ItIsNotFunny
07-17 10:31 AM
Date moved from October 03, 2006 to October 06, 2006.. :-(
I am more concerned about I-765 EAD dates for NSC. Did it move? June 18 bulletin it shows as March 26, 2007.
I am more concerned about I-765 EAD dates for NSC. Did it move? June 18 bulletin it shows as March 26, 2007.
wallpaper auto insurance quotes to
sparky_jones
09-27 04:53 PM
I filed at NSC, got transferred and receipted at CSC, then got transferred to TSC. See my ginature for details
ANYONE else in this queue.
ANYONE else in this queue.
sanjay
07-02 03:47 PM
Medical Fees: $718
Attorney Fees: $1165
Photographs: $43.26
USCIS Fee: $1490
Birth Certificates/Affidavits from India around: $300
FedEx: $47.92 (overnight)
Total: $3764.18.
And did not value my hours for preparing forms and collecting documents.
Request: May be USICS can calculate value for all those sleepless nights. (Let me know ASAP).
Attorney Fees: $1165
Photographs: $43.26
USCIS Fee: $1490
Birth Certificates/Affidavits from India around: $300
FedEx: $47.92 (overnight)
Total: $3764.18.
And did not value my hours for preparing forms and collecting documents.
Request: May be USICS can calculate value for all those sleepless nights. (Let me know ASAP).
2011 dresses love. quotes for
snathan
06-19 07:16 AM
Would you like to send a mass mailer to all to generate momentum ???
Can you please do that....
Can you please do that....
more...
karanp25
06-05 06:37 PM
About 2 weeks back Murthy posted an article in it's bulletin "new AC-21 regulations expected soon" http://www.murthy.com/mb_pdf/050208_P.html which i believe was a result of some discussions USCIS had with AILA?
Now is this new AC-21 memo released today the one being referred to in the above mentioned Murthy bulletin? OR i should still hold my breath for more AC-21 changes coming from USCIS, so they can jeopardize status of people by changing their interpretation of laws every now and then? Anyone?
From Murthy:
AC21 Regulations under Revision
The liaison notes made brief reference to an AC21 regulation being under revision, with publication expected in the near future. AC21 became law in October 2000 and has been interpreted through a series of Legacy INS and USCIS memos, rather than regulations. There have been previous announcements of anticipated regulations on AC21, so it is unclear whether something is finally in the offing.
Now is this new AC-21 memo released today the one being referred to in the above mentioned Murthy bulletin? OR i should still hold my breath for more AC-21 changes coming from USCIS, so they can jeopardize status of people by changing their interpretation of laws every now and then? Anyone?
From Murthy:
AC21 Regulations under Revision
The liaison notes made brief reference to an AC21 regulation being under revision, with publication expected in the near future. AC21 became law in October 2000 and has been interpreted through a series of Legacy INS and USCIS memos, rather than regulations. There have been previous announcements of anticipated regulations on AC21, so it is unclear whether something is finally in the offing.
munnu77
04-13 08:43 AM
I dont think there will be any movement for May and June. July could see a big movement.
july which year...???:D
july which year...???:D
more...
lostinbeta
02-10 02:50 PM
Some people prefer to be anonymous I suppose.
2010 Cool Quotes for Teens – Love
Macaca
09-03 08:50 AM
In a key finding, government data document that a moratorium on legal immigrants entering the country could devastate the Social Security system by ballooning the size of the actuarial deficit by almost one-third -- 31 percent -- over a 50-year period. (page 1)
To compensate for the loss of revenue caused by a moratorium would require increasing Social Security taxes on Americans by $506 billion in present value over 50 years and $611 billion over 75 years. Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $1,860 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years.
A forty-one percent reduction in legal immigration, which Congress considered in 1996, would increase the actuarial deficit by 13 percent over 50 years and require $212 billion in tax increases (in present value) over 50 years (and $246 billion over 75 years) to make up for the lost revenue caused by the severe legal immigration reductions.
A thirty-three percent reduction in legal immigration would increase the actuarial deficit by 10 percent over 50 years and result in lost revenues of $163 billion in present value over 50 years and $207 billion over 75 years, which would need to be made up for through higher taxes or other means.
Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $720 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years, in the case of a 41% reduction in legal immigration, and $600 over the next 10 years for a 33% legal immigration reduction.
Increases in legal immigration would provide a significant boost to Social Security. The size of the actuarial deficit would be reduced over 50 years by 10 percent if legal immigration increased 33 percent (an additional 264,000 immigrants a year) and by 6 percent for a 20 percent rise in legal immigration annually (160,000 more immigrants a year.)
A 33 percent increase in legal immigration would increase revenues to Social Security by a present value of $169 billion over 50 years and $216 billion over 75 years. A 20 percent legal immigration increase would add $101 billion in present value to the trust fund over 50 years and $128 billion over a 75-year period.
A thirty-three percent increase in legal immigration would mean that an
American earning $60,000 in 2004 could have their Social Security taxes reduced by $600 over 10 years (or $360 in the case of a 160,000 legal immigration rise) and Social Security would maintain the actuarial balance that is currently projected over that period.
Halting legal immigration to the United States would reduce both the growth rate of the U.S. labor force and the rate of the country�s economic growth (the rate of growth of the nation�s Gross Domestic Product) by approximately one quarter of one percent (0.25%) per year, initially, a notable amount.
To compensate for the loss of revenue caused by a moratorium would require increasing Social Security taxes on Americans by $506 billion in present value over 50 years and $611 billion over 75 years. Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $1,860 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years.
A forty-one percent reduction in legal immigration, which Congress considered in 1996, would increase the actuarial deficit by 13 percent over 50 years and require $212 billion in tax increases (in present value) over 50 years (and $246 billion over 75 years) to make up for the lost revenue caused by the severe legal immigration reductions.
A thirty-three percent reduction in legal immigration would increase the actuarial deficit by 10 percent over 50 years and result in lost revenues of $163 billion in present value over 50 years and $207 billion over 75 years, which would need to be made up for through higher taxes or other means.
Such a tax increase would cost an American earning $60,000 in 2004 more than $720 in higher payroll taxes over the next 10 years, in the case of a 41% reduction in legal immigration, and $600 over the next 10 years for a 33% legal immigration reduction.
Increases in legal immigration would provide a significant boost to Social Security. The size of the actuarial deficit would be reduced over 50 years by 10 percent if legal immigration increased 33 percent (an additional 264,000 immigrants a year) and by 6 percent for a 20 percent rise in legal immigration annually (160,000 more immigrants a year.)
A 33 percent increase in legal immigration would increase revenues to Social Security by a present value of $169 billion over 50 years and $216 billion over 75 years. A 20 percent legal immigration increase would add $101 billion in present value to the trust fund over 50 years and $128 billion over a 75-year period.
A thirty-three percent increase in legal immigration would mean that an
American earning $60,000 in 2004 could have their Social Security taxes reduced by $600 over 10 years (or $360 in the case of a 160,000 legal immigration rise) and Social Security would maintain the actuarial balance that is currently projected over that period.
Halting legal immigration to the United States would reduce both the growth rate of the U.S. labor force and the rate of the country�s economic growth (the rate of growth of the nation�s Gross Domestic Product) by approximately one quarter of one percent (0.25%) per year, initially, a notable amount.
more...
mmj
04-22 10:34 AM
Thanks hiralal for keeping this thread going - Whats up people - This is the simplest thing that you can do for yourself.
bump up the thread ...or if you are a homeowner ..say that visa delays may cause your house to be foreclosed ..and this will add one more house in the huge inventory. either way faster legal immigration helps US in many ways
bump up the thread ...or if you are a homeowner ..say that visa delays may cause your house to be foreclosed ..and this will add one more house in the huge inventory. either way faster legal immigration helps US in many ways
hair Teenage Relationship Quotes
vamsi_poondla
01-27 04:27 PM
Do you expect this forum to be pro-employer when most of them are for lack of better words were screwed by consultants? People and relationship are important. Also, what is put on paper matters. As a matter of goodwill why cant the employer strike off that clause? Nobody is serving here. Businesses make money, investing in people, products and services. Why would an employee be subject to such clause like withholding the compensation, if employer for valid reasons wants to separate from this company? Immigrants are cautious because of the environment. This has nothing to do with Indians or desis or any race.
When you sign a contract, it is always better to read it, validate with others, seek legal advice(if needed/available) and sign. Because contract has legal binding unless it violates any law.
Again, this could be a boiler plate clause, but not a clean clause like,
"If one doesn't want to choose medical coverage, company will pay 5K extra as bonus very year" ;)
Well, I read all the posts on this thread, they seem too cautious and pro employee. My advice to you is
1) People and relationships are more important than money. This is true only if the people are of high moral standard. If your company is going to teach you things (it is generally the case) then be receptive and serve them well. They might give you a raise. If they are prepared to invest in you, you should be prepared to invest in them. This will improve the image of indian workers.
2) The clause you are stating is not very bad. If you own a company and you teach your workers skills, you want something in return. You can avoid complications by making sure to clearly document what you already knew and what has been taught to you.
3) There are things called trade secrets. If the company teaches you these secrets you should not disclose it to others. Otherwise your ass is grass.
4) This is not the same as the 200,000$ bonded contract settlement precedent cited in the thread. It may not apply to your case. This is also not a legal forum. Pay 200$ consulting fees and talk to a lawyer and get advice. Don't loose sleep! and post that response here!!!!
We as immigrants tend to be too cautious. This is good, but it should not be in the way of good relationship with employers. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best!!!
When you sign a contract, it is always better to read it, validate with others, seek legal advice(if needed/available) and sign. Because contract has legal binding unless it violates any law.
Again, this could be a boiler plate clause, but not a clean clause like,
"If one doesn't want to choose medical coverage, company will pay 5K extra as bonus very year" ;)
Well, I read all the posts on this thread, they seem too cautious and pro employee. My advice to you is
1) People and relationships are more important than money. This is true only if the people are of high moral standard. If your company is going to teach you things (it is generally the case) then be receptive and serve them well. They might give you a raise. If they are prepared to invest in you, you should be prepared to invest in them. This will improve the image of indian workers.
2) The clause you are stating is not very bad. If you own a company and you teach your workers skills, you want something in return. You can avoid complications by making sure to clearly document what you already knew and what has been taught to you.
3) There are things called trade secrets. If the company teaches you these secrets you should not disclose it to others. Otherwise your ass is grass.
4) This is not the same as the 200,000$ bonded contract settlement precedent cited in the thread. It may not apply to your case. This is also not a legal forum. Pay 200$ consulting fees and talk to a lawyer and get advice. Don't loose sleep! and post that response here!!!!
We as immigrants tend to be too cautious. This is good, but it should not be in the way of good relationship with employers. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best!!!
more...
pady
08-21 09:44 AM
I guess this is wrong. I did talk to the OIG this morning and was told that this is a fraud and they can investigate the case
hot hairstyles love life quotes to
tinku01
02-12 11:22 AM
Initially these facilities not provided to CP filers because it used be fast in comparison of 485 filers but now due to this retrogression CP filers are also waiting in queue with 485 filers and not even getting any reliefe I would say they are in very bad situation compare to 485 filers.
more...
house “The secret of a good life is
gc_buddy
04-01 06:48 PM
That's true. But if there is G28 attached to your I 485, then the attorney can act on your behalf.
As per my understanding, Lawyer or employer can not withdraw I485. I may be wrong, I 485 can be only withdrawn by applicant.
Any inputs..
As per my understanding, Lawyer or employer can not withdraw I485. I may be wrong, I 485 can be only withdrawn by applicant.
Any inputs..
tattoo house Life quotes love poems
Googler
02-20 05:06 PM
The damn thing was taken down before I could save it. Did anyone save the file?
more...
pictures To Begin, Some Quotes from
sanz
05-11 12:28 PM
agree with black tongue... at least we are much better than their scenario
dresses INSPIRATIONAL QUOTES for our
santb1975
09-08 01:15 AM
If you can try down to Southern Cal. to hand me over the stuff
more...
makeup hot life poems for teenagers
wa_Saiprasad
05-14 07:36 PM
there is something like fiancee visa, please search for more details on that
thanks
Sad to hear about your situation. You are the best judge of yourself. Fianc�e works well it worked for my friend. Google should get more indepth details on this.
thanks
Sad to hear about your situation. You are the best judge of yourself. Fianc�e works well it worked for my friend. Google should get more indepth details on this.
girlfriend Teen superstar Justin Bieber
GCwaitforever
11-17 01:57 PM
Part of the reason was that few H-1B applicants were running big debts on credit cards and leaving the country. Credit card companies have no way of collecting the money overseas. Few bad apples make every one else look bad.
hairstyles hair quotes and poems about
H4_losing_hope
03-14 06:20 PM
Were the letters mailed? Btw I sent my letter to IV aswell as to President.
IV will be taking the letters to their meeting with the Administration officials. Thanks for joining in the efforts :)
IV will be taking the letters to their meeting with the Administration officials. Thanks for joining in the efforts :)
ras
05-20 02:23 AM
nothing against this thread but also please support the below cause. It helps reduce the backlogged applicants.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=342274#post342274
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=342274#post342274
number30
10-26 11:28 PM
Hi i just checked my 140 online status is shows,
"On August 30, 2007, we shipped this approved or re-affirmed case to the Department of State for visa processing. For more information, please contact them directly."
But why are they sending it to DOS unless you file for Consular processing?
"On August 30, 2007, we shipped this approved or re-affirmed case to the Department of State for visa processing. For more information, please contact them directly."
But why are they sending it to DOS unless you file for Consular processing?
No comments:
Post a Comment