sunnymit
05-10 01:55 PM
where is the delay? It usually comes out around 12th (give or take a day or two) of every month..
wallpaper Hair: fierce as usual
Canadian_Dream
11-02 01:03 PM
Berry, Appleman & Leiden LLP is probably the best immigration law firm in West Coast.
http://www.usabal.com/
In case you don't about the class action law suit of Chintakuntla et al. v. INS, please check the link:
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news269.htm
http://www.usabal.com/
In case you don't about the class action law suit of Chintakuntla et al. v. INS, please check the link:
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news269.htm
Libra
09-14 11:52 AM
DO YOU WANT TO WIN OR DO YOU WANT TO LET LOU DOBB WIN, YOU DECIDE.
2011 LATEST HAIR TRENDS
immi_2006
02-15 03:09 PM
Try orbitz.com. You can book tickets from India and pay in USD. If the airline you selected still issues paper tickets instead of e-tickets then orbitz mails the tickets to your US address.
more...
fullerene
12-14 10:39 PM
I don't know how many people will that invitation allow for the meeting? I can join and we can present some things to the congressman. Please PM me and we can touch base.
thanks,
Very glad to hear that. You may visit his website and email or call for reservation.
thanks,
Very glad to hear that. You may visit his website and email or call for reservation.
nonimmi
07-02 10:02 AM
I see people not supporting the CIR which was suppose to be a pro Immigration bill, no matter which part of the society it was supporting. My question is Are you guys out here a Pro or an anti immigration forum?
Or are you guys out here are to fulfill their selfish dreams, stand on others to reach the top.
Can anyone answer me? I really doubt the people out here.
Did you ask your parents whether you were born logal??
Some of have that doubt. Can you clarify please?
Or are you guys out here are to fulfill their selfish dreams, stand on others to reach the top.
Can anyone answer me? I really doubt the people out here.
Did you ask your parents whether you were born logal??
Some of have that doubt. Can you clarify please?
more...
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
2010 For long hair you can choose
wa_Saiprasad
01-24 12:41 PM
Maybe your lawyer should jump into the well or go back to school ;)
I guess you lawer should go to school again.
I guess you lawer should go to school again.
more...
dba9ioracle
07-11 04:41 PM
Did you apply AP with your EAD ? is it a DUAL card (EAD and AP) ?
Just asking..I still did not get my EAD which was applied in july-2007 last year. I am planning to apply for AP renewal this month as I have apporved AP.
Just asking..I still did not get my EAD which was applied in july-2007 last year. I am planning to apply for AP renewal this month as I have apporved AP.
hair rihanna pink hair 2010.
shar533
04-29 02:29 PM
Yesterday I came back from Vancouver after 4 day visit, using 30 day rule. My visa was expired but I-94 was still valid. CBP officer at Vancouver airport didnt create any problem. He looked at my expired visa on my old passport , my new passport and current I-94 date on I-797. Thats it. He even wandered why my old I-94 was still attached with old passport which no1 bothered to take out while I was going out of USA. So he took out old I-94 from expired passport and put a new I-94 on new passport. Thats all. He didnt bothered to ask my job letter, work details , company name etc.
more...
WaitingForMyGC
01-11 02:38 PM
What would happen if the labor is approved and I-140 is pending and you have to apply for your 7th/8th year extension? I think this could happen to many people who are getting yearly extensions as nowadays it is usually taking 6 months to get your H1 approval/I-140 approval.
hot When Rihanna sheared off
amoschid
07-18 04:01 PM
thanks for the answer buddy
1) Yes, 140K includes primary applicant,spouse and minor children.
woaaah.. that's a very little number.... :p
2) It means India or any other country can be alloted upto 9800 green card per Fiscal Year, again this number includes spouse and children.
i see... thanks for the explanation,
this part still confused me though:
if i divide 140000 / 9800 = 14.28
that's only 14 countries, how was that suppose to work ?
also... let's use Japan & India again for example:
- suppose that India already used up to 9800 GC, and Japan only use 1500,
the 8300 GC (9800-1500) will remain unused ?
thanks again for the answer :D
1) Yes, 140K includes primary applicant,spouse and minor children.
