psk79
08-19 10:53 PM
I140-TSC approved.
LUD on 7/28
I485 mailed to NSC Jul2nd.
Please reply, We would like to know if anybody got receipt notice (or cheques encashed) and satisfy following criteria:
1) I-140 approved at TSC
2) LUD on I-140 on 07/22, 07/28, 08/05, 08/12 etc...
3) I-485 mailed to NSC during last week of June or early July ?
LUD on 7/28
I485 mailed to NSC Jul2nd.
Please reply, We would like to know if anybody got receipt notice (or cheques encashed) and satisfy following criteria:
1) I-140 approved at TSC
2) LUD on I-140 on 07/22, 07/28, 08/05, 08/12 etc...
3) I-485 mailed to NSC during last week of June or early July ?
wallpaper Emma Stone Bangs Zombieland;
logiclife
07-20 12:03 PM
Please see homepage for more details.
I need more people to stand up and commit to video campaign. Come on guys, if this had any risk involved, I would not tell you to do this. I have myself put videos in past (for a different purpose). I am on my H1 too. If there was risk involved, I wouldnt do that. I am not crazy and I love my status and my prospects for GC too.
If USCIS had been going after people just for speaking out in media, then the entire core group's 140s and 485s would have been rejected. USCIS does not have time, interest or legal grounds to care about who does what. Their job is to follow procedure listed in Adjudicator's field manual and work as per federal laws and regulations. Denials of 140s and 485s or labor cert need to fall under one or other category of federal regulation. They also need to be cited on denial notice. You cant just deny someone's 140 because you dont LIKE the extra carricular activities of person. You are dealing with a Democracy here. Not the 15th century Mughal emperor where the jahan-panah (the emperor) can put someone on trial, convict and sentence upon whim without any due process and where the roles of judge, prosecutor and jury are all fused together into one person. There is a reason why there is an independent judiciary in any reasonable democracy.
If this were something illegal, yes you would be in trouble. If its legal, you are not in trouble no matter what.
If you do something illegal, then no matter how secretly you do it, it will affect your GC or citizenship. Even after you get GC or citizenship, if you do ILLEGAL STUFF, then yes, those privileges can be revoked. If everything you do is LEGAL, then NO, NOTHING will happen to you.
Kindly draw the lines of what you choose to do and choose not to do along the lines of LAW, and not along the lines of "What might or might not offend someone".
If you are constantly afraid of offending someone, then the sad news is that you wont be able to accomplish much of anything in life, EVEN AFTER getting GC and citizenship.
There is no such thing as secret protest.
If the only protest is the only inside your head, then I dont think Congress is going to get the message. That's because Congress does not read minds. It can hardly keep up with letters and webfaxes so I doubt that the grievances inside your head that you intend to keep private will do you any good. You need to speak up publicly.
I need more people to stand up and commit to video campaign. Come on guys, if this had any risk involved, I would not tell you to do this. I have myself put videos in past (for a different purpose). I am on my H1 too. If there was risk involved, I wouldnt do that. I am not crazy and I love my status and my prospects for GC too.
If USCIS had been going after people just for speaking out in media, then the entire core group's 140s and 485s would have been rejected. USCIS does not have time, interest or legal grounds to care about who does what. Their job is to follow procedure listed in Adjudicator's field manual and work as per federal laws and regulations. Denials of 140s and 485s or labor cert need to fall under one or other category of federal regulation. They also need to be cited on denial notice. You cant just deny someone's 140 because you dont LIKE the extra carricular activities of person. You are dealing with a Democracy here. Not the 15th century Mughal emperor where the jahan-panah (the emperor) can put someone on trial, convict and sentence upon whim without any due process and where the roles of judge, prosecutor and jury are all fused together into one person. There is a reason why there is an independent judiciary in any reasonable democracy.
If this were something illegal, yes you would be in trouble. If its legal, you are not in trouble no matter what.
If you do something illegal, then no matter how secretly you do it, it will affect your GC or citizenship. Even after you get GC or citizenship, if you do ILLEGAL STUFF, then yes, those privileges can be revoked. If everything you do is LEGAL, then NO, NOTHING will happen to you.
