lfwf
08-05 07:12 PM
Good points below.
Now, FreshEb2, through the handle itself, comes across as a stoker not a sensible person.
EB2 and EB3 are two very different EMPLOYMENT BASED legal immigration categories. Filing in one category DOES NOT PRECLUDE one from filing in another category, for another *future* job, as long the *future* jobs themselves meet the criteria to qualify for that EB category.
Coming to tihnk of, the coward parading as RollingFlood has not posted his/her company, EB job posting, and other pieces of information that I had challenged him/her to post. Seriously you coward, come out and post it... this community can help validate whether there really is no US worker to take that position. Now, dont chicken out and fillibuster this with more weak arguments. Post your glorified EB2 job posting for all of us to see ... and let us see if you have illegally gotten ahead in the line ahead of all those hardworking US citizens that have been laid off in the last 2 quarters across all major sectors. C'mon, do it ... do it...
Also, somewhere you had said that you were an MBA from a top US university. Welcome to the club. Though, I am sad to share the boat with you! Now, look back at the essay you wrote to get into B-School. Are you doing exactly what you claimed you would do after the MBA? Shall we take that up and go back to the school to have them rescind your diploma because you misused the system? One can say you got into an MBA on a fundamentally false premise. So, give back that diploma.
Also, did you come into the country on a F1 visa? What did you tell the visa officer? That you were going back to your home country, right? Didnt you need to show proof of ties to your home country. Can we take you to court stating that you committed a felony by lying to a Government official regarding matters of homeland security? Seriously. Why not?
No amount trying to sub-optimize logic to fit your specific narrow needs will make your holier-than-thou arguments even remotely credible, let alone valid in a court of law. What is clear from this 10 page thread, is that we have a few folks like FreshEB2, RollingFlood etc that present themselves as 'high skilled' workers in the US immigration system but clearly lack the basic level of logic to have a factual conversation. Their ladders of inferences are stark and substantive.
By sub-optimally picking 'argument points' based the 'weakest links' that you invent and trying to super-size that to reflect a larger interest is very weak attempt to preserve your position.
Go ahead, file a lawsuit. Tell us which case will be hearing it and give us the case number. I WILL PERSONALLY MAKE SURE THAT THE JUDGE ASKS FOR YOUR IMMIGRATION FILE AND CONDUCT A PRIMA FACIE INQUIRY INTO THE BASIS OF YOUR PRIMARY PETITION, INCLUDING ALL ASPECTS LIKE ADVERTISEMENT, NUMBER OF RESUMES RECEIVED, etc.. I WILL FILE A PETITION WITH THE JUDGE TO HAVE ANOTHER ADVERTISEMENT POSTED, THIS TIME, WITH RESPONSES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE JUDGE and NOT YOUR FAVORITE IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY. SERIOUSLY. BRING IT ON. WE SHOULD RESPOND TO YOU IN COURT. WHETHER CIVIL OR IMMIGRATION.
You had also mentioned that you would be filing a 'public interest litigation'. That is a very Indian concept. PIL type cases work differently in the US. You dont just run to your local court and claim 'PIL' because you felt wronged. Any court in the US would deem your case as narrowly defined to challenge legislation and throw you out because judiciary cannot legislate.
Obviously, you grossly underestimated the intellect of this group and thought your big words and b-board bravado would scare people. :D
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
Now, FreshEb2, through the handle itself, comes across as a stoker not a sensible person.
EB2 and EB3 are two very different EMPLOYMENT BASED legal immigration categories. Filing in one category DOES NOT PRECLUDE one from filing in another category, for another *future* job, as long the *future* jobs themselves meet the criteria to qualify for that EB category.
Coming to tihnk of, the coward parading as RollingFlood has not posted his/her company, EB job posting, and other pieces of information that I had challenged him/her to post. Seriously you coward, come out and post it... this community can help validate whether there really is no US worker to take that position. Now, dont chicken out and fillibuster this with more weak arguments. Post your glorified EB2 job posting for all of us to see ... and let us see if you have illegally gotten ahead in the line ahead of all those hardworking US citizens that have been laid off in the last 2 quarters across all major sectors. C'mon, do it ... do it...
Also, somewhere you had said that you were an MBA from a top US university. Welcome to the club. Though, I am sad to share the boat with you! Now, look back at the essay you wrote to get into B-School. Are you doing exactly what you claimed you would do after the MBA? Shall we take that up and go back to the school to have them rescind your diploma because you misused the system? One can say you got into an MBA on a fundamentally false premise. So, give back that diploma.
Also, did you come into the country on a F1 visa? What did you tell the visa officer? That you were going back to your home country, right? Didnt you need to show proof of ties to your home country. Can we take you to court stating that you committed a felony by lying to a Government official regarding matters of homeland security? Seriously. Why not?
No amount trying to sub-optimize logic to fit your specific narrow needs will make your holier-than-thou arguments even remotely credible, let alone valid in a court of law. What is clear from this 10 page thread, is that we have a few folks like FreshEB2, RollingFlood etc that present themselves as 'high skilled' workers in the US immigration system but clearly lack the basic level of logic to have a factual conversation. Their ladders of inferences are stark and substantive.
By sub-optimally picking 'argument points' based the 'weakest links' that you invent and trying to super-size that to reflect a larger interest is very weak attempt to preserve your position.
Go ahead, file a lawsuit. Tell us which case will be hearing it and give us the case number. I WILL PERSONALLY MAKE SURE THAT THE JUDGE ASKS FOR YOUR IMMIGRATION FILE AND CONDUCT A PRIMA FACIE INQUIRY INTO THE BASIS OF YOUR PRIMARY PETITION, INCLUDING ALL ASPECTS LIKE ADVERTISEMENT, NUMBER OF RESUMES RECEIVED, etc.. I WILL FILE A PETITION WITH THE JUDGE TO HAVE ANOTHER ADVERTISEMENT POSTED, THIS TIME, WITH RESPONSES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE JUDGE and NOT YOUR FAVORITE IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY. SERIOUSLY. BRING IT ON. WE SHOULD RESPOND TO YOU IN COURT. WHETHER CIVIL OR IMMIGRATION.
You had also mentioned that you would be filing a 'public interest litigation'. That is a very Indian concept. PIL type cases work differently in the US. You dont just run to your local court and claim 'PIL' because you felt wronged. Any court in the US would deem your case as narrowly defined to challenge legislation and throw you out because judiciary cannot legislate.
Obviously, you grossly underestimated the intellect of this group and thought your big words and b-board bravado would scare people. :D
OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting
wallpaper Lindsay Lohan doesn#39;t think
sanju
12-17 04:32 PM
I told you guys.. This site name should. Now
This guy seems seems to be an agent of some other site that wants us all to track fake data of others GCs, instead of working to eliminate the problem. Is thats why he is always putting labels on this forum?
.
This guy seems seems to be an agent of some other site that wants us all to track fake data of others GCs, instead of working to eliminate the problem. Is thats why he is always putting labels on this forum?
.
setpit_gc
08-06 11:36 AM
Rolling Flood,
Please go ahead file your law suit. Why are you wasting your time here?.
Come back and say that it has been filed.
Please go ahead file your law suit. Why are you wasting your time here?.
Come back and say that it has been filed.
2011 Lindsay Lohan in Rich amp; Skinny
JunRN
06-07 01:39 AM
Have you done your math ? Granted those $250 looks chump change for you, but what if it was invested for a return of 5% while the house may not be back at sales level for another 10 to 15 years ?
No one will argue with you about buying a house for yours kids pleasure though.
If you look at the details I posted, only $1050 goes to interest, insurance, and taxes. $400 goes to the principal. So, compared that to my $1200 rental, it is still wise choice. Isn't it?
As per Zillow estimate, the value of the house I bought already appreciated by $10k above the purchase price.
For the sake of discussion that it did not appreciate in the next 10 years (which I doubt because there's no other way to go but up) but the value stayed at purchase price, as per my amortization schedule, my loan would be at 75% of the purchase value. It means therefore that I already have a 25% equity of the house, which is $60k.
If I saved the $250 per month at zero interest, I would have $30k. I don't know where you can find 5% interest p.a. investment today but for the sake of argument that I found one, I think I can't get the $60k at the end of 10th yr.
No one will argue with you about buying a house for yours kids pleasure though.
If you look at the details I posted, only $1050 goes to interest, insurance, and taxes. $400 goes to the principal. So, compared that to my $1200 rental, it is still wise choice. Isn't it?
As per Zillow estimate, the value of the house I bought already appreciated by $10k above the purchase price.
For the sake of discussion that it did not appreciate in the next 10 years (which I doubt because there's no other way to go but up) but the value stayed at purchase price, as per my amortization schedule, my loan would be at 75% of the purchase value. It means therefore that I already have a 25% equity of the house, which is $60k.
