chanduv23
07-10 07:46 AM
Can anyone recommend attorney who are good in AC21 and I-485 Motion To Reopen cases. Who is better, muthy or Oh law firm, or Ron Gotcher ? I am confused as to whose services I should take knowing that my I-140 will be revoked and if I have to file MTR.
Try Rajiv Khanna too.
Try Rajiv Khanna too.
wallpaper ob marley soccer quotes. ob
bkarnik
11-09 09:52 AM
With the Senate also now in Democratic hands, here is the likely makeup of the new Senate Committee Chairpersons.
Sen. Harry Reid (NV) will be the new Majority Leader and Mitch McConnell(KY) will be the republican Minority Leader. The following Democratic Senators are likely to assume the Chairmanship of these committees in a Democratic Senate:
Agriculture—Tom Harkin (IA)
Appropriations—Robert Byrd (WV)
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee – Patty Murray (WA) or Mary Landrieu (LA)
Armed Services—Carl Levin (MI)
Strategic Forces Subcommittee –Bill Nelson (FL)
Banking—Christopher Dodd (CT)
*Budget—Kent Conrad (ND)
Commerce, Science and Transportation—Daniel Inouye (HA)
Energy and Natural Resources-- Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Environment and Public Works—Barbara Boxer (CA)
Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Security Subcommittee – Thomas Carper (DE)
Finance—Max Baucus (MT)
Foreign Relations—Joe Biden (DE)
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions—Edward Kennedy (MA)
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs—Joe Lieberman(CT)
Judiciary—Patrick Leahy (VT)
Small Business—John Kerry (MA)
Veterans’ Affairs—Daniel Akaka (HA)
Select Committee on Intelligence—Jay Rockefeller (WV)
All in all a very pro-immigrant Senate.
Sen. Harry Reid (NV) will be the new Majority Leader and Mitch McConnell(KY) will be the republican Minority Leader. The following Democratic Senators are likely to assume the Chairmanship of these committees in a Democratic Senate:
Agriculture—Tom Harkin (IA)
Appropriations—Robert Byrd (WV)
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee – Patty Murray (WA) or Mary Landrieu (LA)
Armed Services—Carl Levin (MI)
Strategic Forces Subcommittee –Bill Nelson (FL)
Banking—Christopher Dodd (CT)
*Budget—Kent Conrad (ND)
Commerce, Science and Transportation—Daniel Inouye (HA)
Energy and Natural Resources-- Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Environment and Public Works—Barbara Boxer (CA)
Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Security Subcommittee – Thomas Carper (DE)
Finance—Max Baucus (MT)
Foreign Relations—Joe Biden (DE)
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions—Edward Kennedy (MA)
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs—Joe Lieberman(CT)
Judiciary—Patrick Leahy (VT)
Small Business—John Kerry (MA)
Veterans’ Affairs—Daniel Akaka (HA)
Select Committee on Intelligence—Jay Rockefeller (WV)
All in all a very pro-immigrant Senate.
BharatPremi
07-06 11:26 AM
Guys,
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what is stressed on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a weak case. Now USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS declared "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out or everybody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the legal instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able to save its own face and limit on visa numbers will automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what is stressed on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a weak case. Now USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS declared "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out or everybody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the legal instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able to save its own face and limit on visa numbers will automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
2011 Bob Marley quotes Pictures,
BharatPremi
09-20 05:51 PM
Everyone thank you for the quick replies...
How about if I send in Ac 21 paperwork and still be on leave of absence from my present company which sponsored my GC. It only gives me peace of mind because in case the new job does not work out I can still come back...
If you will be using EAD for new job, stop worrying about vacation. EAD is a "AOS" state meaning you are legally allowed not to even work so you can very well take vacation and even decide not to work till you get the green card. If you are playing "h1 transfer" then your vacation may become tricky if you do not get salary for that vacation. It may have an advese effect down the road. If I would be you and have decided to use H1 transfer then I would not go to unpaid vacation. If you will be paid for the vacation you will be fine for that too.