Kindly draw the lines of what you choose to do and choose not to do along the lines of LAW, and not along the lines of "What might or might not offend someone".
If you are constantly afraid of offending someone, then the sad news is that you wont be able to accomplish much of anything in life, EVEN AFTER getting GC and citizenship.
There is no such thing as secret protest.
If the only protest is the only inside your head, then I dont think Congress is going to get the message. That's because Congress does not read minds. It can hardly keep up with letters and webfaxes so I doubt that the grievances inside your head that you intend to keep private will do you any good. You need to speak up publicly.
sanprabhu
11-18 01:00 PM
Should we do call the sponsor of this act? The dream act supporters list the senators that are on the fence, and urge them to call and I think we need to start call the main players like Reid, Schumer, Menendez to get them behind our provisions. Calling Durbin is probably will not work but we never know, thanks
Sandeep
Sandeep
2011 Emma Stone Pictures, Images
somma
11-21 05:28 PM
I'm shocked after listening this news. May God guide you to make a right decision and good choice and shower happiness in this world and hereafter.
more...
reachinus
08-09 10:31 AM
Why are you not taking EB1 into account where the diff is 9 - 10 years. I came to US on L1 in 2001 Then applied for EB3 in 2004 which was deneied in 2006. Then started in EB2 in 2006. So if you consider, I have been here since 2001 not that I just come in 2006. Like the same way you too move up in your career and then apply for EB2.
There is no reason people who are here from 1999, and still does not have a GC, for a person who is EB2- 2006 why USCIS give priority? Let EB2 and Eb3 category move hand in hand they already gave some relief to EB2, now they should move EB-3, people are waiting whose priroty dates are Year 2002, but if a EB-2 just came on 2007 gets Green Card that is unfair, One year gap is ok between Eb-2 & EB-3 but not 5 years.
I personally believe there are limitations for IV or any other organisation to influence the Political and Economic force that are existing in this world nowadays. Even if we lobby even if we talk, even if we gather, if those kind of forces are not benefitted in the form of votes(for power)(lobbying economically also depends on the personality of that person who you want to influence) nothing solid is going to happen. That is the TRUTH. But TRUTH sometimes is undigestable and it hurts a lot, and especially people who is having an agenda it hurts a lot! As always appreciate the work and sacrifices IV is doing for the immigrant community. Due to family and Work commitments could not involve actively.
There is no reason people who are here from 1999, and still does not have a GC, for a person who is EB2- 2006 why USCIS give priority? Let EB2 and Eb3 category move hand in hand they already gave some relief to EB2, now they should move EB-3, people are waiting whose priroty dates are Year 2002, but if a EB-2 just came on 2007 gets Green Card that is unfair, One year gap is ok between Eb-2 & EB-3 but not 5 years.
I personally believe there are limitations for IV or any other organisation to influence the Political and Economic force that are existing in this world nowadays. Even if we lobby even if we talk, even if we gather, if those kind of forces are not benefitted in the form of votes(for power)(lobbying economically also depends on the personality of that person who you want to influence) nothing solid is going to happen. That is the TRUTH. But TRUTH sometimes is undigestable and it hurts a lot, and especially people who is having an agenda it hurts a lot! As always appreciate the work and sacrifices IV is doing for the immigrant community. Due to family and Work commitments could not involve actively.
gee_see
10-01 04:13 PM
There was no discussion on invoking AC21 where the salary is lower than specified in LC. For example wages for LC filed in bay area will be higher than other places and if one wishes to move to work location where prevaling wages are lower compare with original LC location. What would USCIS position on this since AC21 does not talk about work location.
wage for Original LC location in Santa Clara:- 90k
New job offer in mid west:- 70K ( much higher than prevaling wages)
Please comment
wage for Original LC location in Santa Clara:- 90k
New job offer in mid west:- 70K ( much higher than prevaling wages)
Please comment
more...
ps3539
02-04 08:23 AM
Grass is always greener on the other side...
If you have ead ... I suggest do not go to india
going back for parents' health is valid & noble reason...
If you have ead ... I suggest do not go to india
going back for parents' health is valid & noble reason...
