fasterthanlight�
06-16 12:00 PM
i dont know why we are debating this...... just do it if you want, and if you dont want to then dont. simple as that.
wallpaper of Jennifer Hawkins.
whatamidoinghere
02-11 04:23 AM
Looking at the table in immigration-law.com, it appears that 33% have been certified and 33% have been closed/denied of the present 67% that have been processed. Those are absolute numbers (it is not 33% of 67% closed, it is 33% of the total 330K). Hence of the 220K cases processed, 110K have been certified and 110K closed/denied.
If the same trend holds, it will be 165K certified (out of a total of 330K). Add the 1.1 multiplying factor and we are looking at 346K total GCs. This is 2.5 years total. But USCIS seems to be sending off excess EB 1-2 visas to EB3 ROW so retrogression will continue for EB2 India and China.
There is some massive confusion here. The Immigration and Nationality Act also says the following for EB3
-Quote
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
-End Quote
Read the term "Not to exceed 28.6 percent". So EB3 can't exceed 28.6 percent which means unused visas from EB2 cant all go to EB3. Since EB2 ROW is current, the unused EB2 visas should be coming to EB2 India & china as per AC21 law.. no?
We shouldn't assume that USCIS is too dumb to follow the law..
If the same trend holds, it will be 165K certified (out of a total of 330K). Add the 1.1 multiplying factor and we are looking at 346K total GCs. This is 2.5 years total. But USCIS seems to be sending off excess EB 1-2 visas to EB3 ROW so retrogression will continue for EB2 India and China.
There is some massive confusion here. The Immigration and Nationality Act also says the following for EB3
-Quote
(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
-End Quote
Read the term "Not to exceed 28.6 percent". So EB3 can't exceed 28.6 percent which means unused visas from EB2 cant all go to EB3. Since EB2 ROW is current, the unused EB2 visas should be coming to EB2 India & china as per AC21 law.. no?
We shouldn't assume that USCIS is too dumb to follow the law..
santb1975
01-31 06:34 PM
for voting and keeping this question under # 10 of the most popular questions. Please remember to send similar questions to the Presidential Debate's. I will send one in too
2011 Jennifer Hawkins came in at
freedom_fighter
11-02 12:27 PM
For all of you who have send me a pvt. message asking me how to reach IO @ TSC, here are the steps:
1) Call Customer Service @ 1 800 375 5283
2) Continue in english, hit 1
3) To check the status, hit 2
4) Know your receipt number, hit 1
5) Enter Receipt number, and then for SRC, hit 1
6) Confirm Receipt Number, hit 1
7) You will now hear the status of your case. At this point, hit 3 to "Report a problem".
Here is the trick - now you will hear 4 options. I believe # 3 is "If your case is outside the processing time..." and # 4 is for "If you have filed several cases and have received a decision on....". You want to hit # 4 and you will be connected to an IO at TSC.
Just a word of caution: You will be talking to an Immigration Officer @ TSC so please be very polite. Some officers will tell you that they cannot give you any information, or you should be calling Customer Service number, simply say 'Thank You' and hang up. It might take days/weeks before you reach an IO who would be willing to help.
Again, the sequence is:
Call the customer service number.
Press 1, 2, 1, Enter Receipt Number, Hit 1 for SRC, Hit 1 to confirm RN, 3 to report a problem, 4 to connect to an officer @ TSC.
Can you tell me how ? pls
1) Call Customer Service @ 1 800 375 5283
2) Continue in english, hit 1
3) To check the status, hit 2
4) Know your receipt number, hit 1
5) Enter Receipt number, and then for SRC, hit 1
6) Confirm Receipt Number, hit 1
7) You will now hear the status of your case. At this point, hit 3 to "Report a problem".
Here is the trick - now you will hear 4 options. I believe # 3 is "If your case is outside the processing time..." and # 4 is for "If you have filed several cases and have received a decision on....". You want to hit # 4 and you will be connected to an IO at TSC.
Just a word of caution: You will be talking to an Immigration Officer @ TSC so please be very polite. Some officers will tell you that they cannot give you any information, or you should be calling Customer Service number, simply say 'Thank You' and hang up. It might take days/weeks before you reach an IO who would be willing to help.
Again, the sequence is:
Call the customer service number.
Press 1, 2, 1, Enter Receipt Number, Hit 1 for SRC, Hit 1 to confirm RN, 3 to report a problem, 4 to connect to an officer @ TSC.
