GCVictim
07-25 10:56 AM
Please don't open new thread on same.
There are lot threads with the same.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6169
There are lot threads with the same.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6169
wallpaper Listen To David Cook Tease
adham_a
04-16 10:54 AM
Grendizer and dukefleed :)
nixstor
11-17 01:17 PM
How about calling BBC during their morning meeting and request for covering our issue and fight for legal immigration?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2006/10/how_the_morning_meeting_works.html
It appears that we need to call in at 6am EST and the program starts at 1 pm EST. If we get to know that, we will be featured that will give 7 hrs for members to prepare for sending emails or to blog on their site?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2006/10/how_the_morning_meeting_works.html
It appears that we need to call in at 6am EST and the program starts at 1 pm EST. If we get to know that, we will be featured that will give 7 hrs for members to prepare for sending emails or to blog on their site?
2011 David Cook Artist David Cook
sashidhar_gundimeda
01-18 09:36 PM
Hello All,
I am new to this forum and this is my first post. I am not sure if I can even bring this topic up about PERM in this forum. So, if this is irrelavant, please let me know.
My employer will be submitting a PERM application for my L.C. in a day or two. All the requirements for the job are complete. My question is, on the applciation there is question (Q:12) which states about "business necessity" and my employe will be checking "NO" as the answer. I am not sure what impication this could have on my application. The job requirement is B.S. degree with 5 yrs experience. I have a M.S. degree with 5 Yrs experience.
Please let me know if we are going in the right direction.
Thanks!
I am new to this forum and this is my first post. I am not sure if I can even bring this topic up about PERM in this forum. So, if this is irrelavant, please let me know.
My employer will be submitting a PERM application for my L.C. in a day or two. All the requirements for the job are complete. My question is, on the applciation there is question (Q:12) which states about "business necessity" and my employe will be checking "NO" as the answer. I am not sure what impication this could have on my application. The job requirement is B.S. degree with 5 yrs experience. I have a M.S. degree with 5 Yrs experience.
Please let me know if we are going in the right direction.
Thanks!
more...
gcformeornot
12-10 02:45 PM
HI ,
Someone told me that I-140 have to be applied 45 days from PERM approval ? Otherwise PERM will get cancelled. Is that true. Can anyone help here.
MakaSika
..
Someone told me that I-140 have to be applied 45 days from PERM approval ? Otherwise PERM will get cancelled. Is that true. Can anyone help here.
MakaSika
..
H42H1BHelp
08-16 11:28 PM
Pls help
more...
grimreaper
05-12 10:55 AM
:)On a lighter note, the USCIS is going to start issuing Green cards that are actually Green. So now as the name suggests, the cards are going to be "Green".
USCIS - USCIS To Issue Redesigned Green Card</br>Questions and Answers (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ab8c3893c4888210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
USCIS - USCIS To Issue Redesigned Green Card</br>Questions and Answers (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ab8c3893c4888210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
2010 Album art by ItsAFugue of
paulinasmith
08-05 10:21 AM
Ask them to re-apply PERM as soon as possible.Its faster to re-apply then get the auditted PERM outcome...
more...
zfgreencard
04-08 12:36 PM
nnnnn
hair David Archuleta, a seventh
Steve Mitchell
April 17th, 2008, 08:41 AM
Here's an interesting find... confirmed? no. But likelihood of true? I think so. Check it out (http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/04/16/nikon.d3x.coming/).
more...
Macaca
05-19 07:04 AM
House GOP Uses Procedural Tactic To Frustrate Democratic Majority Motion to Recommit Employed to Delay or Alter Legislation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801697.html?hpid=topnews) By Lyndsey Layton (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lyndsey+layton/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, May 19, 2007
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.
And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.
Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.
The stalling tactics prompted Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to leave the floor and meet privately in his office with Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his whip, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The men emerged with an uneasy detente that they said would last at least until Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess, but the matter is far from settled.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
Democrats say any comparison is unfair because when Republicans controlled Congress, they directed their members to vote against all Democratic motions to recommit.
Now in the majority and mindful of staying there, Democrats have given no such instruction to their members, allowing them to break with the party if they choose. Many freshmen Democrats from GOP-leaning districts find themselves voting with Republicans as a matter of survival -- a reality Republicans have seized upon.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
Democrats dismiss the Republican maneuvers as largely symbolic and so arcane as to be irrelevant to the public.