How about if I send in Ac 21 paperwork and still be on leave of absence from my present company which sponsored my GC. It only gives me peace of mind because in case the new job does not work out I can still come back...
If you will be using EAD for new job, stop worrying about vacation. EAD is a "AOS" state meaning you are legally allowed not to even work so you can very well take vacation and even decide not to work till you get the green card. If you are playing "h1 transfer" then your vacation may become tricky if you do not get salary for that vacation. It may have an advese effect down the road. If I would be you and have decided to use H1 transfer then I would not go to unpaid vacation. If you will be paid for the vacation you will be fine for that too.
more...
makemygc
07-06 10:45 AM
Theoratically what you say is correct. Once the revised bulletin came out people are not supposed to file / send out mails in this matter. However, what the AILF is going to fight is the "revised bulletin". They are going to fight that uscis cannot publish a revised bulletin at such a short notice and if they (AILF) wins, this revised bulletin is nullified and July will become open to every one with LC, right??
Not quite but your first part was right. AILF is focussing on the revised bulletin but from immigration-law and AILF documents it seems they are focussing on getting some visa number for July. Opening it for all will not going to work and judge will not allow. But it's too early to interpret. Please hold on before AILF clarifies or file the lawsuit.
If IV core has some information, please share with us.
Not quite but your first part was right. AILF is focussing on the revised bulletin but from immigration-law and AILF documents it seems they are focussing on getting some visa number for July. Opening it for all will not going to work and judge will not allow. But it's too early to interpret. Please hold on before AILF clarifies or file the lawsuit.
If IV core has some information, please share with us.
DDLMODES
07-06 10:10 AM
Hey guys,
I have a question to all of you...
AILA prepares the lawsuit and some (probably most) of the lawyers are supporting that.
For several days I keep hearing that WHEN you file (in July) is not important and I am wondering how that could be true...
I understand that the people who filed on July 2nd are beneficiaries of this but in my mind, everybody who files after falls under a different category because technically they would file after the revised bulletin was announced therefore have no argument. I understand that everybody else prepared (legal fees, medical exam and so on) and they are affected even if they didn't file but I am wondering how that can be justification enough after the dates (retrogression) were announced.
I am trying to understand why they say that it does not matter when you file. They need more people to back this up or is just so they can justify billing you for their work...
Is just scary, how many people play with our hopes and I need to understand if this is just to serve somebody's interests or it is what it is .
Please post your 2 cents ...
Thanks !
I have a question to all of you...
AILA prepares the lawsuit and some (probably most) of the lawyers are supporting that.
For several days I keep hearing that WHEN you file (in July) is not important and I am wondering how that could be true...
I understand that the people who filed on July 2nd are beneficiaries of this but in my mind, everybody who files after falls under a different category because technically they would file after the revised bulletin was announced therefore have no argument. I understand that everybody else prepared (legal fees, medical exam and so on) and they are affected even if they didn't file but I am wondering how that can be justification enough after the dates (retrogression) were announced.
I am trying to understand why they say that it does not matter when you file. They need more people to back this up or is just so they can justify billing you for their work...
Is just scary, how many people play with our hopes and I need to understand if this is just to serve somebody's interests or it is what it is .
Please post your 2 cents ...
Thanks !
more...
lotres
11-09 07:18 AM
I respect all the holidays and I would like to celebrate with you guys, but what is the meaning of Diwali?
2010 sure none of it is true is a funny attitude quote about judging people.
k94
12-15 09:43 AM
Denied licenses, legal immigrants sue state Registry
Say status wrongly contested
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | December 15, 2006
Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles employees are routinely and unlawfully denying driver's licenses to immigrants who are here legally, according to a class-action law suit filed yesterday.
According to the suit, Registry workers asked the immigrants for proof of legal residency when they were not authorized to do so. The workers then denied licenses to the applicants, incorrectly concluding that the immigrants had not demonstrated they were in the United States legally, the suit alleges.
In all cases, the immigrants' lawyers said, the Registry workers were overstepping their legal authority and violating the immigrants' constitutional rights.
