wc_user
02-20 06:16 PM
Don't worry man! Your coast is near ... I think the EB3 India movement will atleast go to Sept - Oct 2001 . Someone had posted the Labor PD count from May 01 to Dec 01 . (524 in total) . Obviously the unknown which came out of the BEC backlogs makes this situation worse.
Does anyone want to make a guess of when EB3 India 2002 will become current ? I am thinking of changing the case to EB2.. Should I change my case or should I wait for EB3 to be current ?
Does anyone want to make a guess of when EB3 India 2002 will become current ? I am thinking of changing the case to EB2.. Should I change my case or should I wait for EB3 to be current ?
wallpaper Mixed mobile wallpapers Part
varshadas
02-23 05:56 PM
Guys I am down with flu. Not sure if I will be able to attend. Will drop by if I feel better.
McLuvin
03-12 01:55 PM
finally the bulletin has been posted in the DOS website...
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
Visa Bulletin for April 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4747.html)
They have given a brief description about "BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS"
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
Applicability of Section 202(a)(5): INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, removed the per-country limit on Employment-based immigrants in any calendar quarter in which applicant demand for numbers in one or more Employment-based preferences is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5) has allowed countries such as China � mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused. Such numbers are provided strictly in priority date order without regard to the foreign state chargeability, and the same cut-off date applies to any country benefiting from this provision.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by documentarily qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation, that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may require the establishment of an earlier cut-off date than that which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
Furthermore, Section 202(a)(2) reads, �2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed seven percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or two percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.� The seven percent per-country limit specified in INA 202(a)(2) is considered to be for both Family-sponsored and Employment-based numbers combined.
Allocation of visa numbers under Section 202(e) is accomplished as follows:
If based on historical patterns or current demand it appears that during a fiscal year number use by aliens chargeable to a particular country will exceed the per-country numerical limit for both the Family and Employment preferences combined, that country would be considered oversubscribed. Both the Family and Employment preferences would be subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1).
Sometimes during a fiscal year it may become apparent that because of a lack of demand in the Family preferences, number use by aliens chargeable to an oversubscribed country will be well within the per-country numerical limit. In such case the excess Family numbers would be made available to the Employment preferences subject to the prorating provisions of INA 202(e)(1). Each of the first three Employment categories would receive 28.6% of the excess numbers, and each of the Fourth and Fifth preference categories 7.1%. (Fall-across would likewise apply if an oversubscribed country lacked sufficient demand in the Employment preferences but had excess demand in the Family preferences.)
If a foreign state other than an oversubscribed country has little Family preference demand but considerable Employment preference demand, the otherwise unused Family numbers fall across to Employment (and vice versa) for purposes of that foreign state�s annual numerical limit. For example, in FY-2009 South Korea used a grand total of 15,899 Family and Employment preference numbers, of which 1,688 were Family numbers and 14,211 were Employment numbers. This grand total was well within the FY-2009 per-country numerical limit of 25,620 Family and Employment numbers combined, so South Korea was not oversubscribed. The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
2011 Arren Williams, PDA Wallpaper,
GreenCard4US
06-10 06:24 PM
For whatever reason, rumors are flying all over the Internet that the end of H1B and EAD employment authorization is at hand. This is complete nonsense. The purported basis for these rumors is an amendment offered in the Senate (S. Amdt. 4319) to a tax bill previously passed by the House (HR 4213). As written, this proposal would prohibit companies from filing H1B petitions if the company has laid off any employees in the last year. It would also void all existing H petitions for a company if the company lays off personnel.
Let's put this in context. Microsoft decides to lay off some of its loading dock personnel because they want to outsource that work. Under this proposal, they would then have to terminate all of their H1B engineers. That simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
Like most of Grassley's proposals, this amendment is pure idiocy. I suppose that's what happens when your parents are siblings. This bill has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law. .
Let's put this in context. Microsoft decides to lay off some of its loading dock personnel because they want to outsource that work. Under this proposal, they would then have to terminate all of their H1B engineers. That simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
Like most of Grassley's proposals, this amendment is pure idiocy. I suppose that's what happens when your parents are siblings. This bill has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law. .
more...
wizard20740
01-16 09:15 PM
Signed up for monthly recurring payment of $50
Subscription# S-24216266N7904920U
Subscription# S-24216266N7904920U
iamgsprabhu
10-15 02:55 PM
Kindly download the Attached Doc.
more...
wizard20740
01-16 09:15 PM
Signed up for monthly recurring payment of $50
Subscription# S-24216266N7904920U
Subscription# S-24216266N7904920U
2010 320x480 PDA wallpaper
lazycis
12-21 10:03 PM
lazycis,
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
more...
satdal
01-17 03:59 PM
Just signed up for $20 Recurring Monthly. The video presentation is simply fabulous. Great Job by Aman, as always !
