rb_248
08-15 09:21 AM
All this seems like racial profiling to me. Albeit, such episodes are coming down after Obama took office......in my opinion.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
snelakan
06-27 10:00 PM
cause state department made the dates current....USCIS can only request visa's from state department.....since they were not asking for a lot of visas, which were going to go waste, state department made everything current...
sachug22
09-15 06:19 PM
Cutoff for China will never advance India dates for spill overs.
Exactly, there are more EB application from India and most of them are older PD, so with no rule, all it means is that India will get bigger share.
Exactly, there are more EB application from India and most of them are older PD, so with no rule, all it means is that India will get bigger share.
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
desigirl
01-13 03:17 PM
Plainspeak - From one girl to another - you have a lot of time to kill :) For members who did not get worked up by your post, everyone has had a good laugh! Thanks.
Trying to have a discussion on your points is meaningless (at least to me) as I do not believe in conceit.
BTW, you don't have to respond to my post, as I will not be checking it.
Trying to have a discussion on your points is meaningless (at least to me) as I do not believe in conceit.
BTW, you don't have to respond to my post, as I will not be checking it.
more...
Macaca
02-19 10:59 AM
Now is the time to donate money, a little bit of your time, a little effort to contact your lawmakers....
You better start donating NOW
The following meanings are from Meriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/).
Meaning of donate (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/donate): to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause.
Meaning of contribute (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/contribute): to give or supply in common with others <contribute money to a cause>
a : to give a part to a common fund or store <contribute to a fund-raising campaign>
b : to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result <many players have contributed to the team's success>
By giving money to IV you are contributing (= helpting yourself) NOT donating (= helpfing someone else).
You better start donating NOW
The following meanings are from Meriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/).
Meaning of donate (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/donate): to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause.
Meaning of contribute (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/contribute): to give or supply in common with others <contribute money to a cause>
a : to give a part to a common fund or store <contribute to a fund-raising campaign>
b : to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result <many players have contributed to the team's success>
By giving money to IV you are contributing (= helpting yourself) NOT donating (= helpfing someone else).
gbof
09-15 11:06 AM
month priority date No of appr 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
June-08 4/1/2004 122 2 9 18 61 30
July-08 4/1/2004 88 1 7 14 29 36
August-08 6/1/2006 261 0 3 5 19 63 103 67
Sept-08 8/1/2006 3 0 1 0 0 2
Thanks for this useful info. 05 & 06 approved #s in Q-4 of 08 looks very significant - these alongwith approval of 'multiple filed AOS' will surely reduce wait time for 05-EB2i. Hop[efully before june 05 cases will be done.
June-08 4/1/2004 122 2 9 18 61 30
July-08 4/1/2004 88 1 7 14 29 36
August-08 6/1/2006 261 0 3 5 19 63 103 67
Sept-08 8/1/2006 3 0 1 0 0 2
Thanks for this useful info. 05 & 06 approved #s in Q-4 of 08 looks very significant - these alongwith approval of 'multiple filed AOS' will surely reduce wait time for 05-EB2i. Hop[efully before june 05 cases will be done.
more...
vjkypally
07-04 09:50 AM
Just Digged all 3 links posted by Tikka
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
akred
02-15 11:11 PM
oguinan,
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 establishes the definition of racial discrimination for the purpose of the document. Paragraphs 2 and 3 limit the operation of the convention. As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 were included, perhaps they were required to get countries to sign on to the convention.
Here's a better link. Read under Modern Racial Exclusion, excerpts of which I have posted below.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
...similarly situated persons (e.g., siblings and children of U.S. citizens) may face radically different waits for immigration depending on their country of origin, with accompanying racial impacts.
The law created a new immigrant visa program that effectively represents affirmative action for white immigrants, a group that benefitted from preferential treatment under the national origins quota system until 1965. Congress, in an ironic twist of political jargon, established the "diversity" visa program, which though facially neutral prefers immigrants from nations populated primarily by white people.
The link to the CERD report is here. The convention does not address the country limit directly as the convention expressly does not apply in that area, but it does show that there is awareness about the discrimination faced by immigrants. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6d8aee7e356e6498c1256d4e00557f3b?Opendocument
You can see that the UN panel is aware of the fact that racial discrimination manifests itself in disproportional representation (note the reference to the composition of the Supreme Court). It can be argued that the 7% country limit provides a pretext to discriminate against India/China/Mexico on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, and as such would run afoul of the convention.
more...
vkrishn
07-28 03:25 AM
Sure with dead bobhead braincells of yours, nobody expects your self image to be high enough. Its not for wimps wearing zippers to the side like you. If you are man enough come and talk to me, and will see who gets handcuffed.
Talk to you about what? Amway?:D Whole point is we don't Amway guys chasing us with your cheesy lines or "brilliant" ideas.. So stop chasing us! Go rope in your relatives or any other insane person.