woaaah.. that's a very little number.... :p
2) It means India or any other country can be alloted upto 9800 green card per Fiscal Year, again this number includes spouse and children.
i see... thanks for the explanation,
this part still confused me though:
if i divide 140000 / 9800 = 14.28
that's only 14 countries, how was that suppose to work ?
also... let's use Japan & India again for example:
- suppose that India already used up to 9800 GC, and Japan only use 1500,
the 8300 GC (9800-1500) will remain unused ?
thanks again for the answer :D
more...
house rihanna pink hair 2010. Rihanna 6. “Whip My Hair” ? Rihanna 6. “Whip My Hair” ? Eraserhead. May 16, 02:05 AM
Prashanthi
03-23 01:07 PM
Hi,
I am in need of some advice. I am on first h1b extension with 2.5 hears left. I have an MS but was filed under eb3 with priority date of march 2005 (didn't knew about priority categories at that time). Now I am feeling a bit stagnant in my current job, but have always felt myself constrained thinking about restarting the GC process from zero. Given the current eb3 condition and my priority date what would you suggest I should do? Switch job, get a salary raise, restart under eb2 or continue doing whatever I do hoping eb3 will become current in some reasonable time and i'll be free ?
Thanks for any inputs/thoughts.
You can refile PERM labor under EB-2 and file the I-140 and ask for your EB-3 priority date to be transferred. Provided your EB-3 I-140 has been approved and will not be revoked.
I am in need of some advice. I am on first h1b extension with 2.5 hears left. I have an MS but was filed under eb3 with priority date of march 2005 (didn't knew about priority categories at that time). Now I am feeling a bit stagnant in my current job, but have always felt myself constrained thinking about restarting the GC process from zero. Given the current eb3 condition and my priority date what would you suggest I should do? Switch job, get a salary raise, restart under eb2 or continue doing whatever I do hoping eb3 will become current in some reasonable time and i'll be free ?
Thanks for any inputs/thoughts.
You can refile PERM labor under EB-2 and file the I-140 and ask for your EB-3 priority date to be transferred. Provided your EB-3 I-140 has been approved and will not be revoked.
tattoo Her hair is still red-pink,
morchu
04-23 01:51 AM
NO. It shouldn't create an issue. The key is to "have the guarantee of a same or similar position available for you on permanent basis" at the time of RFE. How many jobs you changed before that is not of a concern.
But t is very important that you act quickly. When you deal with a big employer, the bureaucratic delays can kill weeks quickly, and you will find getting late for your RFE reply.
Contact the employer with "permanent offer" and let them know of the urgency, get in touch with their lawyer, and get the letter framed ASAP. You dont even have to start working with them before sending the letter.
The other option is to get the "employment verification" from your current consulting employer. The only advantage I see here is "probably" time.
Is it not risky to move when your RFE response is pending? I worked for just 2 employers for 9 yrs between 2000 -- 2009
then since March I have so far been with 2 employers and now 3rd PERM offer.. I am concerned if that can create issues..
But t is very important that you act quickly. When you deal with a big employer, the bureaucratic delays can kill weeks quickly, and you will find getting late for your RFE reply.
Contact the employer with "permanent offer" and let them know of the urgency, get in touch with their lawyer, and get the letter framed ASAP. You dont even have to start working with them before sending the letter.
The other option is to get the "employment verification" from your current consulting employer. The only advantage I see here is "probably" time.
Is it not risky to move when your RFE response is pending? I worked for just 2 employers for 9 yrs between 2000 -- 2009
then since March I have so far been with 2 employers and now 3rd PERM offer.. I am concerned if that can create issues..
more...
pictures Hayley Williams Pink Hair
randallemery
03-10 10:22 PM
Immigration Press Briefing
9:00 am PST, February 28, 2006
This week the AFL-CIO Committee on Immigration adopted one of the most innovative and progressive frameworks for achieving real comprehensive immigration reform. As it stands today, our immigration system is nothing more than a blueprint for exploitation of both foreign and native-born workers. Overhaul of our nation's broken immigration laws is long overdue.
We believe that America deserves a more just and democratic immigration system that protects the interests of ALL workers within our borders-immigrants and U.S.-born workers alike.
It's a tragedy that instead of advocating for permanent relief to the millions of undocumented workers already in this country, paying taxes and contributing to their communities, our nation's leaders continue to push for the same old hollow policies that if enacted will only drive immigrants further into the shadows of American society while allowing employers to depress labor protections and standards for ALL workers within our borders.
Instead of comprehensive reform, many of our leaders continue to look to outdated temporary guestworker programs as a cure-all solution. Real immigration reform cannot and should not be designed primarily to enlarge guestworker programs that have served only to provide greedy employers with a steady stream of vulnerable, indentured workers they may exploit for commercial gain.
This week AFL-CIO unions have voted on a landmark resolution that breaks away from this oppressive guestworker mold and offers a more just and viable solution that will benefit all workers. To be effective, comprehensive immigration reform must include three key, interdependent goals: 1) reform proposals MUST provide a clear and well-defined path to permanent residency for those workers already here and contributing to their communities 2) our laws must include uniform enforcement of workplace standards to ensure a more just and level playing field and 3) to achieve a blanket standard of workplace right, we MUST reject outdated guestworker constructs that by their very nature harm the interests of foreign and U.S born workers alike.
The horrific abuses suffered by workers in the first such program, the post -World War II bracero program, are well documented and indisputable. And although most people like to think of bracero programs as a phenomenon of the past, the reality is that their legacy of exploitation and abuse continues to thrive in contemporary American society through modern guestworker programs such as the H1-B and H2-B. President Junemann will talk more about how employers take advantage of H1-Bs and exploit workers while eroding wages and workplace standards within the high tech industry
We believe that there is absolutely no good reason why any immigrant who comes to this country prepared to work, to pay taxes, and to abide by our laws and rules should be relegated to this repressive, second-class guestworker status.
To embrace the expansion of temporary guestworker programs is to embrace the creation of an undemocratic, two-tiered society.
To combat this model, the AFL-CIO has put forth a more humane and democratic alternative. We propose that if employers can demonstrate a real need for outside workers, these workers should be allowed into our country with the SAME RIGHTS AND LABOR PROTECTIONS of any U.S. citizen. When there is a real need for foreign workers, we should embrace these workers NOT as "guests" but as FULL members of society --as PERMANENT RESIDENTS with full rights and full mobility that greedy employers may NOT exploit.
What immigrant workers need is a real path to legalization and a method for addressing America's future needs for outside labor in a way that guarantees immigrant workers--and thus ALL workers--full rights, and a real voice on the job. As a nation that prides itself on fair treatment and equality, we simply cannot settle for anything less.
9:00 am PST, February 28, 2006
This week the AFL-CIO Committee on Immigration adopted one of the most innovative and progressive frameworks for achieving real comprehensive immigration reform. As it stands today, our immigration system is nothing more than a blueprint for exploitation of both foreign and native-born workers. Overhaul of our nation's broken immigration laws is long overdue.
We believe that America deserves a more just and democratic immigration system that protects the interests of ALL workers within our borders-immigrants and U.S.-born workers alike.
It's a tragedy that instead of advocating for permanent relief to the millions of undocumented workers already in this country, paying taxes and contributing to their communities, our nation's leaders continue to push for the same old hollow policies that if enacted will only drive immigrants further into the shadows of American society while allowing employers to depress labor protections and standards for ALL workers within our borders.
Instead of comprehensive reform, many of our leaders continue to look to outdated temporary guestworker programs as a cure-all solution. Real immigration reform cannot and should not be designed primarily to enlarge guestworker programs that have served only to provide greedy employers with a steady stream of vulnerable, indentured workers they may exploit for commercial gain.
This week AFL-CIO unions have voted on a landmark resolution that breaks away from this oppressive guestworker mold and offers a more just and viable solution that will benefit all workers. To be effective, comprehensive immigration reform must include three key, interdependent goals: 1) reform proposals MUST provide a clear and well-defined path to permanent residency for those workers already here and contributing to their communities 2) our laws must include uniform enforcement of workplace standards to ensure a more just and level playing field and 3) to achieve a blanket standard of workplace right, we MUST reject outdated guestworker constructs that by their very nature harm the interests of foreign and U.S born workers alike.
The horrific abuses suffered by workers in the first such program, the post -World War II bracero program, are well documented and indisputable. And although most people like to think of bracero programs as a phenomenon of the past, the reality is that their legacy of exploitation and abuse continues to thrive in contemporary American society through modern guestworker programs such as the H1-B and H2-B. President Junemann will talk more about how employers take advantage of H1-Bs and exploit workers while eroding wages and workplace standards within the high tech industry
We believe that there is absolutely no good reason why any immigrant who comes to this country prepared to work, to pay taxes, and to abide by our laws and rules should be relegated to this repressive, second-class guestworker status.
To embrace the expansion of temporary guestworker programs is to embrace the creation of an undemocratic, two-tiered society.
To combat this model, the AFL-CIO has put forth a more humane and democratic alternative. We propose that if employers can demonstrate a real need for outside workers, these workers should be allowed into our country with the SAME RIGHTS AND LABOR PROTECTIONS of any U.S. citizen. When there is a real need for foreign workers, we should embrace these workers NOT as "guests" but as FULL members of society --as PERMANENT RESIDENTS with full rights and full mobility that greedy employers may NOT exploit.
What immigrant workers need is a real path to legalization and a method for addressing America's future needs for outside labor in a way that guarantees immigrant workers--and thus ALL workers--full rights, and a real voice on the job. As a nation that prides itself on fair treatment and equality, we simply cannot settle for anything less.
dresses 2011 Pink Hair Extensions
sapking
12-15 07:52 PM
The following is from murthy.com site.
Question: Good evening, Murthiji. Do you think professional degree holders, like Chartered Accountants / Company Secretaries, may be deemed as equivalent to master�s degree holders for green card purposes under EB2?
Answer: Generally, CAs are not considered to be master"s degree holders. In fact, many of them do not even equate to a bachelor"s degree since, in India, the bachelor"s is only a 3-year program instead of a 4-year program. Also, the CAs do not attend proper coursework like with degrees here, so it can be a problem if one has no other education besides the BA or BCom with the CA license. Sep-12-2005.
http://murthy.com/chatdb.asp?sFor=chartered+accountant&Category=All&B1=Search
Question: Good evening, Murthiji. Do you think professional degree holders, like Chartered Accountants / Company Secretaries, may be deemed as equivalent to master�s degree holders for green card purposes under EB2?
Answer: Generally, CAs are not considered to be master"s degree holders. In fact, many of them do not even equate to a bachelor"s degree since, in India, the bachelor"s is only a 3-year program instead of a 4-year program. Also, the CAs do not attend proper coursework like with degrees here, so it can be a problem if one has no other education besides the BA or BCom with the CA license. Sep-12-2005.
http://murthy.com/chatdb.asp?sFor=chartered+accountant&Category=All&B1=Search
more...
makeup Nicki Minaj pink hair color
sagittariusarm
09-04 10:13 AM
I've A# (9 digit.. 099xx for primary and 088xx for dependent)... PD is blank.. Guess most of people getting receipts in June/July had it blank... Don't know why...
I140 will have the priority date and no receipts will have it.
I140 will have the priority date and no receipts will have it.
girlfriend Pink Hair For Hope- A Helping
indianoverclocker
07-01 05:31 AM
Thanks :)
hairstyles Rihanna#39;s Funky Hairdos
InTheMoment
07-30 08:15 PM
sayantan76,
That is it no more processing now ..Congratulations !!!!
You are out of this game :D
That is it no more processing now ..Congratulations !!!!
You are out of this game :D
chintsus
08-15 02:05 AM
My H1B visa expires on Sep 22nd of this year. I am going to file for an extension but the only concern i have is my passport expires in July 2010. Does the passport expiry date matter for the H1B extension process..i know that the visa procedure requires a passport valid for at least 6 months.
geniousatwork
04-13 03:26 PM
Congratulations....Hope we have more approvals.
0 comments:
Post a Comment