Here are the details of the subscription --- Subscription#S-5SV04028RR209515C.
Subscription Payment Sent (ID #2DU65702LW627190T)
Here are the details of the subscription --- Subscription#S-5SV04028RR209515C.
Subscription Payment Sent (ID #2DU65702LW627190T)
hair Wallpapers · Cars/MC Chevrolet
akilhere
10-14 10:09 AM
That's better. Collect the radiologist's report and send them at the earliest. Make sure your attorney sends it to addressed mentioned in the letter. Someone's attorney in this forum used FedEx's service (sent to non-PO Box address) and took longer time to reach right department.
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
As I said earlier, my doctor was not in USCIS's current list. So, I had to redo everything. My status has changed to 'Respone to RFE review'
FeedFront
I got the radiologist's report. Its on an official letterhead of the hospital and it includes his findings, recommendations etc. but it doesn't contain his signature. It only says "Read By: Dr. XXX and Prepared by: Dr. XXX. Nothing is handwritten, its all in print and the top portion says Radiology Report. It includes all my information including my DOB etc.
But the RFE says that the Radiologist's report should be on an official letterhead and signed by the Radiologist.
When i called the Doctor's office, they said that these documents are received electronically and are E-Signed so there won't be any signatures as such. They have mailed me a sealed copy but I'm wondering if this will be a problem since it doesn't contain the Radiologists's signature.
Any inputs on this would be appreciated.
Thanks,
more...
 "to stylize your PDA.")
greyhair
02-11 12:40 PM
The visa numbers reported as used for FY 2009 is 141,020 from http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09...ort_TableV.pdf
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
There is a huge backlog in FB category. How come there are 13,000 unused visas in FB. If any immigration business shop is so confident about their assertion, why do they not file a lawsuit on CIS. Why are they posting these messages on different forums? Do they just want to gain visibility? It seems that its better business practice is to write random statements like 'CIS failed again' without having the willingness to do something about CIS failure. Aren't there clients with pending 485 of this immigration shop. As their lawyer and with fiduciary duty towards his clients, if he is so confident of CIS failure, why is he not filing a lawsuit on CIS to guard the interest of his clients.
This was the response i got from Ron Gotcher.
"The employment based category is entitled to use the "unused" family based numbers from the previous year. Last year, the quota for EB was the base of 140,000, plus another 13,000 shifted over from FB. Unfortunately, the CIS failed once again to approve enough cases to use up the entire available quota."
If this is true, we have lost a lot of visas last year.
Now with aprox. 10,000 visas shifted from FB, we should hope they use about 150,000 (140,000 + 10,000) this year.
Is there a way to confirm this? We got to do something to resolve this problem
There is a huge backlog in FB category. How come there are 13,000 unused visas in FB. If any immigration business shop is so confident about their assertion, why do they not file a lawsuit on CIS. Why are they posting these messages on different forums? Do they just want to gain visibility? It seems that its better business practice is to write random statements like 'CIS failed again' without having the willingness to do something about CIS failure. Aren't there clients with pending 485 of this immigration shop. As their lawyer and with fiduciary duty towards his clients, if he is so confident of CIS failure, why is he not filing a lawsuit on CIS to guard the interest of his clients.
hot WVGA Wallpaper for PDA
amitjoey
05-06 02:37 PM
Answer on Priority Date?
more...
house Amazing Iphone wallpapers
abhijitp
03-03 06:48 PM
Instead of criticizing the idea, please submit your votes!
Only 300 odd people sent flowers to the USCIS and we know it worked. This site has a lot of one time visitors so don't expect 25000 votes, but it does not mean this idea is crappy. Heck, I want to buy a house myself, but I cannot even think about borrowing 300k+ when I may be asked to leave the country on a day's notice (remember no time between jobs when you are on H1B).
Only 300 odd people sent flowers to the USCIS and we know it worked. This site has a lot of one time visitors so don't expect 25000 votes, but it does not mean this idea is crappy. Heck, I want to buy a house myself, but I cannot even think about borrowing 300k+ when I may be asked to leave the country on a day's notice (remember no time between jobs when you are on H1B).
tattoo 60 Wallpapers 360x640 | 11.6MB
abracadabra102
02-09 04:45 PM
They wasted 580 EB3 India visas last year (2009).