Why would i want to talk to a Amway guy when i am saying i don;t want to. If one comes to me and talks about Amway and does not understand the word "NO", "I AM NOT INTERESTED" and keeps chasing me he will face the law.
Now if you are a man/women/whatever and if you talk to me about AMWAY be ready to face the music!
Talk to you about what? Amway?:D Whole point is we don't Amway guys chasing us with your cheesy lines or "brilliant" ideas.. So stop chasing us! Go rope in your relatives or any other insane person.
Why would i want to talk to a Amway guy when i am saying i don;t want to. If one comes to me and talks about Amway and does not understand the word "NO", "I AM NOT INTERESTED" and keeps chasing me he will face the law.
Now if you are a man/women/whatever and if you talk to me about AMWAY be ready to face the music!
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
ganguteli
05-29 12:48 AM
If you guys had a chance of getting substitute labor today you will try to take it at any cost. But you will not want to contribute $25 to IV. If you had a chance of getting a greencard via L1A route you will do it. Just because you cannot get a substitute labor or L1A, you are saying sour grapes.
This is a bitter truth that we do not like to hear but each will do if they get a chance. Sub labor was legal when it was there and L1A route is also legal today. It is for USCIS to decide if there is a loophole. Stop behaving like an anti-immigrant. Just because you are not able to get this privilege does not mean others cannot try. If you want to try, try to get more visas for everyone rather than blocking people.
This is a bitter truth that we do not like to hear but each will do if they get a chance. Sub labor was legal when it was there and L1A route is also legal today. It is for USCIS to decide if there is a loophole. Stop behaving like an anti-immigrant. Just because you are not able to get this privilege does not mean others cannot try. If you want to try, try to get more visas for everyone rather than blocking people.
more...
shiankuraaf
07-14 09:39 PM
My dependents are out of US for almost 5 months for now and they have AP approved before they left US and they are planning to come to US in couple of weeks from now on AP. Our PD is going to be current in Aug08. Is this OK to be out of US for this much time when AOS is pending? Staying out of US for this long would effect their AOS processing in any way?
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
trramesh
06-01 02:09 PM
Guys,
I have been working here for 9 years and next year we plan to return back to India. I spoke to SSN customer service to find out my retirement and survivor benefits. Being an Indian citizen, all these are available only if me, or my dependants, have a valid residing status with the US, at the time of making the application. The contribution at this point is like getting a right to work. This is outrageous.
We all have been legally invited into this country for a work, and that means the US gov should protect our legal and fair interests. It is universally true that everyone works to protect his family. Now here is a case, where I have no right to my retirement money just because I dont have a legal resident status. Whose fault is this. I already made the application 6 years ago. If my home country does not have the comparable SSN structure, then return the money back? We will pay the taxes and take the money back. Our kids need it.
I dont know what is the appropriate channel to get this fixed. This appears more like human rights violation, or abuse. I am sure there are many in this forum who are in the same boat as I am. Can someone team up with me to do more research or share your discoveries.
To the US, this is what I got to say:
=======================
If you want to protect the jobs for your people, please do it. You have every right. But please dont dump the people you officially invited to augument the workforce of your country into the waters. Before you bring in additional workers to support your companies, do necessary corrections in your immigration policies to let them in only with green card. Dont strangulate their careers. Your existing policies have been burning the aspirations and careers of a lot of innocent people from India and China.
To those innocent legal foreign workers that have already gathered 40 points in SS, you owe them. They deserve citizenship, not green card. I know it is jumping across multitude of issues, but is it not fair.
I have been working here for 9 years and next year we plan to return back to India. I spoke to SSN customer service to find out my retirement and survivor benefits. Being an Indian citizen, all these are available only if me, or my dependants, have a valid residing status with the US, at the time of making the application. The contribution at this point is like getting a right to work. This is outrageous.
We all have been legally invited into this country for a work, and that means the US gov should protect our legal and fair interests. It is universally true that everyone works to protect his family. Now here is a case, where I have no right to my retirement money just because I dont have a legal resident status. Whose fault is this. I already made the application 6 years ago. If my home country does not have the comparable SSN structure, then return the money back? We will pay the taxes and take the money back. Our kids need it.
I dont know what is the appropriate channel to get this fixed. This appears more like human rights violation, or abuse. I am sure there are many in this forum who are in the same boat as I am. Can someone team up with me to do more research or share your discoveries.
To the US, this is what I got to say:
=======================
If you want to protect the jobs for your people, please do it. You have every right. But please dont dump the people you officially invited to augument the workforce of your country into the waters. Before you bring in additional workers to support your companies, do necessary corrections in your immigration policies to let them in only with green card. Dont strangulate their careers. Your existing policies have been burning the aspirations and careers of a lot of innocent people from India and China.