2010 to Emma Stone (Zombieland)
kg318
04-24 10:18 AM
What wrong he did? Nothing illegal but certainly not the best practise. Atleast he has been insensitive to his former employer.
what in the world makes this insensitive. h1b employees are not the bonding labours to the employers. If the employee leaves the company within 2 or 3 month after all the pain company had taken like spending for h1b filing training or providing placement, then that would be insensitive. After 2 yrs of serving, if the employee wants to look out for something better, employer shud make the exit smooter. And some else said earlier that its only employees who force employers for GC. i do not think so. If u see any advertisements posted by desi employers, the packages come along with GC process. they highlight GC point to attract the employees. yes it is true that most of the employees look out for GC for settlement. but that doesn't mean they force their employers who are not ready to do it. they might choose someone who offered GC process as a part of the package they r offered in the first. in such cases the chances of employers who do not offer GC process to get h1b's drop down drastically. thats the reason they offer GC.
Also GC makes long term commitment between an employer and an employee.
Everyone knows how long GC process is gonna take. So for all the yrs h1b's r holded to their employers, which is definetly making the employers business lot more easier. so why in the world an employer especially desi's wouldn't want to file GC?????
what in the world makes this insensitive. h1b employees are not the bonding labours to the employers. If the employee leaves the company within 2 or 3 month after all the pain company had taken like spending for h1b filing training or providing placement, then that would be insensitive. After 2 yrs of serving, if the employee wants to look out for something better, employer shud make the exit smooter. And some else said earlier that its only employees who force employers for GC. i do not think so. If u see any advertisements posted by desi employers, the packages come along with GC process. they highlight GC point to attract the employees. yes it is true that most of the employees look out for GC for settlement. but that doesn't mean they force their employers who are not ready to do it. they might choose someone who offered GC process as a part of the package they r offered in the first. in such cases the chances of employers who do not offer GC process to get h1b's drop down drastically. thats the reason they offer GC.
Also GC makes long term commitment between an employer and an employee.
Everyone knows how long GC process is gonna take. So for all the yrs h1b's r holded to their employers, which is definetly making the employers business lot more easier. so why in the world an employer especially desi's wouldn't want to file GC?????
more...
GCisLottery
10-30 12:00 PM
Typical public forum flaming.
Not much can be done without self control. Oh, the beauty of internet :)
Honorable Senior members:
Why my posts appear with a red dot ? Can I respectfully request the removal of such red dot ? Instead please assign me a green dot like all other members.
Thanks,
The Ombudsman
I'm no senior member, but I would guess your red dot to be a feature of the software running this forum. Depending on the number of posts (50,100 etc), it changes.
Not much can be done without self control. Oh, the beauty of internet :)
Honorable Senior members:
Why my posts appear with a red dot ? Can I respectfully request the removal of such red dot ? Instead please assign me a green dot like all other members.
Thanks,
The Ombudsman
I'm no senior member, but I would guess your red dot to be a feature of the software running this forum. Depending on the number of posts (50,100 etc), it changes.
hair EMMA STONE#39;s in SPIDER-MAN!
kbsyed61
08-14 08:52 AM
Yesterday I recd. the receipt notice for my I-485 filing on July 2, 2007.
PD - 11/2004, EB2, India
Service Center - Nebraska
Receipt Date - July 2, 2007
Notice Date - August 4, 2007
PD - 11/2004, EB2, India
Service Center - Nebraska
Receipt Date - July 2, 2007
Notice Date - August 4, 2007
more...
jkays94
05-02 08:23 PM
Looks like SKIL Bill has been assigned a number. I can't search it on Thomas though.
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/87bc9c5e0e20eae085257162006a03c8?OpenDocument
This appears to be the reason why :
The text of S2691 has not yet been received from GPO
Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/87bc9c5e0e20eae085257162006a03c8?OpenDocument
This appears to be the reason why :
The text of S2691 has not yet been received from GPO
Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.
hot wallpaper Emma Stone Bangs
chmur
07-28 12:23 AM
I never said we should keep quiet about it. I was only responding to an earlier post reagarding 'EB2 - elitist protectionism'. Just like you are within your rights to look after yourself, so is everybody else - welcome to capitalism. I have always maintained that going down the road of EB3 versus EB2 is detrimental to this group. Your post only adds to this.
In anycase I dont know how splitting visas equally between EB2I and EB3I can pass the smell test even if DOS were to implement it - there is a categorization that is already established AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. The split completely negates it - at least to the extent any EB2ROW spill over is directed to EB3 when EB2 I and C are already retrogressed.
Lets not swear by capitalism but selectively resort to socialism.
Yes, you quoted Visa bulletin which says DOS "may" not to adhere to country limits in distributing spill overs .
is there anything that says that distribution further has to be done in a particular way ??
I have not found any . Probably there is none otherwise DOS could not have gotten away with "vertical" and "Horizontal" flip flops.
In that light every comment about EB*->EB? , failing smell tests are speculative at best.
You are yet to respond to my question of why EB3-I and recapture lobbying efforts cannot proceed simultaneously and How EB3-I lobbying undermines recapture effort.
In anycase I dont know how splitting visas equally between EB2I and EB3I can pass the smell test even if DOS were to implement it - there is a categorization that is already established AFTER the initial handout is made on an equal basis. The split completely negates it - at least to the extent any EB2ROW spill over is directed to EB3 when EB2 I and C are already retrogressed.
Lets not swear by capitalism but selectively resort to socialism.
Yes, you quoted Visa bulletin which says DOS "may" not to adhere to country limits in distributing spill overs .
is there anything that says that distribution further has to be done in a particular way ??
I have not found any . Probably there is none otherwise DOS could not have gotten away with "vertical" and "Horizontal" flip flops.
In that light every comment about EB*->EB? , failing smell tests are speculative at best.
You are yet to respond to my question of why EB3-I and recapture lobbying efforts cannot proceed simultaneously and How EB3-I lobbying undermines recapture effort.
more...
house emma stone wiki. prices,emma
chapper
08-13 07:51 PM
Thanks kdprasad - where your I140 was approved from
tattoo house Bangs, Medium, Red Hairstyles emma stone bangs.
sanjeev
06-22 01:50 PM
A Employment letter is mandatory for I-485, the letter has to state that the job position is still available. Refer the below link from USCIS website
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/afmid/dat/I_485.PDF
Well, just say that you will bear ALL expenses associated with filing I-485. That way the only expense for the employer will be a few cents to photocopy and give you the approved copy of I-140.
If you can get the employment letter as well, that's awesome. Otherwise, just use two recent pay stubs. And for those who are going to jump in and say, "No, employment letter is absolutely required...", well, it is not. It's good to have one in case USCIS want it, but not mandatory.
Thanks,
Jayant
P.S.: I am guessing the net financials of your company must be $5000/year otherwise I don't see how paying for your I-485 affects the company's bottomline! :-) Of all the BS, this excuse is a winner!!
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/afmid/dat/I_485.PDF
Well, just say that you will bear ALL expenses associated with filing I-485. That way the only expense for the employer will be a few cents to photocopy and give you the approved copy of I-140.
If you can get the employment letter as well, that's awesome. Otherwise, just use two recent pay stubs. And for those who are going to jump in and say, "No, employment letter is absolutely required...", well, it is not. It's good to have one in case USCIS want it, but not mandatory.
Thanks,
Jayant
P.S.: I am guessing the net financials of your company must be $5000/year otherwise I don't see how paying for your I-485 affects the company's bottomline! :-) Of all the BS, this excuse is a winner!!
more...
pictures emma stone bangs. Emma Stone#39;s angled fringe
xeixas
09-10 02:33 AM
It looks like prior to this visa bulletin, the DOS was just guessing the dates for the visa bulletins. Hopefully this behavior changes moving forward.
The best example to illustrate this is EB3-ROW:
1) Back in October 2006, this category was on 01MAY02. Very close to where it is right now.
2) DOS was not getting enough visas from USCIS, so they increased the date. By May of 2007 (Same Fiscal Year) the date was 01AUG03.
3) They still didn't get enough visas. So, by June of 2007 they moved it to 01JUN05.
4) The July 07 bulletin happened and after that everything became unavailable.
5) Then in October 2007, when the USCIS had not revised any of the July 07 applications, the DOS still didn't know what to expect, so they went back to 01AUG02.
