shana04
04-20 10:28 PM
I'm sure its a routine check as ur prev employer wudn't have notified USCIS that u have left them. Check with a popular attorney like Murthy or Khanna who may have come across such cases.
thank you
thank you
wallpaper LONG BOB HAIRSTYLES WITH SIDE FRINGE
Let me continue with my action while you continue with yours.
My posts are not intended for you. They are meant for the rare breed that think they can make a difference in this world. I'm sorry to know you aren't that.
I would rather spend my time working for causes that I beleive - IV as well as Immigrants Rights, instead of wasting time on an on-line brawl. I'm sure you guys also have better things to do in life.
Let's just move on.
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:
The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?
More later ..
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:
The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?
More later ..
2011 hairstyles 2011 long bangs.
more...
This bill will INCREASE Outsourcing.. .My view. becoz employers after reading the text would say why should i worry about filing H1 after all so no new H1 Transfers to regular comps and no to existing consulting companies due to 50% limit. L1's are screwed.
Ask yourself what does it do and whom does it help. Does it help existing economy , looks to many becoz they dont understand it increases offshoring...
But there is already enough abuse in H1/L1 , How is IV recommending path forward for this bill ?
Well, s/he did say s/he was proud to be an INDIAN-American, didn't s/he? In the order you wanted...
more...
My attorney had filed 140s for in EB2/EB3 and I hope they have not taken my app and classified it as EB3. We sent the EB2 I-140 with the AOS app so I dont think that would happen but stranger things have happened with USCIS.
Response that I got from the local senator and from what I read in the other thread you created, I think visa numbers are over for 2009 fiscal year. We will now have to wait until October. I dont mind waiting until October, but I want to use the next 15 days doing whatever I can, so atleast in October, I have some chance of getting approved.
Good luck to you, hope everyone who is waiting gets the good news soon.
any approvals for 9/17 yet?
2010 2011 long sleek hairstyle
Numbers USA people are angry right wing citizens.
Calls from legal aliens who can't vote won't move lawmakers one bit. Money and votes are the only 2 things that matter to politicians.
Pressure groups and lobbyists have far more reach and influence. IV as a group can use lobbyists and other influence to get a lot more done. Individual phone calls are a waste.
DBCD
I think this should be highlighted as it conveys a very important message:
"you may wish to google the nyt articles on how numbers usa operates to derail bills- they call! if our members would show the same enthusiasm and every single person would call when requested, we could have the same impact."
more...
This is an excellent question and I was also looking for an answer. I am into my 6th year of H1-B(exactly 5 years 1 month) and also have an approved EAD & AP.
I have a great JOB offer but hesitating to invoke AC21(moving using H1-B/EAD) because these days there are many 485 DENIALS( the moment I1-40 is REVOKED). And NOTHING is guaranteed even if we send the AC21 documents to USCIS. And the EAD automatically gets invalid anyways when the 485 is denied.
Doing some research to find out if H1-B extension beyond 6th year is valid if 485 - gets DENIED? (Example: If I get a 3 year H1-B extension based on my current I-140 approval)?
Also not sure if it applies in my case as I still have 10-11 months of H1-B remaining and if I decide to take up this oppurtunity in the next couple of months and 485 gets DENIED after that. May be I will have enough time to file MTR? I should be fine. But what if 485 gets DENIED after I complete 6 years?
Please provide genuine answers.
These answers will BENEFIT many people.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Srini
In your situation, it is better to use EAD to save remaining time in 6 year period of H1. It is wise to use EAD, if you are in initial 6 year period of H1. In case if 485 is denied, you can go back to H1 and enjoy remaining period in 6 years. H1 extension, beyond 6 years is always based on pending immigration applications like LC, 140 and 485. If 485 (final step in GC) is denied, the H1 extension is also invalid. Fortunatly, USCIS do not have highly integrated system to revoke all underlying benefits (H1 Extn or EAD) based on pending immigration application was denied. After denying 485, unless USCIS specifically revoke H1B extension they granted after 6 years or EAD, you may be eligible to legally work with that document till its expiry. However, if they bring more integration to their system, they may deny all subsidary benefits due to denial of 140/485.
hair long haircuts with angs 2011.
more...
May be these 125,000 are pre adjudicated cases and they might have lot more un processed cases where they cannot identify the application as Indian.
If my guess is correct, I am royally ....
hot hairstyles 2011 long bangs.
jingi1234
12-14 08:38 PM
with all the sescenarios, We can't collect stamped passport on the same dat at chennai? - Is this correct?
while booking appointment I said I will collect my passport at local VFS office.
?
while booking appointment I said I will collect my passport at local VFS office.
?
more...
house hairstyles 2011 for women with
bugsbunny
04-17 03:00 PM
Looks like you are one of the beneficiaries of H1 who does not have good education. You can console yourself with the word 'skill' and all that computer jargon The bottomline is H1B visa is for professionals.
Stop making personal attacks.
You know nothing about me or my education or my skills.
By resorting to personal attacks to try and support you arguments you have revealed your level of character and intelligence in how debates are conducted.
I don't support IT bodyshops and that fraud should stop.
If you believe you have proof of shady practices then report them to USCIS.
Stop making personal attacks.
You know nothing about me or my education or my skills.
By resorting to personal attacks to try and support you arguments you have revealed your level of character and intelligence in how debates are conducted.
I don't support IT bodyshops and that fraud should stop.
If you believe you have proof of shady practices then report them to USCIS.
tattoo angs 2011. hairstyles
For all well qualified EB-3 folks it is a good and legal way of getting out of this EB-3 India mess.
more...
pictures hairstyles 2011 long bangs.
mirage
03-11 09:46 AM
In my opinion USCIS will not give inaccurate information, in writing, to a Senator. The letter clearly mentions 'Application Pending for India'...
"EB Applications pending from India" is very vague, and most probably is not what we are looking for.
USCIS has indicated earlier that they don't know chargeability country until application is ready for approval, which may be true although we didn't want to believe this. Most likely until 485 application is approved birth country is not written anywhere other than the paper application. In most 485 application cases (family, EB and others), chargeability country is a just a matter of recording at approval time. At final approval time, when birth country is found to be retrogressed, application goes back to pending (or cold storage), but ready to approve. This also explains why cutoff dates have to rely purely on guess work, and move back and forth.
For proper handling of cases for retrogressed countries, USCIS/DOS really have no workable method in place.
"EB Applications pending from India" is very vague, and most probably is not what we are looking for.
USCIS has indicated earlier that they don't know chargeability country until application is ready for approval, which may be true although we didn't want to believe this. Most likely until 485 application is approved birth country is not written anywhere other than the paper application. In most 485 application cases (family, EB and others), chargeability country is a just a matter of recording at approval time. At final approval time, when birth country is found to be retrogressed, application goes back to pending (or cold storage), but ready to approve. This also explains why cutoff dates have to rely purely on guess work, and move back and forth.
For proper handling of cases for retrogressed countries, USCIS/DOS really have no workable method in place.
dresses TOP 5: Long Curls with Bangs
more...
makeup May 28, 2011. Cute Long Bangs
You are right, it is very hard to digest, even for you, who seems to support it. And, if I may add, your example it too "complicated" for me. Try giving easy example for me, I am kind a slow, maybe I should get some "preferential treatment". Yes, that's the word, "preferential".
Country quota is NOT affirmative action, nowhere even close. If you are socio-politically dominated by Indian or Chinese, yes, then it is affirmative action. But if you do not come from a place there Indian and Chinese imperial powers have taken over the country, then how are you socio-politically dominated by Indian or Chinese. And if you are not dominated by Indian or Chinese in the country where you came from, then how could it be "like" affarmative action.
Maybe you yet don't know, but Indian and Chinese EB applications cannot vote and they do not have any representation in the US government. So its not that you are "not properly represented" and Indian and Chinese have all the representation. WE ALL HAVE NO REPRESENTATION. Just so that its clear.
Your next argument is that you are "overwhelmed" by Indian and Chinese so there should be country-limits. Well, I can understand that, we are very overwhelming people. You see 40% of the world population gets 14% green card, we tend to become "overwhelming" for other.
Observation: Each time, I reply to each and every part of your post. But you totally ignore what I write. You did not answer whether you think you are equal? inferior? or superior? That is the question. Hope you answer that.
Quota system treats everybody anything but "equal". And this is not just the question of equality, because I am sure you agree that we are equals. It is the question of PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. You are in the category getting preferential treatment, so you oppose any change, you "create" arguements that you were "promised" a system when you came, and thus any change to the system, before you get your green card would be WRONG and UNFAIR. So you should continue to get that PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. And PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT to you is NOT WRONG AND UNFAIR. Right?
BTW, hope you liked the You tube video, Frank is really good. I do not want you to go, so that's why I posted the video. Hope it helped you to stick around. Now don't say you have the right to watch it 5 times and I can watch it only once because I am from India and you are ROW :D
Cheers,
Country quota is NOT affirmative action, nowhere even close. If you are socio-politically dominated by Indian or Chinese, yes, then it is affirmative action. But if you do not come from a place there Indian and Chinese imperial powers have taken over the country, then how are you socio-politically dominated by Indian or Chinese. And if you are not dominated by Indian or Chinese in the country where you came from, then how could it be "like" affarmative action.
Maybe you yet don't know, but Indian and Chinese EB applications cannot vote and they do not have any representation in the US government. So its not that you are "not properly represented" and Indian and Chinese have all the representation. WE ALL HAVE NO REPRESENTATION. Just so that its clear.
Your next argument is that you are "overwhelmed" by Indian and Chinese so there should be country-limits. Well, I can understand that, we are very overwhelming people. You see 40% of the world population gets 14% green card, we tend to become "overwhelming" for other.
Observation: Each time, I reply to each and every part of your post. But you totally ignore what I write. You did not answer whether you think you are equal? inferior? or superior? That is the question. Hope you answer that.
Quota system treats everybody anything but "equal". And this is not just the question of equality, because I am sure you agree that we are equals. It is the question of PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. You are in the category getting preferential treatment, so you oppose any change, you "create" arguements that you were "promised" a system when you came, and thus any change to the system, before you get your green card would be WRONG and UNFAIR. So you should continue to get that PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. And PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT to you is NOT WRONG AND UNFAIR. Right?
BTW, hope you liked the You tube video, Frank is really good. I do not want you to go, so that's why I posted the video. Hope it helped you to stick around. Now don't say you have the right to watch it 5 times and I can watch it only once because I am from India and you are ROW :D
Cheers,
girlfriend long bob hairstyles 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment