ilanbenatar
04-25 11:29 AM
Hi "Domino",
I read your question and was wandering what path did you choose.
I am currently under the same process and conflicted on weather to apply for an O-1 or an EB1-EA green card.
I am a film editor and my case is not a very strong one so I'm contemplating the pro's and con's of both options.
It will be great if you could tell me about your experience.
Thanks,
Ilan
I read your question and was wandering what path did you choose.
I am currently under the same process and conflicted on weather to apply for an O-1 or an EB1-EA green card.
I am a film editor and my case is not a very strong one so I'm contemplating the pro's and con's of both options.
It will be great if you could tell me about your experience.
Thanks,
Ilan
softcrowd
04-23 09:12 AM
From Labor approval there is no direct way finding it out if its an Eb2/Eb3 (Other than going through the job requirements & inferring it). But if you have the I-140 reciept, its very easy...
Go to the "Notice Type" section on the I-140 receipt, in that there is a "section:" of that says "Sec.203 (b) (2)" --> its an EB2. If thats "Sec.203 (b) (3)" --> its an EB3.
Go to the "Notice Type" section on the I-140 receipt, in that there is a "section:" of that says "Sec.203 (b) (2)" --> its an EB2. If thats "Sec.203 (b) (3)" --> its an EB3.
msyedy
02-05 02:26 PM
you have to give the H1 qualifying exam (I think Step 3), then you have to apply for Residency in universities. They all call you for personal interview, and the results are announced in mid march. Once you are selected, they'll process H1 for you. If you do not have step 3 cleared, then they'll process J1 visa for you. Most of these universities come under non-profit so, H1 quota is not a issue for them.
Oh Mr dexto_al read his question properly before giving your precious advise....
Oh Mr dexto_al read his question properly before giving your precious advise....
x1050us
10-01 02:16 AM
This is the new thread to mention your rejection reasons.
Please mention following:
Rejection date: 09/21/07
Reason: Other reasons (Not mentioned in data base system - More info with rejection letter and package)
Package received date: Waiting
My case was rejected with incorrect fee as reason. But my lawyer claims that the rejection packet did not have the original checks. So, they don't know whose fault it is. Any one with similar issue ?
Please mention following:
Rejection date: 09/21/07
Reason: Other reasons (Not mentioned in data base system - More info with rejection letter and package)
Package received date: Waiting
My case was rejected with incorrect fee as reason. But my lawyer claims that the rejection packet did not have the original checks. So, they don't know whose fault it is. Any one with similar issue ?
more...
akhilmahajan
05-01 07:32 PM
Thanks for the information..............
i always thought that it meant, that they are processing that day applications.
i always thought that it meant, that they are processing that day applications.
tammman
10-09 03:08 AM
So does CA....
more...
RNGC
04-08 09:38 PM
As per INA 202, many of you know that for employment based immigration, the limit is 7% of 140k per country, if there are unused visas from family based or from previous years, USCIS should try to use them, which is not happenning....
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
Joybose
08-10 04:50 PM
Guys,
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
You applied in June 2007 and you got approved in two months? that is awesome, which service center?
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
You applied in June 2007 and you got approved in two months? that is awesome, which service center?
more...
unit
09-16 03:57 PM
I am also in a similar situation, and have the same question.
Any one with answers?
Any one with answers?
bomber
08-16 06:28 PM
Does anyone have any idea what the code stands for.
485 RD 7/2
ND 7/30
FP date 8/28 for both me any my husband
FP code 3
Code 3 means "Fingerprinting, signatures and photos will be taken"
485 RD 7/2
ND 7/30
FP date 8/28 for both me any my husband
FP code 3
Code 3 means "Fingerprinting, signatures and photos will be taken"
more...
RNGC
04-08 09:38 PM
As per INA 202, many of you know that for employment based immigration, the limit is 7% of 140k per country, if there are unused visas from family based or from previous years, USCIS should try to use them, which is not happenning....
