hebron
01-20 02:42 PM
can name few who became "big" literally (--fat)
LOL...Good one!
LOL...Good one!
wallpaper 2011 taylor swift quote
CRAZYMONK
07-20 03:24 PM
Did you guys (@Sanjay, @linuxra, @Suvendra, @Optimizer) hear any thing back from USCIS? Any updates on your Case?
masterji
05-18 12:31 PM
If this passes this will be awesome for Ph.D. graduates.
2011 taylor swift quote wallpaper.
srikanthmavurapu
08-16 04:03 PM
It all depends if you have a written agreement that prohibits you from working with the current employer. If there is no contract, you are safe. It seems that there is no such contract that either you signed with your ex-employer or middle-men.
If your employer doesn't pay you the salary that he agreed to (in writing), then you can be sure that DOL will ask your employer to pay a fine and pay you the salary. I would suggest that if he does or does not sue you, you better complain to DOL that you weren't getting paid. This will no way this will affect you.
In the Employee Agreement which i signed there is clause saying i cannot work for the same client directly or indirectly for one year . I don't think i signed any contract with ex-employer or middle men. I don't even have the copy of contract document(purchase order) when i got this job offer at this client.
I will complain to DOL just thinking to talk to a Lawyer first but i will complain to DOL this week at any cost.
Thanks,
Srikanth
If your employer doesn't pay you the salary that he agreed to (in writing), then you can be sure that DOL will ask your employer to pay a fine and pay you the salary. I would suggest that if he does or does not sue you, you better complain to DOL that you weren't getting paid. This will no way this will affect you.
In the Employee Agreement which i signed there is clause saying i cannot work for the same client directly or indirectly for one year . I don't think i signed any contract with ex-employer or middle men. I don't even have the copy of contract document(purchase order) when i got this job offer at this client.
I will complain to DOL just thinking to talk to a Lawyer first but i will complain to DOL this week at any cost.
Thanks,
Srikanth
more...
boreal
07-08 08:29 PM
None... as I did not seem to see anywhere in the filing instruction that W2 is needed... unless there is some change. Who knows nowadays...;)
Correct - None is the answer! My law firm (Fragomen) didnt ask for them when they submitted my docs on JUly 2. Maybe they are needed if the USCIS comes back with an RFE.
Correct - None is the answer! My law firm (Fragomen) didnt ask for them when they submitted my docs on JUly 2. Maybe they are needed if the USCIS comes back with an RFE.
aquarianf
06-25 10:22 AM
As we all know that priority dates became current in the latest visa bulletin. My lawyer made all my paper work ready and is about to file my paperwork with USCIS today. I am not sure if we can file the application a week before it actually becomes current.
I heard some people say that it's actually allowed to file 3 or 4 days before it becomes current. I also read reports that some people's application was rejected because it was sent too early. I am not sure what to believe here. Does anybody has any information on this?
Wait till 1st July. My friend who send his application on 29th May still waiting for receipt number but other friends who filed in June first week got their receipt number.
I heard some people say that it's actually allowed to file 3 or 4 days before it becomes current. I also read reports that some people's application was rejected because it was sent too early. I am not sure what to believe here. Does anybody has any information on this?
Wait till 1st July. My friend who send his application on 29th May still waiting for receipt number but other friends who filed in June first week got their receipt number.
more...
rimzhim
06-01 01:38 PM
"Masters and PhDs would be exempt from the cap on H-1Bs and green cards," said Hoffman.
Are you sure of this? I, of course, hope you are right. It would be great!
Are you sure of this? I, of course, hope you are right. It would be great!
2010 taylor swift quote wallpaper. Music - Taylor Swift Wallpaper
mayhemt
09-20 11:00 PM
If it is philosophical question, then it is something which takes away couple of years of life of some of those people born in India and China (wait and wait and wait and ...), who want to have it. In return it frees them from bond of slavery.
Wow it almost sounds like attaining Nirvana (moksha). May be USCIS/DOS/DHS/Us Govt should name it as Nirvana Card.
Wow it almost sounds like attaining Nirvana (moksha). May be USCIS/DOS/DHS/Us Govt should name it as Nirvana Card.
more...
santb1975
02-15 01:22 PM
^^^
hair Taylor Swift Quote Lyrics
Berkeleybee
05-18 05:17 PM
Will we be able to find by the end of 2006 wether CIR bill is passed or not ?