Total available EB3 India GC Visas per year: 2802
Used: 2222
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV_2.pdf
A third of 7% is the upper limit for EB3 I. They can issue fewer Visas based on demand from other countries. Having said that, South Korea and Philippines got more than their fair share. There may be some reason for this.
Total available EB3 India GC Visas per year: 2802
Used: 2222
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV_2.pdf
A third of 7% is the upper limit for EB3 I. They can issue fewer Visas based on demand from other countries. Having said that, South Korea and Philippines got more than their fair share. There may be some reason for this.
more...
pictures WVGA Wallpaper for PDA
jthomas
10-16 05:41 PM
I would think better than doing one day off from work let all the state chapters do a mela for diwali, distrubute flyers, educate american citizens about legal immigration, get contributions and then pass on to IV.
Lets check which state chapter can get max contributions
Rather than a flower campaign, I'd rather have no EB legal immigrants at work day where every single legal immigrant and should not go to work.
If you have or want citizenship via EB Immigration, you don't go to work for one day, say Jan 02 2009. Then people will realize that we are important to them. A lot more than Gmail (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/16/194244) will be down.
Lets check which state chapter can get max contributions
Rather than a flower campaign, I'd rather have no EB legal immigrants at work day where every single legal immigrant and should not go to work.
If you have or want citizenship via EB Immigration, you don't go to work for one day, say Jan 02 2009. Then people will realize that we are important to them. A lot more than Gmail (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/16/194244) will be down.
dresses Most Wanted Mobile Wallpaper#5
srkamath
07-04 03:16 PM
Given the severe backlog of EB2 and EB3, some people will find ways to outsmart the system so that they can get the greencards sooner. If those loopholes are not plugged now, it will make a mess just as Labor Sub once did.
Yes, i'm not supportive of those that seek to exploit loopholes, I understand their frustration, i feel the same frustration. If we know for certain that someone is deliberately, possibly illegally abusing the system we should report it to either DOL or USCIS. Look what the exploiters have done to the PERM system.......
Yes, i'm not supportive of those that seek to exploit loopholes, I understand their frustration, i feel the same frustration. If we know for certain that someone is deliberately, possibly illegally abusing the system we should report it to either DOL or USCIS. Look what the exploiters have done to the PERM system.......
more...
makeup Mobile wallpapers #30
thomachan72
07-13 09:20 AM
Do any of you think that the dates will move forward next month? Looking at the backlog numbers published by USCIS, I think they moved as far as they could to make use of all the available visas. I am thinking that the move next month might be only a few days or a month at the max. USCIS mentioned last month that we could expect the dates to be March/April 06 at the end of this fiscal year. Will this mean that EB2I will hold out at March / April 06 for the next fiscal year?
Interesting question. You are probably quite accurate but there still remains some hope of a few months movement:D:D
Interesting question. You are probably quite accurate but there still remains some hope of a few months movement:D:D
girlfriend PDA or PocketPC ackground
gcny2006
10-12 08:27 AM
Got an RFE on 9th sept after several SLUDs in first week of september. The RFE asked for paperwork to establish that I maintained legal status during my student years. USCIS received the response on september 30th. The case status chaged to 'response review'. I have had sevreal sluds since them but no approval yet.
hairstyles to stylize your PDA.
gk_2000
08-10 08:39 PM
I have no intention of playing spoilsport if you are taking some good faith initiative. In fact, if there is some campaign launched on this - I will probably even contribute (well - if you are doing something in good faith for a community then I have a moral obligation to support it if it is not harmful for the community).
However, this part "I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis" souonds wishful to me based on my understanding of what the immigration law says. I spent some time going over the law a couple of years ago - so its possible that my memory may be failing me. If you can show some place in the Immigration law that actually supports this reinterpretation then I will correct myself.
You are absolutely right in pointing out the need to really see the law. I just dived into it. I will try to study it more thoroughly, as there are possibly multiple places we could explore in the language; not just this one. If I get more ideas I will come back and post them here.
I request all members to participate in the other thread discussing the various provisions of the INA
However, this part "I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis" souonds wishful to me based on my understanding of what the immigration law says. I spent some time going over the law a couple of years ago - so its possible that my memory may be failing me. If you can show some place in the Immigration law that actually supports this reinterpretation then I will correct myself.
You are absolutely right in pointing out the need to really see the law. I just dived into it. I will try to study it more thoroughly, as there are possibly multiple places we could explore in the language; not just this one. If I get more ideas I will come back and post them here.
I request all members to participate in the other thread discussing the various provisions of the INA
indyanguy
07-28 12:26 PM
Now a days this has become a fashion to bash Hinduism and people take pride in doing so just to make a point to prove that they are very secular and far sighted and very broad minded but infact these are the people who are pseudo-secular and the reason for majority Hindus in our own country being held hostage by the policticians and the largest minority community in india.....
I've seen this many times that any hindu who speaks their mind and strong believers in their religion will be tagged as fundamentalists and rss supporters where as I have nothing to do with any religious groups but I am proud of my RELIGION and it does hurt me when I see my religion/gods depicted in a bad way. If you are a aethist then just shutup but don't bash Hindu religion and I am sure that all the guys who tried to do so dont have balls to bash other religions coz they know the conseqences of it and I am sure these religious bashing people are the one who'd visit temple to get their greencards but don't accept it either becoz they are hypocrates or ashamed of their own religion......
You hit the nail on the head. I definitely agree that opposing the hindu religion has become a fashion statement especially in the so called highly educated highly skilled community. If you don't like hinduism, keep your mouth shut and convert yourself to the other liberal religions out there.
I've seen this many times that any hindu who speaks their mind and strong believers in their religion will be tagged as fundamentalists and rss supporters where as I have nothing to do with any religious groups but I am proud of my RELIGION and it does hurt me when I see my religion/gods depicted in a bad way. If you are a aethist then just shutup but don't bash Hindu religion and I am sure that all the guys who tried to do so dont have balls to bash other religions coz they know the conseqences of it and I am sure these religious bashing people are the one who'd visit temple to get their greencards but don't accept it either becoz they are hypocrates or ashamed of their own religion......
You hit the nail on the head. I definitely agree that opposing the hindu religion has become a fashion statement especially in the so called highly educated highly skilled community. If you don't like hinduism, keep your mouth shut and convert yourself to the other liberal religions out there.
greyhair
03-12 01:50 PM
Mr greyhair with brown matter,
I don�t know those folks you are comparing with me. I just said that IV opened a donor only post in wake of delayed April visa bulletin. I wonder why they did this as this was the time to educate/ inform all the members with whatever information they had (Now it is proved they had no info). This is not what a �non profit� organization or any organization would do in a time of uncertainty
This is obvious that IV can not dictate either USCIS or DOL nor they had any information on April visa bulletin but they did not have to hide anything related to delayed visa bulletin fom the non paying members.
IV is a great platform that bring together all of us under one umbrella so that we all share the information and make plans on how to make employee based immigration more hassle free.
As far as is concerned yes I go there and my id there is same as here. I go there so that I could share my knowledge and experience and gather the same from other folks in the same boat as me and this is the same reason I visit IV.
As far donation is concerned I donated once but after that I could not do it for my personal reasons. I will definitely donate once I am out of my crisis, but yes whenever, there has been any campaign initiated by IV of sending letters or faxes I have done my part sincerely.
I don�t know why people like you think that is there enemy in fact they both are there for the same cause and can work together (I don�t know about any past clashes if any between and IV management)
All I want is that IV be more informative to its members.
So Mr brown matter don�t talk more than what your brain can think of.
You are accusing IV for cheating before saying IV is a great platform. Can't you make up your mind. You sound more like that Congressman Massa from NY. I am no Glenn beck so now don't start to tickle me.
I don�t know those folks you are comparing with me. I just said that IV opened a donor only post in wake of delayed April visa bulletin. I wonder why they did this as this was the time to educate/ inform all the members with whatever information they had (Now it is proved they had no info). This is not what a �non profit� organization or any organization would do in a time of uncertainty
This is obvious that IV can not dictate either USCIS or DOL nor they had any information on April visa bulletin but they did not have to hide anything related to delayed visa bulletin fom the non paying members.
IV is a great platform that bring together all of us under one umbrella so that we all share the information and make plans on how to make employee based immigration more hassle free.
As far as is concerned yes I go there and my id there is same as here. I go there so that I could share my knowledge and experience and gather the same from other folks in the same boat as me and this is the same reason I visit IV.
As far donation is concerned I donated once but after that I could not do it for my personal reasons. I will definitely donate once I am out of my crisis, but yes whenever, there has been any campaign initiated by IV of sending letters or faxes I have done my part sincerely.
I don�t know why people like you think that is there enemy in fact they both are there for the same cause and can work together (I don�t know about any past clashes if any between and IV management)
All I want is that IV be more informative to its members.
So Mr brown matter don�t talk more than what your brain can think of.
You are accusing IV for cheating before saying IV is a great platform. Can't you make up your mind. You sound more like that Congressman Massa from NY. I am no Glenn beck so now don't start to tickle me.