shirish
04-27 09:41 AM
I had received the same story in email about 7 years back.
This looks like a hoax to me. Could you quote a credible news story or a link on a enforcement site where there is any advisory?
This looks like a hoax to me. Could you quote a credible news story or a link on a enforcement site where there is any advisory?
wallpaper tribal dragon tattoo designs
saroj76
07-25 02:46 PM
He handled my case from OPT, to H1B, to Green Card. He is a very professional lawer and very responsible. He replies emails right away and answers phone calls. On the top of that his fees are much less compared to all these big law firms. I was really satisfied and impressed by his service. I would have stayed with him but my company got bought out by another big firm, so I had to switch the law firm. Check out his website.
http://webberlaw.com/
http://webberlaw.com/
rdehar
11-27 01:40 PM
How does it work? It doesn't work anymore :D
Labor substitution is dead.
Beware of anyone scamming you in name of labor sub...
Labor substitution is dead.
Beware of anyone scamming you in name of labor sub...
2011 Men Shoulder Tribal Tattoo
plassey
07-23 10:41 PM
I think, he should run for his life from his in laws now...:)
with a GC already fatest option might be to go to Mahabaleshwar for some honeymoon:)
with a GC already fatest option might be to go to Mahabaleshwar for some honeymoon:)
more...
lazycis
12-21 01:31 PM
Here is a shortened version:
1151
d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to—
(A) 140,000, plus
(B) the number computed under paragraph (2). (i.e. unused family-based visas from the previous year)
1153
(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151 (d) of this title for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(EB-1) Priority workers
Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5)
(EB-2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(EB-3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(4) Certain special immigrants
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 1101 (a)(27) of this title (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 1101 (a)(27)(C)(ii) of this title, and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 1101 (a)(27)(M) of this title.
(5) Employment creation
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership)—
i.e. for each country EB1 gets (140,000 + number of unused FB visas from the previous year) * 0.07 * 0.286 = 2802 + something insignificant, same for EB2 and EB3.
If there are unused visas, they go from EB1 to EB2 to EB3, but they are lost at the end of the fiscal year. Unused visas from 4th and 5th category can be added to that number as well (usually in the 4th quarter of the fiscal year). Please note that at the end of the fiscal year per country limits may be lifted if there are unused visas left.
1151
d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to—
(A) 140,000, plus
(B) the number computed under paragraph (2). (i.e. unused family-based visas from the previous year)
1153
(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151 (d) of this title for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(EB-1) Priority workers
Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5)
(EB-2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(EB-3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(4) Certain special immigrants
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 1101 (a)(27) of this title (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 1101 (a)(27)(C)(ii) of this title, and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 1101 (a)(27)(M) of this title.
(5) Employment creation
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership)—
i.e. for each country EB1 gets (140,000 + number of unused FB visas from the previous year) * 0.07 * 0.286 = 2802 + something insignificant, same for EB2 and EB3.
If there are unused visas, they go from EB1 to EB2 to EB3, but they are lost at the end of the fiscal year. Unused visas from 4th and 5th category can be added to that number as well (usually in the 4th quarter of the fiscal year). Please note that at the end of the fiscal year per country limits may be lifted if there are unused visas left.
aj1234567
10-04 06:18 PM
Hi
Any body got finger print appointment letter who filed on Aug3
Thanks
Aj
Any body got finger print appointment letter who filed on Aug3
Thanks
Aj
more...
cal_dood
01-01 02:29 PM
Just came back from one myself, with stops in Belize, Mexico & Grand Cayman. Did not need visas for any of those. We did not even take the passports to the ports and no one was checking them either. All you need is your ship card.
2010 dragon shoulder tattoo designs
visafreedom
07-03 11:39 AM
Sure, skip a day of work.. only to come back the next day and have two days worth of work lying on your desk, and one less vacation day...
Dont tell me you never take vacation ;-) If that is true, I will hire you.
Dont tell me you never take vacation ;-) If that is true, I will hire you.
more...
tamil12
09-09 08:55 AM
If you can't able to wait for the AP to come...Then give a shot to the local USCIS office...and get an emergency AP...you can get it in oneday...But you need a valid document to show as it's a emergency travel to India....probably a document from India...
hair skull tattoo ideas. tattoo
fromnaija
07-20 11:48 AM
You assume the original poster is from India. He did not state so in his post or do you know him personally?
Nice suggestion, buddy :p
New Delhi Embassy still have Aug 2007 dates available
Nice suggestion, buddy :p
New Delhi Embassy still have Aug 2007 dates available
more...
rdoib
07-23 10:36 PM
with a GC already fatest option might be to go to Mahabaleshwar for some honeymoon:)
hot Shoulder Tribal Armband Tattoo
immi_seeker
04-06 12:10 AM
Bump.
more...
house tattoo ideas for men shoulder.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
tattoo Amazing tattoo designs for
sss2000
10-31 02:25 PM
While that is true I wanted to donate whatever I have. I thought if any IV core team member has delta frequent flyer account, I can transfer my miles to his account. Is that a possibility? If so, Do we have any core team member who has delta frequent flyer account? If we pool all the miles we have then IV core team can use these miles to travel.
more...
pictures tribal tattoo designs for men
babu123
08-20 03:41 PM
Call 1-800-375-5283
options 1 2 2 6 2 2 1
At level 1, tell you didnt received receipt nbr and check not encashed.
You will be transfered to level 2. The officer at level 2 has access to check the name status.
Myself and my wife got the information. But some of my friends are not receiving the information. Good luck
options 1 2 2 6 2 2 1
At level 1, tell you didnt received receipt nbr and check not encashed.
You will be transfered to level 2. The officer at level 2 has access to check the name status.