If I saved the $250 per month at zero interest, I would have $30k. I don't know where you can find 5% interest p.a. investment today but for the sake of argument that I found one, I think I can't get the $60k at the end of 10th yr.
more...
isedkeem
01-09 06:03 PM
when you have two sides claiming two opposite stories, it is not reasonable to have one side be the defendant and the judge at the same time.
The UN and International Red Cross who are on the ground there declared the Israeli claims of militants in the bombed civilian areas bogus.. foreign journalist might have confirmed that too (ah.. forgot that Israel banned foreign journalists from entering Gaza.. wonder why?)
If we dismiss independent testimony just because the defendent says so, every criminal will go get a free hand.. plz let me hear ur logic for doing that
The question is about common sense and not who said what... Israel might make mistakes but it has no need to bomb civilians or school compounds deliberately. It is a strong enough country that can wipe out the entire middle-east if it chose to but it does not do so probably because it isn't a failed state with an inferiority complex like most of its neighbors.
The UN and International Red Cross who are on the ground there declared the Israeli claims of militants in the bombed civilian areas bogus.. foreign journalist might have confirmed that too (ah.. forgot that Israel banned foreign journalists from entering Gaza.. wonder why?)
If we dismiss independent testimony just because the defendent says so, every criminal will go get a free hand.. plz let me hear ur logic for doing that
The question is about common sense and not who said what... Israel might make mistakes but it has no need to bomb civilians or school compounds deliberately. It is a strong enough country that can wipe out the entire middle-east if it chose to but it does not do so probably because it isn't a failed state with an inferiority complex like most of its neighbors.
redcard
03-23 05:20 PM
Wow...that is a pretty harsh list. Is it possible for you to politely point out that you need to prove legal status from your last entry into the country on H1B and not go all the way back to 2000 giving contracts and all ?
I think you are right.. its from the last lawful admission into the country to check the status. I am not sure if they can dig into your past beyond the last entry to US unless you have name check or other issue.
Here is the document which clearly states for lawful status into US.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/245(k)_14Jul08.pdf
You should be good incase you meet the requirement,
I think you are right.. its from the last lawful admission into the country to check the status. I am not sure if they can dig into your past beyond the last entry to US unless you have name check or other issue.
Here is the document which clearly states for lawful status into US.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/245(k)_14Jul08.pdf
You should be good incase you meet the requirement,
more...
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
2010 Lindsay+lohan+skinny+jeans
pete
04-09 11:33 AM
Very true indeed. I am sure you have gone through the full nine yards and understand. Also you will still be an asset no matter what. That is not the case with "consultants". I think they ought to have some kind of licensing.
Like Pharmacists, dostors, nurses, architects . They should have hurdles. There if there aren't any you see what happens.
Don't want to sound selfish, but I agree 100% on this. Where I am employed as a scientist, the employer took great pains to show that I have not displaced any American worker. In fact they have a whole file with documents that support this fact. If I move, my new employer will do the same. I am not scared of this provision in the H1B bill. If you are really the best, only then you deserve to get the job, and then you have no reason to fear this bill.
Like Pharmacists, dostors, nurses, architects . They should have hurdles. There if there aren't any you see what happens.
Don't want to sound selfish, but I agree 100% on this. Where I am employed as a scientist, the employer took great pains to show that I have not displaced any American worker. In fact they have a whole file with documents that support this fact. If I move, my new employer will do the same. I am not scared of this provision in the H1B bill. If you are really the best, only then you deserve to get the job, and then you have no reason to fear this bill.
more...
Refugee_New
04-05 11:25 PM
I
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
this decade.
Excellent analysis Jung.lee
Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti
I couldn't control my laughter. You have a good sense of humor too
You will pay for yard work (unless you are a do-it-yourself-er), and maintenance, and through the nose for utilities because a big house costs big to heat and cool. (Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti:))
Total potential loss: $250,000!!!
this decade.
Excellent analysis Jung.lee
Summers are OK, but desis want their houses warm enough in the winter for a lungi or veshti
I couldn't control my laughter. You have a good sense of humor too
hair Lindsay Lohan Defends Thin
mrajatish
04-09 12:08 PM
Why do you need to hire other person if Joe is fit f
or the job though he is not as bright as other H1b person. For example you do not need IIT graduate for QA position. For example If you want a core system software programmer in TCP/IP level or semiconductor R&D you can go brightest in the World. Bill Gates is an exception. 95% of bright people will have degree or more in current world.
