.jpg "arabic makeup looks.")
akhilmahajan
07-15 09:14 PM
Total So far 1735.00. We are Well short of our target of 2000.00. Let's Go Guys. $5 to IV = Hope for GC.
COME ON FOLKS HELP IV HELP YOURSELF.
COME ON FOLKS HELP IV HELP YOURSELF.
wallpaper arabic makeup looks.
indyanguy
08-13 04:59 PM
But why should we lose the PD that we've been hanging on to for so long. For all we know, they might retrogress EB2 next - with USCIS, there's no room to take chances. I'm on my 10th yr here and don't want anything to go wrong at this point.
Have you given a thought or spoken to a lawyer about starting EB2 PERM when your EB3 140 is pending? After your EB2 PERM is approved, you have 6 months before interfiling your EB2 140 with your EB3 PD. I think that is long enough for your EB3 140 too be approved.
AFAIK, this can be done with little or no risk to your EB3.
Have you given a thought or spoken to a lawyer about starting EB2 PERM when your EB3 140 is pending? After your EB2 PERM is approved, you have 6 months before interfiling your EB2 140 with your EB3 PD. I think that is long enough for your EB3 140 too be approved.
AFAIK, this can be done with little or no risk to your EB3.
indyanguy
09-26 10:21 AM
Any reply to my original question?
Thanks all
Thanks all
2011 Part 2 Arabic Makeup Looks
santb1975
06-02 09:35 PM
This is Great
Contributed $100 for June
Receipt ID: 47W850****
Contributed $100 for June
Receipt ID: 47W850****
more...
slammer
07-11 06:27 AM
Here's the link
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
No good news for EB 3 WW ?!
Rita
http://mumbai.usconsulate.gov/cut_off_dates.html
No good news for EB 3 WW ?!
Rita
john2255
07-21 08:02 AM
How many of you called senators office.
more...
vkannan
03-06 05:33 PM
Few observations based on thread postings
1) Last year around this same time not many RFE/LUD were seen.
2) Most of these cases with RFE/LUD are either EB2 around 2005-2006 or EB3 2003-2004
3) My Lawyer based out of IL confirming RFEs are in high volume and majority of these are Employment verification with Birth verification and Health letter verification as close second.
Now given the gov attitude and the current scenario it does not seem that they would be interested in pre-adjudication. There is something else that is going on. On the same note I am also seeing that people with dates which could possibly be current anytime this year are not seeing any LUD/RFE. If pre-adjudicating is the objective than these cases should have received the RFEs first.
Just my observation. Any input is appreciated.
To keep the HOPE high;) One more point to consider , remember a month back there was a information going around on the # of Cards ordered by USCIS? Man, all these crazy things going around with
a) LUDs
b) Name Check 180 days rule
c) # of Cards ordered etc etc., etc., is making ppl. more anxious.....
1) Last year around this same time not many RFE/LUD were seen.
2) Most of these cases with RFE/LUD are either EB2 around 2005-2006 or EB3 2003-2004
3) My Lawyer based out of IL confirming RFEs are in high volume and majority of these are Employment verification with Birth verification and Health letter verification as close second.
Now given the gov attitude and the current scenario it does not seem that they would be interested in pre-adjudication. There is something else that is going on. On the same note I am also seeing that people with dates which could possibly be current anytime this year are not seeing any LUD/RFE. If pre-adjudicating is the objective than these cases should have received the RFEs first.
Just my observation. Any input is appreciated.
To keep the HOPE high;) One more point to consider , remember a month back there was a information going around on the # of Cards ordered by USCIS? Man, all these crazy things going around with
a) LUDs
b) Name Check 180 days rule
c) # of Cards ordered etc etc., etc., is making ppl. more anxious.....
2010 house girlfriend Arabic makeup
raju123
06-01 04:00 PM
This might be useful to you.
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
more...
Lollerskater
05-01 01:58 PM
For all those who are upset with the House hearing, please take it easy. Please do not expect the hearing to discuss the details of each and every GC applicant's case. The objective of the hearing was to bring the folks involved in visa bulletins and GC processing, and make them all publically say and agree that Lofgren-Sensenbrenner bill will not flood the country with new people on the borders but at the same time since the federal agencies did not do their job properly, so it would make sense to recapture the visa numbers, and that's it.
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
The meeting really saddens me though. That is the extent of anyone's power to get USCIS moving? Just hinting to King that the congress is displeased?
I mean I'm pretty sure King is gonna just shrug it off. Listen to how deluded the man sounds. He thinks USCIS is doing a great job, what with all that bragging about efficiency. Obviously he doesn't realize he's standing there, in that meeting. because the efficiency he's bragging about is clearly NOT ENOUGH. In fact, it's pretty much shitty.
To make things worse, those people in there are controlling the fates of thousands of waiting applicants. And they don't even seem to know the difference btw H1 and 485.
I don't want to just go on feeding this negative train of thought. I just wish something more effective can be done. Isn't there a better solution?
I think that this objective was achieved pretty handsomely without much opposition. So everybody was on the same page, other than Ranking member King, whose job in such meetings is to oppose whatever the committee chair is proposing. Rep. King did not have much to say as Rep. Sensenbrenner has co-sponsored the bill. Noticeably, Rep. Gutierrez supported the bill, which means Hispanic Caucus may not oppose it either, hopefully. So it was all good.
The meeting really saddens me though. That is the extent of anyone's power to get USCIS moving? Just hinting to King that the congress is displeased?
I mean I'm pretty sure King is gonna just shrug it off. Listen to how deluded the man sounds. He thinks USCIS is doing a great job, what with all that bragging about efficiency. Obviously he doesn't realize he's standing there, in that meeting. because the efficiency he's bragging about is clearly NOT ENOUGH. In fact, it's pretty much shitty.
To make things worse, those people in there are controlling the fates of thousands of waiting applicants. And they don't even seem to know the difference btw H1 and 485.
I don't want to just go on feeding this negative train of thought. I just wish something more effective can be done. Isn't there a better solution?
hair Arabic makeup might not also
TeddyKoochu
12-11 10:51 AM
I share your pain buddy.I also miss the July 2007 fiasco by 1 month due to my &^@#$% lawyer who took 1 year to apply for labor and kept me in dark .The most painful thing is to see my wife's frustration who inspite of job offers can't join becoz company does not want to sponsor.Just being optimistic is the only hope.
Does anybody have any updates on the I485 Pre--Filing new procedure, that last I read was that this has got postponed to June (USCIS half yearly agenda). This is the only raft and lifeboat for us in the deep sea!
Does anybody have any updates on the I485 Pre--Filing new procedure, that last I read was that this has got postponed to June (USCIS half yearly agenda). This is the only raft and lifeboat for us in the deep sea!
more...
priti8888
06-26 01:51 PM
What is america losing?
Lets take a typical example:
My friend and his wife both have jobs here. They pay around $50K-60 income tax (approx) as a couple.
They have 10 yrs of exp. (approx) or have masters degree. They have a decent bit of 401K. And about 30 years of career left. They also have capital investment in India which is growing at a good pace.
Now if even one is forced to go back I am sure both of them will go back to India or wherever they are from. Makes sense?
So what are they losing by going back to India? Some $$$$. Thats all? No debt. no hassle, just semi retirement early enough.
Now think about 100 couples like this?
Now think about 1000 couples like this?
1000* 60 K = $60 million of taxes and social security lost. Who is going to pay the troops in Iraq? Or the USCIS dumbo? Will he have a job to do if we leave?
And if we leave who is going to pay the medical bills of the baby boomer who needs medicare soon?
Lets say, they replace us with younger workers. what will be their salary? 50K or 75K. lets say 80 K. Chances are they are single. If they are married. Will their wife work immediately. If no, they are collecting taxes from him at a married rate while his spouse has no income. If his wife is educated, how long will she want to live on H4? If she doesnt get H1 will they both go back or stay here endlessly? Chickens (americans).
How much tax will they will pay? If they are on F1 EAD, even better, they dont even pay social security.
Of course we lost $$$$ income, but we are not in so much deep shit as US would be if they lose 1000 couples, just 2000 people.
Now lets say we go to India and undergo semi retirement. Fine, US companies maintain competitive advantage and they gain most. But if we decide to continue to excel, can not such 2000 start a formidably competitive business? Who wins? India or USA? Or will they start multiple businesses?
Its about the numbers. If 1 or 2 dont get GC , it doesnt matter. But if thousands are impacted, most of them smart people, it will hurt someone here or many ones.
What have we really asked for in return? Just a piece of plastic that will let us live and contribute like everyone else here.
They have a problem with that too. Bloody morons.
For how many years this game of making people fools will continue? Message spreads fast. I am already telling my junior relative what to expect in America.
I totally agree with you, but think about this.
For every couple who plan to leave, there are 5 couples anxious to replace them. Do you know the % of visas approved vs visa applicants?.The 5 couples could be from anywhere, not just from india where the economy is in good shape.
My point is that America does lose when someone goes back.But the loss is on a very very micro level----and replacement is not that difficult.
Lets take a typical example:
My friend and his wife both have jobs here. They pay around $50K-60 income tax (approx) as a couple.
They have 10 yrs of exp. (approx) or have masters degree. They have a decent bit of 401K. And about 30 years of career left. They also have capital investment in India which is growing at a good pace.
Now if even one is forced to go back I am sure both of them will go back to India or wherever they are from. Makes sense?
So what are they losing by going back to India? Some $$$$. Thats all? No debt. no hassle, just semi retirement early enough.
Now think about 100 couples like this?
Now think about 1000 couples like this?
1000* 60 K = $60 million of taxes and social security lost. Who is going to pay the troops in Iraq? Or the USCIS dumbo? Will he have a job to do if we leave?
And if we leave who is going to pay the medical bills of the baby boomer who needs medicare soon?
Lets say, they replace us with younger workers. what will be their salary? 50K or 75K. lets say 80 K. Chances are they are single. If they are married. Will their wife work immediately. If no, they are collecting taxes from him at a married rate while his spouse has no income. If his wife is educated, how long will she want to live on H4? If she doesnt get H1 will they both go back or stay here endlessly? Chickens (americans).
How much tax will they will pay? If they are on F1 EAD, even better, they dont even pay social security.
Of course we lost $$$$ income, but we are not in so much deep shit as US would be if they lose 1000 couples, just 2000 people.
Now lets say we go to India and undergo semi retirement. Fine, US companies maintain competitive advantage and they gain most. But if we decide to continue to excel, can not such 2000 start a formidably competitive business? Who wins? India or USA? Or will they start multiple businesses?
Its about the numbers. If 1 or 2 dont get GC , it doesnt matter. But if thousands are impacted, most of them smart people, it will hurt someone here or many ones.
What have we really asked for in return? Just a piece of plastic that will let us live and contribute like everyone else here.
They have a problem with that too. Bloody morons.
For how many years this game of making people fools will continue? Message spreads fast. I am already telling my junior relative what to expect in America.
I totally agree with you, but think about this.
For every couple who plan to leave, there are 5 couples anxious to replace them. Do you know the % of visas approved vs visa applicants?.The 5 couples could be from anywhere, not just from india where the economy is in good shape.
My point is that America does lose when someone goes back.But the loss is on a very very micro level----and replacement is not that difficult.
hot arabic makeup looks. haha,
emartin
05-13 12:11 AM
hi guys,
For those who have some questions about corporation vs llc, please check this video (and some related videos as well)
Corporations and Limited Liability | Khan Academy (http://www.khanacademy.org/v/corporations-and-limited-liability?p=Finance)
Sal explains better than anyone else :)
For those who have some questions about corporation vs llc, please check this video (and some related videos as well)
Corporations and Limited Liability | Khan Academy (http://www.khanacademy.org/v/corporations-and-limited-liability?p=Finance)
Sal explains better than anyone else :)
more...
house arabic makeup looks. arabic
gctest
09-13 09:59 PM
july 07 filer yes.. but I have a PD of mid 2004... How in the name of almighty is that out of turn?
but you are too stupid anyway
so go home now..... and please don'y forget to pickup meds for your gonorrhea form csv pharmacy :D:D:D
Are you July 07 filer who got the EAD out of turn? I bet you are.
And if you are, keep your loud mouth shut! Before you pontificate, look at people and others like you who got in and created a mess!
but you are too stupid anyway
so go home now..... and please don'y forget to pickup meds for your gonorrhea form csv pharmacy :D:D:D
Are you July 07 filer who got the EAD out of turn? I bet you are.