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
tiinap
02-01 06:33 PM
I've been trying to research this out of my own curiosity. All candidates speak in rather vague terms at this point in the campaing, but based on the candidates' own websites and media, here's what I've found:
Let's start with Obama:
(quotes from his campaign website):
"Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill. (:))
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. (presumably, that would include us, if we're lucky, can maybe even get in line before the illegals)
o Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks. (:))
"Respect Families: Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together." (Does this include keeping temporary worker families together? :confused:
"In the most recent immigration debate on the U.S. Senate floor, Obama fought to improve and pass a comprehensive bill. Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together and to revisit a controversial new points system that never received a proper public hearing. Obama will continue to work for a comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system." ( :))
BUT... Here is what Obama said on the Senate floor in June 2007 when the subject of points-based immigration system came up:
"�For decades, American citizens and legal permanent residents have been able to sponsor their family members for entry into our country. For decades, American businesses have been able to sponsor valued employees. The bill before us changes a policy that, while imperfect, has worked well and will replace it with a new, untested, unexamined system to provide visas to immigrants who look good on paper, but who may not have any familial or economic ties to our country.�
"..they support the amendment because the new points system shifts us too far away from the value we place on family ties and moves us toward a class-based immigration system.."
�Our current immigration system delivers the lion�s share of green cards � about 63% -- to family members of Americans and legal permanent residents, while roughly 16% of visas are allocated to employment-based categories. The bill before us would reduce visas allocated to the family system in order to dramatically increase the proportion of visas distributed based on economic �points.� Once implemented, these new economic points visas would then account for about 40% of all visas, while family visas would account for less than half of all visas, with the remainder going for humanitarian purposes.�
First of all, believes the current system has worked "well"! :D
Wants to see a continuation of the system where family-based immigration is given priority :mad:
Seems to be glad that only 16% of GC go to EB :mad:
Laments the fact that 40% may go to educated immigrants under the points system. :mad: More educated immigrants, oh the horror!
Votes: Voted in favor of amendment to cut proposed guestworker program in half in 2007 :mad:
He's making some vague but good promises about fixing the system, and seems to be aware key issues like FBI namechecks. But the track record of what he has done in the Senate is pretty horrible. The points system would have given a huge advantage to anyone working in the US currently and Obama played a big role in taking that off the agenda.
Let's start with Obama:
(quotes from his campaign website):
"Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill. (:))
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. (presumably, that would include us, if we're lucky, can maybe even get in line before the illegals)
o Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks. (:))
"Respect Families: Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together." (Does this include keeping temporary worker families together? :confused:
"In the most recent immigration debate on the U.S. Senate floor, Obama fought to improve and pass a comprehensive bill. Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together and to revisit a controversial new points system that never received a proper public hearing. Obama will continue to work for a comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system." ( :))
BUT... Here is what Obama said on the Senate floor in June 2007 when the subject of points-based immigration system came up:
"�For decades, American citizens and legal permanent residents have been able to sponsor their family members for entry into our country. For decades, American businesses have been able to sponsor valued employees. The bill before us changes a policy that, while imperfect, has worked well and will replace it with a new, untested, unexamined system to provide visas to immigrants who look good on paper, but who may not have any familial or economic ties to our country.�
"..they support the amendment because the new points system shifts us too far away from the value we place on family ties and moves us toward a class-based immigration system.."
�Our current immigration system delivers the lion�s share of green cards � about 63% -- to family members of Americans and legal permanent residents, while roughly 16% of visas are allocated to employment-based categories. The bill before us would reduce visas allocated to the family system in order to dramatically increase the proportion of visas distributed based on economic �points.� Once implemented, these new economic points visas would then account for about 40% of all visas, while family visas would account for less than half of all visas, with the remainder going for humanitarian purposes.�
First of all, believes the current system has worked "well"! :D
Wants to see a continuation of the system where family-based immigration is given priority :mad:
Seems to be glad that only 16% of GC go to EB :mad:
Laments the fact that 40% may go to educated immigrants under the points system. :mad: More educated immigrants, oh the horror!
Votes: Voted in favor of amendment to cut proposed guestworker program in half in 2007 :mad:
He's making some vague but good promises about fixing the system, and seems to be aware key issues like FBI namechecks. But the track record of what he has done in the Senate is pretty horrible. The points system would have given a huge advantage to anyone working in the US currently and Obama played a big role in taking that off the agenda.
more...
kaisersose
07-27 02:37 PM
Hi All,
Has anybody used this Freedom of Information Act to obtain the information. I was going over the Form G-639 and it looks like they are asking for couple of information which I don't have and I am not sure if my employer will provide (Thats the sole reason why I want to use this act).The form is asking for the Alien Registration # and Petition #. I dont have them. Also for the information needed to search what needs to be mentioned if I need to get a copy of my Labour certification (Not sure If I could get that ) and my I-140 related documents say (Receipt Notice/Approval Notice). Any advise/input on this is highly appreciated.
Thanks.
You really do not need your labor certificate. You do not need the A# as it is optional. Leave it blank.
You however need to have the 140 petition number. Ask your employer for the number. Tel him you would like to have it for tracking purposes.
Has anybody used this Freedom of Information Act to obtain the information. I was going over the Form G-639 and it looks like they are asking for couple of information which I don't have and I am not sure if my employer will provide (Thats the sole reason why I want to use this act).The form is asking for the Alien Registration # and Petition #. I dont have them. Also for the information needed to search what needs to be mentioned if I need to get a copy of my Labour certification (Not sure If I could get that ) and my I-140 related documents say (Receipt Notice/Approval Notice). Any advise/input on this is highly appreciated.
Thanks.
You really do not need your labor certificate. You do not need the A# as it is optional. Leave it blank.
You however need to have the 140 petition number. Ask your employer for the number. Tel him you would like to have it for tracking purposes.
sendmailtojk
03-31 11:44 PM
At least, get a letter from your employer stating they won't revoke your I-140. If they agree to do so, then file a G-28 appointing a new attorney of your choice; however, if you are happy with your current one and find them affordable, let them know and ensure they will handle your case independent of your employer.
Cheers.
Cheers.
more...
psn1975
11-05 08:06 PM
Hi
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to Case received and pending.
What is even more surprising is that it also says On April XX, 2008, we received this I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER... This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
I my PD is July 2003 EB3 (India).
My I140 was approved in 2006 and had applied for 485, EAD, A/P in July 2007 like most of you. Yesterday LUD on my approved I140 and 485, EAD, A/P applications in USCIS changed after months. But now my approved I140 status has changed to Case received and pending.
What is even more surprising is that it also says On April XX, 2008, we received this I140 IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER... This is incorrect since i got the approval notice in Nov 2006.
I have NOT done any labor substitution or anything like that.
As usually our corporate lawyer and HR were useless and think this is just some system issue at USCIS. Did anyone else see this before? I was looking for other threads but couldn't find anyone else having similar issues.
Immigration gurus - any suggestions/comments? Is this normal?
Thanks!
alterego
02-01 11:18 PM
Seems to me, whether we like it nor not, whether it is fair or not, whether it is sensible or not, whatever, whenever this issue has come up since 2005, despite efforts to separate them our issue is tied up with the fate of the issue of the illegals in legislators minds.
American legislators(collectively) don't seem willing or able to deal with these issues separately.
So, though from a philosophical perspective I remain neutral on the issue of legalization of the status of illegal immigrants, I feel our best interests are served with a pro CIR candidate, whatever the stated position about legal highly skilled immigration. They simply don't seem ready to move on that without CIR. Whatever the consequences for the economy and global competitiveness.
Overall a McCain vs either Obama/Clinton would be OK for us, since at the very least the temperature of the debates on the issue of immigration will be less and the tone of the debate more rational and reasoned. Also that match up would make it less likely for a 3rd candidate. Romney would have fanned the flames of the anti immigrants. I write in the past tense because the or"MITT"uaries on that campaign are already being written for publication after Feb 5th.
Agree with logiclife that election of pro immigrant senators would help. That seems to me, to mean democratic gains except blue dog democrats, since that would help them push legislation through. All in all we want immigration to remain in the discussion, but the conversation to be less emotive and more reasoned and rational and civil.
American legislators(collectively) don't seem willing or able to deal with these issues separately.
So, though from a philosophical perspective I remain neutral on the issue of legalization of the status of illegal immigrants, I feel our best interests are served with a pro CIR candidate, whatever the stated position about legal highly skilled immigration. They simply don't seem ready to move on that without CIR. Whatever the consequences for the economy and global competitiveness.
Overall a McCain vs either Obama/Clinton would be OK for us, since at the very least the temperature of the debates on the issue of immigration will be less and the tone of the debate more rational and reasoned. Also that match up would make it less likely for a 3rd candidate. Romney would have fanned the flames of the anti immigrants. I write in the past tense because the or"MITT"uaries on that campaign are already being written for publication after Feb 5th.