I am sorry to hear this sense of mediocrity that you want to perpetuate - maybe, I made a mistake by preaching to the wrong set of folks. The person I want to hire for a particular position should be smart enough to move to other positions (if the original position were to go away or if his/her career plans were to change). The last thing I want is to hire a person whose skills are not transferrable to a different job position.
I have myself moved from development to management to business and all because I believe I have the base skills to be an effective, valuable employee (and alas, every time I have done the change, my GC has been re-applied).
In a competitive world, you are better off hiring the best talent - just pay close attention to the kind of folks McKenzie/BCG hires.
or the job though he is not as bright as other H1b person. For example you do not need IIT graduate for QA position. For example If you want a core system software programmer in TCP/IP level or semiconductor R&D you can go brightest in the World. Bill Gates is an exception. 95% of bright people will have degree or more in current world.
I am sorry to hear this sense of mediocrity that you want to perpetuate - maybe, I made a mistake by preaching to the wrong set of folks. The person I want to hire for a particular position should be smart enough to move to other positions (if the original position were to go away or if his/her career plans were to change). The last thing I want is to hire a person whose skills are not transferrable to a different job position.
I have myself moved from development to management to business and all because I believe I have the base skills to be an effective, valuable employee (and alas, every time I have done the change, my GC has been re-applied).
In a competitive world, you are better off hiring the best talent - just pay close attention to the kind of folks McKenzie/BCG hires.
more...
pthoko
07-11 05:27 PM
Putting more pressure on the UN
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
hot So, when Lindsay Lohan hit the
nogc_noproblem
08-08 02:42 PM
If you enjoyed reading that one, you might like this one too.
Mother-in-law: When you rearrange the letters: Woman Hitler
This is hilarious! :)
Mother-in-law: When you rearrange the letters: Woman Hitler
This is hilarious! :)
more...
house Shopping trip: Lindsay Lohan
h1techSlave
09-26 05:06 PM
Going thru Obama's comments, he is sure to put a stop on H1B visas in the name of keeping American jobs in America. Then what would happen is that all American companies will send their whole IT departments to India. The end result will be that there would not be any decent paying jobs in this country.
CIR will pass and illegals will choke the whole USCIS. Good bye to EB GCs.
Just Kidding - reading your post i was feeling like I'm reading a comment from Fox News. However i do respect your opinion and thanks for expressing it.
My Point is more long term - in the shorter term no major change can happen to economy even if Barack wins but eventually Economy would be stronger under Barack's leadership. He also stressed that he would stop "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS" which means companies like TATA or INFY or some Chinese company taking my Job ( or any American's Job ) away from US to INDIA or CHINA. If you are planning a future in US - you would not want your US job taken away by your brother at INDIA or CHINA and Barack will make sure that doesn't happen.
The Bottonline is he will create tons of Jobs at US , so unemployment will be very low , average peoples will be happy and however loud ANTI-IMMIGRANTS scream and shout no AMERICAN will pay attention. Our EB reforms will Pass much easily and we will be able to able to lead a much happier and content life with GREEN CARD.
Once again my Point is definitely Long Term - in the shorter duration Barack has to first fix the Mortgage Mess and do something with Iran by taking help from EUROPE.
CIR will pass and illegals will choke the whole USCIS. Good bye to EB GCs.
Just Kidding - reading your post i was feeling like I'm reading a comment from Fox News. However i do respect your opinion and thanks for expressing it.
My Point is more long term - in the shorter term no major change can happen to economy even if Barack wins but eventually Economy would be stronger under Barack's leadership. He also stressed that he would stop "JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS" which means companies like TATA or INFY or some Chinese company taking my Job ( or any American's Job ) away from US to INDIA or CHINA. If you are planning a future in US - you would not want your US job taken away by your brother at INDIA or CHINA and Barack will make sure that doesn't happen.
The Bottonline is he will create tons of Jobs at US , so unemployment will be very low , average peoples will be happy and however loud ANTI-IMMIGRANTS scream and shout no AMERICAN will pay attention. Our EB reforms will Pass much easily and we will be able to able to lead a much happier and content life with GREEN CARD.
