.jpg "girlfriend wallpaper 2011")
raamskl
07-07 12:40 PM
Done..
Good luck to ur son.
Good luck to ur son.
wallpaper girlfriend wallpaper 2011
arc
04-13 06:48 PM
Call it a low hanging fruit or Optimistic people's power of attraction...
Someone I know eb3I PD 2k3 got GC 6 Mos back, I know them personaly - first hand info.
Problem is they do not report it on froum or tracker, and leave the forum for ever... because they know there will be a lot of people asking questions or making them miserable by trying to prove them wrong... go figure...
Be + ive...
True Story!!!:cool:
Someone I know eb3I PD 2k3 got GC 6 Mos back, I know them personaly - first hand info.
Problem is they do not report it on froum or tracker, and leave the forum for ever... because they know there will be a lot of people asking questions or making them miserable by trying to prove them wrong... go figure...
Be + ive...
True Story!!!:cool:
kishdam
02-06 03:44 PM
Do you work for saicon.. I also signed something like this.
No. I work for an established software product company. Did anyone at your employer left and what were consequences. At my office not all signed this and they still continued application.
No. I work for an established software product company. Did anyone at your employer left and what were consequences. At my office not all signed this and they still continued application.
2011 Download new nature wallpapers
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
spaceguy
03-26 08:03 PM
Have you gone out of the country and came back to USA on H1B visa after that ?
If so, you are safe. Status is checked from the last lawful entry into US ( entry using AP does not help).
I never heard this? Any references to confirm this?
If so, you are safe. Status is checked from the last lawful entry into US ( entry using AP does not help).
I never heard this? Any references to confirm this?
sunny1000
02-03 05:45 PM
Hello -
Its been 30 days since my AP was mailed to me as per USCIS notification and I have not yet received it, but on other hand we receiver my wifes AP with in 3 days of approval.
Can you guys suggest if I have to wait little longer or assume its lost in mail and apply for new one.
Did any one on this forum experience more than 30 days to receive there AP since document mailed notification from USCIS.
I would appreciate your suggestions/comment.
Peace.
I would suggest that you call the customer service number, since it is over 30 days, to find out what is going on.
Its been 30 days since my AP was mailed to me as per USCIS notification and I have not yet received it, but on other hand we receiver my wifes AP with in 3 days of approval.
Can you guys suggest if I have to wait little longer or assume its lost in mail and apply for new one.
Did any one on this forum experience more than 30 days to receive there AP since document mailed notification from USCIS.
I would appreciate your suggestions/comment.
Peace.
I would suggest that you call the customer service number, since it is over 30 days, to find out what is going on.
more...
ski_dude12
03-22 11:50 AM
What about your previous H4 visa. Is that valid? or did they void that visa when they refused the new one. Or your previous H4 has expired?
If your previous H4 is valid you can try to re-enter using that. You will have to tell the officer at POE about your H4 visa denial, if asked.
Good luck and do not get scared. It is not the end of the world.
If your previous H4 is valid you can try to re-enter using that. You will have to tell the officer at POE about your H4 visa denial, if asked.
Good luck and do not get scared. It is not the end of the world.
2010 wallpaper 2011 Nature Desktop
skagitswimmer
June 19th, 2005, 09:58 AM
A bit better but still a little grey. I don't think you can get detail on the chest area for instance and keep the blacks looking black on the rest of the bird.
I do use autofocus, at least with the 1D2 it works fine. The 20D is a bit iffy, it should work but it hunts sometimes.
Here is another version, with FM shadow recovery set to 2 - and I used a mask to limit it only to the darkest areas.
By the way - when I opened the attachment it looked washed out to me too, because it opens in windows rather than in Adobe PSCS2. They use different colourspaces. - try opening the attachment in an adobe colourspace and see if it makes a difference.
Re the autofocus, it may be that the 100-400 doesn't allow AF. There is absolutely none on the setup I'm using - a 350D + the 100-400L + type II TC 1.4
I do use autofocus, at least with the 1D2 it works fine. The 20D is a bit iffy, it should work but it hunts sometimes.
Here is another version, with FM shadow recovery set to 2 - and I used a mask to limit it only to the darkest areas.
By the way - when I opened the attachment it looked washed out to me too, because it opens in windows rather than in Adobe PSCS2. They use different colourspaces. - try opening the attachment in an adobe colourspace and see if it makes a difference.
Re the autofocus, it may be that the 100-400 doesn't allow AF. There is absolutely none on the setup I'm using - a 350D + the 100-400L + type II TC 1.4
more...
enthu999
03-27 01:40 AM
Just an idea, if emails or letters doesn't reach Obama...may be IV should consider an open letter to Obama,Congress and Senate by buying space in major news papers
and suggesting the obvious economic benefits(buying homes, home renovations, buying durable goods etc) of speeding legal immigration.
and suggesting the obvious economic benefits(buying homes, home renovations, buying durable goods etc) of speeding legal immigration.
hair Nature+wallpaper+2011+for+
GCBy3000
01-03 11:12 AM
This is a great move strategically to make members part of IV. With this, there is no need for IV to constantly campaingn for funds with regular active members. IV's energy towards campaign could be targeted towards the new members and other non monthly contributors.
I appreciate all the members who have volunteered to contribute on monthly basis. It is just a matter of spending on one lunch / one bar outing or for a movie.
Still let us keep a open thread for every month to make sure the fire on monthly contribution keeps burning. We dont want it to subside until we reach our goal.
I appreciate all the members who have volunteered to contribute on monthly basis. It is just a matter of spending on one lunch / one bar outing or for a movie.
Still let us keep a open thread for every month to make sure the fire on monthly contribution keeps burning. We dont want it to subside until we reach our goal.
more...
chanukya
05-17 11:43 PM
I think you are slightly off again. This clause pertains only to labor certification and has no relation to quotas as I understand. Remember that there is no such thing as an LC quota. So you still wait in line... Only gain is that the bar for labor is slightly lower because the employer has to show that they hired the best guy for the job as opposed to showing that no minimally qualified American citizen was available. ;)
US Masters and above exempt from quota...
Read this (Sec 514)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56&d=1147880856
in conjunction with this ...(USCIS Section 201(b)(1)(8 U.S.C 1151(b)(1)
http://www.uscis.gov/lpbin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20/slb-1225?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm
US Masters and above exempt from quota...
Read this (Sec 514)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56&d=1147880856
in conjunction with this ...(USCIS Section 201(b)(1)(8 U.S.C 1151(b)(1)
http://www.uscis.gov/lpbin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20/slb-1225?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm
hot sai baba wallpaper 2011 hd_08.
jojet
10-26 01:02 AM
guys can someone please let me know what is meant by lud.
my fringerprinting was done 2 days ago and received ead no ap yet.
i have seen posts saying online status of i485 been adjusted to lud after
finger printing done.i donot see any changes online for i485 after finger printing.
i highly appreciate if someone let me know what is lud
my fringerprinting was done 2 days ago and received ead no ap yet.
i have seen posts saying online status of i485 been adjusted to lud after
finger printing done.i donot see any changes online for i485 after finger printing.
i highly appreciate if someone let me know what is lud
more...
house girlfriend Free Nature Wallpapers computer wallpaper free nature.
mbartosik
09-12 07:34 PM
If you are on bench, not getting paid, your employer normally asks you to send him a letter stating that you are on vacation. This needs to be done every month. For the period you are on vacation, there may not be any pay stubs. Once you get any project, you will send your employer another letter saying that you are back and ready to work for them.
With this approach, you WILL NOT get any trouble from USCIS or anyone. If any RFP comes, then, employer will show these documents and clear the issues. I did this in the past and all my friends who were in different stages (like Labor filed, I-140 filed, 485 filed) also did and had no problems.
But as always it is advised that to talk to the lawyer who is working on your case is best suited to answer as that person is to submit the paper work.
If you are "on the bench" the employer is obligated to pay you.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
With this approach, you WILL NOT get any trouble from USCIS or anyone. If any RFP comes, then, employer will show these documents and clear the issues. I did this in the past and all my friends who were in different stages (like Labor filed, I-140 filed, 485 filed) also did and had no problems.
But as always it is advised that to talk to the lawyer who is working on your case is best suited to answer as that person is to submit the paper work.
If you are "on the bench" the employer is obligated to pay you.
If you state that you are on vacation when in fact your are "on bench", and later misrepresent being on the bench as vacation to USCIS you and your employer either committing fraud or conspiring to commit fraud.
The employer must allow for "on the bench" time in the salary quoted in the LCA that accompanies the I-129 for H1B. If "on the bench" time is not allowed for it probably invalidates the prevailing wage comparison.
If your employer does not allow for 'on the bench' time in the wage rates quoted, then there is a reasonable argument that you are not meeting prevailing wage, and are infact undercutting US wages (and then some of what Lou Dobbs says is right).
If you are a consultant you could drop the quoted salary on LCA (but must remain above prevailing wage) to allow for risk of "on the bench" or any other circumstances. That way there is money to cover any gap. However, that requires more trust in the middle man - employer.
I'm not sure if I've read it right, but it looks to me like you have made a public confession here.
Of course the period between projects is an ideal time for vacation, as there is no project schedule to deal with. So whether the law is being broken I guess depends on what the motivation is for the vacation, something that is hard to prove. If the employer says you are going to tell him that you are on vacation until he finds more work then that sounds illegal. If on the other hand if you say, "how about I take this opportunity for some vacation?", it is okay.
One would hope that USCIS expercise common sense. However, common sense could mean being suspicious of gaps because the system is clearly open to abuse.
tattoo HD Wallpapers 2011 Big
desi485
09-27 10:12 AM
^^bump^^
more...
pictures Wallpaper – Nature Canada HQ
.jpg "pictures 2011 nature wallpaper")
pointlesswait
03-28 11:51 AM
how on earth do u expect ppl to knwo how USCIS functions..:eek:
wait and watch!
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
wait and watch!
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
dresses 2011 nature wallpaper for
21stIcon
12-20 08:17 PM
Although I was not affected, my colleague who joined most recently this company for $100k salary on consulting project was scammed. He was astonished when he received his pay check, the reason being this company deducted 33% tax then deposited reaming amount on bank which was further liable to tax deduction from IRS.
For example
100k/12 = 8333/pm -company deducted highest tax bracket 2525(33% of 8333) as tax then deposited 5808/pm on bank account, after IRS withholding he got around 4000/pm.
We need to stop such scams by let labor department know about this and arrest him to set an example to other consulting companies saying we are not uneducated.
For example
100k/12 = 8333/pm -company deducted highest tax bracket 2525(33% of 8333) as tax then deposited 5808/pm on bank account, after IRS withholding he got around 4000/pm.
We need to stop such scams by let labor department know about this and arrest him to set an example to other consulting companies saying we are not uneducated.
more...
makeup wallpaper nature 2011.
saketkapur
02-07 10:53 AM
link??
girlfriend baba wallpaper 2011 hd_08.
saurav_4096
06-16 10:00 PM
How does AC21 will come into play when a person files I-485 with the letter from employer that employment will be availabe once green card is issued.
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
hairstyles hair Best nature wallpaper
synergy
08-15 11:03 AM
Does it apply for people who used AC-21?Do they need to go back to their filing employer after getting green card?
It is mandatory by law. Both side have to have a bona fide intention (for company - to hire, for employee - to work for) for EB GC. Employer proves its intent by filing I-140. Employee proves his/her intent by joining the employer. Each situation is unique, but in OP's situation, there is no bona fide intent to work for company Y. Therefore, it will be a fradulent GC which can be revoked. How OP is going to prove that he was going to join Y after GC is approved? AC21 allows for porting, but porting to company X will look fishy as well. If OP can get a letter from Y that position is no longer available, it may help. This being said, there is a possibility to get a GC without any issues.
It is mandatory by law. Both side have to have a bona fide intention (for company - to hire, for employee - to work for) for EB GC. Employer proves its intent by filing I-140. Employee proves his/her intent by joining the employer. Each situation is unique, but in OP's situation, there is no bona fide intent to work for company Y. Therefore, it will be a fradulent GC which can be revoked. How OP is going to prove that he was going to join Y after GC is approved? AC21 allows for porting, but porting to company X will look fishy as well. If OP can get a letter from Y that position is no longer available, it may help. This being said, there is a possibility to get a GC without any issues.
snathan
03-03 01:29 PM
Well, I am not a fake profile. What happened to us is real. That is what the guy told us. He was basing his decision in the fact that the original company which filed for the LC was no longer in business and that they created a new company. Reality is that they only changed the company's name but they still do the same and have same employees. We believe he didn't want to ask his new partner about signing the I-140 petition. That is our guess.
Honestly, we disconnected ourselves from the whole thing, we were really depressed that after waiting for 5 years we finally got the LC approved and then we got that response. That is why I am looking for help in the forum, I really disconnected myself from the whole process and was not sure how have things changed since in terms of new immigration policies etc etc.
What ever it is...you need to file I-140 within 180 days of approvel. Its two years and gone.
Honestly, we disconnected ourselves from the whole thing, we were really depressed that after waiting for 5 years we finally got the LC approved and then we got that response. That is why I am looking for help in the forum, I really disconnected myself from the whole process and was not sure how have things changed since in terms of new immigration policies etc etc.
What ever it is...you need to file I-140 within 180 days of approvel. Its two years and gone.
telekinesis
10-20 07:52 AM
Get the educational version! Much cheaper and is fully functional!