To those innocent legal foreign workers that have already gathered 40 points in SS, you owe them. They deserve citizenship, not green card. I know it is jumping across multitude of issues, but is it not fair.
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
Rb_newsletter
01-21 06:15 PM
I got the below email from multiple friends. I don't know what is the source, who wrote this analysis because there is no links. I did NOT mean to spread the fear. Just sharing the contents unaltered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is how many could read RECENT (Jan 8, 2010) actions / announcement by USCIS towards Consulting companies, which engages or merely places their employees at the client sites for various projects.
� No new H1B application will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� No new H1B extension/stamping will be approved, as per the new guidelines provided USCIS on Jan 08, 2010 memorandum � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
� If an employee has H1B approved or extension approved, and if he/she comes back to US from a vacation or from an emergency, he/she would be deported back to his/her home country from the Port of Entry (PoE) � for 3rd Party Consulting company.
Why?
Because of 2 recent events:
1) USCIS gave new memorandum (which is now guidelines for USCIS professionals working on the H1B petitions/extensions) on Jan 08th, 2010. (Attached the PDF file for the memorandum).
2) Recently (Jan 2010) several H1B Employees were sent back (in some forum, its mentioned � all of them) to their home country from Newark, NJ and JFK, NY Port of Entry � these were the H1B employees, who went to spend Christmas/New Year vacation to their home countries.
What does the memorandum mention, specifically, about 3rd Party Consulting companies?
Link to the memorandum (PDF attached) � http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
Employer-Employee Relationship:
As per the memorandum, some previous H1B Law defines, the definition of an �US Employer�. Somewhere in that definition (Page 2 of memo), it mentions the word �Employer-Employee relationship�. Till now, it seems that there was no clear guidance on what kind of relationship was considered having Employer-Employee relationship. So, it was being, probably, interpreted independently or ambiguously. Now, on Jan 8th, 2010, USCIS has published this memorandum for TRAINING USCIS OFFICIALS about understanding, Employer-Employee relationship. The memorandum seems to have been prepared with a clear understanding about it, along with the specific EXAMPLES.
Memorandum has given few specific examples, which would QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship, on Page 4-5 of the Memo � including the nature of the job/business. On Page 5-6, memorandum gives few specific examples, which would NOT QUALIFY for having Employer-Employee relationship. Third Party Placement / �Job-Shop� (better version of �Body-shop�, probably) is NOT QUALIFIED for meeting Employer-Employee Relationships � meaning, 3rd Party placement (which most of the small consulting companies do) doesn�t meet H1B requirement, as defined by the law � meaning for this job, the new H1B or Extension or Stamping petitions CANNOT be approved!! Period !!
This is how memorandum has identified 3rd Party Placements and in Bold letters, why it disqualifies for the H1B petitions (comments are in Red):
�The petitioner is a computer consulting company (which is what all small consulting do). The petitioner has contract with numerous outside companies in which it supplies these companies with employee to fulfill specific staffing needs. The specific positions are not outlined in the contract between the petitioner and the third-party company but are staffed on an as-needed basis (this is nothing but, Service Agreement between the petitioner and the mid-vendor!). The beneficiary is a computer analyst (which is what many small consulting company�s employee are). The beneficiary has been assigned to work for the third-party company to fill a core position to maintain the third-party company�s payroll (this nothing but, Mid-Vendor�s or so-called Prime-Vendor�s or Consulting Partner�s Revenue). Once placed at the client company, the beneficiary reports to a manager who works for the third-party company (as it happens, when Consulting partner hires employee as a contractor). The beneficiary does not report to the petitioner for work assignments, and all work assignments are determined by the third-party company (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The petitioner does not control how the beneficiary will complete daily tasks, and no propriety information of the petitioner is used by the beneficiary to complete any work assignments (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). The beneficiary�s end-product, the payroll (payroll of mid-vendor/prime vendor/consulting partner), is not in any way related to the petitioner�s line of business, which is computer consulting. The beneficiary�s progress reviews are completed by the client company, not the petitioner (petitioner just runs pay-rolls!). [Petitioner Has No Right to Control; No Exercise of Control].�
Right to Control:
Supreme Court has stated the definition of Employer-Employee Relationship (Page 3 of Memo), and there it was mentioned to have �Right to Control� over the work of the employee by the employer. From the entire memo, it sounds that Right control is well-established, ONLY WHEN, at least one supervisor from the petitioner�s company works with the beneficiary at the end-client site, and supervises beneficiary�s day-to-day work. So, big Consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Accenture, Deloitte etc. will be good, as they would meet �Right to Control� and that way, they will satisfy H1B requirement by law, and their petitions for similar 3rd party consulting work, will be APPROVED, but not in case of, small consulting companies!! This is because, big consulting companies such as Accenture � have their entire or partial team � along with managers etc. � working at the same client site, where the beneficiary would be working, so they could supervise their work and so exercise control over their work etc., but that cannot be the case with the small consulting � because, their actual business has been, so far, to place employees and run pay-roll � not to get the client projects!
