dingudi
06-08 07:59 PM
I don't live in the tri-state...
I have my W-2's from 99 and 00 so no need to call the University.
What I dont have is the actual return (1040nr) which I "mailed" at that time.
Who in the world makes copies of a tax form that was actually mailed. Oh, and kept it for 9 years!!!
You mention that you had graduate assistantship in 1999-2000 on F1. This means that you were paid for this assistantship , in terms of bi-weekly or monthly paycheck, correct? And you did file returns for that year as well as obviously you have W2.
So you may even have another effort to convince the IO that the W2 that you are providing is in fact because you worked as graduate assistant on-campus which is allowed being on F1 for the first 9 months of F1 and that you did not take any illegal work authorization. This should be obvious from employer name on W2 which is most likely the university. But make sure whoever is your attorney is , they make this point clear.
I have my W-2's from 99 and 00 so no need to call the University.
What I dont have is the actual return (1040nr) which I "mailed" at that time.
Who in the world makes copies of a tax form that was actually mailed. Oh, and kept it for 9 years!!!
You mention that you had graduate assistantship in 1999-2000 on F1. This means that you were paid for this assistantship , in terms of bi-weekly or monthly paycheck, correct? And you did file returns for that year as well as obviously you have W2.
So you may even have another effort to convince the IO that the W2 that you are providing is in fact because you worked as graduate assistant on-campus which is allowed being on F1 for the first 9 months of F1 and that you did not take any illegal work authorization. This should be obvious from employer name on W2 which is most likely the university. But make sure whoever is your attorney is , they make this point clear.
wallpaper Mother#39;s Poem
nousername
07-22 07:44 PM
No, not at all.. It is just a safety net, which one can use if they switch to EAD i.e. use AC21.
zCool
02-25 10:38 PM
Do not move to IT!
Are you crazy?? IT is indentured servitude for some desi consultant!
stay away.. there are already plenty of slaves..
Are you crazy?? IT is indentured servitude for some desi consultant!
stay away.. there are already plenty of slaves..
2011 Card My Mom Poem Blue
fcres
12-10 03:04 PM
My Labor approval uses something that starts with 030-16-**** but there is nothing in SOC with 16 are they changed recently? any clue?
Thats the old D.O.T code. You need to find the corresponding SOC Code.
http://online.onetcenter.org/help/online/crosswalk
Thats the old D.O.T code. You need to find the corresponding SOC Code.
http://online.onetcenter.org/help/online/crosswalk
more...
BPforGC
10-15 12:28 PM
1. It goes to the mail room and stamped on the date it was received.
2. Goes through tagging, "A" number will be assigned, bar code and a cover sheet will be attached.
3. All of your pending petitions such as I-140s, priority date information, finger prints, name check, chargability country information will be loaded into your A-file.
4. USCIS has a system of tracking the A-files of the pending 485s and picks those who satisfies all these conditions for adjudication.
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
b) Priority date must be current otherwise VISA number file cannot be requested. The date when USCIS got your 485 matters very little here. Guys who sent their 485 after you may get ahead of you.
c) Your finger prints must be there along with medicals. Namecheck may be waived if you are past 180 days.
d) Then, if everything is fine, your file will be allocated to an Officer. Wait! it did not go to him yet. It may take upto 30 days for your file to go to the officer. By that time if priority date goes backward, you are back to square one.
e) Once it reaches the officer's desk, he can take upto 2 weeks to adjudicate it. When he enters your information, A-number and if VISA number is not available, it goes back to "pending VISA number availability" status. You are out of luck. Fortunately, USCIS can track these kind of cases separately and as soon as VISA numbers are available and priority date is current, they will adjudicate your 485.
Its like the flow chart for a COBAL the program, if 'yes' got to step 4, at step 4 "if answer is 'no', go back to step 1 and start over". Its an unending loop and if you can manage 4-5 'yes', you get your card.
So, many things can go wrong for people from India and China due to retrogression and adjudication of 485 is a matter of luck even if your priority date is current. A single issue can derail the whole process. It is also upto officer's discretion if he considers some information not complete and issue a RFE.
Its a messed up system. In my case, USCIS agreed that my work is on national interest and greatly benefit the country and my I-140 was approved under EB2-NIW. However, being from India, I need to wait another 5 years to get my green card. How ridiculous?
God save us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All at NSC
EB1-EA: I-140 (4/3/2007; RFE-9/2/2008; pending)
EB2-NIW: I-140 (4/4/2007)- approved 8/7/2008
I-485 : 7/24/2007 - Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Goes through tagging, "A" number will be assigned, bar code and a cover sheet will be attached.