Myself and my wife got the information. But some of my friends are not receiving the information. Good luck
dresses Best Tribal Tattoo Designs For
nkavjs
11-15 10:04 AM
Lynne,
I live in Fishers (126st), but work on West side of Indy (US 36 road towards Avon).
I will make it next time for sure. I am not familiar with Carmel roads, but after yesterday's confusion, i have got some idea.
DPP
Hello : Pls. include me too. I am from Indypls.. (from Fishers)
Thanks
RPH
I live in Fishers (126st), but work on West side of Indy (US 36 road towards Avon).
I will make it next time for sure. I am not familiar with Carmel roads, but after yesterday's confusion, i have got some idea.
DPP
Hello : Pls. include me too. I am from Indypls.. (from Fishers)
Thanks
RPH
more...
makeup Shoulder Tattoo Designs Aren#39;t
daniel_leavitt2000
February 15th, 2004, 05:29 PM
I have a Sony DSC F717. I got it to photograph model trains, so it is almost lways in macro mode. Frequently, the image blurs toawrds the back, even when set at the highest F-stop. The subject is usially about 5-12 inches away from the camera, depending on the model I am photographing. The models are about an inch high and up to 10 inches long.
I suspect a wide angle lense should help this, but sony has two available for their 58MM bezel. Am i right on this? Basically i want close up on full manual with
as good a depth of fied as possible. Here are the choises:
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=C5ukSQtNKAGkcEti_UiuQkRd1gcWOHL-Dh0=?CategoryName=dcc_DIAccessories_DILensesandFil ters_Lenses&Dept=dcc&TemplateName=item%2fsy_item_b&ProductSKU=VCLMHG07A
This one costs $150, includes two peice glass.
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=C5ukSQtNKAGkcEti_UiuQkRd1gcWOHL-Dh0=?CategoryName=dcc_DIAccessories_DILensesandFil ters_Lenses&Dept=dcc&TemplateName=item%2fsy_item_b&ProductSKU=VCLHG0758
This one is $400, and is a three peice glass.
Both have the same .7x magnification. Wich one should I get?
I suspect a wide angle lense should help this, but sony has two available for their 58MM bezel. Am i right on this? Basically i want close up on full manual with
as good a depth of fied as possible. Here are the choises:
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=C5ukSQtNKAGkcEti_UiuQkRd1gcWOHL-Dh0=?CategoryName=dcc_DIAccessories_DILensesandFil ters_Lenses&Dept=dcc&TemplateName=item%2fsy_item_b&ProductSKU=VCLMHG07A
This one costs $150, includes two peice glass.
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=C5ukSQtNKAGkcEti_UiuQkRd1gcWOHL-Dh0=?CategoryName=dcc_DIAccessories_DILensesandFil ters_Lenses&Dept=dcc&TemplateName=item%2fsy_item_b&ProductSKU=VCLHG0758
This one is $400, and is a three peice glass.
Both have the same .7x magnification. Wich one should I get?
girlfriend shoulder tattoo 1 Choosing
grupak
12-13 04:11 PM
I'm thinking about pursuing maser degree of Biostatistics.
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
If you are from a non retro country, EB2 will help. Otherwise not really.
To get an EB2, you need a masters degree but your job will also have to require it. I know of folks with masters but their company filed as Eb3. You can apply for EB2-NIW on your own. This requires more than just a degree. You will have to show your field of study is of national interest, and YOU have unique abilities and YOU are a world leader/expert in your chosen field.
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
If you are from a non retro country, EB2 will help. Otherwise not really.
To get an EB2, you need a masters degree but your job will also have to require it. I know of folks with masters but their company filed as Eb3. You can apply for EB2-NIW on your own. This requires more than just a degree. You will have to show your field of study is of national interest, and YOU have unique abilities and YOU are a world leader/expert in your chosen field.
hairstyles tattoo ideas for men shoulder.
Green.Tech
07-23 06:40 PM
AFAIK, as long as the core duties mentioned in the LC don't change considerably (by more than 50%), the company can promote you anytime.
das0
06-16 02:44 PM
Predierock,
Can you please adivse on the following:
My wife is currently on H4.
She has a H1b approved for 3 years to start working on October 1, 2007.
Now, she gets a EAD (though my I-485) to start working on September 1, 2007 valid for 1 year only.
She has a job and the company would like her join asap.
Questions are:
1. Will her EAD (I-485 pending) cancel her H1B approval for the company?
2. Can she work only Sept 1 - Spet-30 on EAD and then fall-back on her H1B (Oct 1 - later) for next 3 years?
We know that H1b is approved and all set for 3 years but Green-Card-EAD is only valid for 1 yr only and sometimes renwal takes time and $$ and bit riskly. So we cant decide if we should stick to her alreay approved H1b or fall back on EAD.
Please advise folks.
Can you please adivse on the following:
My wife is currently on H4.
She has a H1b approved for 3 years to start working on October 1, 2007.
Now, she gets a EAD (though my I-485) to start working on September 1, 2007 valid for 1 year only.
She has a job and the company would like her join asap.
Questions are:
1. Will her EAD (I-485 pending) cancel her H1B approval for the company?
2. Can she work only Sept 1 - Spet-30 on EAD and then fall-back on her H1B (Oct 1 - later) for next 3 years?
We know that H1b is approved and all set for 3 years but Green-Card-EAD is only valid for 1 yr only and sometimes renwal takes time and $$ and bit riskly. So we cant decide if we should stick to her alreay approved H1b or fall back on EAD.
Please advise folks.
sapking
12-21 12:09 AM
I think she should be apprised of pains in getting green cards for skilled workers from India, by ImmigrationVoice.
No comments:
Post a Comment