Why one could think that there are slim chances for this memorandum to get reversed in favor of small consulting companies?
This memorandum took care of big consulting companies such as Wipro, Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture etc. � meaning, these companies and their employees are NOT impacted. They can travel freely to-and-fro their home country etc. Since, big companies are not impacted, there will not be any big lobbying or oppositions to this memorandum, per say!! There don�t seem to be a platform for small consulting companies to gather and lobby, plus most the small consulting may not get involved, with fear of exposing themselves more to other issues!! So, it might be east to assume that this memorandum is permanent and not temporary. The recent deportation also indicates that the changes like this memorandum is for serious, not just the warning!
How this memorandum relates to the recent deportation events from NY and NJ airports?
There seems to be an anticipated link between these 2 events � Memorandum and recent Deportations � kind of an indication about the current level of government scrutiny and seriousness of the H1B program. Hence, there have been advices by others that � each employer and employee should operate by strictly following the H1B program requirements.
Link to Murthy.com front page posting about this � MurthyDotCom : NewsFlash! Note to H1Bs Traveling to U.S., Working for Consulting Companies (http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_h1conc.html)
What one could predict as happening sooner (trend)?
� Since, it seems big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects)/full-time end-clients and their beneficiaries are not impacted with these changes � there could be trend � employee moving from small companies to big companies for a better shelter for full-time positions � especially, when small consulting company�s immediate preventions / actions to this memo cannot ensure safety.
� Big consulting companies could buy small consulting companies or small consulting companies could sell their companies to big consulting companies (having their own consulting projects), to save their employee�s future/transition etc.
Good Luck my Friends....!!
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
Dyana
02-14 12:29 PM
Hi Bestia
I see your PD is Aug 2004 for EB3 ROW, and U already filed I 485.
I need some help: My PD is also Aug 2004, I'm in the EB3 ROW. When can I start filling I-485? The March VB says 01JAN2005. What is the last date I can file?
Thanks 4 help.
I see your PD is Aug 2004 for EB3 ROW, and U already filed I 485.
I need some help: My PD is also Aug 2004, I'm in the EB3 ROW. When can I start filling I-485? The March VB says 01JAN2005. What is the last date I can file?
Thanks 4 help.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
acecupid
08-20 08:31 PM
Heat on SRK was because of scanner on Bollywood shows - US - World - NEWS - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/world/us/Heat-on-SRK-was-because-of-scanner-on-Bollywood-shows/articleshow/4916759.cms)
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
txh1b
08-18 03:53 PM
This thread is a drag and a waste of IV resources. I hope the admins lock this thread.
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
kumar1305
01-13 03:35 PM
Does it mean that people who are working with consulting companies are going home soon?
Ok, then first consulting guys will go then they may take some other crap to send everybody home?
What is going to happen now?
I work for client and I do not say that sending consulting guyz will benefit me. But I'm just curious as to what would the next few such steps to send out all the H1bs from this country.
Ok, then first consulting guys will go then they may take some other crap to send everybody home?
What is going to happen now?
I work for client and I do not say that sending consulting guyz will benefit me. But I'm just curious as to what would the next few such steps to send out all the H1bs from this country.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
Macaca
07-03 09:53 PM
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/02/ap3879453.html
This is an Associated Press Article. They sell articles to lot of web based media like Washington Post, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, CNN, etc.
The article was written yesterday and automatically appeared in all sites that subscribe to AP articles.
This is an Associated Press Article. They sell articles to lot of web based media like Washington Post, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, CNN, etc.
The article was written yesterday and automatically appeared in all sites that subscribe to AP articles.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
gjoe
02-15 05:06 AM
[QUOTE=hopefulgc;223549]thats bull.... disclosure is not requored.... my dog is a member of six professional canine associations ... does he have to bark it all up.
Are you implying that we are treated like dogs here? If your answer is yes we have a credible case against USCIS. If your answer is no then my friend ( buddy as Indians and pakis say) you have to disclose your associations.
:cool:
Are you implying that we are treated like dogs here? If your answer is yes we have a credible case against USCIS. If your answer is no then my friend ( buddy as Indians and pakis say) you have to disclose your associations.
:cool:
vdlrao
07-16 05:11 PM
How many of you think theres a Possibility of Current for EB2 India in either of the Jul/Aug/Sep 2009 bulletins, just like a more than 2 years jump in Aug 2008 bulletin.
lipstickonuscis
09-23 12:24 PM
Nixtor,
I am wondering if they will be eligible for exemption too. I am sure some of us have already taken the risky plunge and bought a house.
I am wondering if they will be eligible for exemption too. I am sure some of us have already taken the risky plunge and bought a house.