visa numbers prior to actual approvals. This contravened their clearly stated policy. In fact the ombudsman mentions this policy and suggests change. If they allotted the numbers prematurely, and are still in the process of approving those petitions and sending out the decisions...should the numbers have remained current UNTIL THE LAST PETITION IS APPROVED?
---------------------this is an age old problem for uscis. If when a case is filed and they allocate a visa to it; then there would be a massive amount of visas that would go unused. A 2006 visa number cannot spill over to 2007 because the carryover effect is not available. If a person is stuck in name check, didn't get fingerprints; case got denied and is in appeal then that visa would be lost forever if it didn't get approved by the end of the fiscal year; and someone else wouldn't be able to file. You would only have forward movement of visa dates until beginning of next fiscal year when they release visas and then they could move them back to let other people file who just got their labors approved or follow to join, etc.
---------------------the current administration is fond of re-defining many things in law; they have re-defined torture; geneva conventions; bill of rights; even though those laws have not changed.
----------------------now they are re-defining the visa bulletin. Look back at June 2005; when eb3 visas went unavailable for july; they still allowed people to file until end of june. When October 2005 visa bulletin came out and eb2 india went back to 1998 they had used up all the visas by september but still allowed filing. When eb2 india went unavailable in August 2006 they still allowed people to file in July 2006.
----------------------therefore, the law hasn't changed but they have re-defined it. I haven't met anyone yet who actually had their case approved on the week-end. Just knowing systems the way I know them; they probably aren't allowed to do transactions on week-ends or holidays. Therefore, whatever happens on the week-end could have happened on the friday or the following monday. It will be interesting to see how many people actually get their greencard and it says "permanent reident since.... June 29, 30 or July 1".
----------------------the stakes were big enough for uscis that they were willing to re-define how they look at things. Hundreds of millions or billions of dollars would have been a big enough stake for uscis/dos to re-define the relevant laws/regulations and long standing process. Interesting thing is how would things have changed if the actual fee strcture went into affect on July 2. Maybe uscis wouldn't have been so overzealous in approving cases at lightning speeds.
One could argue that per USCIS policy and stated process the visa numbers are still available till that day- a petition could be rejected at the last moment- sending a number back to the pool....
the other question is- did they allot >81% of the numbers (27% per quarter) even before the fourth quarter began? Can they allot numbers on sunday while not accepting applications that day because they are "closed" thus denying petitioners from getting in while the numbers are current?
i would be surprised if they went over the country cap- they have treated that as religion of late.
===============they definitely went over the country cap. EB1 ROW and EB2 row have never been retrogressed and eb3 row was retrogressed in June itself.
the dates for india/china will only move after EB3 ROW becomes current. any ideas how far that is?
===============I was surpirsed myself in the perm labor filings. There is actually a very high number of cases filed by ROW people. ROW people will always get preference. 2007 ROW priority date in eb3 would get preference over the 2,802 person from india even if that person's date is 2003.
see answers within text.
hair dresses for oblong faces. of
StuckInTheMuck
08-07 10:31 AM
Some actual bumper stickers:
* Watch for finger.
* Your kid may be an honors student, but you're still an idiot.
* Cover me. I'm changing lanes.
* Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control.
* Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.
* I get enough exercise just pushing my luck.
* I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.
* Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition.
* I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
* Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.
* Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill.
* Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.
* Keep honking...I'm reloading.
* Caution: I drive like you do.
* Watch for finger.
* Your kid may be an honors student, but you're still an idiot.
* Cover me. I'm changing lanes.
* Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control.
* Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.
* I get enough exercise just pushing my luck.
* I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.
* Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition.
* I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
* Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.
* Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill.
* Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.
* Keep honking...I'm reloading.
* Caution: I drive like you do.
more...
Marphad
01-06 01:38 PM
Refugee_New,
It all depends on people's mind. You don't need to answer me, and I am sure you are pure by heart as my many muslim friends.
It depends where your bias is. Are you (you means in general people, not you particularly) biased to religion or you are biased to humanity! When a christian or hindu gets killed, if it doesn't pain you as much when a muslim gets killed, you are more biased towards religion.
People are biased towards religion often shelter under humanity sentences to prove their point. But quite ofter they become onesided. Like People were igniting fire crackers in Pakistan when Mumbai massacre happened. When one of them gets killed, they shout on name of humanity.
My sympathies are with poor innocent kids of palestine got killed.
But people should come out and unshelter terrorists who live in civilian facilities. Same as Dawood & Azhar Masood. People want to harbour them but them if other country takes military action to capture them and some civilians killed because they were in civilian area, it is bad to shout on name of humanity. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THEY ARE REALLY NOT INNOCENT.
It all depends on people's mind. You don't need to answer me, and I am sure you are pure by heart as my many muslim friends.
It depends where your bias is. Are you (you means in general people, not you particularly) biased to religion or you are biased to humanity! When a christian or hindu gets killed, if it doesn't pain you as much when a muslim gets killed, you are more biased towards religion.
People are biased towards religion often shelter under humanity sentences to prove their point. But quite ofter they become onesided. Like People were igniting fire crackers in Pakistan when Mumbai massacre happened. When one of them gets killed, they shout on name of humanity.
My sympathies are with poor innocent kids of palestine got killed.
But people should come out and unshelter terrorists who live in civilian facilities. Same as Dawood & Azhar Masood. People want to harbour them but them if other country takes military action to capture them and some civilians killed because they were in civilian area, it is bad to shout on name of humanity. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THEY ARE REALLY NOT INNOCENT.
hot hairstyle
Beta_mle
04-05 05:09 PM
I think one needs to consider both cash flow and quality of life. Apartment living with kids is not very pleasant, a house with a yard is really the optimal scenario. Mortgage payments may be comparable with rent, depending on your location, but utility bills are greater in a house. Then there are tax issues, whereby you can deduct the interest paid, and you are also building equity.
It's very complex, and our immigration status is just one more complication. However, like the Bible says, "he that regardeth the wind shall not sow". I think if you are at that time of life and you are planning to settle in the USA just go ahead and do it. I did it in my second year of H1B and it is now 5 yrs later. I am now in 485 stage and in the meantime I have built some equity and have no regrets.
Good luck to you!
It's very complex, and our immigration status is just one more complication. However, like the Bible says, "he that regardeth the wind shall not sow". I think if you are at that time of life and you are planning to settle in the USA just go ahead and do it. I did it in my second year of H1B and it is now 5 yrs later. I am now in 485 stage and in the meantime I have built some equity and have no regrets.
Good luck to you!
more...
house Hairstyles for Heart Shaped
vghc
01-07 02:54 PM
I didn't know Narendra Modi is a muslim. I didn't know those are committing genocide in Palestine are muslims. I didn't know those who attacked Iraq and commited war-crime under the pretex of WMD are muslims. I didn't know that these people are muslims.
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
Me? Naaa....i just dislike any organized religion. They are the cause of a lot of problem in this world.
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
Me? Naaa....i just dislike any organized religion. They are the cause of a lot of problem in this world.
tattoo girlfriend heart shaped faces
newbie2020
08-31 07:30 AM
Here is a nice one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM
more...
pictures Berry Oval shaped haircut
unitednations
03-24 11:55 AM
Can you please elaborate?
I may be understanding this incorrectly, but are they denying our right to be represented by a lawyer?
No; I am saying I am suspicious of original poster because when in local USCIS offices they swear you in that you are going to tell the truth and if you don't have a lawyer with you then they make you sign a statement that you are self representing yourself at the itnerview.
Because of these formalities; I have my doubts with a Phone call received from the local office and asking for documnets, questions on some very substantive matters without going through the formalities that local uscis office is supposed to do.
- I went to two local uscis office interviews; so I am pretty versed in their procedure.
I may be understanding this incorrectly, but are they denying our right to be represented by a lawyer?
No; I am saying I am suspicious of original poster because when in local USCIS offices they swear you in that you are going to tell the truth and if you don't have a lawyer with you then they make you sign a statement that you are self representing yourself at the itnerview.
Because of these formalities; I have my doubts with a Phone call received from the local office and asking for documnets, questions on some very substantive matters without going through the formalities that local uscis office is supposed to do.
- I went to two local uscis office interviews; so I am pretty versed in their procedure.
dresses Hair Styles for Your Shape of
Administrator2
04-08 07:22 AM
I might be interesting to check with a lawyer whether:
H1B extensions based on I-140 (beyond 6 years) are same as normal H1B extensions(without I-140). In other words, if someone has an I-140 approved does this bill still affect his H1B extension petition(assuming he is consulting)?
We have already checked with an attorney before posting this thread. You are welcome to check with an attorney and post your attorney's opinion here, for other members.
H1B extensions based on I-140 (beyond 6 years) are same as normal H1B extensions(without I-140). In other words, if someone has an I-140 approved does this bill still affect his H1B extension petition(assuming he is consulting)?
We have already checked with an attorney before posting this thread. You are welcome to check with an attorney and post your attorney's opinion here, for other members.
more...
makeup If you have a heart shape face
punjabi
08-08 07:44 PM
for this magnificent video!!
a very nice video. Shows unity in a very nice perspective..
http://www.vimeo.com/1211060
The song is a Bengali poem written by Rabindranath Tagore.
a very nice video. Shows unity in a very nice perspective..
http://www.vimeo.com/1211060
The song is a Bengali poem written by Rabindranath Tagore.
girlfriend hairstyles for heart shaped
Macaca
09-27 12:06 PM
In defense of lobbying (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/in-defense-of-l.html) This country�s Founders actually set up a system to encourage the petitioning of government. And yes, like it or not, that means lobbyists have the same claims to the First Amendment as our free press does By Ross K. Baker | USA Today, sep 27, 2007
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
There was a moment in one of the recent Democratic debates in which former senator John Edwards practically accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of being in league with the devil. For some time, he had been attacking her for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Now, using the occasion of a just-passed lobbying reform bill awaiting the signature of a skeptical president, he exceeded even his previous needling of her by suggesting guilt-by-association. Turning to the audience, he charged that lobbyists, such as those who contribute to Clinton, "rig the system against all of you (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html?_r=1&ex=1187841600&en=a9c739db3da26fdf&ei=5070&oref=slogin)."
Edwards' accusations deftly played into a belief common even among well-educated Americans that lobbying, if not actually illegal, is a blot on American politics. The problem with this belief is that it is misinformed.
It might come as a surprise to most people that lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602251.html) under the hallowed First Amendment. After the Founding Fathers cast the cloak of protection over freedom of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble, they added a category that could not be infringed upon by the federal government: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)."
Few contemporary efforts to influence government action come by way of a formal petition. But the idea of giving citizens access to government was seen by the writers of the Constitution as something worth safeguarding. And it is, indeed, worth safeguarding because every group in America, at one time or another, has got a gripe and turns to Congress or the federal bureaucracy.
Groups engaged in activities that might seem wholly unconnected with politics, such as the American Automobile Association (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_H.htm) (the folks who get your car started on cold mornings), maintain a presence in Washington to monitor what goes on in Congress. When lawmakers and congressional staffers return from their summer recess, the army of lobbyists storms Washington alongside them.
Religious and military organizations, despite the apolitical nature of our armed forces and the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state, stick very close to Congress. So close are the Methodists (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=gpYbdG8nTTbstJWZbHF4nQ%3d%3d&longitude=UTH%2fxgxU3NJ%2fZzEipoIpSw%3d%3d&name=General%20Board%2dGlbl%20Ministries&country=US&address=100%20Maryland%20Ave%20NE%20%23%20315&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d548%2d4002&spurl=0&&q=The%20United%20Methodist%20General%20Board%20of% 20Church%20and%20Society&qc=%28All%29%20Places%20Of%20Worship) and the Reserve Officers Association (http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=2jypmtPMGHqb5z8DqMKpow%3d%3d&longitude=CIpOYIVGteZ%2bBzAf6jdV1Q%3d%3d&name=Reserve%20Officers%20Assn%20of%20US&country=US&address=101%20Constitution%20Ave%20NE&city=Washington&state=DC&zipcode=20002&phone=202%2d479%2d2221&spurl=0&&q=Reserve%20Officers%20Association&qc=Associations) that their Washington offices literally overlook the Senate office buildings.
To be sure, the vast bulk of the roughly 35,000 lobbyists in town represent businesses and industries. Nonetheless, as citizens of a commercial republic, should this really surprise us?
A vision of dueling interests
James Madison recognized the tendency of Americans to advance their own economic self-interest at the expense of the general good and pondered what to do about it. He dismissed (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm) the possibility of banning these "factions," arguing that they are a byproduct of our freedom.
His solution was just to allow them to multiply and, as the country expanded, no single interest would dominate. Free to struggle for influence, they would checkmate each other.
What Madison had not reckoned on was the vast expansion in the scope of activities of the federal government over the next 200 years.
As the government expanded, it has affected the lives and livelihoods of more people. They, in turn, want to ensure that government action does not harm them. Even better, they look to an expansive government to benefit them. So if the federal government gets into the business of building dams, they want to supply the cement. If Washington decides to prop up farm prices with subsidies, as it first did in the 1930s (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html), you want to make sure your commodity gets its share.
People of the revolutionary generation probably imagined that individuals would make their way to Washington to personally make their case for government help. They could not have imagined the hordes of surrogates, many of them receiving princely sums, who would take up residence in the nation's capital and subsist on pressing the cases of others. The idea that a professional advocate such as Jack Abramoff would be corruptly influencing the federal government would have been altogether inconceivable to James Madison.
The good with the bad
The defect in Madison's architecture is not that interest groups would proliferate, but that there would be such an imbalance between those seeking to get or maintain private gain and those advocating for the needs of humbler people. There are, of course, multitudes of lobbyists who advocate the needs of the handicapped, the elderly and endangered species, but they are often out-gunned by trade associations and industry lobbyists.
The defeat in the House of the recent effort to require U.S. automakers to boost the fuel economy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20079816/) of their cars is eloquent testimony to the clout of business. On the other hand, the high rollers who pushed for the elimination of the inheritance tax (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273376_estatewash09.html) received a stinging rebuke when the repeal that they favored was defeated in the Senate. The big boys don't always get what they want, especially when the focus of the media puts the issue out in the open.
There are in lobbying, as in other enterprises, noble and degraded examples. So you have the Children's Defense Fund pushing for an expansion (http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/childhealth/) of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan and a smug and arrogant Abramoff manipulating the Bureau of Indian Affairs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-30-tribes-giving_x.htm) on behalf of his well-heeled clients.
Both are lobbying. Even so, it would be as unfair to assume that all lobbyists are like Jack Abramoff as it would be to liken all physicians to Jack Kevorkian.
hairstyles Haircuts
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
breddy2000
03-31 10:02 PM
I was quoting you to make a point, did not mean to put words in your mouth. Apologies.
I totally agree about the transperancy part and the affect measuring people has on productivity. My receipt date is 07/30/09 and notice date is 09/06/2009, there were cases filed after mine on which RFEs were issued. Does it mean they have preadjudicated/looked at my case ? I can only wish as it is pretty hard to believe that it was looked at.
did u mean to say 2007 or 2009 on your receipt and notice dates?
I totally agree about the transperancy part and the affect measuring people has on productivity. My receipt date is 07/30/09 and notice date is 09/06/2009, there were cases filed after mine on which RFEs were issued. Does it mean they have preadjudicated/looked at my case ? I can only wish as it is pretty hard to believe that it was looked at.
did u mean to say 2007 or 2009 on your receipt and notice dates?
satishku_2000
08-02 07:10 PM
Re-file 140 or file an appeal on the 140.
Filing the appeal; you will be able to extend the h-1b.
Thanks UN for your comments , any comments for the situation mentioned in this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11819
Filing the appeal; you will be able to extend the h-1b.
Thanks UN for your comments , any comments for the situation mentioned in this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11819