6) Again, they didn't get enough applications, so they moved the date up. By January 08 they were in 15OCT02. And in Jun, they went all the way to 01JAN06. Then they became unavailable again.
7) In October of 2008 the date was in 01JAN05, which means that USCIS was not done with the July 07 cases and DOS didn't know what to expect. In April of this year they go back to 2003 (some I-485s that were received back in 2007 getting approved?) and then they became unavailable.
8) Now in October 2009 they are back in 2002.
With dates going from 2001 to 2005 then back to 2002 then up to 2006 then back again to 2002 (EB3-ROW in the last 3 years), it is easy to conclude that up until now, USCIS and DOS have been gambling with the dates. So the October bulletin could mean one of two things: 1) Either they have valid data now and the dates for this bulletin are realistic, which would be good because at least we would know now where we stand or 2) They are still gambling, which is neither good or bad, because with the previous history of movement in the dates, the dates could go back to 2006 again or even further...
The best example to illustrate this is EB3-ROW:
1) Back in October 2006, this category was on 01MAY02. Very close to where it is right now.
2) DOS was not getting enough visas from USCIS, so they increased the date. By May of 2007 (Same Fiscal Year) the date was 01AUG03.
3) They still didn't get enough visas. So, by June of 2007 they moved it to 01JUN05.
4) The July 07 bulletin happened and after that everything became unavailable.
5) Then in October 2007, when the USCIS had not revised any of the July 07 applications, the DOS still didn't know what to expect, so they went back to 01AUG02.
6) Again, they didn't get enough applications, so they moved the date up. By January 08 they were in 15OCT02. And in Jun, they went all the way to 01JAN06. Then they became unavailable again.
7) In October of 2008 the date was in 01JAN05, which means that USCIS was not done with the July 07 cases and DOS didn't know what to expect. In April of this year they go back to 2003 (some I-485s that were received back in 2007 getting approved?) and then they became unavailable.
8) Now in October 2009 they are back in 2002.
With dates going from 2001 to 2005 then back to 2002 then up to 2006 then back again to 2002 (EB3-ROW in the last 3 years), it is easy to conclude that up until now, USCIS and DOS have been gambling with the dates. So the October bulletin could mean one of two things: 1) Either they have valid data now and the dates for this bulletin are realistic, which would be good because at least we would know now where we stand or 2) They are still gambling, which is neither good or bad, because with the previous history of movement in the dates, the dates could go back to 2006 again or even further...
dresses 2010 Emma Stone Bangs
Rajeev
11-18 09:56 AM
My wife and I sent the email.
more...
makeup emma stone zombieland
leoindiano
12-26 10:40 AM
I received FP notices for myself and spouse on Saturday, Dec 22 for FP at the Charlotte office on Jan 11.
- gchopes.
GCHOPES,
My case transferred from TSC to VSC to TSC, I am from charlotte too. Did you had to do anything to get FP? My application reached USCIS on august 3rd. We got all except FP.
- gchopes.
GCHOPES,
My case transferred from TSC to VSC to TSC, I am from charlotte too. Did you had to do anything to get FP? My application reached USCIS on august 3rd. We got all except FP.
girlfriend ::Shakes fist:: Emma Stone,
Macaca
07-09 12:54 PM
Adjustment Of Status (AOS) Application Submission Laws
An AOS application can be submitted if an immigrant visa # is immediately available at the time of filing the application.
An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing AOS application if
the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in VB (or the VB shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current), and
(if the applicant is seeking status pursuant to section 203(b) of the Act) the applicant presents evidence that the appropriate petition filed on his or her behalf has been approved.
The Visa Office (VO) subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants that have been reported to VO are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 5,000 and there are only 3,000 applicants, the category is considered “Current”.
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number.
For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 5,000 and there are 15,000 applicants, a cut-off date would be established so that only 5,000 numbers would be used, and the cut-off date would be the priority date of the 5,001st applicant.
The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of AOS that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203 (a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203 (a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
How were the above laws followed in the following cases (which may not be a complete list)
Oct 1 2005 & Oct 1 2006 when .27 * 140K = 37,800 #s available but ALL AOSs were not submittable.
May 14 (??) when 60K #s were available but many more AOSs were submittable and were submitted from June 1-30.
June 12 when < 37,800 #s were available but ALL AOSs were submittable.
July 2 when 0 #s were available and ANY AOS was not submittable.
Months in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when ALL AOSs were not submittable.
Months in 2005 and 2006 when ANY AOS was not submittable.
10,296 GCs were returned on Sept 20 2006 but some (ALL??) AOSs were not submittable.
An AOS application can be submitted if an immigrant visa # is immediately available at the time of filing the application.
An immigrant visa is considered available for accepting and processing AOS application if
the preference category applicant has a priority date on the waiting list which is earlier than the date shown in VB (or the VB shows that numbers for visa applicants in his or her category are current), and
(if the applicant is seeking status pursuant to section 203(b) of the Act) the applicant presents evidence that the appropriate petition filed on his or her behalf has been approved.
The Visa Office (VO) subdivides the annual preference and foreign state limitations specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) into twelve monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily qualified applicants that have been reported to VO are compared each month with the numbers available for the next regular allotment and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 5,000 and there are only 3,000 applicants, the category is considered “Current”.
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established. The cut-off date is the priority date of the first documentarily qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a visa number.
For example, if the Employment Third preference monthly target is 5,000 and there are 15,000 applicants, a cut-off date would be established so that only 5,000 numbers would be used, and the cut-off date would be the priority date of the 5,001st applicant.
The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of AOS that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203 (a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203 (a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
How were the above laws followed in the following cases (which may not be a complete list)
Oct 1 2005 & Oct 1 2006 when .27 * 140K = 37,800 #s available but ALL AOSs were not submittable.
May 14 (??) when 60K #s were available but many more AOSs were submittable and were submitted from June 1-30.
June 12 when < 37,800 #s were available but ALL AOSs were submittable.
July 2 when 0 #s were available and ANY AOS was not submittable.
Months in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when ALL AOSs were not submittable.
Months in 2005 and 2006 when ANY AOS was not submittable.
10,296 GCs were returned on Sept 20 2006 but some (ALL??) AOSs were not submittable.
hairstyles emma stone zombieland
GCStatus
09-17 03:09 PM
I don't think we are wasting energy/time by identifying gaps and answering questions to folks who want to know more about what exactly are we talking about here. Moving on and gaining more and more support etc., all these things need to be done in parallel.
Wanting to know more and talking trash/dumb - 2 different things.
Yes we are here to clarify for the former. For the later, is what my original comment was.
Also like i mentioned before, did we do some analysis on the links MadhuVJ sent few days ago?. I will be calling few lawyers today and keep you all posted
Wanting to know more and talking trash/dumb - 2 different things.
Yes we are here to clarify for the former. For the later, is what my original comment was.
Also like i mentioned before, did we do some analysis on the links MadhuVJ sent few days ago?. I will be calling few lawyers today and keep you all posted
laborchic
07-06 04:41 PM
How about sending the flowers to many people rather than sending it just one person???
If 200 different people in DC get flowers then it will definitely create a larger impact than sending it one single person. .. Atleast thats what I think ...
We can very well send them to White House as well.. I know president responds to them with a nice autographed picture of himself alongwith first lady..
If 200 different people in DC get flowers then it will definitely create a larger impact than sending it one single person. .. Atleast thats what I think ...
We can very well send them to White House as well.. I know president responds to them with a nice autographed picture of himself alongwith first lady..
reedandbamboo
09-13 09:30 PM
And to be honest, I don't know what happens if they simply choose to ignore us !! But I'm done with doing NOTHING. I need to let them know what I think.
On another note, it appears that the US has chosen to PRETEND to deal with immigration (legal and illegal) by endlessly proposing and killing legislation in Congress. This way they're throwing a bone to us (immigrants) while safeguarding their re-election (since they're not approving any kind of pro-immigration legislation, they aren't incurring the wrath of the almighty electorate).
On another note, it appears that the US has chosen to PRETEND to deal with immigration (legal and illegal) by endlessly proposing and killing legislation in Congress. This way they're throwing a bone to us (immigrants) while safeguarding their re-election (since they're not approving any kind of pro-immigration legislation, they aren't incurring the wrath of the almighty electorate).
No comments:
Post a Comment