Here is what Specter said: (Apr 24, 2006)
quoting Specter "And after this meeting, I'm confident we'll get it done, out of the Senate by Memorial Day and to the president's desk, as he's asked for, before the end of the year."
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...&postcount=336
Here is what Specter said: (Apr 24, 2006)
quoting Specter "And after this meeting, I'm confident we'll get it done, out of the Senate by Memorial Day and to the president's desk, as he's asked for, before the end of the year."
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...&postcount=336
more...
deepakjain
01-08 09:44 AM
Interview date 9th dec 2009
Submitted all documents 10th dec 2009 as mentioned below:-
1) Petitioner's Federal Income Tax returns
2) Petitioner's state unemployment wage reports for last 4 quarters.
3) Letter from end client in US on letterhead indicating your services are expected.
4) List of petitioner's employees at your job site including names, titles, salaries, and immigration status.
5) Copy of contract between petitioner and contracting company with detailed job itinerary.
Till date I together with my employer have written 6 emails but there is no response.
I personally visited mumbai Consulate information center but they did't ave me any answer.
Can anyone please tell me how long this whole process will take?
Is there any chance that such case goes into endless loop?
My house and all belongings are in U.S. and I am clueless as what to do
I was on the same boat in Nov at mumbai consulate, I was given 221g yellow slip, and was told your case is in pending status for administrative reasons they did not ask me for anything and said that the administrative processing can take any thing between 2 days to 2 months and the officer told me that you will be contacted by e-mail ones the processing is complete. I was contacted 3 weeks after I was interviewed. For me it took total of 4 weeks to get my H1B Visa stamped on my passport.
Regards,
Deepak
Submitted all documents 10th dec 2009 as mentioned below:-
1) Petitioner's Federal Income Tax returns
2) Petitioner's state unemployment wage reports for last 4 quarters.
3) Letter from end client in US on letterhead indicating your services are expected.
4) List of petitioner's employees at your job site including names, titles, salaries, and immigration status.
5) Copy of contract between petitioner and contracting company with detailed job itinerary.
Till date I together with my employer have written 6 emails but there is no response.
I personally visited mumbai Consulate information center but they did't ave me any answer.
Can anyone please tell me how long this whole process will take?
Is there any chance that such case goes into endless loop?
My house and all belongings are in U.S. and I am clueless as what to do
I was on the same boat in Nov at mumbai consulate, I was given 221g yellow slip, and was told your case is in pending status for administrative reasons they did not ask me for anything and said that the administrative processing can take any thing between 2 days to 2 months and the officer told me that you will be contacted by e-mail ones the processing is complete. I was contacted 3 weeks after I was interviewed. For me it took total of 4 weeks to get my H1B Visa stamped on my passport.
Regards,
Deepak
hot Cute Taylor Swift Quote
chanduv23
06-12 09:32 AM
I went through it. I was fired but made to resign, and this happened in my 6th year H1b. I was given a 2 month severence check but lawyer told me it is not safe to assume that the severence period makes my stay legal. 30 to 60 days is safe period for h1b transfer.
Desi companies come of help in such cases. I found a project within 20 days and got my h1b transferred to a desi company and reapplied for Gc in PERM and also got extensions. Now I am back in track, also got 3 year h1b extension based on approved 140.
This is one big thing people never realise. The more the retrogression, the more are chances for people into falling into these situations.
Layoffs and firings are common and everyone goes through it no matter what great employee u r, u r only an employee and not the boss.
As per my definition layoff, firing, no pay hikes, working long hours, no promotions, non equal treatment among co workers, giving u crappy work, making ur work miserable etc..... everything is the same.
Desi companies come of help in such cases. I found a project within 20 days and got my h1b transferred to a desi company and reapplied for Gc in PERM and also got extensions. Now I am back in track, also got 3 year h1b extension based on approved 140.
This is one big thing people never realise. The more the retrogression, the more are chances for people into falling into these situations.
Layoffs and firings are common and everyone goes through it no matter what great employee u r, u r only an employee and not the boss.