"From a public policy standpoint, it's not very significant," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), regarded as an expert in parliamentary combat. "It's almost a Capture the Flag game. The number of people in America who say, 'Oh my gosh, the Republicans won another motion to recommit' is very small."
But Republicans argue they have been able to make significant changes. They point to Thursday, when they successfully used a motion to recommit to restore millions of dollars for missile defense to a defense bill. It remains to be seen if that money will survive a conference committee.
"It's kind of a 'Rashomon' world," said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, referring to the movie in which participants in an event all recount it differently. "The two parties see it in very different terms."
The Democrats' own rules have made it easier for Republicans to offer motions to recommit. In January, the party promised to observe "pay-go" -- finding a way to pay for any new spending rather than adding to the federal deficit. The unintended consequence is that tax proposals open legislation to modifications by the minority that would not otherwise be allowed.
Such was the case in March, when Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The bill included an additional seat for Utah and a minuscule tax increase to pay for two more House seats -- it called for expanding a provision of federal tax withholding law by .003 percent.
Republicans seized on the opening and moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District's strict anti-gun laws.
Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor. They regrouped and split the bill into two tightly written measures, both of which passed and are pending in the Senate.
But the problem for Democrats was apparent. "We need to address that, or we're going to be, on every bill . . . [facing] an amendment totally unrelated to the substance of the bill," Hoyer said at the time.
This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.
Hoyer agreed to hold off on further rule changes until Memorial Day and consult Boehner and Blunt on possible changes.
"The bottom line is, the war goes on," Mann said. "The majority uses the rules to structure debates and limit amendments on matters where Republicans have a chance to either break up the Democrats' winning coalition or embarrass them."
hot to opponent David Cook,
vidyas_m
01-30 07:59 PM
I am currently in my 6th year of H1-B. I started working for my current company on H1-b work visa in June 2010. As my 6 year visa period expires in June 2011, I need to apply for a H1-b extension (based on I-140 approval) pretty soon. My employer had paid the $1500 ACWIA fee recently i.e. 8 months ago, when they filed for my H1-b the first time. Next month, when they apply for an extension of my H1, do they have to pay the $1500 ACWIA fee again?
In I-129 instructions, it specifies that one of the exemptions for paying the ACWIA fee is "second or subsequent extension...". Would my case be considered a subsequent or second extension?
I would greatly appreciate your response.
Thanks much.
In I-129 instructions, it specifies that one of the exemptions for paying the ACWIA fee is "second or subsequent extension...". Would my case be considered a subsequent or second extension?
I would greatly appreciate your response.
Thanks much.
more...
house David Cook - The Last Goodbye
maniac
07-22 02:49 PM
Priority date of old EB3 case: Jan 2003 (140 approved). Started new EB2 case (PD Feb 2007) without notifying uscis of old priority date. Now EB2 140/485 pending since three months. Can I get early EB2-140/485 approvals if I notify uscis of my old priority date now? I belong to "other charge-ability areas" group.
tattoo David Cook
roseball
10-30 11:17 AM
Hello,
If one gets stuck with H1b revalidation, and then gets approved after 6 months. Is there any issues when coming back to the US at the POE entry?
Please let me know.
S
No issues, but make sure you have a updated employment verification letter from your employer saying that you still have a job. I have seen some cases with my friends where the immigration officer asked for a letter when they were outside the country for more than 3 months....One of my friends did not have a letter and the officer called his employer and verified that he still has a job before letting him in....So I would just carry a letter to be on the safe side rather than going through the hassle.....
If one gets stuck with H1b revalidation, and then gets approved after 6 months. Is there any issues when coming back to the US at the POE entry?
Please let me know.