Once again my Point is definitely Long Term - in the shorter duration Barack has to first fix the Mortgage Mess and do something with Iran by taking help from EUROPE.
tattoo Lindsay Lohan and her lover
qualified_trash
05-17 01:08 PM
I totally agree with gc03 and learning01 expressing their views. It is when someone starts using terms like "refrain" etc. I get all worked up. gc03 and learning01 are entitled to their thoughts. What they are not entitled to is to tell each other or anyone else to "do this" OR "do not do that". Are we on agreement on this? I can see some name calling going on in these forums which is rather disappointing.
Someone very funnily called me an individual from the US Army who has infiltrated IV.
As for learning01, I know that getting the GC process fixed is of paramount importance here. My only suggestion to learning01 and IV is this.......... If Lou Dobbs can help you you should use his help. You do not know what his thoughts are on legal immigration. If he says that he does not support your cause, you can move on and atleast know where he stands.
If IV is talking to lawmakers from both parties, why cant we speak to all sides of the media?
Someone very funnily called me an individual from the US Army who has infiltrated IV.
As for learning01, I know that getting the GC process fixed is of paramount importance here. My only suggestion to learning01 and IV is this.......... If Lou Dobbs can help you you should use his help. You do not know what his thoughts are on legal immigration. If he says that he does not support your cause, you can move on and atleast know where he stands.
If IV is talking to lawmakers from both parties, why cant we speak to all sides of the media?
more...
pictures ° the SkinnY faSHiOn blOG
Macaca
08-08 09:19 PM
A Shameless Congress Applauds `Ethics' Law (http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aSwNPAuJbnbU) By Margaret Carlson (mcarlson3@bloomberg.net), August 8, 2007
To much fanfare and self-congratulation, the U.S. Congress passed ethics legislation last week supposedly making the members subject to the same standards of behavior the rest of us live by.
At almost the same time, a federal court handed down a decision involving a congressman whose office was raided by the FBI last year as part of a bribery case that included the earlier discovery of $90,000 he stashed in his home freezer. The ruling reminds us how much more Washington is like Vegas than Peoria. Under the Constitution, a congressman can protect his legislative files from being searched. In other words, what happens in your Capitol Hill office stays in your Capitol Hill office.
The ruling came in the matter of Representative William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat indicted for bribery in June. Jefferson allegedly got the $90,000 from a telecommunications entrepreneur who enlisted his help in getting approval from a Nigerian official to do business in that country.
The court didn't buy that the Justice Department did everything it could during the search to shield privileged documents, short of letting Jefferson conduct his own raid. A ``filter team'' removed any material that smacked of Jefferson's legislative duties. The court found the effort insufficient ``to protect the privilege'' of the legislative branch to be free from intrusions by the executive branch.
Shielding Lawbreakers
This means that under the principle of shielding lawmakers, lawbreakers may be shielded from legitimate law enforcement. Jefferson's lawyer Robert Trout was thrilled, saying the decision shows that every member of Congress has an ``absolute right to review his records first and shield legislative material from review.'' Federal agents get to see what's left.
Jefferson must be kicking himself. Why didn't he think to take the loot out of the freezer in his home and disperse it among the files labeled ``congressional bills'' at his office?
Consider the possibilities. Yes, it would have been hard for former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, now in prison, to keep his Louis XIV commode hidden in his office. But he could have easily stuffed any records about goodies provided by his defense contractor pals, such as the lease for his yacht ``Duke-Stir,'' into a file drawer labeled ``Hearings.''
Like the Jefferson affair, the case of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska could give a whole new meaning to the phrase Capitol Hideaway. Stevens's house in Alaska was raided last week by the FBI and Internal Revenue Service as part of a broad corruption probe. Stevens has multiple ties to businessman Bill Allen, who, since pleading guilty to bribery in May, is said to be singing like an Arctic loon.
If Only He'd Known
With the court's ruling, Stevens could have shipped anything he didn't want to be discovered to the Hart Senate Office Building for safekeeping.
Stevens and Jefferson are just two of at least a dozen members of Congress under investigation, which puts increasing pressure on the lawmakers to do something about corruption. That something, unfortunately, has loopholes large enough for a Gulfstream V to fly through.
The ethics legislation allows members to do all kinds of things -- as long as they disclose them. Want to have a fat cat contributor? Just make sure he discloses that he's bundling donations from friends, clients and employees.
Don't want to give up earmarks? You can still shoehorn an appropriation for millions of dollars onto an unrelated piece of legislation as long as you put your name on it.
`Bridge to Nowhere'
The law would have done nothing to stop Stevens from getting his ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a quarter-mile span connecting an Alaskan town to an island of 50 people, a couple of years ago.