"They don't have the authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, who is representing the seven immigrants who brought the suit. "But they've taken it upon themselves to do it, and they're doing it wrong. It's not an isolated case here and there. This appears to be policy."
Wunsch said hundreds of other immigrants have similarly been denied licenses.
A spokeswoman for the Registry of Motor Vehicles declined to comment, saying Registry lawyers had not yet had a chance to review the lawsuit.
Under state policy, applicants for a driver's license must present proof of their identity by providing a valid Social Security number, which the Registry checks against a Social Security Administration database.
In order to obtain a valid Social Security number, an immigrant must be in the country legally. Applicants must also show proof of their age and address.
All of the plaintiffs presented valid Social Security numbers when they applied for licenses, Wunsch said. Even so, Registry workers rejected their applications.
In some of the cases, applicants were not given any reason why they were rejected. In the others, Registry employees improperly sought additional proof of the applicants' immigration status and then said the documents were not adequate.
Registry spokeswoman Amy Breton, speaking generally, said Registry employees do not enforce immigration laws.
But she added: "Certainly, we've had to become more familiar with immigration documents. We want to make sure we are issuing licenses to Massachusetts residents, because that is what the law calls for."
She said the Registry has been responsive to complaints that immigrants have been treated unfairly. On Wednesday night, the head of the agency, Registrar Anne L. Collins, met with about 300 immigrants and their advocates in Hyannis to hear their concerns about the license application process, she said.
In many cases, Breton said, immigrants who feel they have been unfairly denied a license can file an appeal, which costs $50.
Lawyers for the seven plaintiffs say their clients should not have to spend money to challenge what is clearly a discriminatory practice.
"The Registry seems to be asking immigrants to produce justification for their presence in the United States," said lead attorney Kenneth Berman of Nutter McClennen & Fish.
The lawyers said that the problems demonstrate the danger of having state employees who are not trained in immigration law taking on enforcement of that law.
Two immigrant advocacy groups are also plaintiffs in the suit, alleging that the Registry's discrimination against immigrants forces them to divert time and resources from other activities.
"This is extremely common," said Desmond FitzGerald, an immigration lawyer who represents four immigrants who were denied licenses in a separate case to be heard early next year. "We want the Registry to regulate the safety of our roads, not enforce immigration rules."
One of FitzGerald's clients, the wife of a prominent Spanish scientist who is in the United States on a visa reserved for persons of exceptional ability, was denied a license because Registry workers who asked for proof of her legal residency did not recognize her visa. After she sued the Registry, the agency settled the case, granting her a license.
One of the plaintiffs in the class action suit filed yesterday is an immigrant from Zimbabwe who has a pending application for asylum. The woman, a nurse, has work authorization and had already been granted a driver's license.
When she tried to renew that license this week, she produced her old license, her Social Security number, and proof of her car insurance coverage, which showed her address. Still, she was asked for her passport.
The woman, who fled political persecution in Zimbabwe, does not have a current, government-issued passport from that country. She showed the Registry employee a document showing that the US government had granted her permission to remain here. Her application was still denied, as was her daughter's application for a learner's permit.
"Given how dependent we all are on the right to drive an automobile, the denial of a license is causing real hardship to the people I represent," Berman said.
The issue of driver's licenses for immigrants has become highly charged over the past year, as the national debate on immigration has grown more fractious.
The question of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants was a matter of fierce dispute during this year's gubernatorial race, in which Governor-elect Deval Patrick said he would consider giving licenses to those who are here illegally. He was pilloried for that suggestion by his opponent, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, who with Governor Mitt Romney has taken an aggressive stance against illegal immigration.
Immigrants' advocates said they worry that the Republican administration's zeal is causing Registry employees to punish immigrants who had followed all the rules.
Say status wrongly contested
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | December 15, 2006
Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles employees are routinely and unlawfully denying driver's licenses to immigrants who are here legally, according to a class-action law suit filed yesterday.