3. All of your pending petitions such as I-140s, priority date information, finger prints, name check, chargability country information will be loaded into your A-file.
4. USCIS has a system of tracking the A-files of the pending 485s and picks those who satisfies all these conditions for adjudication.
a) I-140 must be approved and no inconsistencies should be found related to your employer letter, residence, etc.
b) Priority date must be current otherwise VISA number file cannot be requested. The date when USCIS got your 485 matters very little here. Guys who sent their 485 after you may get ahead of you.
c) Your finger prints must be there along with medicals. Namecheck may be waived if you are past 180 days.
d) Then, if everything is fine, your file will be allocated to an Officer. Wait! it did not go to him yet. It may take upto 30 days for your file to go to the officer. By that time if priority date goes backward, you are back to square one.
e) Once it reaches the officer's desk, he can take upto 2 weeks to adjudicate it. When he enters your information, A-number and if VISA number is not available, it goes back to "pending VISA number availability" status. You are out of luck. Fortunately, USCIS can track these kind of cases separately and as soon as VISA numbers are available and priority date is current, they will adjudicate your 485.
Its like the flow chart for a COBAL the program, if 'yes' got to step 4, at step 4 "if answer is 'no', go back to step 1 and start over". Its an unending loop and if you can manage 4-5 'yes', you get your card.
So, many things can go wrong for people from India and China due to retrogression and adjudication of 485 is a matter of luck even if your priority date is current. A single issue can derail the whole process. It is also upto officer's discretion if he considers some information not complete and issue a RFE.
Its a messed up system. In my case, USCIS agreed that my work is on national interest and greatly benefit the country and my I-140 was approved under EB2-NIW. However, being from India, I need to wait another 5 years to get my green card. How ridiculous?
God save us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All at NSC
EB1-EA: I-140 (4/3/2007; RFE-9/2/2008; pending)
EB2-NIW: I-140 (4/4/2007)- approved 8/7/2008
I-485 : 7/24/2007 - Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
mundram
04-20 12:03 PM
Recently, I was in the similar situation but with H4 dependents.
Here was the response from my lawyer:
"the I-94 card should reflect that date. What I would like them to do is go to their local port of entry (probably airport), to have the I-94 cards corrected. It does not need to be the same airport that they entered through."
The airport authorities easily updated the "until" date. However, they told me that the system recognizes the exit date based on the visa validity date. But safe to get it updated from your local airport.
Here was the response from my lawyer:
"the I-94 card should reflect that date. What I would like them to do is go to their local port of entry (probably airport), to have the I-94 cards corrected. It does not need to be the same airport that they entered through."
The airport authorities easily updated the "until" date. However, they told me that the system recognizes the exit date based on the visa validity date. But safe to get it updated from your local airport.
more...
desi3933
06-13 05:26 AM
Have you done this ...or do you know some text that say this /....can have a 3 yr extension based on the pervious 140 ...
That is from 2007 to 2010 ....Thanks
As long as you have approved and active I-140 (from ANY employer) and the PD is not current, one can get 3 year H1 extension. IF the PD is current, one can get only 1 year of H1 extension.
The term of such extension is always from the date of approval. For example, it would be July 2007 to July 2010 even if current H1 expires in, say, Oct 2008.
Good Luck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify details with your lawyer/attorney. This is just my opinion and not be taken as legal advice.
That is from 2007 to 2010 ....Thanks
As long as you have approved and active I-140 (from ANY employer) and the PD is not current, one can get 3 year H1 extension. IF the PD is current, one can get only 1 year of H1 extension.
The term of such extension is always from the date of approval. For example, it would be July 2007 to July 2010 even if current H1 expires in, say, Oct 2008.
Good Luck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify details with your lawyer/attorney. This is just my opinion and not be taken as legal advice.
2010 love you mommy poems. i love
WillIBLucky
12-08 08:45 AM
Why is IV very silent today? Is it a good sign or something else? Or is everyone in front of Cspan?
more...
immiguy
07-20 05:03 PM
her priority date is march 2005 .and they filed for AoS on july 2nd.Her due date is november of this year. I am guessingt hat their 485 will not be approved november of this year.So, they can bring the child on h4 into the country. but then if their 485 gets approved in a year of 18 months-- what happens to the child? How does the child apply ?family based? in that case, the child will ahve to go out of the country for a long time, till the GC is approved- right?
hair Superhero: I love you just the
kapil_jn
09-07 11:26 AM
Have sent the details.
And forwarded the mail to FL yahoo group as well.