As per my definition layoff, firing, no pay hikes, working long hours, no promotions, non equal treatment among co workers, giving u crappy work, making ur work miserable etc..... everything is the same.
more...
house wallpaper taylor swift quotes
coralfl
01-30 04:37 PM
I am in Coral Springs. who else in south florida? Do people meet regularly in SF?
tattoo taylor swift song quotes speak
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
pictures taylor swift tumblr quotes. Taylor Swift Quote. Taylor Swift Quote.
ash27
04-01 01:21 PM
Is there any clause that for AC-21 to be valid, a full time offer is required? The offer letters provided by companies like TekSystems are more contract based and you basically get paid/hour.
Please advice!
Please advice!
dresses taylor swift quote wallpaper
krishnam70
02-22 09:40 PM
Hi Kris,
Can you please give the source from where you heard about this info? There are a lot of rumors being spread without any reason behind them. So this is important to find the source of the info before we get panic or make decision.
Thanks.
Amulchandra
I can assure you this is not a rumor and has happened recently in my colleague's team. I agree that this might cause lot of doubts in people's minds but I just wanted to share the info so that people don't get in to trouble. It is quite possible that this is a one off incident. People should share such information if it come's to their attention. This guy was told to return from POE
Regarding the rights of the IO at POE. I am not sure if it is within the right of the IO to decide in this case but I have read somewhere that the IO has the power to decide whom to allow or not according to the interpretation of law. I am not sure what law was used to interpret the situation here by the IO
If this post has caused unnecessary concerns I urge you to ignore it. If people who are back from visiting other countries or trips back home can post their experiences at the POE or any contradicting information then this one could just be a one off case..
good luck
kris
Can you please give the source from where you heard about this info? There are a lot of rumors being spread without any reason behind them. So this is important to find the source of the info before we get panic or make decision.
Thanks.
Amulchandra
I can assure you this is not a rumor and has happened recently in my colleague's team. I agree that this might cause lot of doubts in people's minds but I just wanted to share the info so that people don't get in to trouble. It is quite possible that this is a one off incident. People should share such information if it come's to their attention. This guy was told to return from POE
Regarding the rights of the IO at POE. I am not sure if it is within the right of the IO to decide in this case but I have read somewhere that the IO has the power to decide whom to allow or not according to the interpretation of law. I am not sure what law was used to interpret the situation here by the IO
If this post has caused unnecessary concerns I urge you to ignore it. If people who are back from visiting other countries or trips back home can post their experiences at the POE or any contradicting information then this one could just be a one off case..
good luck
kris
more...
makeup wallpaper taylor swift quotes
chanduv23
05-05 08:49 AM
The info I got is I can not apply for 7th year based on the approved LC I have. But I can apply for 7th year based on the LC pending with PBEC. My problem is that LC applied in Marc 2005, is thr some other employer and I do not have any details of this application. I sent 3 emails to PBEC for screenshot which can be used as proof od pending LC and I can then apply for 7th year extension. But unfortunately I did not get any response from PBEC, I know some people get the response within 2-3 hrs from them????
Another possibility is if the pending I-140 is approved by Aug end I can apply for 3 year extension.
So I am totally uninformed what's the future. I talked with the lawyer who filed my earlier labor, she says we can demand for screenshot only in June, then we will get response from PBEC.
Hope this helps.
You need to contact your old employer for your L/C application info. If you cannot do that, try contacting their lawyer.
Another possibility is if the pending I-140 is approved by Aug end I can apply for 3 year extension.
So I am totally uninformed what's the future. I talked with the lawyer who filed my earlier labor, she says we can demand for screenshot only in June, then we will get response from PBEC.
Hope this helps.
You need to contact your old employer for your L/C application info. If you cannot do that, try contacting their lawyer.
girlfriend wallpaper taylor swift quotes
asanghi
10-15 11:51 AM
What are you saying? Health Services dismal? I thought it was better than US in many aspects. The cost is cheap for treatment (unless you have some uncommon disease. Since the system is churning up so many doctors, there is a lot of competition. Even in small villages you will find many doctors competing for patients. Maybe that is not true for everywhere, but that is what I have seen in my home state Haryana.