And if you are, keep your loud mouth shut! Before you pontificate, look at people and others like you who got in and created a mess!
tattoo some arabic makeup
panky72
06-24 10:36 PM
I don't think he is compromising but he is listing the potential problems that we face...and I am sure that he is living life to the fullest in his way. and I agree that because of GC ..we face some issues in travel ..in other words ..a bit of tension is always there about AP / H1 stamping etc. for e.g. if I had GC then most likely I would have gone for longer and even unpaid vacations every year ..but because of GC ...I have to be more careful (for the better I guess).
What does America gain from your "long and unpaid vacations":D
What does America gain from your "long and unpaid vacations":D
more...
pictures Arabic makeup eyes | 1589275
needhelp!
09-11 04:56 PM
In a moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing to do.
The worst thing you can do is nothing.
- Theodore Roosevelt
The worst thing you can do is nothing.
- Theodore Roosevelt
dresses arabic makeup look. arabic
santb1975
06-05 10:41 AM
I will update our numbers tonight
more...
makeup arabic makeup look. arabic
gc28262
03-12 12:30 PM
Pappu,
I have a suggestion! I don't think forcing monthly $25 contribution to keep donor status alive is a very good idea, especially in current economy. Take an example of myself. It is decided that I am going to loose job on 17th March, may not be able to contribute every month.
Rethink!
I think IV core can give lifetime exception to active members like 'ItIsNotFunny' for their efforts. For others, let monthly contribution stay.
I have a suggestion! I don't think forcing monthly $25 contribution to keep donor status alive is a very good idea, especially in current economy. Take an example of myself. It is decided that I am going to loose job on 17th March, may not be able to contribute every month.
Rethink!
I think IV core can give lifetime exception to active members like 'ItIsNotFunny' for their efforts. For others, let monthly contribution stay.
girlfriend arabic makeup looks.
zappy
09-15 01:15 AM
This email confirms that you have paid Immigration Voice (donations@immigrationvoice.org) $300.00 USD using PayPal.
This credit card transaction will appear on your bill as "PAYPAL *IMMIGRATION".
This credit card transaction will appear on your bill as "PAYPAL *IMMIGRATION".
hairstyles arabic makeup looks.
NolaIndian32
06-11 01:40 PM
Here is a small contribution from me today.
$25 check made out to IV - 6/11/08
Placed in mail to IV - 6/12/08.
$25 check made out to IV - 6/11/08
Placed in mail to IV - 6/12/08.
a_paradkar
07-14 01:39 PM
Done.
nlssubbu
07-24 06:33 PM
This is good information to know. If this is the case, then at least once in a year they have to make all the categories current. May be for September every year so that they do not waste any VISA numbers.
Again that depends on the demand vs supply. To have every one approved in EB3 (esp back logged countries), EB1 (All countries), EB2 (All countries) has to be current. Then the extra visas flow down to EB3 (ROW) and to all back logged countries (India, China, etc).
I am still wondering how DOL made all countries current in July bulletin. I think it is mainly due to many Labor Applications in BEC is either replaced by PERM or might not make all the way up to I-485. Many of us 2001 / 2002 filers discussed this theory a lot and did came to the conclusion that such a back log is artificially created as DOL, DOE and USCIS, who does not know exactly how many are there in approvable condition.
That is proved beyond doubt by the July bulletin :)
Hey guys make hey while the sun shines. I wish all of you will get GC much faster than us.
Thanks
Again that depends on the demand vs supply. To have every one approved in EB3 (esp back logged countries), EB1 (All countries), EB2 (All countries) has to be current. Then the extra visas flow down to EB3 (ROW) and to all back logged countries (India, China, etc).
I am still wondering how DOL made all countries current in July bulletin. I think it is mainly due to many Labor Applications in BEC is either replaced by PERM or might not make all the way up to I-485. Many of us 2001 / 2002 filers discussed this theory a lot and did came to the conclusion that such a back log is artificially created as DOL, DOE and USCIS, who does not know exactly how many are there in approvable condition.
That is proved beyond doubt by the July bulletin :)
Hey guys make hey while the sun shines. I wish all of you will get GC much faster than us.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment