Kevin Sadler
June 16th, 2006, 10:48 AM
i like the 4th one of the percussionist but my favorite is the last one for some reason. have you photographed concerts before? these are pretty good.
eu vou ver o seu jorge amana em los angeles. voce o conhece? ele e um musico carioca.
have a great weekend. vai brasil este domingo!!!! 5-0! :)
kevin
eu vou ver o seu jorge amana em los angeles. voce o conhece? ele e um musico carioca.
have a great weekend. vai brasil este domingo!!!! 5-0! :)
kevin
wallpaper 80s hairstyles for girls. 80s+hairstyles+for+girls; 80s+hairstyles+for+girls
psaxena
10-07 03:18 PM
Forget all the middle vendor and lawsuit , nobody will do anything.. In CA if you not aware, there is no legally binding contract that can restrict and employee to work for any employer. Non compete agreements also do not work there, these are just fear tactics. I left my employer and joined the client , and did this 2 times and also that too not even in CA , in other states. Noone did nothing, because it cost time and money and unless there is a 100% chance for the other party to win , they will not get into the lawsuit and stuff as it cost a lot of time and money.
So forget him and also save the middle vendor's number on your phone so next time you can avoid his call.
hi ,
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
So forget him and also save the middle vendor's number on your phone so next time you can avoid his call.
hi ,
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
rick_rajvanshi
12-07 12:06 PM
I won't worry about this at all as they have addressed this situation few weeks back here :
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e0bc5afdc095110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Moreover , I have found it easier to get hold of IO ( call center guy quickly handovers calls to IO ) when I call them to check for status on a my AP which is not appearing on the CaseStatus web site.
Q : I have received my receipt notice, but when I check my case online it does not appear. How do I get my case added to the system, so I can check on the progress of my case? NEW
We have had an unprecedented number of applications filed in the last few months. Our efforts to enter these applications into our systems have caused a delay in the transfer of information from our case control system to the Case Status Online system. We are seeing delays of up to three to four weeks between receipting of your application and its status being available online. We are reviewing solutions to resolve the situation as soon as possible.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e0bc5afdc095110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=54519c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Moreover , I have found it easier to get hold of IO ( call center guy quickly handovers calls to IO ) when I call them to check for status on a my AP which is not appearing on the CaseStatus web site.
Q : I have received my receipt notice, but when I check my case online it does not appear. How do I get my case added to the system, so I can check on the progress of my case? NEW
We have had an unprecedented number of applications filed in the last few months. Our efforts to enter these applications into our systems have caused a delay in the transfer of information from our case control system to the Case Status Online system. We are seeing delays of up to three to four weeks between receipting of your application and its status being available online. We are reviewing solutions to resolve the situation as soon as possible.
2011 bad hairstyles pictures.
sdrblr
10-29 09:58 AM
Most of the time non compete is enforced on direct competitor(s) and not on all companies. They dont want you to quit and join their direct competitor and reveal your trade secrets and this will stand in the court as I know somebody who was directly affected by this and he had to turn down a very good offer.
Also companies can change non compete any time.
since non compete was not required at time of joining the job, I don't see any way where at time of leaving they can force a overly broad condition. imagine if you working in a software company and they make you sign agreement, AT TIME OF LEAVING, that you can not work in same industry for next 5 years, what are you gonna do ? flip burgers for next 5 years ?
Also companies can change non compete any time.
since non compete was not required at time of joining the job, I don't see any way where at time of leaving they can force a overly broad condition. imagine if you working in a software company and they make you sign agreement, AT TIME OF LEAVING, that you can not work in same industry for next 5 years, what are you gonna do ? flip burgers for next 5 years ?
more...
Simran21
10-01 05:35 AM
While taking a VISA appointment , there is a question which says "Are you applying for same visa class that expired in the last 12 months?"
Here are my doubts
1. I had a H1 B VISA which expired in May 2007 processed by my previous employer. As I am applying for the same VISA class , but though a differnt employer, should the answer be 'YES'?
2. Since my daughter will be appearing for the H4 VISA interview for the FIRST TIME, Is she also eligible to come along with me if I choose "YES" to the question "Are you applying for same visa class that expired in the last 12 months?".
Thanks in advance.
Here are my doubts
1. I had a H1 B VISA which expired in May 2007 processed by my previous employer. As I am applying for the same VISA class , but though a differnt employer, should the answer be 'YES'?
2. Since my daughter will be appearing for the H4 VISA interview for the FIRST TIME, Is she also eligible to come along with me if I choose "YES" to the question "Are you applying for same visa class that expired in the last 12 months?".
Thanks in advance.
cox
October 25th, 2005, 11:51 PM
I think the timing is a matter more of when those of you who have to travel can make it here. For the locals, I think we're a lot more flexible. I would suggest a pre-xmas timing (mid to late dec). Right now, the fog on the bay is pretty bad, but toward xmas it usually lightens up. The weather will be chilly (esp. Marin & the seashore), but it never really gets cold here like those of you who have midwest or northeast winters. ;) Hotel rates should also be good. I'm looking forward to meeting any of you who can make it out here!
I've been trying to get the perfect bridge picture for a while, and we can continue that in Marin, and breakfast in Sausalito. We could hit the 'tourist' spots - Coit tower, Market street, pier 39, & the Presidio. If we want to go further afield, there are a host of parks and beaches immediately available. Point Reyes National Seashore is a two & a half hour drive north from SF. Tule Elk, shorebirds and sea lions. Point Ano Nuevo is an hour and a half south. Elephant Seals, birds and deer. I'm game for anything. I'm sure QJ will come up with an even better list and then we can discuss.
I've been trying to get the perfect bridge picture for a while, and we can continue that in Marin, and breakfast in Sausalito. We could hit the 'tourist' spots - Coit tower, Market street, pier 39, & the Presidio. If we want to go further afield, there are a host of parks and beaches immediately available. Point Reyes National Seashore is a two & a half hour drive north from SF. Tule Elk, shorebirds and sea lions. Point Ano Nuevo is an hour and a half south. Elephant Seals, birds and deer. I'm game for anything. I'm sure QJ will come up with an even better list and then we can discuss.
more...
eyeinfinitude
10-09 07:30 AM
Dessoya gets my vote, I like the morbid approach.
2010 80s+hairstyles+for+black+
eilsoe
10-22 04:48 PM
Ooohh... maybe I should try the game once more :)
Oh wait... I can't... :*(
Oh wait... I can't... :*(
more...
unseenguy
01-04 02:44 PM
Very simple. Impose some kind of a tax for companies not registered in India but have employees more than 20,000. Kinda foolish to do this but I guess a small tx would get the money back.
hair achievable 80s hair-styles
gbof
10-15 02:01 PM
Anybody having experienced RFE after rfe.
I responded to a very simple rfe (asked to provide approval of form I-612) and after that online staus is 'response recd--case being processed ...blah..blah. Should it be a done deal? Pl, share your thoughts
I responded to a very simple rfe (asked to provide approval of form I-612) and after that online staus is 'response recd--case being processed ...blah..blah. Should it be a done deal? Pl, share your thoughts
more...
smisachu
07-23 03:35 PM
R.William on July 3rd.
hot Madonna 80s Hairstyles - Page
pamposh
08-07 08:26 PM
would it based on when vermont received application OR when it gets forwarded to NSC or TSC
more...
house Really Bad 80s Hairstyle 3
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
tattoo sskater 80s+skater+haircut
Googler
02-14 04:24 PM
"Based on a review of the facts and bedrock principles of administrative agency law, the Court finds that USCIS�s name check requirement has
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
more...
pictures 80s hairstyle.jpg photo
jkays94
05-30 11:14 PM
My PD is Sept 2005 and EB3 India. With the new company I can file EB2. What will be your recommendation?
I'm not an attorney and with that necessary disclaimer out of the way in regards to not offering legal advice: The danger here is in the details of the bill. Say you move to the new company and you file your LC. And the bill passes, the problem you will face is that your I-140 will have been filed well after the date of introduction of the bill and you would have to go through the proposed merit system. Unless some miracle happens and you get the GC before the bill becomes law, then its a long shot, but life is about risks, if the bill fails then you will have wasted valuable time. I'd suggest you weigh your options carefully and if costs are not an issue, go for it. I'll also urge you to read the IV analysis of the bill which you can find on the home page.
I'm not an attorney and with that necessary disclaimer out of the way in regards to not offering legal advice: The danger here is in the details of the bill. Say you move to the new company and you file your LC. And the bill passes, the problem you will face is that your I-140 will have been filed well after the date of introduction of the bill and you would have to go through the proposed merit system. Unless some miracle happens and you get the GC before the bill becomes law, then its a long shot, but life is about risks, if the bill fails then you will have wasted valuable time. I'd suggest you weigh your options carefully and if costs are not an issue, go for it. I'll also urge you to read the IV analysis of the bill which you can find on the home page.
dresses Side ponytail 80s Hairstyle
willwin
03-16 02:06 PM
Bump... please, if anyone got PW for greencard labor through the new process... how long it took??
Anyone?
Mine was filed 1st week of Jan and still waiting .....
Anyone?
Mine was filed 1st week of Jan and still waiting .....
more...
makeup 80#39;s Hairstyles (7 of 67)
solraj
03-19 01:24 PM
Check with the employer and the designated lawyer if they received a notice saying 140 denied.If not check with your employer and see how the trend is wrt 140 approvals recently if anyone got approvals or any denials if yes is it an Ability to pay or Education.Either way you can file a Motion to reopen for both 140 and 485.I believe it has to be done in 30 days. So you should really rush getting this done.I would advise doing it from a very experienced lawyer than the actual lawyer who filed your original cae.
girlfriend cinderella games, 80s
wandmaker
04-27 03:24 PM
Hi all,
I took today an Infopass to ask about the status of my I-485 (EB3 ROW, filled in July 2007, PD 12/2005). The IO told me that the case is pre-adjudicated under review and that, since there are no visa numbers available, the case will resume normal processing in October 2009 and that there is no reason to ask about the status anymore until that time. Can anybody explain what "pre-adjudicated under review" means ?
Thank you !
pre-adjudicated - As of writing, your case is good-to-go and subject to fbi name check & visa number availability.
under review - It may once be reviewed fully or partially before requesting for a visa number when available
I took today an Infopass to ask about the status of my I-485 (EB3 ROW, filled in July 2007, PD 12/2005). The IO told me that the case is pre-adjudicated under review and that, since there are no visa numbers available, the case will resume normal processing in October 2009 and that there is no reason to ask about the status anymore until that time. Can anybody explain what "pre-adjudicated under review" means ?
Thank you !
pre-adjudicated - As of writing, your case is good-to-go and subject to fbi name check & visa number availability.
under review - It may once be reviewed fully or partially before requesting for a visa number when available
hairstyles Hairstyles of 80s#39;-90′s
some_guy
07-17 05:37 PM
Great news...... Keep going IV
joshi_tushar
03-02 07:54 PM
I HAD SAME SITUATION FEW DAYS A GO, MY ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT I NEED TO GO OUT OF COUNTRY ATLEAST FOR WEEK OR NEED TO FILE FOR H1B EXT.
I CHOSE TO FILE FOR EXT AS MY H1 WAS EXPERING AS WELL.
BUT FOR HER SHE MUST GO OUT BEFORE HER I-94 EXPIRES
i AM NO ATTORNEY PLEASE CONFIRM WITH 1.
I CHOSE TO FILE FOR EXT AS MY H1 WAS EXPERING AS WELL.
BUT FOR HER SHE MUST GO OUT BEFORE HER I-94 EXPIRES
i AM NO ATTORNEY PLEASE CONFIRM WITH 1.
franklin
02-10 07:43 PM
My gut feeling would be in agreeing with what your attorney says regarding the difficulty with the same job description but differing EB category.
However, I don't think the attorney would have filled for the EB2 knowing that it would not be accepted, especially if your company is paying for the process.
I guess you'll only really know if the tactic works when your EB2 LC is resolved.
I'm far from an attorney, but your general position seems similar to what I've been considering for a while (that's why I know a little bit about this). Sorry - can't be much more help other than that - its just my guessing, really. Maybe others on this board have applied the same theory with success.
However, I don't think the attorney would have filled for the EB2 knowing that it would not be accepted, especially if your company is paying for the process.
I guess you'll only really know if the tactic works when your EB2 LC is resolved.
I'm far from an attorney, but your general position seems similar to what I've been considering for a while (that's why I know a little bit about this). Sorry - can't be much more help other than that - its just my guessing, really. Maybe others on this board have applied the same theory with success.