S
No issues, but make sure you have a updated employment verification letter from your employer saying that you still have a job. I have seen some cases with my friends where the immigration officer asked for a letter when they were outside the country for more than 3 months....One of my friends did not have a letter and the officer called his employer and verified that he still has a job before letting him in....So I would just carry a letter to be on the safe side rather than going through the hassle.....
more...
pictures David Cook – The Last Goodbye
Blog Feeds
12-05 09:20 PM
Here is the latest on H1B visa numbers, they now passed the 50K mark. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it has now received approximately 48,977 H-1B petitions counting toward the congressionally-mandated 65,000 limit. USCIS also confirmed that it has received approximately 17,836 H-1B petitions for employees with advanced degrees from U.S. colleges and universities. The annual limit on H-1B petitions in the advanced degree category is 20,000.
Accordingly, USCIS is still accepting H-1B petitions under both the general cap and the advanced degree cap. We also continue to process H1B cases, but time is running out so in order to secure visas for this season employers must act now.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/11/h1b_visa_cap_update_11302010.html)
Accordingly, USCIS is still accepting H-1B petitions under both the general cap and the advanced degree cap. We also continue to process H1B cases, but time is running out so in order to secure visas for this season employers must act now.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/11/h1b_visa_cap_update_11302010.html)
dresses When David Cook sits down for
ciber.couger
10-05 01:05 AM
It shows 6 month FOR ALL Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
more...
makeup Idol winner David Cook#39;s
tikka
06-11 11:13 AM
howdy -- im jumping in to see what i can do to help-win this collective effort.
Anyone here?
Anyone here?
girlfriend David Cook is the contestant
snathan
07-14 06:14 PM
I filed my I-485 and I-140 together in July 2007 using substitute labor (priority date) in Eb3 category.
I have Master degree, so can I change my category from EB3 to EB2 and keep the same priority date?
Thanks in advance and any help would be great.
No, you can not. there are lot more factors than your qualification.
I have Master degree, so can I change my category from EB3 to EB2 and keep the same priority date?
Thanks in advance and any help would be great.
No, you can not. there are lot more factors than your qualification.
hairstyles David Cook - Bar-ba-sol (Album
go_guy123
11-28 12:47 PM
Immigration is a politically charged issue in Congress..the main opposition is in the Congress and not the Senate
bibs
02-10 11:25 PM
Hi
With the current market crisis, you never know when you will be out of job.
Though I have my H1B valid till 2011( my I140 is approved and is already over more than six months, 485 is pending), Most of the people suggesting me to apply for EAD.
1) What are the procedures I have to maintain ( in connection to USCIS and my green card application pending) if I change employer?
2)Can I also work for multiple employers on EAD?
Thanks in advance.
With the current market crisis, you never know when you will be out of job.
Though I have my H1B valid till 2011( my I140 is approved and is already over more than six months, 485 is pending), Most of the people suggesting me to apply for EAD.
1) What are the procedures I have to maintain ( in connection to USCIS and my green card application pending) if I change employer?
2)Can I also work for multiple employers on EAD?
Thanks in advance.
Macaca
07-11 08:13 AM
Unpopular Congress enduring tough times (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0923700020070710) By Steve Holland Reuters, Jul 10, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - These are tough times for the Democratic-led U.S. Congress, where partisan battles have led to little progress on big issues and have made lawmakers collectively less popular than President George W. Bush.
Congress, typically never all that popular to begin with, starts the second half of 2007 with an anemic job approval rating of about 25 percent, down from 43 percent in January, with one Gallup poll ranking lawmakers at 14 percent.
Experts attribute the woeful rankings to an inability to force a change in direction in Iraq, the priority Democrats campaigned on to gain power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in last November's elections.
But that is not all. There has been little to show on other priorities, including a change in Social Security and other entitlement programs that will run out of money in the years ahead, in addition to overhauling a health care system that has left millions uninsured and a broken immigration policy.
"I think Americans were expecting a great deal from the new Congress, and Congress has always been held in low esteem, but Congress really hasn't delivered on what it promised, especially on Iraq," said Paul Light, a congressional expert who is a professor at New York University.
Democrats in charge of Congress insist they have made progress on several issues, like increasing the minimum hourly wage and getting money for victims of the 2005 Katrina hurricane. They blame the Republican minority for a failure on others such as immigration, greater energy independence, and on negotiation of lower-priced drugs for Medicare.
"I'm not really much for polls," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We're going to continue doing what we think is the right thing for the American public in spite of a White House and the Republicans who are stalling every step of the way."
IRAQ DEBATE
Democrats drew a line in the sand over Iraq in the spring, using a $100 billion war spending bill to try to force Bush to accept a troop withdrawal date.
The effort failed miserably, with Bush finally getting what he wanted with no strings attached, and the White House saw the fractious debate as taking time away from work on other priorities.
"They've proven that they're not capable of taking on big issues," an administration official said.
Democrats beg to differ, pointing out that under their stewardship the Congress has resumed its traditional watchdog role over an administration they feel got off scot-free under Republican leadership.
"I would say in the first six months, gauging how things operate here from the majority, that we had some important work to do," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. "We had to drain the swamp. We had to create the oversight."
With American patience running thin over the Iraq war and casualties rising, Democrats may eventually force a change in direction in the unpopular war, an effort being renewed this week on Capitol Hill.
The Iraq situation has so infuriated the Democratic left that Cindy Sheehan, the California liberal who began a long protest against Bush after her soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is talking about running against Pelosi in 2008.
"I think the decline in support (for Congress) since the Democrats took over reflects in part the unhappiness of the base in the inability of Democrats to immediately stop the war in Iraq," said Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution.
The analysts say Congress' low poll numbers also reflect an altogether negative mood among Americans who are tired of the war, fed up with rising gasoline prices and worried about their jobs in a changing economy.
But how all this plays out in the 2008 election is hard to say. Incumbent lawmakers, while collectively held in low esteem, rarely fail to win re-election.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - These are tough times for the Democratic-led U.S. Congress, where partisan battles have led to little progress on big issues and have made lawmakers collectively less popular than President George W. Bush.
Congress, typically never all that popular to begin with, starts the second half of 2007 with an anemic job approval rating of about 25 percent, down from 43 percent in January, with one Gallup poll ranking lawmakers at 14 percent.
Experts attribute the woeful rankings to an inability to force a change in direction in Iraq, the priority Democrats campaigned on to gain power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in last November's elections.
But that is not all. There has been little to show on other priorities, including a change in Social Security and other entitlement programs that will run out of money in the years ahead, in addition to overhauling a health care system that has left millions uninsured and a broken immigration policy.
"I think Americans were expecting a great deal from the new Congress, and Congress has always been held in low esteem, but Congress really hasn't delivered on what it promised, especially on Iraq," said Paul Light, a congressional expert who is a professor at New York University.
Democrats in charge of Congress insist they have made progress on several issues, like increasing the minimum hourly wage and getting money for victims of the 2005 Katrina hurricane. They blame the Republican minority for a failure on others such as immigration, greater energy independence, and on negotiation of lower-priced drugs for Medicare.
"I'm not really much for polls," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We're going to continue doing what we think is the right thing for the American public in spite of a White House and the Republicans who are stalling every step of the way."
IRAQ DEBATE
Democrats drew a line in the sand over Iraq in the spring, using a $100 billion war spending bill to try to force Bush to accept a troop withdrawal date.
The effort failed miserably, with Bush finally getting what he wanted with no strings attached, and the White House saw the fractious debate as taking time away from work on other priorities.
"They've proven that they're not capable of taking on big issues," an administration official said.
Democrats beg to differ, pointing out that under their stewardship the Congress has resumed its traditional watchdog role over an administration they feel got off scot-free under Republican leadership.
"I would say in the first six months, gauging how things operate here from the majority, that we had some important work to do," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. "We had to drain the swamp. We had to create the oversight."
With American patience running thin over the Iraq war and casualties rising, Democrats may eventually force a change in direction in the unpopular war, an effort being renewed this week on Capitol Hill.
The Iraq situation has so infuriated the Democratic left that Cindy Sheehan, the California liberal who began a long protest against Bush after her soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is talking about running against Pelosi in 2008.
"I think the decline in support (for Congress) since the Democrats took over reflects in part the unhappiness of the base in the inability of Democrats to immediately stop the war in Iraq," said Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution.
The analysts say Congress' low poll numbers also reflect an altogether negative mood among Americans who are tired of the war, fed up with rising gasoline prices and worried about their jobs in a changing economy.
But how all this plays out in the 2008 election is hard to say. Incumbent lawmakers, while collectively held in low esteem, rarely fail to win re-election.
No comments:
Post a Comment