Gifts and free travel are banned, unless they are part of campaigning. In other words, Congressman A can't have a rare rib-eye, creamed spinach and a bottle of Merlot with Businessman B at the Palm unless it's in conjunction with fundraising. In the case of congressional ethics, two wrongs do make a right.
The reason disclosure no longer works as a deterrent is that shame no longer works. As the ethics legislation was rolling to passage, Stevens, at a private luncheon with Republican colleagues, threatened to hold the whole thing up if the ban on traveling on corporate aircraft wasn't removed. He will still be able to fly Air Lobbyist. He'll just have to pay for it at commercial charter rates.
In wanting to keep his perks, Stevens may be the most outspoken member, but he's, by no means, alone. ``Ethics'' is the one area in Congress where there is heartwarming bipartisanship.
`Culture of Corruption'
Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and Democrat Thomas Foley filed legal briefs in support of Jefferson. When the court said the search was unlawful, Speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded. Earlier, Pelosi, who once pledged to end the Republican ``culture of corruption,'' took away Jefferson's coveted seat on the House Ways and Means Committee after the FBI raid on his office only to try to award him a coveted seat on the homeland security panel.
Some legislation is worse than no legislation. Senator John McCain, showing again why he'll never be president, said the ethics bill will delude voters into thinking things have been fixed when they haven't.
``This will continue the earmarking and pork barrel projects,'' the Arizona Republican said. ``Again, the American people will have been deceived.''
Most of the other members are chest-thumping as if they've really done something. The public would be better off if Congress had to live by the laws that apply to everyone else, criminal and civil, and at least a few of the Ten Commandments. I'd start with thou shalt not steal -- and work from there.
To much fanfare and self-congratulation, the U.S. Congress passed ethics legislation last week supposedly making the members subject to the same standards of behavior the rest of us live by.
At almost the same time, a federal court handed down a decision involving a congressman whose office was raided by the FBI last year as part of a bribery case that included the earlier discovery of $90,000 he stashed in his home freezer. The ruling reminds us how much more Washington is like Vegas than Peoria. Under the Constitution, a congressman can protect his legislative files from being searched. In other words, what happens in your Capitol Hill office stays in your Capitol Hill office.
The ruling came in the matter of Representative William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat indicted for bribery in June. Jefferson allegedly got the $90,000 from a telecommunications entrepreneur who enlisted his help in getting approval from a Nigerian official to do business in that country.
The court didn't buy that the Justice Department did everything it could during the search to shield privileged documents, short of letting Jefferson conduct his own raid. A ``filter team'' removed any material that smacked of Jefferson's legislative duties. The court found the effort insufficient ``to protect the privilege'' of the legislative branch to be free from intrusions by the executive branch.
Shielding Lawbreakers
This means that under the principle of shielding lawmakers, lawbreakers may be shielded from legitimate law enforcement. Jefferson's lawyer Robert Trout was thrilled, saying the decision shows that every member of Congress has an ``absolute right to review his records first and shield legislative material from review.'' Federal agents get to see what's left.
Jefferson must be kicking himself. Why didn't he think to take the loot out of the freezer in his home and disperse it among the files labeled ``congressional bills'' at his office?
Consider the possibilities. Yes, it would have been hard for former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, now in prison, to keep his Louis XIV commode hidden in his office. But he could have easily stuffed any records about goodies provided by his defense contractor pals, such as the lease for his yacht ``Duke-Stir,'' into a file drawer labeled ``Hearings.''
Like the Jefferson affair, the case of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska could give a whole new meaning to the phrase Capitol Hideaway. Stevens's house in Alaska was raided last week by the FBI and Internal Revenue Service as part of a broad corruption probe. Stevens has multiple ties to businessman Bill Allen, who, since pleading guilty to bribery in May, is said to be singing like an Arctic loon.
If Only He'd Known
With the court's ruling, Stevens could have shipped anything he didn't want to be discovered to the Hart Senate Office Building for safekeeping.
Stevens and Jefferson are just two of at least a dozen members of Congress under investigation, which puts increasing pressure on the lawmakers to do something about corruption. That something, unfortunately, has loopholes large enough for a Gulfstream V to fly through.
The ethics legislation allows members to do all kinds of things -- as long as they disclose them. Want to have a fat cat contributor? Just make sure he discloses that he's bundling donations from friends, clients and employees.
Don't want to give up earmarks? You can still shoehorn an appropriation for millions of dollars onto an unrelated piece of legislation as long as you put your name on it.
