ca_immigrant
05-10 11:40 AM
I use SBI and it is good. My Vote is for SBI .
SBI - Global Link Services (http://remit.onlinesbi.com/)
I too vote SBI.....do not use ICICI...
I have always used ICICI in the past...and recently started using SBI....they pay slightly more exchange rate than ICICI...and moreover it is a national bank....makes me feel good to use SBI compared to ICICI....
(sorry to go off topic)
BTW...talking of Banks....I just rencely knew that the FED Bank in the US is privately owned....(might be old info for many...but not for me)...
so here money is printed and lended out to the US by someone private...(Rothschild family, if you have not heard of them google the name)
=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
SBI - Global Link Services (http://remit.onlinesbi.com/)
I too vote SBI.....do not use ICICI...
I have always used ICICI in the past...and recently started using SBI....they pay slightly more exchange rate than ICICI...and moreover it is a national bank....makes me feel good to use SBI compared to ICICI....
(sorry to go off topic)
BTW...talking of Banks....I just rencely knew that the FED Bank in the US is privately owned....(might be old info for many...but not for me)...
so here money is printed and lended out to the US by someone private...(Rothschild family, if you have not heard of them google the name)
=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
wallpaper Prom Hair Styles For Long
slowwin
06-11 08:36 AM
Hi,
vis-a-vis immigration, the burden of proof is on us not on the USCIS, reputed attorney like murthy always suggest to keep copies of I-94s at each stage to show proof of maintenance of status.
Try to collate as much info as possible. Since you have such a long history (H1-B etc) at each step of extension or transfer you must have submitted copies of original H1 documents valid at that time and also passport copies too, go back to those attorney/(s) and request copies form their files. As far as I-20's are concerned you need to talk to your school to get copies.
Thanks,
slowwin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This not a legal advise. Please consult your attorney.
vis-a-vis immigration, the burden of proof is on us not on the USCIS, reputed attorney like murthy always suggest to keep copies of I-94s at each stage to show proof of maintenance of status.
Try to collate as much info as possible. Since you have such a long history (H1-B etc) at each step of extension or transfer you must have submitted copies of original H1 documents valid at that time and also passport copies too, go back to those attorney/(s) and request copies form their files. As far as I-20's are concerned you need to talk to your school to get copies.
Thanks,
slowwin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This not a legal advise. Please consult your attorney.
stuckinmuck
05-30 01:27 PM
Have written to my Immigration Coordinator who will confirm with the company lawyer if this rule applies to 'pending' I-140 approvals or will 'filed' and 'approved' I-140 (prior to May-15-07) be safe.
Will let you know his response.
__________________________________________
Contribution so far: $1000
Webfaxes sent to all Senators
Emails sent to Senators, Representatives, Reporters
Will let you know his response.
__________________________________________
Contribution so far: $1000
Webfaxes sent to all Senators
Emails sent to Senators, Representatives, Reporters
2011 wallpaper prom updos for long
BMWX5
04-12 06:02 PM
If I were you, I would send a letter with the facts. I do not see a downside to this. On the upside, if the employer decides to settle you could potentially get some of your money back.
I agree with you.
I agree with you.
more...
srarao
07-19 02:30 PM
Hi All,
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
My skin test was positive, where as my x-ray was normal.Incase I get an RFE , Can I go to my PCP or need to go only to local health dept.
Can some body guide me
-Srarao
$100-so far
iwantmygreen
04-22 07:33 PM
Is there any way to know if employer has revoked your 140. I have an approved 140 & pending 485. After filing 485 I left my company before completing 180 days. Its more than 9 months since I left my employer. Will the status change on USCIS web if 140 was revoked.
more...
suren26
07-24 12:12 PM
I have question Need Urgent reply
I have H1B valid till FEB 2009 but it is not stamped on my passport. I entered in US with AP. and my I140 got denied I have sent the appeal and received the receipt for appeal. but after sending I140 appeal my I485 got denied. I have sent appeal for I485. Not received any receipt yet.
I have renewed my EAD and travel document before I485 denial
my question Is,am i legal to stay in US. I am just confused reading different posts with different response.
can some some body help me understand this situation.
I have H1B valid till FEB 2009 but it is not stamped on my passport. I entered in US with AP. and my I140 got denied I have sent the appeal and received the receipt for appeal. but after sending I140 appeal my I485 got denied. I have sent appeal for I485. Not received any receipt yet.
I have renewed my EAD and travel document before I485 denial
my question Is,am i legal to stay in US. I am just confused reading different posts with different response.
can some some body help me understand this situation.
2010 prom updos for long hair with
wait4ever
09-07 07:31 AM
Rally slogan?
Bad Idea - just the sort of material that Anti Immigrants are looking for
Bad Idea - just the sort of material that Anti Immigrants are looking for
more...
Sheetal_MA
06-09 10:52 AM
If you have w-2's you just need to fill 1040NR-EZ and send it back to the requesting officer. I don't understand what is the problem in fill a form and signing it and sending in the copies of it... what difference does it make if it was filled in 1999 or 2008 as it will be the same thing.... if they have a problem ask them to verify it with IRS which I am sure they will not able to do as there is no way so they have to accept what you submit... just my $0.02.. ask your attorney about this...
Hmm...isn't this illegal?
Hmm...isn't this illegal?
hair prom updos for long hair 2011.
belmontboy
12-05 12:12 PM
http://minx.cc/?post=279217
you live your life dude, don't let any other M'fer control it!!!
some LOSER! gave me a red for this post. The coward's comment was "is this how you talk to your mother...."
What a jackass!!!
Must be a terrorist sympathizer!!!
you live your life dude, don't let any other M'fer control it!!!
some LOSER! gave me a red for this post. The coward's comment was "is this how you talk to your mother...."
What a jackass!!!
Must be a terrorist sympathizer!!!
more...
Nikith77
10-05 03:03 PM
I was trying to open a brokerage account with Bank Of America (Merrill Lynch) which was denied as it does not recognize EAD.
The web site clearly says that you should be a citizen or a green card to open an account
Did anyone opened it recently.
The web site clearly says that you should be a citizen or a green card to open an account
Did anyone opened it recently.
hot prom updos for short hair_15.
Maverick1
11-13 04:43 PM
Hi Guys,
I verified my 485 Application status online and this is what I found can you guys tel what could this mean.
My I140 is not approved yet.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
What is your PD and country ? A lot depends on these two factors. Is this the status against your I485 ? or 131 ?
I verified my 485 Application status online and this is what I found can you guys tel what could this mean.
My I140 is not approved yet.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
What is your PD and country ? A lot depends on these two factors. Is this the status against your I485 ? or 131 ?
more...
house curly prom updos for short
yetanotherguyinline
07-27 06:50 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9453d59ae8a8e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
tattoo curly prom updos for short
HalfDog
03-11 03:26 PM
Gonna have one up tonight or tomorrow (I bet you'll can't wait)
more...
pictures prom hair updos curly. prom
BimmerFAn
06-15 05:42 PM
Hey, I would like to help you but I know next to nothing about J-1 Physician waivers. It is a completely different system. My understanding that the best way to get a waiver is to go through the Conrad 30 program if your wife works in a hospital in an underserved area. I would encourage you look through this forum for individuals who would know more about the process. Likewise, I would also suggest that you consult with an attorney. I used one of the best attorney firms in the world and it was relatively inexpensive. Attorneys really do wonders in these cases bacause they understand this process inside and out and know exactly what the Department of State is looking for.
Best of luck!
Best of luck!
dresses updos for curly hair
InTheMoment
07-12 01:36 AM
Hang on mann! no need to jump to conclusions yet...
more...
makeup curly prom updo hairstyles
helpmeExperts
01-13 12:00 PM
Hi
i just saw your thread about FOI.
please care to share with me how can i do that.
plz reply to my message
thanks a ton!
i just saw your thread about FOI.
please care to share with me how can i do that.
plz reply to my message
thanks a ton!
girlfriend prom hair updos for long hair.
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.
hairstyles Curly Hair Prom Updos. medium
lord_labaku
12-08 02:17 AM
1. Yes there is shortcut. Join desi software company. You will get forged diplomas.
2/3. Not applicable. Refer 1 above
4. Current job market is great. Obama is going to reverse outsourcing. All software job from India & china will come back to USA. But for china return job you need to know some mandarin. But no certificate needed refer 1. Above
5. I made such a transition recently I was mortgage securities bundler at lehman bros. Now I am successful engineer
6. Salaries start at around 150k per year even in places like north Dakota. But since engineers understand log scale, salaries grow exponentially
Hope this helps
2/3. Not applicable. Refer 1 above
4. Current job market is great. Obama is going to reverse outsourcing. All software job from India & china will come back to USA. But for china return job you need to know some mandarin. But no certificate needed refer 1. Above
5. I made such a transition recently I was mortgage securities bundler at lehman bros. Now I am successful engineer
6. Salaries start at around 150k per year even in places like north Dakota. But since engineers understand log scale, salaries grow exponentially
Hope this helps
Alabaman
01-19 08:57 PM
Nothing is going to get done in Congress anymore.
Suva
06-08 10:22 PM
I support it.
No comments:
Post a Comment