Can you tell me how ? pls
more...
mannubhai
05-26 03:27 PM
I read through the section 2 of the bill and understand that it targets the areas of FB and EB immigrations. The recapture of visas under the categories are for the individual categories and not just for the FB category.
I would like to hear from some senior members as well as see the IV analysis and position as was done for the bill from Senators Dick Durbin.
I would like to hear from some senior members as well as see the IV analysis and position as was done for the bill from Senators Dick Durbin.
FraudGultee
04-17 05:18 PM
though hesitant, but, i agree to that
me too !
me too !
more...
v2neha
01-30 05:45 PM
Looks like the question numbers are changing very frequently - when I voted they were questions 11 and 38. Please pay attention to text and not question numbers when voting
2010 jennifer hawkins 2011.
ilikekilo
04-03 07:55 PM
My bad , mine is from NSC...I just chose your post to quote..sorry for hte mix up..
whats up with USCIS issing RFE's and stuff for people with PD's so far away..Iam not sure what the RFE is but it makes me wonder what USCIS is doing with files with a PD of 04 that too eb3..:rolleyes:
whats up with USCIS issing RFE's and stuff for people with PD's so far away..Iam not sure what the RFE is but it makes me wonder what USCIS is doing with files with a PD of 04 that too eb3..:rolleyes:
more...
wawa
10-02 12:41 PM
Hi smartboy75/prince7,
Any updates?
I checked my former approved H1Bs and found:
1) The Sept. 2000 approved H1B with LUD of June 2007
2) The Feb.2003 approved H1B with LUD 0f April 2006
For both cases, it seems the status is the same as when it was approved in Sept. 2000 and Feb. 2003, nothing new. Maybe these are automatic updates by the computer system.
Any updates?
I checked my former approved H1Bs and found:
1) The Sept. 2000 approved H1B with LUD of June 2007
2) The Feb.2003 approved H1B with LUD 0f April 2006
For both cases, it seems the status is the same as when it was approved in Sept. 2000 and Feb. 2003, nothing new. Maybe these are automatic updates by the computer system.
hair Jennifer Hawkins 2010
gauravster
05-04 11:32 AM
Many folks suggest that this BIll (when turns into a law) would promote outsourcing..but how does these set of changes being proposed by Odama's admin. would affect outsourcing??
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/obama-takes-aim-at-offshore-tax-havens/?hp
I know it wont "stop" outsourcing in any way but seems like they claim that they are " taking away the tax advantages of companies shipping jobs overseas"...Iam sure its more complicated than that..
However the kind of tone being set by the incumbent these days, I believe reflects the current administrations policies that might trickle to us(documented workers) as well.. not sure..
However this can be also looked at, the adminstartion si trying to "show" that they are doing whatever they can disccourage companies from sending jobs overseas..and then eventually take a stab at CIR..wishful thinking..:D
To read other side of the coin, go to Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124144387757983265.html#mod%3DtestMod%26articleT abs%3Darticle
Not sure if it prevents outsourcing or not. It will have a significant impact on all fortune 500 companies incorporated in US. it would encourage companies to be incorporated somewhere else and set up a subsidiary in the US, so that international income is not taxed.
Exposing tax havens is one thing, but taxing income of corporates generated in another country another.
I think a government should only tax GDP produced within its borders and income of people living within the borders. The benefit of being incorporated in the US is usually that of access to capital markets, but in a globalized world even companies incorporated at other places have this access now.
Overall this is a good bill(esp when applied only to individuals), a lot would depend on what gets passed finally. For corporates the high tax rate is very high(35%, deductions bring it down to an average rate of 25%) and while these deductions are removed, the top rate has to come down, something which seems to be missing.
My view is that with regard to taxes, rather than a fix here, a fix there and making taxes more complicated, it would be better to just simplify it as a whole, abolish most, if not all deductions(keep deductions used by most 90% people which are few) and charge a fixed 15-20% of GDP (with some progressivity).
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/obama-takes-aim-at-offshore-tax-havens/?hp
I know it wont "stop" outsourcing in any way but seems like they claim that they are " taking away the tax advantages of companies shipping jobs overseas"...Iam sure its more complicated than that..
However the kind of tone being set by the incumbent these days, I believe reflects the current administrations policies that might trickle to us(documented workers) as well.. not sure..
However this can be also looked at, the adminstartion si trying to "show" that they are doing whatever they can disccourage companies from sending jobs overseas..and then eventually take a stab at CIR..wishful thinking..:D
To read other side of the coin, go to Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124144387757983265.html#mod%3DtestMod%26articleT abs%3Darticle
Not sure if it prevents outsourcing or not. It will have a significant impact on all fortune 500 companies incorporated in US. it would encourage companies to be incorporated somewhere else and set up a subsidiary in the US, so that international income is not taxed.
Exposing tax havens is one thing, but taxing income of corporates generated in another country another.
I think a government should only tax GDP produced within its borders and income of people living within the borders. The benefit of being incorporated in the US is usually that of access to capital markets, but in a globalized world even companies incorporated at other places have this access now.
Overall this is a good bill(esp when applied only to individuals), a lot would depend on what gets passed finally. For corporates the high tax rate is very high(35%, deductions bring it down to an average rate of 25%) and while these deductions are removed, the top rate has to come down, something which seems to be missing.
My view is that with regard to taxes, rather than a fix here, a fix there and making taxes more complicated, it would be better to just simplify it as a whole, abolish most, if not all deductions(keep deductions used by most 90% people which are few) and charge a fixed 15-20% of GDP (with some progressivity).
more...
sonia_sd
01-17 12:05 PM
First of all everyone should understand that this is an Interpretation of law by USCIS, and in memo at the bottom it has been clearly stated that this only applies to case workers at USCIS processing centers not for others. I think based on this memo they decide each case whether to approve/reject. However I see this as "targetting only perticular group of people".
Also he mentioned that they arrived the "Employee-Employer" relationship based on 2 distinct supreme court judgments, I am not really sure what judgments the mean there.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Also he mentioned that they arrived the "Employee-Employer" relationship based on 2 distinct supreme court judgments, I am not really sure what judgments the mean there.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
hot hair Jennifer Hawkins Pics jennifer hawkins 2011.
sorcerer666
04-03 10:02 AM
I hardly believe your story. Your written english doesn't seem like you are a H1-B guy form the other counrty unless you are from Canada. Why the f'ng game, what do you need? Now tell us another story that you are from Canada.
whats your point?? He could be from anywhere!! How does that matter with his difficult situation??
whats your point?? He could be from anywhere!! How does that matter with his difficult situation??
more...
house Jennifer Hawkins
alisa
02-11 08:05 PM
Anytime such discussions come up, invariably a few people jump on board threatening to quit IV. Who are you threatening? Are you helping yourself by quitting the fight to solve your problem?
First of all, I am not threatening to quit IV.
Secondly, even if I quit, its not going to matter to IV.
IV's goal is to fight retrogression. So whoever wants to fight retrogression should stay on board.
Thats why I am here. However, everytime someone talks about giving visa numbers from EB3-ROW to EB-2 India/China as the ONLY freaking thing in the world to do, I have to point it out to them that they are talking taking those visa numbers away from ROW-EB3. And that my friend, is not in the interest of ROW-EB3. Nor does it benefit India-EB3, or China EB-3.
However, it is the privilege of a few affected people to discuss their problems on these threads. You are not obligated to follow these discussions if they are not to your taste. It is a legitimate question.
I also enjoy that very same privilege. We are not here for things that we appeal to our 'taste'. This is not a forum discussing 'Borat'. We are here to talk about our interests as they relate to greencard and retrogression.
Clearly USCIS is using one interpretation of the law while there is another possible one.
Exactly. USCIS is using an interpretation of the law. EB-2 India doesn't like the current interpretation. EB-3 ROW doesn't like the alternate interpretaion. EB-3 India doesn't care. If you can say you don't like the current interpretation, you should be ready to hear form others that they don't like the alternate interpretation.
The discussion here doesn't mean that IV will flip tomorrow and say they will fight for only India/China EB2s.
Thats why I am still here. Thats why ROW-EB3 is here. And thats why India-EB3 and China EB-3 are here.
Here is the current situation, as of Febuary 11th, 2007.
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA
EB-3 India : BaselineB
EB-2 India : BaselineC
We make efforts, and then this happens.
Outcome 1:
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA - DeltaA
EB-3 India : BaselineB
EB-2 India : BaselineC + DeltaA
Clearly, this is not an optimal solution.
IV's goals should be, and to the best of my knowledge, are:
Outcome 2:
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA + DeltaA
EB-3 India : BaselineB + DeltaB
EB-2 India : BaselineC + DeltaC
Maybe, DeltaC is the biggest delta and EB-2 India becomes current in a single month. Thats ok. Thats great.
Anytime you talk about Outcome1, you will give a pause to people like me (EB-3 ROW). Lets focus on Outcome2, and you will have my wholehearted support.
First of all, I am not threatening to quit IV.
Secondly, even if I quit, its not going to matter to IV.
IV's goal is to fight retrogression. So whoever wants to fight retrogression should stay on board.
Thats why I am here. However, everytime someone talks about giving visa numbers from EB3-ROW to EB-2 India/China as the ONLY freaking thing in the world to do, I have to point it out to them that they are talking taking those visa numbers away from ROW-EB3. And that my friend, is not in the interest of ROW-EB3. Nor does it benefit India-EB3, or China EB-3.
However, it is the privilege of a few affected people to discuss their problems on these threads. You are not obligated to follow these discussions if they are not to your taste. It is a legitimate question.
I also enjoy that very same privilege. We are not here for things that we appeal to our 'taste'. This is not a forum discussing 'Borat'. We are here to talk about our interests as they relate to greencard and retrogression.
Clearly USCIS is using one interpretation of the law while there is another possible one.
Exactly. USCIS is using an interpretation of the law. EB-2 India doesn't like the current interpretation. EB-3 ROW doesn't like the alternate interpretaion. EB-3 India doesn't care. If you can say you don't like the current interpretation, you should be ready to hear form others that they don't like the alternate interpretation.
The discussion here doesn't mean that IV will flip tomorrow and say they will fight for only India/China EB2s.
Thats why I am still here. Thats why ROW-EB3 is here. And thats why India-EB3 and China EB-3 are here.
Here is the current situation, as of Febuary 11th, 2007.
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA
EB-3 India : BaselineB
EB-2 India : BaselineC
We make efforts, and then this happens.
Outcome 1:
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA - DeltaA
EB-3 India : BaselineB
EB-2 India : BaselineC + DeltaA
Clearly, this is not an optimal solution.
IV's goals should be, and to the best of my knowledge, are:
Outcome 2:
EB-3 ROW : BaselineA + DeltaA
EB-3 India : BaselineB + DeltaB
EB-2 India : BaselineC + DeltaC
Maybe, DeltaC is the biggest delta and EB-2 India becomes current in a single month. Thats ok. Thats great.
Anytime you talk about Outcome1, you will give a pause to people like me (EB-3 ROW). Lets focus on Outcome2, and you will have my wholehearted support.
tattoo Jennifer Hawkins Pics
Macaca
02-01 04:44 PM
Obama made a statement last night we should fix the Borken Legal Immigration System.
That is a cliche. Everyone says it without knowing the details.
Obama has very poor understanding of issues. He has no idea how to solve most of the problems.
Lot of persons (like you :)) like him!
Billary (oops! Hillary) knows everything. She takes some cheap shots which she does't have to!
That is a cliche. Everyone says it without knowing the details.
Obama has very poor understanding of issues. He has no idea how to solve most of the problems.
Lot of persons (like you :)) like him!
Billary (oops! Hillary) knows everything. She takes some cheap shots which she does't have to!
more...
pictures Jennifer Hawkins and
greenmonster
08-04 09:58 PM
I am a July 2007 filer, so far i have never got finger prints on my EAD. First time i did not get a FP notice. I scheduled an info pass appointment and got my FP notice.. gave FP in Feb 2008. I got my first EAD in Oct 2007.
My latest EAD ( approved Jul 2010) does not have the finger prints on it. Last time I gave my FP was in June 2009 ( Notice sent by USICS ). Is that something to worry? Is it related to NC ?
My latest EAD ( approved Jul 2010) does not have the finger prints on it. Last time I gave my FP was in June 2009 ( Notice sent by USICS ). Is that something to worry? Is it related to NC ?
dresses Written on May 9, 2011 by
sparuthi
09-17 01:48 PM
I am not seeing any movement in the video. I can just see the American Eagle on the screen? any idea whats going on.. ? ??
more...
makeup Jennifer Hawkins
americandesi
09-06 07:37 PM
On Aug 11, 2007 - I 140 Denied Due to Ability To Pay issues
Description for denial ( I have also attached the denial notice)->
They looked at years 2003 to 2006 history for I140 since PD is JAN 03.
* Reason 1 - Lower salary than specified in labor
Preferred Wage in labor - 78,750
W2(2003) - $76,850; W2(2004) - $75,638; W2(2005) - $31,652;
W2 for 2005 is less due to company merger. I have another W2 from new company for 2005. I moved to another company due to merger but lawyer continued GC throgh old employer since the both companies exists after the merger.
* Reason 2 - negative net income of the petitioner
2003 (-$537,841); 2004(-$445,493); 2005(-$527,298); 2006(Not Submitted);
* Reason 3 - 2003 and 2004 OK but net current assets are -ve in 2005
and my lawyer did not provide 2006 information
Acceptable Assets Aceptable Liabilities Net Current Assets
2003 $4,272,733 $3,789,359 $483,374
2004 $4,871,615 $4,660,879 $210,736
2005 $5,047,775 $6,494,111 ($1,446,336)
2006 ---- Not submitted [ Company has not filed taxes yet]
For 2006 they will be filing big loss.
Does anyone know any way out of this.
I am sorry to know that your I-140 application got denied after such a long wait.
Your application was denied not with a combination of
Reason 1 , 2 & 3, but each reason by itself was insufficient to prove ability to pay. Your employer should meet atleast one of these to prove "Ability to Pay".
It's deplorable that most attorney's don't educate small employers on meeting ability to pay even before filing the Labor Certification.
I would suggest that you appeal the case with supporting statements from a good CPA and in the meantime go for a fresh labor certification.
Description for denial ( I have also attached the denial notice)->
They looked at years 2003 to 2006 history for I140 since PD is JAN 03.
* Reason 1 - Lower salary than specified in labor
Preferred Wage in labor - 78,750
W2(2003) - $76,850; W2(2004) - $75,638; W2(2005) - $31,652;
W2 for 2005 is less due to company merger. I have another W2 from new company for 2005. I moved to another company due to merger but lawyer continued GC throgh old employer since the both companies exists after the merger.
* Reason 2 - negative net income of the petitioner
2003 (-$537,841); 2004(-$445,493); 2005(-$527,298); 2006(Not Submitted);
* Reason 3 - 2003 and 2004 OK but net current assets are -ve in 2005
and my lawyer did not provide 2006 information
Acceptable Assets Aceptable Liabilities Net Current Assets
2003 $4,272,733 $3,789,359 $483,374
2004 $4,871,615 $4,660,879 $210,736
2005 $5,047,775 $6,494,111 ($1,446,336)
2006 ---- Not submitted [ Company has not filed taxes yet]
For 2006 they will be filing big loss.
Does anyone know any way out of this.
I am sorry to know that your I-140 application got denied after such a long wait.
Your application was denied not with a combination of
Reason 1 , 2 & 3, but each reason by itself was insufficient to prove ability to pay. Your employer should meet atleast one of these to prove "Ability to Pay".
It's deplorable that most attorney's don't educate small employers on meeting ability to pay even before filing the Labor Certification.
I would suggest that you appeal the case with supporting statements from a good CPA and in the meantime go for a fresh labor certification.
girlfriend Jennifer-Hawkins-Hot-20
qplearn
09-13 01:30 PM
The company I work in is a medium sized business organization. My boss is a staunch republican. I hope to make him aware of these 2 bills and request him to write to the locol congressman and the senator. If we can all do the same then we can buil substantial momentum towards getting these 2 bills passed. Since most of the businesses have republican leanings and at some time have contributed towards the GOP in some way, their endorsements can have a major impact.
I have written to my local HOuse rep; no response from him.
I agree with Alabaman. We need to coordinate and do something. Waiting and watching will get us nowhere.
I have written to my local HOuse rep; no response from him.
I agree with Alabaman. We need to coordinate and do something. Waiting and watching will get us nowhere.
hairstyles Jennifer Hawkins
smc
07-18 08:09 PM
Why did John Cornyn's bill want to recapture only unused numbers from 1996 and 1997, why not 1998 also?
logiclife
04-22 11:40 AM
Hi aycy,
Completely understand. No problem. Being in the hellhole of backlogs and the gaps between jobs, benches(not a pleasant time period in consulting) etc is the worst kind of hell and under those circumstances even $10 is worth much much more than $10. Your belief in this mission is invaluable.
Thanks,
logiclife.
Completely understand. No problem. Being in the hellhole of backlogs and the gaps between jobs, benches(not a pleasant time period in consulting) etc is the worst kind of hell and under those circumstances even $10 is worth much much more than $10. Your belief in this mission is invaluable.
Thanks,
logiclife.
looneytunezez
04-18 05:12 PM
Congrats....
0 comments:
Post a Comment