`Bridge to Nowhere'
The law would have done nothing to stop Stevens from getting his ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a quarter-mile span connecting an Alaskan town to an island of 50 people, a couple of years ago.
Gifts and free travel are banned, unless they are part of campaigning. In other words, Congressman A can't have a rare rib-eye, creamed spinach and a bottle of Merlot with Businessman B at the Palm unless it's in conjunction with fundraising. In the case of congressional ethics, two wrongs do make a right.
The reason disclosure no longer works as a deterrent is that shame no longer works. As the ethics legislation was rolling to passage, Stevens, at a private luncheon with Republican colleagues, threatened to hold the whole thing up if the ban on traveling on corporate aircraft wasn't removed. He will still be able to fly Air Lobbyist. He'll just have to pay for it at commercial charter rates.
In wanting to keep his perks, Stevens may be the most outspoken member, but he's, by no means, alone. ``Ethics'' is the one area in Congress where there is heartwarming bipartisanship.
`Culture of Corruption'
Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and Democrat Thomas Foley filed legal briefs in support of Jefferson. When the court said the search was unlawful, Speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded. Earlier, Pelosi, who once pledged to end the Republican ``culture of corruption,'' took away Jefferson's coveted seat on the House Ways and Means Committee after the FBI raid on his office only to try to award him a coveted seat on the homeland security panel.
Some legislation is worse than no legislation. Senator John McCain, showing again why he'll never be president, said the ethics bill will delude voters into thinking things have been fixed when they haven't.
``This will continue the earmarking and pork barrel projects,'' the Arizona Republican said. ``Again, the American people will have been deceived.''
Most of the other members are chest-thumping as if they've really done something. The public would be better off if Congress had to live by the laws that apply to everyone else, criminal and civil, and at least a few of the Ten Commandments. I'd start with thou shalt not steal -- and work from there.
dresses girlfriend Jan , alarmingly thin again lindsay lohan skinny again.
Marphad
12-18 02:24 PM
BTW, who is Antulay? I googled but no clue.
Abdul Rehman Antulay. Current cabinet minister and EX Maharastra CM. The guy who created biggest cement scandal at the time and was exposed by Arun Shourie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Antulay
Abdul Rehman Antulay. Current cabinet minister and EX Maharastra CM. The guy who created biggest cement scandal at the time and was exposed by Arun Shourie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Antulay
more...
makeup lindsay lohan skinny again.
dealsnet
09-27 02:26 PM
I wish Mc Cain to win this election. Republican party is good to India, pro-life, do not waste money and support same sex domestic partners. Their moral and cultural values are good. They do not increase taxes. Good for Industry.
I will support the party not the candidates. They are good for the security for the country. Terrorist are increased in all over the world. But no more attack on American soil. Clinton ignored the security of the country and we saw what happened. That time IT revolution happened. Not because of him the economic bubble occured. But it will happen, if any body is in power that time.
I will support the party not the candidates. They are good for the security for the country. Terrorist are increased in all over the world. But no more attack on American soil. Clinton ignored the security of the country and we saw what happened. That time IT revolution happened. Not because of him the economic bubble occured. But it will happen, if any body is in power that time.
girlfriend Lindsay+lohan+skinny
xyzgc
12-30 02:23 AM
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
hairstyles Gallery lindsay lohan, skinny
Macaca
02-27 08:14 AM
A Republican Purge on K? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142_2.html)
John Feehery has left the Motion Picture Association of America to start his own lobbying firm, the Feehery Group. Feehery, 43, joined the movie lobby with great fanfare in 2005 to help silence sotto voce attacks by congressional Republicans, then in the majority, on the group's chief executive, former congressman Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), and on left-leaning Hollywood. Feehery had been the spokesman for then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a veteran GOP leadership aide.
But last month, the MPAA named Seth Oster, a Democrat, as executive vice president for communications, in effect taking part of Feehery's portfolio. My colleague at washingtonpost.com, Mary Ann Akers, reports that lobbyists worry that the move might presage a citywide purge of Republicans. But Feehery professes no bitterness. "It was a good time for me to start my own business," he said. "It gives me a greater range to do things I want to do." The MPAA will be one of his first clients, he added.
John Feehery has left the Motion Picture Association of America to start his own lobbying firm, the Feehery Group. Feehery, 43, joined the movie lobby with great fanfare in 2005 to help silence sotto voce attacks by congressional Republicans, then in the majority, on the group's chief executive, former congressman Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), and on left-leaning Hollywood. Feehery had been the spokesman for then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a veteran GOP leadership aide.