And forwarded the mail to FL yahoo group as well.
more...
andycool
04-07 01:47 PM
I hope it doesn't affect Employee (original labor) who have left GC employer using AC-21 with approved I-140 and after 180 days.
This interpretation is game changer for life of many EB immigrants. It should be implemented for going forward but at least should not affect those who used it by the interpretation of that time.
I think basically it talks about - Same Labor Being Used Twice or more :rolleyes:
Correct me if i am wrong .
This interpretation is game changer for life of many EB immigrants. It should be implemented for going forward but at least should not affect those who used it by the interpretation of that time.
I think basically it talks about - Same Labor Being Used Twice or more :rolleyes:
Correct me if i am wrong .
hot i love you mom poems. love you
venky80
06-16 04:35 PM
Raziz,
Did you get any queries ever? I mean RFEs?
Did you get any queries ever? I mean RFEs?
more...
house i love you friend poems. miss
potatoeater
05-10 02:00 PM
Dude, you revived a 6 month old thread just to ask this innocuous question? And the title of this thread is pretty alarming.
Expect 5 thousand red dots now. Everybody will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
To admins..
we should have some facility to automatically close the threads that have been inactive for a while.
Guys,
I have a long layover at New Delhi airport. I am reaching their at 8PM and my next flight in the morning at 7:30AM. Is there any accommodation facility within airport? Or Do i need to go to city? This is the first time, i am going through delhi airport. Any helpful comments are welcome. Thanks and appreciate your help.
-Kumaresh
Expect 5 thousand red dots now. Everybody will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
To admins..
we should have some facility to automatically close the threads that have been inactive for a while.
Guys,
I have a long layover at New Delhi airport. I am reaching their at 8PM and my next flight in the morning at 7:30AM. Is there any accommodation facility within airport? Or Do i need to go to city? This is the first time, i am going through delhi airport. Any helpful comments are welcome. Thanks and appreciate your help.
-Kumaresh
tattoo poems mommy,i love is a
psam
12-15 08:49 PM
I am the same boat. My wife got her card wheras I got a response to the SR we raised that my card was sent the same day as my 485 approval notice and it might been lost in mail. I was asked to file I-90. I called customer service several times and talked to 2nd level IO and all suggested to file I-90. I took infopass but gave a shot again by talking to 2nd level IO who went over my case and said that my card was never created so she raised a SR.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
I had same experience. Various customer service rep told me that my card was indeed sent. I think they go by email notications or by status changes to our I-485 application. It goes through "Card Production Ordered" and "Post decision activity" even when there is problem with card production. Its only when they look in some other system, they find that there was a problem with card production.
more...
pictures If you want it,
immi2006
11-06 10:03 AM
What is new in your post ? It was like that for a few weekes now.
I see that for EB2 the PD is 01 APR 2004 now. I want to know if I-485 approvals is linked to this PD date or they will work independent to these days.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
I see that for EB2 the PD is 01 APR 2004 now. I want to know if I-485 approvals is linked to this PD date or they will work independent to these days.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
dresses wallpaper i love you mom poems
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...
makeup i love you mom and dad poem.
theOne
09-09 03:13 PM
What is the difference between 1099 and W2 ?
Thanks,
theOne
Thanks,
theOne
girlfriend i love you mom and dad poems
ujjvalkoul
01-18 10:23 AM
Do the Primary Applicant and the Spouse both need to take this Test??
hairstyles i love you mom poems. i love
InTheMoment
08-09 09:29 PM
And how may I ask you came to this conclusion?
Any reference, link would be helpful.
This bill is mostly for aviation safety. It doesn't necessarily applies to immigrants who are applying for permanent residency.
Any reference, link would be helpful.
This bill is mostly for aviation safety. It doesn't necessarily applies to immigrants who are applying for permanent residency.
gauravster
01-20 11:27 AM
As far as my understanding goes, EB1/2/3 is fairly recent, 15-20 year pehnomemon. As such getting examples of people who have been extremely successful post getting the visa is going to be difficult. Even for Harvard reunions, usually it is only at the 25th reunion (among a few thousand people) that you have some very successful people, in a 10-15 year span, getting extremely successful(to have your name in newspapers every other day) is like a 1 in 100,000 chance. Even with EB1s.
perm2gc
07-16 07:14 PM
They have been talking about this lawsuit for a long time now. I wonder when they will actually file it. Though they claim that they will file it this week, I would trust them only when they actually do file the lawsuit.:D
they will file once every attorney made enough money by filing our i485 based on their never going to be filed lawsuit:D
they will file once every attorney made enough money by filing our i485 based on their never going to be filed lawsuit:D
No comments:
Post a Comment