According to the suit, Registry workers asked the immigrants for proof of legal residency when they were not authorized to do so. The workers then denied licenses to the applicants, incorrectly concluding that the immigrants had not demonstrated they were in the United States legally, the suit alleges.
In all cases, the immigrants' lawyers said, the Registry workers were overstepping their legal authority and violating the immigrants' constitutional rights.
"They don't have the authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, who is representing the seven immigrants who brought the suit. "But they've taken it upon themselves to do it, and they're doing it wrong. It's not an isolated case here and there. This appears to be policy."
Wunsch said hundreds of other immigrants have similarly been denied licenses.
A spokeswoman for the Registry of Motor Vehicles declined to comment, saying Registry lawyers had not yet had a chance to review the lawsuit.
Under state policy, applicants for a driver's license must present proof of their identity by providing a valid Social Security number, which the Registry checks against a Social Security Administration database.
In order to obtain a valid Social Security number, an immigrant must be in the country legally. Applicants must also show proof of their age and address.
All of the plaintiffs presented valid Social Security numbers when they applied for licenses, Wunsch said. Even so, Registry workers rejected their applications.
In some of the cases, applicants were not given any reason why they were rejected. In the others, Registry employees improperly sought additional proof of the applicants' immigration status and then said the documents were not adequate.
Registry spokeswoman Amy Breton, speaking generally, said Registry employees do not enforce immigration laws.
But she added: "Certainly, we've had to become more familiar with immigration documents. We want to make sure we are issuing licenses to Massachusetts residents, because that is what the law calls for."
She said the Registry has been responsive to complaints that immigrants have been treated unfairly. On Wednesday night, the head of the agency, Registrar Anne L. Collins, met with about 300 immigrants and their advocates in Hyannis to hear their concerns about the license application process, she said.
In many cases, Breton said, immigrants who feel they have been unfairly denied a license can file an appeal, which costs $50.
Lawyers for the seven plaintiffs say their clients should not have to spend money to challenge what is clearly a discriminatory practice.
"The Registry seems to be asking immigrants to produce justification for their presence in the United States," said lead attorney Kenneth Berman of Nutter McClennen & Fish.
The lawyers said that the problems demonstrate the danger of having state employees who are not trained in immigration law taking on enforcement of that law.
Two immigrant advocacy groups are also plaintiffs in the suit, alleging that the Registry's discrimination against immigrants forces them to divert time and resources from other activities.
"This is extremely common," said Desmond FitzGerald, an immigration lawyer who represents four immigrants who were denied licenses in a separate case to be heard early next year. "We want the Registry to regulate the safety of our roads, not enforce immigration rules."
One of FitzGerald's clients, the wife of a prominent Spanish scientist who is in the United States on a visa reserved for persons of exceptional ability, was denied a license because Registry workers who asked for proof of her legal residency did not recognize her visa. After she sued the Registry, the agency settled the case, granting her a license.
One of the plaintiffs in the class action suit filed yesterday is an immigrant from Zimbabwe who has a pending application for asylum. The woman, a nurse, has work authorization and had already been granted a driver's license.
When she tried to renew that license this week, she produced her old license, her Social Security number, and proof of her car insurance coverage, which showed her address. Still, she was asked for her passport.
The woman, who fled political persecution in Zimbabwe, does not have a current, government-issued passport from that country. She showed the Registry employee a document showing that the US government had granted her permission to remain here. Her application was still denied, as was her daughter's application for a learner's permit.
"Given how dependent we all are on the right to drive an automobile, the denial of a license is causing real hardship to the people I represent," Berman said.
The issue of driver's licenses for immigrants has become highly charged over the past year, as the national debate on immigration has grown more fractious.
The question of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants was a matter of fierce dispute during this year's gubernatorial race, in which Governor-elect Deval Patrick said he would consider giving licenses to those who are here illegally. He was pilloried for that suggestion by his opponent, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, who with Governor Mitt Romney has taken an aggressive stance against illegal immigration.
Immigrants' advocates said they worry that the Republican administration's zeal is causing Registry employees to punish immigrants who had followed all the rules.
more...
GCmuddu_H1BVaddu
03-26 09:10 PM
Man, everyone gave me REDs for opening this thread and I am surprised it is keep coming to the top. I can see this going to several pages :confused::confused:
hair Quotes About Judging People
ragz4u
03-02 08:13 AM
If I had my green card today, I would surely be making at least 15K more in my salary per annum repeat per annum.
If not all, many of you are in the similar situation.
My $200 contribution is just 1.33% of that lost opportunity per annum. If I take into consideration the 4 years of wait, it comes to 0.33%.
Almost anybody who is in US for 5 years on H1B can buy an nice little home. (Bay area is bit more cruel).
Last year I could have bought a home for say 500K. It would have surely appreciated by 50K. But because of the uncertainty of GC, I can not. That's a loss of opportunity of 50K.
My $200 contribution is just 0.4% of that another lost opportunity.
Now you know why I support this effort.
Most of you and your friends are in a situation similar as mine.
I urge you to become aware, make them aware and support this effort, which has a potential to minimize those lost financial opportunities, with your wallet.
Thanks,
nviren
Very well said nviren. I would like to take this a step further.
There are 1000+ members on these forums. If everyone contributes 200$, we will have $200K. That way, the core volunteers can concentrate on getting the work done by working with QGA/lawmakers etc instead of worrying about our survival for the next month.
If we can get double this membership (each member gets one more member on board), our contributions per head can come down to just $100.
Then nviren's contributions as compared to his lost opportunities will get reduced by 50% ($200 to $100) ! So his contribution compared to the lost opportunity in terms of annual increase if he changes his job is now down from 0.33% to 0.17%.On the other hand, if we each get 5 more members, his contribution($200 to $40)/opportunity percentage is down to 0.065%....
What we can do as a group now is
a) Contribute our part
b) Get as many friends as we can to become members of IV.
If not all, many of you are in the similar situation.
My $200 contribution is just 1.33% of that lost opportunity per annum. If I take into consideration the 4 years of wait, it comes to 0.33%.
Almost anybody who is in US for 5 years on H1B can buy an nice little home. (Bay area is bit more cruel).
Last year I could have bought a home for say 500K. It would have surely appreciated by 50K. But because of the uncertainty of GC, I can not. That's a loss of opportunity of 50K.
My $200 contribution is just 0.4% of that another lost opportunity.
Now you know why I support this effort.
Most of you and your friends are in a situation similar as mine.
I urge you to become aware, make them aware and support this effort, which has a potential to minimize those lost financial opportunities, with your wallet.
Thanks,
nviren
Very well said nviren. I would like to take this a step further.
There are 1000+ members on these forums. If everyone contributes 200$, we will have $200K. That way, the core volunteers can concentrate on getting the work done by working with QGA/lawmakers etc instead of worrying about our survival for the next month.
If we can get double this membership (each member gets one more member on board), our contributions per head can come down to just $100.
Then nviren's contributions as compared to his lost opportunities will get reduced by 50% ($200 to $100) ! So his contribution compared to the lost opportunity in terms of annual increase if he changes his job is now down from 0.33% to 0.17%.On the other hand, if we each get 5 more members, his contribution($200 to $40)/opportunity percentage is down to 0.065%....
What we can do as a group now is
a) Contribute our part
b) Get as many friends as we can to become members of IV.
more...
belmontboy
02-15 05:29 PM
I don't see that "some" word either in the title or the content of the thread. The point is you are trying to color all companies in the bad light for your own satisfaction. I guess you work for one of the direct companies.
Coming to the point, be more sensible when you post new threads and messages on the forum. Please refer to the following thread for posting guidelines.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21847
Let us keep IV as I and V ( for everyone)
And based on what do you say that i am trying to color all companies in the bad light for my own satisfaction? My point is against all those Desi consulting employers who abuse H1.
What has my work place got to do with this discussion?? I guess you couldnot think of anything better to make a point. huh!
Yes, i have read the guidelines and i donot need any lesson from you. I am trying to enage folks here in a constructive discussion. And the point i am making is only for bad consultants who abuse H1B.
If you still think i am being biased, go figure!!!
Coming to the point, be more sensible when you post new threads and messages on the forum. Please refer to the following thread for posting guidelines.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21847
Let us keep IV as I and V ( for everyone)
And based on what do you say that i am trying to color all companies in the bad light for my own satisfaction? My point is against all those Desi consulting employers who abuse H1.
What has my work place got to do with this discussion?? I guess you couldnot think of anything better to make a point. huh!
Yes, i have read the guidelines and i donot need any lesson from you. I am trying to enage folks here in a constructive discussion. And the point i am making is only for bad consultants who abuse H1B.
If you still think i am being biased, go figure!!!
hot If You Start Judging People. Tag: Rajan Singh Patialvi. HTML Code for Orkut,
number30
10-16 11:55 PM
My daughter has received her new US passport. Her Indian visa is in her old passport. I understand she can carry both passports with her to India and does not need a new visa. Am I right? Thanks.
You can also get new passport number added to PIO card. So that you need not carry two passports.
You can also get new passport number added to PIO card. So that you need not carry two passports.
more...
house quotes about judging
here4gc
04-25 02:16 AM
I liked permfilings idea about a mass day off from work...and a small meetup in each town..however this has to be publicised that its going to happen...I guess this should be the first symbolic thing..the next thing..i really loved the sweeping streets idea...we shud do this in front of capitol hill...much better if we all wear suits and carry brooms to brush the dirt off..and have posters that say..PLEASE BRUSH THE DUST OFF - OF MY GREENCARD APPLICATION AND PROCESS IT....
I would love to take part...also..i have a small thread running here that tries to bring USCIS in the red about what they are doing with I140 processing..they should be attacked from more than 1 end...would be greatful if you guys support that petition..i have the draft posted in the thread also...the name of the thread is : Let's Do something about the I140 dates moving back!!
I would love to take part...also..i have a small thread running here that tries to bring USCIS in the red about what they are doing with I140 processing..they should be attacked from more than 1 end...would be greatful if you guys support that petition..i have the draft posted in the thread also...the name of the thread is : Let's Do something about the I140 dates moving back!!
tattoo Bob Marley Quote Painting
bluekayal
01-06 11:30 AM
Just gave my token 2 cents. I'll do flyers on the weekend.
more...
pictures love quotes bob marley.
new_horizon
09-23 10:46 AM
I just called all of them, including the not favoring congressman/women (cm/cw)
to those not favoring, I told I understand the cm/cw does not support the bill HR5882, but I would like to share few points that might help him/her reconsider their decision.
I then told about us not taking away any jobs since we already been employed for several years, and the bill if not approved we'll still continue to be employed in our current status. But on the positive side, if the bill is approved we'll greatly benefit the economy esp. the housing industry since several hundreds of applicants are ready to buy their house. and about us having paid taxes, and being a great consumer, etc.
and then I told I would really like the cm/cw to reconsider her/his decision and to support the bill which is up for markup today.
---------------
I hope this helps others with some talking points.
Could someone point out who are the ones supporting the bills, so we only call them to thank them for supporting the bill. I called one cm's office, after going thru all the talking points, he told me that the cm already supports the bill. I then said sorry, and asked him to convey my thanks to the cm. I don't remember who that was 'coz I was really in a hurry to call of them in the short break I took at work.
so pls everyone CALL before it is too late.
to those not favoring, I told I understand the cm/cw does not support the bill HR5882, but I would like to share few points that might help him/her reconsider their decision.
I then told about us not taking away any jobs since we already been employed for several years, and the bill if not approved we'll still continue to be employed in our current status. But on the positive side, if the bill is approved we'll greatly benefit the economy esp. the housing industry since several hundreds of applicants are ready to buy their house. and about us having paid taxes, and being a great consumer, etc.
and then I told I would really like the cm/cw to reconsider her/his decision and to support the bill which is up for markup today.
---------------
I hope this helps others with some talking points.
Could someone point out who are the ones supporting the bills, so we only call them to thank them for supporting the bill. I called one cm's office, after going thru all the talking points, he told me that the cm already supports the bill. I then said sorry, and asked him to convey my thanks to the cm. I don't remember who that was 'coz I was really in a hurry to call of them in the short break I took at work.
so pls everyone CALL before it is too late.
dresses quotes about judging me.
shreekhand
10-03 11:07 AM
This rule of having at least one parent Indian citizen is in existence since atleast 2006. Just search around. I also know this as one of my close friend's OCI application was his kid was rejected based on this rule more than a couple of years ago !
You are correct. The rules must have changed recently. I wonder what made them make that change, Now children of US citizens (who were once Indian citizens) have an advantage over children who has both parents as Indian citizens. Weird.. isn't it?
You are correct. The rules must have changed recently. I wonder what made them make that change, Now children of US citizens (who were once Indian citizens) have an advantage over children who has both parents as Indian citizens. Weird.. isn't it?
more...
makeup love quotes bob marley.
saggi13
07-25 02:56 PM
EB3/DHL delivered on 02-July @ 8.26 AM
girlfriend “The Bob Marley Special,
aadimanav
07-17 08:07 PM
In US Congress, following two are Senators from California:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- CA)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D- CA)
I think the senators which you mentioned are from CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE (State Government).
Try the following websites
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://directory.usayfoundation.org/
Thanks,
Hi aadimanav,
Yes, They are from California. They represent the district I live in.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- CA)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D- CA)
I think the senators which you mentioned are from CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE (State Government).
Try the following websites
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://directory.usayfoundation.org/
Thanks,
Hi aadimanav,
Yes, They are from California. They represent the district I live in.
hairstyles ob marley soccer quotes. ob
sdrblr
08-24 03:39 PM
Hi all,
my priority date is jan 2003.first ours was at TSC and then it was transferred to VSc and now it was transferred to TSC.
Wow !!! did you check with an Infopass?
my priority date is jan 2003.first ours was at TSC and then it was transferred to VSc and now it was transferred to TSC.
Wow !!! did you check with an Infopass?
Gravitation
01-23 09:18 AM
Here is a post from Ron Gotcher's website which might be of interest to some of us trapped in EB3 I retrogression .
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7065
He expects visa bulletin cut off for EB3 I to jump to 2004 in coming months. No reasoning behing this though..
Ron has not made prediction specifically about India. Somebody asked Ron about filing I-485 with May 2004 PD without mentioning that (s)he was from India. So Ron probably assumed RoW. The OP later clarified that (s)he is from India and Ron hasn't replied to that. So let's wait for Ron to reply before getting excited about it.
If Ron meant EB3-I, he's probably expecting a July 2007 kind of bump, which allows a lot of people to file but results in very few approvals. This can be inferred from his statement that, "your priority date will become current, briefly, in a few months".
We EB3-I's are looking for any sign, just any sign of hope. But let's be cautious in disseminating such information further.
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7065
He expects visa bulletin cut off for EB3 I to jump to 2004 in coming months. No reasoning behing this though..
Ron has not made prediction specifically about India. Somebody asked Ron about filing I-485 with May 2004 PD without mentioning that (s)he was from India. So Ron probably assumed RoW. The OP later clarified that (s)he is from India and Ron hasn't replied to that. So let's wait for Ron to reply before getting excited about it.
If Ron meant EB3-I, he's probably expecting a July 2007 kind of bump, which allows a lot of people to file but results in very few approvals. This can be inferred from his statement that, "your priority date will become current, briefly, in a few months".
We EB3-I's are looking for any sign, just any sign of hope. But let's be cautious in disseminating such information further.
hemya
07-16 09:08 AM
I have just sent it to Senator. George Voinvoich (R-OH) and Senator. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
I guess we are in the same area!!!:)
I guess we are in the same area!!!:)
No comments:
Post a Comment