Agree with logiclife that election of pro immigrant senators would help. That seems to me, to mean democratic gains except blue dog democrats, since that would help them push legislation through. All in all we want immigration to remain in the discussion, but the conversation to be less emotive and more reasoned and rational and civil.
more...
bobby
04-03 11:09 AM
I returned to the US last year after a vacation and while my current visa's expiration date is July 2007 the customs official would only stamp my I-94 & authorize entry until May 2007 when my passport expires. My lawyer has applied for our extension using copies of my passport which is expiring soon but she advised that USCIS would need a copy of the new passport with new expiry date before approving my extension. The lawyer says your passport has to have an expiry date after the date of expiration of your visa extension. I will get a new I-94 with my visa extension btw this extension is the 3 year extension as our I-140 is approved but we have not filed for adj. of status yet. PD 5/03 EB3 ROW
Winner
02-24 11:52 AM
Recently we are seeing lot of people with new id without completing profile they are able to start new thread. What if admin enforced new user to fill the personnel information and then only they can post on this web site. More importantly some key massages\important issues get berried in active forums due to above issue.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
I’m not sure about "pay to post" idea, but I’ve one more suggestion.
I see many offensive/ill-mannered posts/replies in the forums; this is bound to happen if we let members to be anonymous. I would suggest a verification process in which any new member should provide his phone # and state leader/volunteer can call the person and then grant them access then we can have a healthy debates and discussions.
Now I understand that this will put more burden on the volunteers and state leaders who are spending their personal time to help all of us. I can take care of this task for Texas.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
I’m not sure about "pay to post" idea, but I’ve one more suggestion.
I see many offensive/ill-mannered posts/replies in the forums; this is bound to happen if we let members to be anonymous. I would suggest a verification process in which any new member should provide his phone # and state leader/volunteer can call the person and then grant them access then we can have a healthy debates and discussions.
Now I understand that this will put more burden on the volunteers and state leaders who are spending their personal time to help all of us. I can take care of this task for Texas.
Berkeleybee
04-08 01:29 PM
I guess everything needs to go through the house conference. However there is a much better chance to attach it to the PACE act since Sensenbrenner may not be sitting in that conference at all. PACE act goes to this committe:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development
It's none of the Judical committe's business. It will be much better if the Senate just drops the contraversial immigration bill and start to work on this bill. Attaching EB to immigration bill is really dangerous and may just futher delay everything. So pushing the immigration bill may not be a wise thing for us to do.
Don't forget that the House (Anti) Immigration Caucus has 92 members -- be assured that if not Sensenbrenner it will be another equally virulent member. Also, conference committees are nominated by the leader of the house -- nothing to stop them from nominating anyone they want.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development
It's none of the Judical committe's business. It will be much better if the Senate just drops the contraversial immigration bill and start to work on this bill. Attaching EB to immigration bill is really dangerous and may just futher delay everything. So pushing the immigration bill may not be a wise thing for us to do.
Don't forget that the House (Anti) Immigration Caucus has 92 members -- be assured that if not Sensenbrenner it will be another equally virulent member. Also, conference committees are nominated by the leader of the house -- nothing to stop them from nominating anyone they want.
baldev.thakur
12-13 11:55 AM
Well in case you are TOO NAIVE let me tell you...
If you divorce in US , you can get an ex-partite judgment in your favor probably because your wife cannot challenge the divorce but When you re marry , you can re marry ONLY in US. The minute you land in India that re-marriage is considered illegal and your relationship with your 2nd spouse in US considered - bigamous. Bi gam y is not allowed in Hinduism .
If you prev wife finds out she can sue you and do many more things in India to make life the hell for you .
Can you post some more specific details abt ur case ?
If you divorce in US , you can get an ex-partite judgment in your favor probably because your wife cannot challenge the divorce but When you re marry , you can re marry ONLY in US. The minute you land in India that re-marriage is considered illegal and your relationship with your 2nd spouse in US considered - bigamous. Bi gam y is not allowed in Hinduism .
If you prev wife finds out she can sue you and do many more things in India to make life the hell for you .
Can you post some more specific details abt ur case ?
ImmiLosers
09-25 05:25 PM
That is not true. Unless the second I-140 was filed(the EB2) requesting to use the earlier priority date, I dont think they will accept the Eb2 application with the Eb3 priority date
They did for me...
They did for me...
No comments:
Post a Comment