Also the education system may not be perfect, but kids don't have to go to private schools, because public schools have run out of capacity. There are problems like not all-around development, and not all kids doing great in studies. But that is true even in US, unless you are sending your kids to a fine private school (which by the way you can do in India, if you have money). JMHO
US has been in number 1 in the past, moved to 2nd spot for a couple of years, in the world competitiveness rankings. For the first time, the US moved to the 6th Spot in the world rankings by the world economic forum (Europe based Institution). The main reason was because of the huge current account deficit and negative savings (mainly federal deficit) which is a threat to the US competitiveness. China moved down due to corruption etc. India moved up but any further movement will depend on structural reforms, especially controlling the huge public service and red-tape and a creaking infrastructure - power, roads, ports, water supply - all of which are run by the government. The health services in large parts of India is dismal and so is the public education system (K-12). With the left firmly controlling the ruling party, deregulation is slow and insipid, and it is the private sector which is basically contributing to the GDP and Competitiveness. Here is the link to the actual rankings for 2006-2007
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/top50.pdf
The reasons for the rankings are given here
http://www.weforum.org/en/fp/gcr_2006-07_highlights/index.htm
Also the education system may not be perfect, but kids don't have to go to private schools, because public schools have run out of capacity. There are problems like not all-around development, and not all kids doing great in studies. But that is true even in US, unless you are sending your kids to a fine private school (which by the way you can do in India, if you have money). JMHO
US has been in number 1 in the past, moved to 2nd spot for a couple of years, in the world competitiveness rankings. For the first time, the US moved to the 6th Spot in the world rankings by the world economic forum (Europe based Institution). The main reason was because of the huge current account deficit and negative savings (mainly federal deficit) which is a threat to the US competitiveness. China moved down due to corruption etc. India moved up but any further movement will depend on structural reforms, especially controlling the huge public service and red-tape and a creaking infrastructure - power, roads, ports, water supply - all of which are run by the government. The health services in large parts of India is dismal and so is the public education system (K-12). With the left firmly controlling the ruling party, deregulation is slow and insipid, and it is the private sector which is basically contributing to the GDP and Competitiveness. Here is the link to the actual rankings for 2006-2007
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/top50.pdf
The reasons for the rankings are given here
http://www.weforum.org/en/fp/gcr_2006-07_highlights/index.htm
hairstyles wallpaper taylor swift quotes
paskal
12-22 10:16 PM
Mark you calenders/palms/outlooks etc
AND
watch this space for details on calling in
AND
let us all know if you can attend
Thanks!
AND
watch this space for details on calling in
AND
let us all know if you can attend
Thanks!
aj1234567
10-22 08:11 PM
I got FP Appointmnet letter on 10/10/07 for the the date 10/30.
After i got this fp appointmnet letter i had changed my address on 10/10/07 with usics, i got card production mail from uscis on 10/11/07,they updated my new address and i did not got any mail from them saying that they send the EAD card,many of my frineds said that they recived mail from usics saying that EAD had sent my mail,But i did not
Is adress change impact on EAD time.
After i got this fp appointmnet letter i had changed my address on 10/10/07 with usics, i got card production mail from uscis on 10/11/07,they updated my new address and i did not got any mail from them saying that they send the EAD card,many of my frineds said that they recived mail from usics saying that EAD had sent my mail,But i did not
Is adress change impact on EAD time.
gccovet
09-04 01:42 PM
I beg to disagree on this thought:
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
LostInGCProcess, Chanduv23,
Thank you for your replies, I appreciate it.
So, I guess, it is okay to get the H1B "Transferred" and if (god forbid) I-485 gets denied, I can still work till the teneure of H1B and then go home.
Also, if i-140 is revoked , that should trigger NOID or RFE which the lawyer will handle (hopefully successfully).
Once again, Thanks a lot.
Regards.
GCCovet
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
LostInGCProcess, Chanduv23,
Thank you for your replies, I appreciate it.
So, I guess, it is okay to get the H1B "Transferred" and if (god forbid) I-485 gets denied, I can still work till the teneure of H1B and then go home.
Also, if i-140 is revoked , that should trigger NOID or RFE which the lawyer will handle (hopefully successfully).
Once again, Thanks a lot.
Regards.
GCCovet
No comments:
Post a Comment