But last month, the MPAA named Seth Oster, a Democrat, as executive vice president for communications, in effect taking part of Feehery's portfolio. My colleague at washingtonpost.com, Mary Ann Akers, reports that lobbyists worry that the move might presage a citywide purge of Republicans. But Feehery professes no bitterness. "It was a good time for me to start my own business," he said. "It gives me a greater range to do things I want to do." The MPAA will be one of his first clients, he added.
senthil1
05-16 12:15 AM
Law is giving them to right for their unfair practice. So congress is trying to fix the law. Most of them may be abiding law but using unfair practice which affects many people. So there is nothing wrong in fixing the law. Actually they should have applied H1b whenever they need. But they applied H1b for 1 or 2 years so that they will find a job later whereas companies which are having immediate requirement could not find H1b. Is this right practice though 100% legal
The deal with india is its home to billion people on the planet. Most of these companies recruit from India for same reason why Walmart gets most of its products from China. Free markets and Globalization is not a one way street. If american companies are so good and so caring they dont outsource , they outsource to further their bottomlines. If American companies dont want to outsource all these consulting companies will go out of business overnight.
As far as your comments about employees from India .. most of these companies are listed in NASDAQ and NYSE (INFY, SAY, WIT).. At least some americans are share holders/owners of these companies. Dont be surprised to know the fact that some americans are on the boards of these companies .Let me make one thing clear, I am not a big fan of these companies , Infact I used work for of these companies and I have first hand experience how these companies treat their employees.
If any one violates any law he or she should be brought to justice. I am not quite sure what laws these companies have violated. In this country any one is innocent till proven guilty.
I totally understand your frustration with your VISA situation and hope and pray that you win VISA in the "lottery" .
The deal with india is its home to billion people on the planet. Most of these companies recruit from India for same reason why Walmart gets most of its products from China. Free markets and Globalization is not a one way street. If american companies are so good and so caring they dont outsource , they outsource to further their bottomlines. If American companies dont want to outsource all these consulting companies will go out of business overnight.
As far as your comments about employees from India .. most of these companies are listed in NASDAQ and NYSE (INFY, SAY, WIT).. At least some americans are share holders/owners of these companies. Dont be surprised to know the fact that some americans are on the boards of these companies .Let me make one thing clear, I am not a big fan of these companies , Infact I used work for of these companies and I have first hand experience how these companies treat their employees.
If any one violates any law he or she should be brought to justice. I am not quite sure what laws these companies have violated. In this country any one is innocent till proven guilty.
I totally understand your frustration with your VISA situation and hope and pray that you win VISA in the "lottery" .
suavesandeep
06-26 03:05 PM
Would you share what calculator are you using.
I used one here:
Mortgage Calculator - Bankrate.com (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx)
Loan Amount: 600K (Note much less than million dollars)
Period: 30 years fixed
Interest Rate: 5% (On the lower side using historical averages)
Monthly Payment: 3220.93
Total Interest Paid across 30 years: 559,534.71
In general the thumb rule is across 30 years you will always pay interest which is approx equal to the principal you signed up for.
Am i missing something here ?
Yes its not clear cut but lets replace your X, Y and others with numbers
Suppose your rent is 1500$ a month
You pay 540,000 $ in 30 years
so your point 1 - the interest payment is always going to be less than rent if you look over the 30 year term of mortgage since there is no way to pay 540,000 dollars in interest in 30 years looking at the amortization table unless you are buying a million dollar plus house. ( I assumed 5 % rate of interest )
I used one here:
Mortgage Calculator - Bankrate.com (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx)
Loan Amount: 600K (Note much less than million dollars)
Period: 30 years fixed
Interest Rate: 5% (On the lower side using historical averages)
Monthly Payment: 3220.93
Total Interest Paid across 30 years: 559,534.71
In general the thumb rule is across 30 years you will always pay interest which is approx equal to the principal you signed up for.
Am i missing something here ?
Yes its not clear cut but lets replace your X, Y and others with numbers
Suppose your rent is 1500$ a month
You pay 540,000 $ in 30 years
so your point 1 - the interest payment is always going to be less than rent if you look over the 30 year term of mortgage since there is no way to pay 540,000 dollars in interest in 30 years looking at the amortization table unless you are buying a million dollar plus house. ( I assumed 5 % rate of interest )
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário