arc
09-09 02:40 PM
I can help in carrying stuff!
wallpaper tagged kat dennings
jitnair
08-19 11:37 AM
how does one know NC is cleared? do you see an update?
No. Mine was cleared on July 22nd,08 - But did not see any LUDs.
If you had two different A#s (140 and 485) you will see an LUD on 140 when they reconcile the two.
EB2, Sep-04, NSC
No. Mine was cleared on July 22nd,08 - But did not see any LUDs.
If you had two different A#s (140 and 485) you will see an LUD on 140 when they reconcile the two.
EB2, Sep-04, NSC
tonyHK12
11-11 06:10 PM
Thank YOU!!
Dude, I have been sparring with Pappu and Starsun for quite some time now. IV needs to be a "Paying Members Only" organisation.
Per some statistics regularly floating around here, IV has 40,000 odd members. A membership fee as small as $1/month!! ($12/year), will INSURE a steady flow of funds, that will make a HUGE difference.
Even if 20,000 of that 40,000 run away due to the $12.00/yr subscription requirement, that still leaves IV with almost a QUARTER million dollars worth of cash at hand, .
thats a good idea, and at the same time we also need to show our numbers.
I would say, lets make this a $5 monthly membership org. IV can help you much more than your Immigration attorney can.
I'm not aware of any one else who directly deals with USCIS and with chambers of govt.
Yes focus is needed right now, since after 4 years CIR is off the table and its time for piece meal bills which need renewed campaigning
Many are a bit selfish just concerned with their particular case and want a quick answer, but don't want to help the high skilled community as a whole.
you can click on member list and just on top the current count is 45,676
Dude, I have been sparring with Pappu and Starsun for quite some time now. IV needs to be a "Paying Members Only" organisation.
Per some statistics regularly floating around here, IV has 40,000 odd members. A membership fee as small as $1/month!! ($12/year), will INSURE a steady flow of funds, that will make a HUGE difference.
Even if 20,000 of that 40,000 run away due to the $12.00/yr subscription requirement, that still leaves IV with almost a QUARTER million dollars worth of cash at hand, .
thats a good idea, and at the same time we also need to show our numbers.
I would say, lets make this a $5 monthly membership org. IV can help you much more than your Immigration attorney can.
I'm not aware of any one else who directly deals with USCIS and with chambers of govt.
Yes focus is needed right now, since after 4 years CIR is off the table and its time for piece meal bills which need renewed campaigning
Many are a bit selfish just concerned with their particular case and want a quick answer, but don't want to help the high skilled community as a whole.
you can click on member list and just on top the current count is 45,676
2011 Also got some HQ Myspace Nylon
sorcerer666
04-29 02:20 PM
WOW --Right from relationship between coutries tot he pros and cons of war planes we are discussing here.We have people with nice political knowledge per se Ministers and Kings who can analyze how just 11 billion (bully)dollar deal can affect the Green card processing and we have Generals and colonels who knows which fghter plane is good for which country.
But still we are able to manage only around 200 for the advocasy event and large amount of donataions which barely met the expenses. what a pity ;)
hmm...,
1). what makes you think that these kings, generals and colonel's didn't contribute to the event?
2). What's your point?? close down this forum??
But still we are able to manage only around 200 for the advocasy event and large amount of donataions which barely met the expenses. what a pity ;)
hmm...,
1). what makes you think that these kings, generals and colonel's didn't contribute to the event?
2). What's your point?? close down this forum??
more...
![kat dennings nylon. Kat Dennings and NYLON Photograph. Click on the photo to add a spot [Done]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vKFGpuuh3hNVyNQeVG9Hg226UNIyjk7pbSRI6KwgBvw8k7f-OyaFMwnOEewSzb6ekojdvng5uJUznmKdbHkfgkVbtPeq1_5VGmNKOGhIF7G1t1jIhwbU266G9nNylKOuqfSCDfE8XXsaFpUugytNO1liLVn9OuD5TC=s0-d "Kat Dennings and NYLON Photograph. Click on the photo to add a spot [Done]")
vxb2004
11-09 11:06 PM
Mine was filed on July 17th at NSC with RD Sep 10th. It got transferred to TSC, I received EAD,AP for me and my wife but havent recd FP. Opened service request 3 weeks back of no avail....:confused:
satishku_2000
05-31 01:26 AM
Please guys, I understand the frustration we're all going through but do not compare it to what happened to the Jews under the Nazis. We are indeed in a bad situation but comparing it to genocide is too much.
I have seen pictures of the Holocaust and still get nightmares.
Just keep things in perspective and have faith in God and your destiny.
Remember, the bill hasn't passed yet. It still has to go through the House of Representatives.
There is nothing in this world that is as evil as Nazis , People should refrain from using the word at any cost.
I have seen pictures of the Holocaust and still get nightmares.
Just keep things in perspective and have faith in God and your destiny.
Remember, the bill hasn't passed yet. It still has to go through the House of Representatives.
There is nothing in this world that is as evil as Nazis , People should refrain from using the word at any cost.
more...
mallu
11-29 11:59 PM
I thought the same but they need to get out of the queue before you and I can get our turn :) .. Good for them finally ...
In the longer run I guess it makes predicitions easy :).
One thing , did any other reputed site report this news ?
In the longer run I guess it makes predicitions easy :).
One thing , did any other reputed site report this news ?
2010 09: Actress Kat Dennings
LostInGCProcess
10-26 08:28 PM
Hi Guys,
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
This is very strange. However, I would like to know the reason that prompted you to inquire about your case status. What was the status that was showing on-line? Is it "application received and pending", the same usual statement?
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
This is very strange. However, I would like to know the reason that prompted you to inquire about your case status. What was the status that was showing on-line? Is it "application received and pending", the same usual statement?
more...
jonty_11
06-04 06:25 PM
only reason USCIS can afford to do it is becoz they are not accountable (As we are not a vote bank)...
But with IV on our side, we can make them streamline their procedures and work efficiently - whcih has never been a priority.
But with IV on our side, we can make them streamline their procedures and work efficiently - whcih has never been a priority.
hair Fleshbot kat dennings
webm
04-08 03:08 PM
[QUOTE=USDream2Dust;237533]. My guess is probability of winning lotto on Masters quota would be far higher than on regular quota. QUOTE]
Could be..
Also they say those who not picked on Master quota(Advanced Degree exemption) will also get a chance on pick from regular quota...as per the released article...this is a good sign for F1's esp..
Could be..
Also they say those who not picked on Master quota(Advanced Degree exemption) will also get a chance on pick from regular quota...as per the released article...this is a good sign for F1's esp..
more...
godspeed
11-03 01:36 PM
no, its called covering our behind, if in future something comes back to bite ;),
As long as your orig employer does not complain(which i hardly doubt anyone will do) you are fine, worst case scenario if someone does, then its not a big hurdle to cross with an able attorney's help.
Just to put your mind at ease, i have several friends(not friend-of-a-friend) who had quit at various intervals (1-2-3 months) after getting their GC's and haven't faced a single issue while in process of becoming a citizen.
In short its better to be safe than sorry so these attorneys suggest staying for atleast 180 days.
If that is the case, then why is it that all immigration attorneys are asking us to stay with our current employers citing this "Intent" thing? Are you saying that it's all smoke and no fire?
As long as your orig employer does not complain(which i hardly doubt anyone will do) you are fine, worst case scenario if someone does, then its not a big hurdle to cross with an able attorney's help.
Just to put your mind at ease, i have several friends(not friend-of-a-friend) who had quit at various intervals (1-2-3 months) after getting their GC's and haven't faced a single issue while in process of becoming a citizen.
In short its better to be safe than sorry so these attorneys suggest staying for atleast 180 days.
If that is the case, then why is it that all immigration attorneys are asking us to stay with our current employers citing this "Intent" thing? Are you saying that it's all smoke and no fire?
hot Kat Dennings and NYLON Photograph. Click on the photo to add a spot [Done]
prabasiodia
08-09 05:24 PM
I think these memos might have been dissected a thousand times, but here they are:
Continuing validity of I-140: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
AC21 guidelines: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21intrm051205.pdf
It's clear that the stress is on "intent". If at the filing of I-485, both the employer and the employee had the intent, it's fine. The only restriction is, one may not be looking for "same or similar" job at the time of I-485 adjudication. Why this restriction is even there is beyond me. It doesn't clearly state how much time after the adjudication, you should not be looking.
Of course, the lawyers seem to be on the cautious side. Read the last sentence under intent in the following site (AC21: Changing employer while waiting for pending adjustment of status (http://www..com/greencard/adjustmentofstatus/changing-employer.html) ). It says that ...theoretically, USCIS might be able to revisit the adjudication of I-485 and initiate revocation processing.
This inference is without any attribution.
Then again, I couldn't find a single case where the I-485 was revoked because of suspected fraud in "Intent". We do need clarification from USCIS on this.
Continuing validity of I-140: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf
AC21 guidelines: http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21intrm051205.pdf
It's clear that the stress is on "intent". If at the filing of I-485, both the employer and the employee had the intent, it's fine. The only restriction is, one may not be looking for "same or similar" job at the time of I-485 adjudication. Why this restriction is even there is beyond me. It doesn't clearly state how much time after the adjudication, you should not be looking.
Of course, the lawyers seem to be on the cautious side. Read the last sentence under intent in the following site (AC21: Changing employer while waiting for pending adjustment of status (http://www..com/greencard/adjustmentofstatus/changing-employer.html) ). It says that ...theoretically, USCIS might be able to revisit the adjudication of I-485 and initiate revocation processing.
This inference is without any attribution.
Then again, I couldn't find a single case where the I-485 was revoked because of suspected fraud in "Intent". We do need clarification from USCIS on this.
more...
house kat dennings twitter.
pappu
04-10 01:21 PM
/\/\/
if you have not sought appointments yet, get it now as a followup to your phone calls.
if you have not sought appointments yet, get it now as a followup to your phone calls.
tattoo kat dennings nylon
rdehar
07-17 10:29 AM
H-1B - Specialty occupation : April 02, 2007
This has not changed in 1 month !!
Nice !!
This has not changed in 1 month !!
Nice !!
more...
pictures kat dennings, photographed by
msp1976
12-20 05:17 PM
Hello IV and its core members,
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
The devil is in the details....What do they determine during the year that there are additional visas available ??? In that question lies the whole issue...
The state dept. would not give the number usage statistics until the year has ended..The laws say something...the Babus in Washington interpret it in their own way and donot explain anything....How do you make them tell their interpretation ????
INA 202 (a) (3)
�Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a-Family category) and (b-Employment category) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter�.
Therefore, the 7% country cap had always been �soft� till year 2000.
After year 2000, AC21 has completely removed country cap in each employment category, if excess visas are available in each preference categories.
After 2000 (After AC21) the following law was added to INA in the section 202.
INA 202 (a) (5) (A)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
The devil is in the details....What do they determine during the year that there are additional visas available ??? In that question lies the whole issue...
The state dept. would not give the number usage statistics until the year has ended..The laws say something...the Babus in Washington interpret it in their own way and donot explain anything....How do you make them tell their interpretation ????
dresses Kat Dennings is on NYLON
sanjay
02-11 10:29 AM
I believe in VLD Rao. He gives me hope. :-)
But, Mpadapa has some reality. That's what we are seeing in last 3 - 4 bulletins. A slow but steady movement.
Atleast with current movement we can plan in what period we can expect our case will clear.
But, Mpadapa has some reality. That's what we are seeing in last 3 - 4 bulletins. A slow but steady movement.
Atleast with current movement we can plan in what period we can expect our case will clear.
more...
makeup kat dennings bra size
illinois_alum
07-24 02:40 PM
NSC: E-Filed June 02
Document Send: June 02
FP Done: June 26
PD Will be current in Aug. Namecheck cleared since Nov 2007.
How do you know your namecheck has been cleared since Nov 2007?
Document Send: June 02
FP Done: June 26
PD Will be current in Aug. Namecheck cleared since Nov 2007.
How do you know your namecheck has been cleared since Nov 2007?
girlfriend kat dennings
vamsi_poondla
01-27 04:27 PM
Do you expect this forum to be pro-employer when most of them are for lack of better words were screwed by consultants? People and relationship are important. Also, what is put on paper matters. As a matter of goodwill why cant the employer strike off that clause? Nobody is serving here. Businesses make money, investing in people, products and services. Why would an employee be subject to such clause like withholding the compensation, if employer for valid reasons wants to separate from this company? Immigrants are cautious because of the environment. This has nothing to do with Indians or desis or any race.
When you sign a contract, it is always better to read it, validate with others, seek legal advice(if needed/available) and sign. Because contract has legal binding unless it violates any law.
Again, this could be a boiler plate clause, but not a clean clause like,
"If one doesn't want to choose medical coverage, company will pay 5K extra as bonus very year" ;)
Well, I read all the posts on this thread, they seem too cautious and pro employee. My advice to you is
1) People and relationships are more important than money. This is true only if the people are of high moral standard. If your company is going to teach you things (it is generally the case) then be receptive and serve them well. They might give you a raise. If they are prepared to invest in you, you should be prepared to invest in them. This will improve the image of indian workers.
2) The clause you are stating is not very bad. If you own a company and you teach your workers skills, you want something in return. You can avoid complications by making sure to clearly document what you already knew and what has been taught to you.
3) There are things called trade secrets. If the company teaches you these secrets you should not disclose it to others. Otherwise your ass is grass.
4) This is not the same as the 200,000$ bonded contract settlement precedent cited in the thread. It may not apply to your case. This is also not a legal forum. Pay 200$ consulting fees and talk to a lawyer and get advice. Don't loose sleep! and post that response here!!!!
We as immigrants tend to be too cautious. This is good, but it should not be in the way of good relationship with employers. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best!!!
When you sign a contract, it is always better to read it, validate with others, seek legal advice(if needed/available) and sign. Because contract has legal binding unless it violates any law.
Again, this could be a boiler plate clause, but not a clean clause like,
"If one doesn't want to choose medical coverage, company will pay 5K extra as bonus very year" ;)
Well, I read all the posts on this thread, they seem too cautious and pro employee. My advice to you is
1) People and relationships are more important than money. This is true only if the people are of high moral standard. If your company is going to teach you things (it is generally the case) then be receptive and serve them well. They might give you a raise. If they are prepared to invest in you, you should be prepared to invest in them. This will improve the image of indian workers.
2) The clause you are stating is not very bad. If you own a company and you teach your workers skills, you want something in return. You can avoid complications by making sure to clearly document what you already knew and what has been taught to you.
3) There are things called trade secrets. If the company teaches you these secrets you should not disclose it to others. Otherwise your ass is grass.
4) This is not the same as the 200,000$ bonded contract settlement precedent cited in the thread. It may not apply to your case. This is also not a legal forum. Pay 200$ consulting fees and talk to a lawyer and get advice. Don't loose sleep! and post that response here!!!!
We as immigrants tend to be too cautious. This is good, but it should not be in the way of good relationship with employers. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best!!!
hairstyles kat dennings bio
vrbest
11-21 08:16 AM
I am a consultant on H1B with EAD now. In my office (a major bank in US) I am 200% safe than the employees there.. they live like what you said (thinking when their job is at risk) and I am there in the job for last 3 years with a bright future.. I never blame the situatiuon I am in..
My view is " I have not born to live in A country or work for A company" I will always find my way out..
We bought a house recently and I know how many of my friends look at us and sigh a breath as they cannot do what they want for the fear of GC..
We are one happy family with our kids running around the house like they do in India...
just my thoughts.. not to meant to hurt anyone..
I am also waiting for a GC to buy a house ... can't buy on a H1 visa with a project that keeps on getting extended every 3-6 months. You need stability for at least a few years to put in a committment for a mortgage that you are going to pay for 30 years.
My view is " I have not born to live in A country or work for A company" I will always find my way out..
We bought a house recently and I know how many of my friends look at us and sigh a breath as they cannot do what they want for the fear of GC..
We are one happy family with our kids running around the house like they do in India...
just my thoughts.. not to meant to hurt anyone..
I am also waiting for a GC to buy a house ... can't buy on a H1 visa with a project that keeps on getting extended every 3-6 months. You need stability for at least a few years to put in a committment for a mortgage that you are going to pay for 30 years.
nixstor
12-13 09:13 PM
IMHO "legally" exploiting the system is illegal. I don't blame the system because any system will have some flaws in them. I would rather blame people who take advantage of situations esp in scenarios like this. We all know how much time some people has waited here. We heard a story on Monday right? Have we already forgot that? IV's goals and objectives are clear on its home page. Here comes the OP, registers himself and comes up with his first post of Labor substitution and how to better himself. I don't see any thing wrong in pete getting fired up. This exact attitude is the result of 6500 members and not 25,000 or what ever.
>>it appears that you support labor substitution as long as both the employer and employee can hush up the money involved and leave no proof.<<
If I was judging you I would have concluded that you support what the OP is doing and wouldn't asked you what your stand is. It depends on how you understand what I said. Those NASDAQ listed companies you were referring to might have substituted labors but I am sure they wouldn't charge X dollars for giving a better PD or deduct from payroll under some other miscellaneous stuff. I am aware of what you are talking and what OP is talking and they are not the same. I don't need to explicitly tell how desi shops work with
pre-approved labor, esp in the current situation.
>>it appears that you support labor substitution as long as both the employer and employee can hush up the money involved and leave no proof.<<
If I was judging you I would have concluded that you support what the OP is doing and wouldn't asked you what your stand is. It depends on how you understand what I said. Those NASDAQ listed companies you were referring to might have substituted labors but I am sure they wouldn't charge X dollars for giving a better PD or deduct from payroll under some other miscellaneous stuff. I am aware of what you are talking and what OP is talking and they are not the same. I don't need to explicitly tell how desi shops work with
pre-approved labor, esp in the current situation.
gsc999
09-09 06:55 PM
I can help in carrying stuff!
Plz pm me your ph number.
Plz pm me your ph number.