buehler
07-18 07:09 AM
hi Guys,
I was thinking over this for quite some time. Why dont we hire one or two immigration attorneys on a full time basis. And lets start am immigration office where we can have all our immigration works (doubtful) but the future immigrant works ata marginally cheaper rates with high quality of service. If we keep a no profit no loss mantra, it would be helpful to everyone and also it will make this organization very strong.
Lets discuss its relevance? What does the Core think about this.?
reddiv,
I know how happy you when you came up with this idea, but do you really have to cross post it in so many different threads and forums? In what way is it relevant in this particular thread?
I was thinking over this for quite some time. Why dont we hire one or two immigration attorneys on a full time basis. And lets start am immigration office where we can have all our immigration works (doubtful) but the future immigrant works ata marginally cheaper rates with high quality of service. If we keep a no profit no loss mantra, it would be helpful to everyone and also it will make this organization very strong.
Lets discuss its relevance? What does the Core think about this.?
reddiv,
I know how happy you when you came up with this idea, but do you really have to cross post it in so many different threads and forums? In what way is it relevant in this particular thread?
wallpaper lebron james kids shoes for
validIV
06-05 05:43 PM
Just an offtopic response, I used to trade options, which is far better than margin. Options give you 5 to 20 times leverage. And if you want more leverage, futures can give you 100x more. But my experience is the higher the leverage the more risk you are willing to take which is BAD. I have lost over 60k net (excluding fees) in options trading which I claim every year (max of 3k). I will admit I have had some amazing trades (SNPS, Dollar General and many others) giving me 10-12 times in returns, but I lost more than I made. I used to use IB and Tradeking.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.
Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.
walking_dude
08-05 10:39 AM
Cases related to Immigration Law cannot be filed in regular courts. Only immigration courts/Judges can decide on matters related to immigration.
Filing a case is one thing and winning it is a different thing. You guys will need an attorney who knows the ins-and-outs of Immigration law to win this case. I'm not surprised if AILA and USCIS (who have strong ties with AILA) oppose it in court. You guys think you can argue your case against these seasoned attorneys - without hiring an immigration lawyer, and win it?
All I am saying is don't take decisions based on emotion. Give reality a chance.
I have utmost respect for you Walking_Dude. Your leadership and ethusasm is phenomenal. But even in IV , I comes before We.
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
Filing a case is one thing and winning it is a different thing. You guys will need an attorney who knows the ins-and-outs of Immigration law to win this case. I'm not surprised if AILA and USCIS (who have strong ties with AILA) oppose it in court. You guys think you can argue your case against these seasoned attorneys - without hiring an immigration lawyer, and win it?
All I am saying is don't take decisions based on emotion. Give reality a chance.
I have utmost respect for you Walking_Dude. Your leadership and ethusasm is phenomenal. But even in IV , I comes before We.
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
2011 LeBron James 7 Kids Shoes-015
waitnwatch
08-05 05:22 PM
Here's the logic behind this debate as I see it (not that there is much logic in the way the immigration laws/rules are framed)
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
DoNotWorry
04-08 12:18 PM
This might be good for developing countries!!!! Don't worry guys, the world will evolve on new terms. As Bill Gates told, if workers can not come here, the Companies will go to that Countries.
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
dealsnet
01-07 05:16 PM
All communists (left) people cannot digest happenings in the new world. Communism & its extremists are a cancer in the last century, by God's grace is over. Now Islamic terrorists are the new avatar. Their fate will be same as communists. This guy get money to write article and book for them,
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
Before blaming muslims try to understand the fact and know atleast a little history. When you have time just read this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
news article written by Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army.
2010 LeBron James 7 Kids Shoes-003
walking_dude
08-05 10:39 AM
Cases related to Immigration Law cannot be filed in regular courts. Only immigration courts/Judges can decide on matters related to immigration.
Filing a case is one thing and winning it is a different thing. You guys will need an attorney who knows the ins-and-outs of Immigration law to win this case. I'm not surprised if AILA and USCIS (who have strong ties with AILA) oppose it in court. You guys think you can argue your case against these seasoned attorneys - without hiring an immigration lawyer, and win it?
All I am saying is don't take decisions based on emotion. Give reality a chance.
I have utmost respect for you Walking_Dude. Your leadership and ethusasm is phenomenal. But even in IV , I comes before We.
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
Filing a case is one thing and winning it is a different thing. You guys will need an attorney who knows the ins-and-outs of Immigration law to win this case. I'm not surprised if AILA and USCIS (who have strong ties with AILA) oppose it in court. You guys think you can argue your case against these seasoned attorneys - without hiring an immigration lawyer, and win it?
All I am saying is don't take decisions based on emotion. Give reality a chance.
I have utmost respect for you Walking_Dude. Your leadership and ethusasm is phenomenal. But even in IV , I comes before We.
Personally, I don't think one necessary needs a immigration attorney for this. This is a public interest litigation. The task is definitly not easy but if 50 people can join hands and willing to shell out $500 dollars. It is doable. But I doubt that will happen.
walking_dude
08-05 10:19 AM
Guys,
Ever wondered why a lawsuit never got filed against Labor Substitution, or stealing of EB Gcs by nurses, or against the discriminatory country quotas?
Simple, you need an Immigration Attorney to file the case. The same AILA cardholding person who is expecting a windfall profit out of interfiling/PD porting. I am interested to see the immigration attorney who is willing to sacrifice profit for principle. It would be a first in history if that happen!!
Good luck to everyone willing to participate in this wild goose chase. I guess you guys have too much money in bank to spend over such a mission impossible. If only you'd contribute equally to IV campaigns...
Ever wondered why a lawsuit never got filed against Labor Substitution, or stealing of EB Gcs by nurses, or against the discriminatory country quotas?
Simple, you need an Immigration Attorney to file the case. The same AILA cardholding person who is expecting a windfall profit out of interfiling/PD porting. I am interested to see the immigration attorney who is willing to sacrifice profit for principle. It would be a first in history if that happen!!
Good luck to everyone willing to participate in this wild goose chase. I guess you guys have too much money in bank to spend over such a mission impossible. If only you'd contribute equally to IV campaigns...
hair LeBron James Ⅶ Kids Shoes-2
gcisadawg
12-23 12:24 AM
Good post,
You post is a testimony that not all hope is lost with Islam. There are still people like yourselves who can think objectively or at least open to one.
And this is the reason why I am not against Islam as this would also mean that I am raising my fingers on the guys like urself.
Dude, if ss1026 is not on this forum, then is the absence of ss1026 a testimony to the fact that all hopes are lost with islam? I dont buy this line of thinking. we are better than that!
You post is a testimony that not all hope is lost with Islam. There are still people like yourselves who can think objectively or at least open to one.
And this is the reason why I am not against Islam as this would also mean that I am raising my fingers on the guys like urself.
Dude, if ss1026 is not on this forum, then is the absence of ss1026 a testimony to the fact that all hopes are lost with islam? I dont buy this line of thinking. we are better than that!
alterego
07-13 02:09 PM
Having a cut off date of April or Dec 2001 for the past few years is as good as VISA being unavailable. So India EB3 was unavailable for the last 3 years or so (except last july).
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Fairness is not what this is about. That is the whole issue. Is it fair that EB2 India has been waiting for years while EB2ROW has been current? Is it fair EB1 is over supplied with visas while EB2 India even EB2NIW was left heavily retrogressed? Worse yet, is it fair that the USCIS interpreted the law wrongly and gave visas to EB3ROW at the expense of EB2I? Was Labor Subs. Fair?
It is not about fair my friend. I am not unsympathetic to your plea for more EB3I relief. There absolutely should be some, and through a legislative fix. However the executive branch of Gov't has to implement the law as it stands.
That's not the case with EB2. EB2 on paper has preference, I agree. That does not mean EB2 should have ALL spill over numbers. Split it 75-25 if not 50-50. Dec 2001 for a retrogressed country is just unfair. When you issue some EB2 2006 numbers issue some to EB3 2002 people as well. Is it too much?
Fairness is not what this is about. That is the whole issue. Is it fair that EB2 India has been waiting for years while EB2ROW has been current? Is it fair EB1 is over supplied with visas while EB2 India even EB2NIW was left heavily retrogressed? Worse yet, is it fair that the USCIS interpreted the law wrongly and gave visas to EB3ROW at the expense of EB2I? Was Labor Subs. Fair?
It is not about fair my friend. I am not unsympathetic to your plea for more EB3I relief. There absolutely should be some, and through a legislative fix. However the executive branch of Gov't has to implement the law as it stands.
hot lebron VII 7 kids shoes
pthoko
07-10 10:07 PM
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
house lebron james shoes for kids.
vdlrao
07-14 12:49 PM
Please find out the visa numbers allotment for EB1, EB2 and EB3 till now. Till now there is about 100k visa numbers allotment for EB3 alomost every year due to the vertical fallout. From now on there would be around 100K allotment in EB2 due to the change to Horizontal Fall out of visa numbers. Out of these 100k EB2 visa numbers, India will get greatest share of around 50k + visas. Please see the below.
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...7/table06d.xls
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...7/table06d.xls
tattoo dresses Lebron James shoes in
lfwf
08-06 02:50 PM
But you see, what YOU think RollingFlood wants cannot be achieved through a lawsuit. From what I and pretty much most of us understand from the letter of the law is that it allows for earliest priority date. A lawsuit cannot change the law. Also remember that GCs in the employment based category are given based on SPONSORSHIP by an employer. So an EB3 got an earlier priority date based on a labor petition that existed at some earlier period in time when RollingFlood, I, and plenty of others decided we wanted to get a PhD instead. That was OUR choice.
Also, this is a free country. People who are really committed to get an advanced degree, can enroll in graduate school part time, which is what many people I know did. They hopped onto the GC line as EB3 and went to grad school part time. Some now have graduate degrees from places like Stanford.
Also note that the law accounts for really smart people to be unfettered by allowing for things such as EB2 National Interest Waiver and EB1 exceptional ability.
To say that just because someone was doing a PhD and therefore needs to get an earlier priority date that accounts for their graduate program is, to say the least, weird. It is mixing up the employment based system with a merit based system. In fact, one could argue a merit based system should not have any notion of priority dates whatsoever!
Also, just like you, I have no personal gain from this, one way or the other :-)
I have desisted from posting here because all people do is give hystero-emotonal resposnses ranging from "advanced degree means nothing in law' to "his parents must have waived him goodbye". However recently I see some sane posts that actually consider the issues rather than the rhetoric and I feel constrained to point out that you are wrong.
1. I cannot judge the merits of a lawsuit but the "equivelance" of an advanced degree is set at 5 years by regulation not law. That can be challenged in court. Again- I don't know if it will be thrown out, but it can be challenged all right. It would satisfy the goal of OP, whose primary grouse was with people who do not qualify initially for EB2, using the 5 years to both jump to EB2 and preserve their PD.
2. The employment based system is actually stratified by "merit" or" "level of job difficulty" (rightly or wrongly so- that's a separate issue). So they are not different things. The preference categories are set up so that it's easist to qualify for EB3 and toughest for EB1. Therefore the jump that BS +5 takes to EB2 already gives them the advantage of a better cut off date in a smaller category. The PD porting magnifies that to the extent that genuine (adding this to avoid renewed attacks on the terrible things EB2 folks do to qualify) original EB2 filers are left at a huge disadvantage. I asked repeatedly why people who spent the same years getting adavanced education should be left behind. No one addressed that, instead gave me alternative sob stories about being wrongly placed in EB3. Two wrongs do not make a right! And I (at least) am not challenging the rights of people who initially could have qualified for an EB2 to port.
And if its a free country OP has every right to question the regulation. Why have fits over it? How about analysing the issue itself instead and figuring out it's strengths and weaknesses? Do you think USCIS or Congress care that your attorney "made you file EB3"?
3. EB2 NIW still gives you a PD only AFTER you complete your advanced education and prove yourself exceptional. Still the same EB2 line. EB1 similarly gives you a PD much later- of course for now it does not matter since its current- if it backlogs, expect the same questions from them.
I fear this thread is fodder for anti immigrants. Virtually every EB3 here has questioned "most EB2's" classification and accused all of us of some kind of fraud. Really guys, be ashamed.
Also, this is a free country. People who are really committed to get an advanced degree, can enroll in graduate school part time, which is what many people I know did. They hopped onto the GC line as EB3 and went to grad school part time. Some now have graduate degrees from places like Stanford.
Also note that the law accounts for really smart people to be unfettered by allowing for things such as EB2 National Interest Waiver and EB1 exceptional ability.
To say that just because someone was doing a PhD and therefore needs to get an earlier priority date that accounts for their graduate program is, to say the least, weird. It is mixing up the employment based system with a merit based system. In fact, one could argue a merit based system should not have any notion of priority dates whatsoever!
Also, just like you, I have no personal gain from this, one way or the other :-)
I have desisted from posting here because all people do is give hystero-emotonal resposnses ranging from "advanced degree means nothing in law' to "his parents must have waived him goodbye". However recently I see some sane posts that actually consider the issues rather than the rhetoric and I feel constrained to point out that you are wrong.
1. I cannot judge the merits of a lawsuit but the "equivelance" of an advanced degree is set at 5 years by regulation not law. That can be challenged in court. Again- I don't know if it will be thrown out, but it can be challenged all right. It would satisfy the goal of OP, whose primary grouse was with people who do not qualify initially for EB2, using the 5 years to both jump to EB2 and preserve their PD.
2. The employment based system is actually stratified by "merit" or" "level of job difficulty" (rightly or wrongly so- that's a separate issue). So they are not different things. The preference categories are set up so that it's easist to qualify for EB3 and toughest for EB1. Therefore the jump that BS +5 takes to EB2 already gives them the advantage of a better cut off date in a smaller category. The PD porting magnifies that to the extent that genuine (adding this to avoid renewed attacks on the terrible things EB2 folks do to qualify) original EB2 filers are left at a huge disadvantage. I asked repeatedly why people who spent the same years getting adavanced education should be left behind. No one addressed that, instead gave me alternative sob stories about being wrongly placed in EB3. Two wrongs do not make a right! And I (at least) am not challenging the rights of people who initially could have qualified for an EB2 to port.
And if its a free country OP has every right to question the regulation. Why have fits over it? How about analysing the issue itself instead and figuring out it's strengths and weaknesses? Do you think USCIS or Congress care that your attorney "made you file EB3"?
3. EB2 NIW still gives you a PD only AFTER you complete your advanced education and prove yourself exceptional. Still the same EB2 line. EB1 similarly gives you a PD much later- of course for now it does not matter since its current- if it backlogs, expect the same questions from them.
I fear this thread is fodder for anti immigrants. Virtually every EB3 here has questioned "most EB2's" classification and accused all of us of some kind of fraud. Really guys, be ashamed.
pictures lebron james shoes for kids.
Refugee_New
01-06 04:08 PM
Alright dude, you asked for it. Here it is .
Mosque : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw&feature=channel_page
School : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI&feature=channel_page
If you think, that Hamas is not doing a terrorist attack and endangering innocent civilians by their own actions, you are incredibly naive.
I am interested in a peaceful solution and free state for Palestine, but this won't happen until Hamas is there. They used the agreed ceasefire to smuggle weapons through their tunnels and are now using them to bomb Israeli civilans.
Israel's response is much more in magnitude, but can be justified. Imagine someone constantly lobbing bombs into Delhi neighborhoods every other day. How long would you sit and watch? At some point, you need to take action to remedy the problem and also send a message to the guys responsible not to try this again.
Recently during Diwali celebration, one boy fired a rocket and it killed more than six people in Tamil Nadu. Offcourse this rocket was made in Sivakasi and it was an accident. It was a fire cracker. A simple fire cracker can make big accidents like this.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man. You are condemning the killing of 4 Isrealis and not even bothered to feel about 600 innocent palestinians including school kids. What a hypocricy and what kind of human being you are?
Hiding behind Civilian, hiding behind school kids, hiding in hospitals - Full of bullshit lies told by jewish owned medias like CNN and Fox. Have you ever heard from any moderate palestinians about thier plight? This is what those media feed us.
Infact Isreal blocked medias including CNN from entering Gaza. Why? They don't want the world to watch their attrocities. Simple.
I neither support Hamas nor justify their action. My point is, one nation is freely killing civilians and school kids, bombard schools, infrastructer, bomb goverment and civilian buildings, destroy roads and bridges, hospitals and destroying everything including their livelyhood and this world is watching silently. So called leaders of peaceful nations are encouraging this massacre. This is what troubles me.
Its so pathetic and funny to see the world asking Hamas to stop firing and at the same time encouraging other side to kill more and more.
Mosque : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw&feature=channel_page
School : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI&feature=channel_page
If you think, that Hamas is not doing a terrorist attack and endangering innocent civilians by their own actions, you are incredibly naive.
I am interested in a peaceful solution and free state for Palestine, but this won't happen until Hamas is there. They used the agreed ceasefire to smuggle weapons through their tunnels and are now using them to bomb Israeli civilans.
Israel's response is much more in magnitude, but can be justified. Imagine someone constantly lobbing bombs into Delhi neighborhoods every other day. How long would you sit and watch? At some point, you need to take action to remedy the problem and also send a message to the guys responsible not to try this again.
Recently during Diwali celebration, one boy fired a rocket and it killed more than six people in Tamil Nadu. Offcourse this rocket was made in Sivakasi and it was an accident. It was a fire cracker. A simple fire cracker can make big accidents like this.
But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man. You are condemning the killing of 4 Isrealis and not even bothered to feel about 600 innocent palestinians including school kids. What a hypocricy and what kind of human being you are?
Hiding behind Civilian, hiding behind school kids, hiding in hospitals - Full of bullshit lies told by jewish owned medias like CNN and Fox. Have you ever heard from any moderate palestinians about thier plight? This is what those media feed us.
Infact Isreal blocked medias including CNN from entering Gaza. Why? They don't want the world to watch their attrocities. Simple.
I neither support Hamas nor justify their action. My point is, one nation is freely killing civilians and school kids, bombard schools, infrastructer, bomb goverment and civilian buildings, destroy roads and bridges, hospitals and destroying everything including their livelyhood and this world is watching silently. So called leaders of peaceful nations are encouraging this massacre. This is what troubles me.
Its so pathetic and funny to see the world asking Hamas to stop firing and at the same time encouraging other side to kill more and more.
dresses lebron james shoes for kids.
nojoke
04-06 01:57 PM
Quoting from various sources
Slower building? �The demand for new homes in the Columbia region slowed significantly so far this year. Builders in Richland, Lexington and Kershaw counties saw a 33 percent drop to 1,082 single-family homes in the first three months of the year, according to the Home Builders Association of Greater Columbia.�
��We were expecting a downturn. I don�t know if I was expecting that much,� association executive director Earl McLeod said.�
��This is the worst I�ve ever seen it,� said builder David Beck, who has worked in the Columbia area for 17 years. �We�re just riding this to see what�s going to happen. I don�t think that it�s ever going to get back to the way it was.��
-----------------------------------------
��The residential real estate industry ripple effect is a blood bath,� said David Marino of Irving Hughes, which specializes in representing tenants. �When we got hit hard in 2001 through 2003 in the tech side, the residential real estate guys took a lot of that space. Today, there�s no recovering industry sector to offset� the decline from housing-related companies.�
--------------------------------------------------
From ABC 30. �That foreclosure crisis is hitting the Valley hard. Dozens of new homes will hit the auction block in Chowchilla this weekend.�
�This three bedroom, two bath home has a starting price of 280-thousand dollars. That�s about 120-thousand dollars less than its previous price. And this is just one of 43 discounted homes that will be up for auction on Sunday.�
�Project manager Ginger Hoggarth says this auction will be very different than those that sell foreclosed homes. �They are brand new homes and you do still get the one year warranty the builder would normally offer as well as a walk through.��
------------------------------------------
�When the owners default, it leads to repossession rather than foreclosure, and these defaults are not included in the foreclosure data, said Moises Loza, HAC executive director. �It�s happening all over,� Loza said.�
�Merced County, population 246,000, underwent a housing boom over the past few years that saw developments spring up on what used to be farmland, said Rep. Dennis Cardoza from Merced. Now, in towns like Atwater, housing values have dropped as much as 50 percent, the congressman said.�
�The skeletons of houses where construction halted when the market went bust stand across a development where houses that sold for $400,000 just three years ago are now going begging at half the price.�
--------------------------------------
The Mountain View Voice. �Market conditions and tight money are causing some builders to shut down large housing projects here, despite relatively firm prices and brisk sales of completed homes.�
�At least two large developments have been halted or dropped so far, after the builders were frightened off by negative signs in the housing market. Two others are rumored to face problems.�
�Just east of Highway 237 near the Sunnyvale border is evidence of the trouble. At 505 E. Evelyn Ave., a maze of driveways makes its way around the huge lot but leads up to only four model homes on the corner. The other 147 have yet to be built, and there have been no signs of construction for nearly a year.�
�Dave Best, the project manager at Shea Homes, denied rumors that Shea was having trouble getting bank loans for the project.�
��It�s not that we don�t have the money to build it, we just have decided not to put our efforts in that particular project,� he said. �When we determine the market has come back and it makes sense to build, we will continue.��
---------------------------------------------
The Sacramento Bee. �After all the intellectual assessments and recital of statistics about the subprime loan crisis, a woman from Chicago asked the question on the minds of many people in neighborhoods where so many have lost their homes. She asked the question in a setting far removed from those neighborhoods, at a California conference hosted earlier this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.�
��I want to know � how many people are going to jail?� asked Yevette Boutall, director of a community development fund that works in lower-income neighborhoods of Cook County.�
��That�s how angry people are in communities,� said Boutall. �They want to know how many people are going to go to jail, people who misled them and got away with it and earned money on their misery.��
�In San Francisco at the Fairmont Hotel, Boutall�s question went unanswered for the moment. But it struck a real note about people bearing the consequences of a time when mortgages and home prices went wild.�
�Speakers at the San Francisco Fed conference uniformly estimated that 2 million households will surrender their keys to lenders in the next year or two. That was their prediction despite all the voluntary lender-government agreements, the millions of dollars for new nonprofit loan counselors and the average $40,000 to $70,000 a lender loses with every foreclosure.�
��I wish I had better news for you in the short term,� said Tom Cunningham, director of the risk monitoring and analysis group at the Fed�s San Francisco bank.�
�He called the situation �unprecedented. We have never seen this before.��
�What seemed new at the Fed conference was how few major ideas there are to stop it. Speakers defined the problem, defined proposals to help assure it doesn�t happen again. But they could not be encouraging about solutions.�
�Speakers from the Fed, NeighborWorks America, the Center for Responsible Lending, Colorado Foreclosure Prevention Task Force and JPMorgan Chase talked about proposed legislation at state capitols and in Congress. They detailed efforts to reach out to struggling borrowers. But the big number � 2 million households during the next year or two � didn�t change.�
Slower building? �The demand for new homes in the Columbia region slowed significantly so far this year. Builders in Richland, Lexington and Kershaw counties saw a 33 percent drop to 1,082 single-family homes in the first three months of the year, according to the Home Builders Association of Greater Columbia.�
��We were expecting a downturn. I don�t know if I was expecting that much,� association executive director Earl McLeod said.�
��This is the worst I�ve ever seen it,� said builder David Beck, who has worked in the Columbia area for 17 years. �We�re just riding this to see what�s going to happen. I don�t think that it�s ever going to get back to the way it was.��
-----------------------------------------
��The residential real estate industry ripple effect is a blood bath,� said David Marino of Irving Hughes, which specializes in representing tenants. �When we got hit hard in 2001 through 2003 in the tech side, the residential real estate guys took a lot of that space. Today, there�s no recovering industry sector to offset� the decline from housing-related companies.�
--------------------------------------------------
From ABC 30. �That foreclosure crisis is hitting the Valley hard. Dozens of new homes will hit the auction block in Chowchilla this weekend.�
�This three bedroom, two bath home has a starting price of 280-thousand dollars. That�s about 120-thousand dollars less than its previous price. And this is just one of 43 discounted homes that will be up for auction on Sunday.�
�Project manager Ginger Hoggarth says this auction will be very different than those that sell foreclosed homes. �They are brand new homes and you do still get the one year warranty the builder would normally offer as well as a walk through.��
------------------------------------------
�When the owners default, it leads to repossession rather than foreclosure, and these defaults are not included in the foreclosure data, said Moises Loza, HAC executive director. �It�s happening all over,� Loza said.�
�Merced County, population 246,000, underwent a housing boom over the past few years that saw developments spring up on what used to be farmland, said Rep. Dennis Cardoza from Merced. Now, in towns like Atwater, housing values have dropped as much as 50 percent, the congressman said.�
�The skeletons of houses where construction halted when the market went bust stand across a development where houses that sold for $400,000 just three years ago are now going begging at half the price.�
--------------------------------------
The Mountain View Voice. �Market conditions and tight money are causing some builders to shut down large housing projects here, despite relatively firm prices and brisk sales of completed homes.�
�At least two large developments have been halted or dropped so far, after the builders were frightened off by negative signs in the housing market. Two others are rumored to face problems.�
�Just east of Highway 237 near the Sunnyvale border is evidence of the trouble. At 505 E. Evelyn Ave., a maze of driveways makes its way around the huge lot but leads up to only four model homes on the corner. The other 147 have yet to be built, and there have been no signs of construction for nearly a year.�
�Dave Best, the project manager at Shea Homes, denied rumors that Shea was having trouble getting bank loans for the project.�
��It�s not that we don�t have the money to build it, we just have decided not to put our efforts in that particular project,� he said. �When we determine the market has come back and it makes sense to build, we will continue.��
---------------------------------------------
The Sacramento Bee. �After all the intellectual assessments and recital of statistics about the subprime loan crisis, a woman from Chicago asked the question on the minds of many people in neighborhoods where so many have lost their homes. She asked the question in a setting far removed from those neighborhoods, at a California conference hosted earlier this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.�
��I want to know � how many people are going to jail?� asked Yevette Boutall, director of a community development fund that works in lower-income neighborhoods of Cook County.�
��That�s how angry people are in communities,� said Boutall. �They want to know how many people are going to go to jail, people who misled them and got away with it and earned money on their misery.��
�In San Francisco at the Fairmont Hotel, Boutall�s question went unanswered for the moment. But it struck a real note about people bearing the consequences of a time when mortgages and home prices went wild.�
�Speakers at the San Francisco Fed conference uniformly estimated that 2 million households will surrender their keys to lenders in the next year or two. That was their prediction despite all the voluntary lender-government agreements, the millions of dollars for new nonprofit loan counselors and the average $40,000 to $70,000 a lender loses with every foreclosure.�
��I wish I had better news for you in the short term,� said Tom Cunningham, director of the risk monitoring and analysis group at the Fed�s San Francisco bank.�
�He called the situation �unprecedented. We have never seen this before.��
�What seemed new at the Fed conference was how few major ideas there are to stop it. Speakers defined the problem, defined proposals to help assure it doesn�t happen again. But they could not be encouraging about solutions.�
�Speakers from the Fed, NeighborWorks America, the Center for Responsible Lending, Colorado Foreclosure Prevention Task Force and JPMorgan Chase talked about proposed legislation at state capitols and in Congress. They detailed efforts to reach out to struggling borrowers. But the big number � 2 million households during the next year or two � didn�t change.�
makeup Lebron James Shoes
chanduv23
03-24 10:38 AM
hehehe..
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
That seems right. The officer looking into your case might have changed and could not have immediate access to your case information and that's why he/she is asking everything from you and your employer.
If this was the trend - then we would see a lot of people getting such queries.
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
That seems right. The officer looking into your case might have changed and could not have immediate access to your case information and that's why he/she is asking everything from you and your employer.
If this was the trend - then we would see a lot of people getting such queries.
girlfriend house Lebron James Shoes Kids
paskal
07-14 05:37 PM
Thanks. I will look into it further when I get a chance. the number of GC granted in a year is complicated- and for the moment I speak offhand so correct me if needed. Till 2005, the recapture clouded the numbers. After that EB3 benefited from a Schedule A recapture that went almost entirely to EB3, a lot to EB3 Philipenes and a good chunk to EB3 India.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
Paskal,
Your post made me look again into the text. Alright, I see some things now, doesnt fully explain the lack of EB3 numbers but let me summarize..
EB2-ROW-> EB2(general-pool). I have always conceded that this should be the case. (for those who disagree, see my initial posts).
My point always has been on the spillover of EB1 numbers, that very clearly is to be shared amongst EB2 and EB3 (and if you apply USCIS "new" yard-stick), this will be first-come-first serve, so pretty much will help the most regressed category. However, it is my contention that in making the change of the Veritcal/Horizontal spillover (is there any "memo" on this?), USCIS went a step further than what they should have done. They denied EB1 spillover to EB3.
For the rest EB3ers, here is the relevant post that supports EB2-ROW to Eb2->general-pool. But it does not say anything about EB1 numbers
"If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limit ....
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
Paskal,
Your post made me look again into the text. Alright, I see some things now, doesnt fully explain the lack of EB3 numbers but let me summarize..
EB2-ROW-> EB2(general-pool). I have always conceded that this should be the case. (for those who disagree, see my initial posts).
My point always has been on the spillover of EB1 numbers, that very clearly is to be shared amongst EB2 and EB3 (and if you apply USCIS "new" yard-stick), this will be first-come-first serve, so pretty much will help the most regressed category. However, it is my contention that in making the change of the Veritcal/Horizontal spillover (is there any "memo" on this?), USCIS went a step further than what they should have done. They denied EB1 spillover to EB3.
For the rest EB3ers, here is the relevant post that supports EB2-ROW to Eb2->general-pool. But it does not say anything about EB1 numbers
"If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limit ....
hairstyles lebron james shoes for kids.
Macaca
05-27 06:06 PM
In December, KPMG was retained by China Integrated Energy, which claimed to be a leader in the production of biodiesel. Just hiring a Big Four auditor enabled it to raise $24 million from institutional investors in the United States. Three months later, KPMG certified the financials.
Six weeks after that, KPMG repudiated the report and resigned. By then, China Integrated Energy executives had refused to cooperate with a board investigation into claims that the company was a complete fraud.
The Chinese audit firms, while they are affiliated with major international audit networks, have never been inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires those inspections for accounting firms that audit companies whose securities trade in the United States, but China has refused to allow inspections.
In a speech at a Baruch College conference earlier this month, James R. Doty, chairman of the accounting oversight board, called on the major firms to �improve preventative global quality controls,� but said that actual inspections were needed.
Two weeks ago, Chinese and American officials meeting in Washington said they would try to reach agreement �on the oversight of accounting firms providing audit services for public companies in the two countries, so as to enhance mutual trust.�
Frauds and audit failures can, and do, happen in many countries, including in the United States. But the audacity of these frauds, as well as the efforts to intimidate auditors, stand out. If investors such as Goldman Sachs and Hank Greenberg cannot fend for themselves, something more needs to be done if Chinese companies are to continue to trade in American markets.
Corporate China's political shadows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/corporate-china-political-shadows) By Isabel Hilton | Guardian
The Truth about the Three Gorges Dam (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/24/the-truth-about-the-three-gorges-dam/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
AIDS Funds Frozen for China in Grant Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/asia/21china.html) By SHARON LaFRANIERE | New York Times
Kicking the Great Firewall (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/25/kicking-the-great-firewall/) By Mu Chunshan | The Diplomat
China opens doors to despots with series of pariah state visits (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-opens-doors-to-despots-with-series-of-pariah-state-visits-2289723.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Ai Weiwei's Zodiac heads
It's political (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/05/ai_weiweis_zodiac_heads)
The Economist
China�s jasmine crackdown and the legal system (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/26/china-s-jasmine-crackdown-and-the-legal-system/) By Donald C. Clarke | George Washington University Law School
Six weeks after that, KPMG repudiated the report and resigned. By then, China Integrated Energy executives had refused to cooperate with a board investigation into claims that the company was a complete fraud.
The Chinese audit firms, while they are affiliated with major international audit networks, have never been inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires those inspections for accounting firms that audit companies whose securities trade in the United States, but China has refused to allow inspections.
In a speech at a Baruch College conference earlier this month, James R. Doty, chairman of the accounting oversight board, called on the major firms to �improve preventative global quality controls,� but said that actual inspections were needed.
Two weeks ago, Chinese and American officials meeting in Washington said they would try to reach agreement �on the oversight of accounting firms providing audit services for public companies in the two countries, so as to enhance mutual trust.�
Frauds and audit failures can, and do, happen in many countries, including in the United States. But the audacity of these frauds, as well as the efforts to intimidate auditors, stand out. If investors such as Goldman Sachs and Hank Greenberg cannot fend for themselves, something more needs to be done if Chinese companies are to continue to trade in American markets.
Corporate China's political shadows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/corporate-china-political-shadows) By Isabel Hilton | Guardian
The Truth about the Three Gorges Dam (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/24/the-truth-about-the-three-gorges-dam/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
AIDS Funds Frozen for China in Grant Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/asia/21china.html) By SHARON LaFRANIERE | New York Times
Kicking the Great Firewall (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/25/kicking-the-great-firewall/) By Mu Chunshan | The Diplomat
China opens doors to despots with series of pariah state visits (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-opens-doors-to-despots-with-series-of-pariah-state-visits-2289723.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Ai Weiwei's Zodiac heads
It's political (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/05/ai_weiweis_zodiac_heads)
The Economist
China�s jasmine crackdown and the legal system (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/26/china-s-jasmine-crackdown-and-the-legal-system/) By Donald C. Clarke | George Washington University Law School
Macaca
05-13 05:42 PM
What if you had to buy American? (http://money.msn.com/how-to-budget/what-if-you-had-to-buy-american.aspx) By Katherine Reynolds Lewis | MSN Money
Legions of patriotic Americans look for "made in USA" stickers before buying products, out of a desire to support the country's economy.
But what if we all were restricted to purchasing only those goods that were made in America?
Our homes would be stripped virtually bare of telephones, televisions, toasters and other electronics, and many of our favorite foods and toys would be gone, too. Say goodbye to your coffee or tea, and forget about slicing bananas into your breakfast cereal -- all three would become prohibitively expensive if we relied on only Hawaii to grow tropical crops.
We'd have to trash our beloved Apple products because the iPod, iPad and MacBook aren't made in the U.S. Gasoline would double or triple in price, given that we now import more than 60% of our oil. And you couldn't propose to your true love with a diamond ring: There are no working diamond mines in the U.S.
Moreover, a complete end to imports would actually hurt the U.S. economy, because consumers and domestic companies would lose access to cheap goods. Trade protections, whether through tariffs or quotas, cost the economy roughly $2 for every $1 in additional profit for domestic producers, said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
"If we restricted trade to just the 50 states, what would happen immediately -- and would increase over time -- would be a huge reduction in our standard of living, because we wouldn't have access to the cheap goods we get from other countries," Perry said. "We also wouldn't have any export markets, so companies like Caterpillar and Microsoft would have a huge reduction in sales and workforce."
So what do we make of heartfelt pleas to save U.S. manufacturing by buying American, or the many websites (see one here) that catalog U.S. sources for an array of products? Or the Buy American Act, which curbs government purchases of products that are made overseas?
Do such efforts actually hurt the country they're trying to help?
The argument for buying American
Marc Kruskol, 53, a publicist based in Palmdale, Calif., goes out of his way to purchase products that are made in the U.S. because of his concern over the decline in manufacturing employment.
"I truly believe that we could go a long way towards fixing the economy if we would just put people to work making things in this country that are made in other places," said Kruskol, who spends hours scouring made-in-America websites or visiting brick-and-mortar stores in search of U.S. products.
He recently spent $10 on a pair of salad tongs made in America, which he tracked down in a restaurant supply store, after rejecting 99-cent foreign-made tongs. And he was happy to spend $650 on a domestically produced barbecue grill rather than a $450 imported one, just to support his countrymen.
But financial experts say that it's best for America if you buy the cheapest product you can find without sacrificing quality. Their explanation rests on the concept of efficient manufacturing. An efficient producer creates the most valuable goods with the least possible expense, selling those items at lower prices than competitors who are less efficient. A country benefits when its manufacturers become more efficient.
When you spend more on an equivalent product simply because it's made in the U.S., you're wasting your money -- and supporting an inefficient manufacturer that, by rights, should become more efficient or go out of business. Moreover, the additional $9.01 or $200 that Kruskol had spent on an inefficient U.S. producer could have been spent on something else, helping the economy further. Or it could have stayed in his savings account and been funneled by his bank into the financial system, which in theory allocates capital to the most efficient producers.
"He gave effectively $9 to an inefficient producer to motivate them to keep producing inefficiently," said Ken Fisher, the founder and CEO of Fisher Investments in Woodside, Calif., and the author of "Debunkery." "I understand the well-intentioned view. Doing that would be terrible for America."
The most efficient producers are best-positioned to create more jobs and return profits to their investors, and to the government in the form of tax revenue. "We make the country better by allocating resources towards the ones that can use them best," Fisher said.
The complex manufacturing question
At the heart of the issue are the interconnected global economy and the changes in the manufacturing sector.
There's no question that U.S. manufacturers employ far fewer people now -- about 11.7 million in April -- than when the sector peaked at 19.6 million workers in 1979. But the decline in jobs is largely due to technological advances that have reduced the number of workers needed to run factories, Perry and Fisher pointed out. The average worker today is responsible for $180,000 of manufacturing output, triple the inflation-adjusted $60,000 of 1972, Perry said.
Despite that increase in productivity, a March report by IHS Global Insight put China's manufacturing output ahead of the U.S. for the first time ever, at $2 trillion in 2010, compared with $1.95 trillion for the U.S. That's up from $1.69 trillion for China and $1.733 trillion for the U.S. in 2009, based on U.S. and Chinese government data.
But Perry argued that exchange-rate fluctuations and differences in data sources caused the IHS Global report to skew the comparison between the U.S. and China. Based on U.N. data for 2009, the most recent available, the United States' manufacturing output was 14% ahead of China's, he said.
Moreover, as manufacturing has declined as a share of the U.S. economy while the service sector has grown, most of the world has followed the same trend. The proportion has held steady in China.
"We've left the Machine Age, and we're in a new Information Age. It makes sense that manufacturing would be less important," Perry said, noting that as other countries have taken over clothing and other low-end manufacturing, the U.S. has become more competitive in producing pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace technology, industrial machinery and medical equipment. "We're still world leaders and at the cutting edge of those higher-skilled, higher-valued-added areas."
Not convinced yet? The other conundrum in trying to buy only U.S.-made products lies in what that really means.
Do you accept products that are assembled in America but contain components from all over the globe? For example, U.S. companies in February imported $58 billion worth of industrial supplies, such as petroleum and plastics, and $40 billion in capital goods, from computers to engines and laboratory equipment.
What about products that are assembled in China yet include parts from U.S. suppliers and were designed by American engineers? Every time you purchase such an item, the money will flow back to those American engineers and suppliers.
Cars.com's American-Made Index illustrates U.S. industries' complex trade relationships. The website ranks vehicles built and purchased in the U.S. based on sales, the origin of the cars' parts and whether assembly was in the U.S. The top two cars -- Toyota Camry and Honda Accord -- are produced by Japanese companies through their U.S. subsidiaries.
"On the surface, it seems like it might be plausible to have these 'made in the USA' campaigns," Perry said. "It all gets real tricky in a global economy with parts."
When buying American helps
That's not to say you should ignore the origins of the goods you buy.
When comparing two products of equivalent price and quality, feel free to choose the U.S.-made one out of domestic pride. It may make sense to buy a U.S.-made product if the quality or safety is superior.
Alex Kaplan, 41, the owner of Celebrity Laser Spa in Los Angeles, recently bought a pair of ottomans online for $120, only to find them cracked and cheaply made. After returning the made-in-China set, he found a craftsman through Etsy who made similar ottomans for $160 but allowed customers to choose the fabrics.
"It's much more satisfying," said Kaplan, whose blog chronicles his attempts to find products made in the U.S. "The most important thing when it comes to buying American is being aware and asking yourself, 'Where is this made?'"
Is College a Rotten Investment?
Why student loans are not like subprime mortgages. (http://www.slate.com/id/2293766/)
By Annie Lowrey | Slate
Legions of patriotic Americans look for "made in USA" stickers before buying products, out of a desire to support the country's economy.
But what if we all were restricted to purchasing only those goods that were made in America?
Our homes would be stripped virtually bare of telephones, televisions, toasters and other electronics, and many of our favorite foods and toys would be gone, too. Say goodbye to your coffee or tea, and forget about slicing bananas into your breakfast cereal -- all three would become prohibitively expensive if we relied on only Hawaii to grow tropical crops.
We'd have to trash our beloved Apple products because the iPod, iPad and MacBook aren't made in the U.S. Gasoline would double or triple in price, given that we now import more than 60% of our oil. And you couldn't propose to your true love with a diamond ring: There are no working diamond mines in the U.S.
Moreover, a complete end to imports would actually hurt the U.S. economy, because consumers and domestic companies would lose access to cheap goods. Trade protections, whether through tariffs or quotas, cost the economy roughly $2 for every $1 in additional profit for domestic producers, said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
"If we restricted trade to just the 50 states, what would happen immediately -- and would increase over time -- would be a huge reduction in our standard of living, because we wouldn't have access to the cheap goods we get from other countries," Perry said. "We also wouldn't have any export markets, so companies like Caterpillar and Microsoft would have a huge reduction in sales and workforce."
So what do we make of heartfelt pleas to save U.S. manufacturing by buying American, or the many websites (see one here) that catalog U.S. sources for an array of products? Or the Buy American Act, which curbs government purchases of products that are made overseas?
Do such efforts actually hurt the country they're trying to help?
The argument for buying American
Marc Kruskol, 53, a publicist based in Palmdale, Calif., goes out of his way to purchase products that are made in the U.S. because of his concern over the decline in manufacturing employment.
"I truly believe that we could go a long way towards fixing the economy if we would just put people to work making things in this country that are made in other places," said Kruskol, who spends hours scouring made-in-America websites or visiting brick-and-mortar stores in search of U.S. products.
He recently spent $10 on a pair of salad tongs made in America, which he tracked down in a restaurant supply store, after rejecting 99-cent foreign-made tongs. And he was happy to spend $650 on a domestically produced barbecue grill rather than a $450 imported one, just to support his countrymen.
But financial experts say that it's best for America if you buy the cheapest product you can find without sacrificing quality. Their explanation rests on the concept of efficient manufacturing. An efficient producer creates the most valuable goods with the least possible expense, selling those items at lower prices than competitors who are less efficient. A country benefits when its manufacturers become more efficient.
When you spend more on an equivalent product simply because it's made in the U.S., you're wasting your money -- and supporting an inefficient manufacturer that, by rights, should become more efficient or go out of business. Moreover, the additional $9.01 or $200 that Kruskol had spent on an inefficient U.S. producer could have been spent on something else, helping the economy further. Or it could have stayed in his savings account and been funneled by his bank into the financial system, which in theory allocates capital to the most efficient producers.
"He gave effectively $9 to an inefficient producer to motivate them to keep producing inefficiently," said Ken Fisher, the founder and CEO of Fisher Investments in Woodside, Calif., and the author of "Debunkery." "I understand the well-intentioned view. Doing that would be terrible for America."
The most efficient producers are best-positioned to create more jobs and return profits to their investors, and to the government in the form of tax revenue. "We make the country better by allocating resources towards the ones that can use them best," Fisher said.
The complex manufacturing question
At the heart of the issue are the interconnected global economy and the changes in the manufacturing sector.
There's no question that U.S. manufacturers employ far fewer people now -- about 11.7 million in April -- than when the sector peaked at 19.6 million workers in 1979. But the decline in jobs is largely due to technological advances that have reduced the number of workers needed to run factories, Perry and Fisher pointed out. The average worker today is responsible for $180,000 of manufacturing output, triple the inflation-adjusted $60,000 of 1972, Perry said.
Despite that increase in productivity, a March report by IHS Global Insight put China's manufacturing output ahead of the U.S. for the first time ever, at $2 trillion in 2010, compared with $1.95 trillion for the U.S. That's up from $1.69 trillion for China and $1.733 trillion for the U.S. in 2009, based on U.S. and Chinese government data.
But Perry argued that exchange-rate fluctuations and differences in data sources caused the IHS Global report to skew the comparison between the U.S. and China. Based on U.N. data for 2009, the most recent available, the United States' manufacturing output was 14% ahead of China's, he said.
Moreover, as manufacturing has declined as a share of the U.S. economy while the service sector has grown, most of the world has followed the same trend. The proportion has held steady in China.
"We've left the Machine Age, and we're in a new Information Age. It makes sense that manufacturing would be less important," Perry said, noting that as other countries have taken over clothing and other low-end manufacturing, the U.S. has become more competitive in producing pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace technology, industrial machinery and medical equipment. "We're still world leaders and at the cutting edge of those higher-skilled, higher-valued-added areas."
Not convinced yet? The other conundrum in trying to buy only U.S.-made products lies in what that really means.
Do you accept products that are assembled in America but contain components from all over the globe? For example, U.S. companies in February imported $58 billion worth of industrial supplies, such as petroleum and plastics, and $40 billion in capital goods, from computers to engines and laboratory equipment.
What about products that are assembled in China yet include parts from U.S. suppliers and were designed by American engineers? Every time you purchase such an item, the money will flow back to those American engineers and suppliers.
Cars.com's American-Made Index illustrates U.S. industries' complex trade relationships. The website ranks vehicles built and purchased in the U.S. based on sales, the origin of the cars' parts and whether assembly was in the U.S. The top two cars -- Toyota Camry and Honda Accord -- are produced by Japanese companies through their U.S. subsidiaries.
"On the surface, it seems like it might be plausible to have these 'made in the USA' campaigns," Perry said. "It all gets real tricky in a global economy with parts."
When buying American helps
That's not to say you should ignore the origins of the goods you buy.
When comparing two products of equivalent price and quality, feel free to choose the U.S.-made one out of domestic pride. It may make sense to buy a U.S.-made product if the quality or safety is superior.
Alex Kaplan, 41, the owner of Celebrity Laser Spa in Los Angeles, recently bought a pair of ottomans online for $120, only to find them cracked and cheaply made. After returning the made-in-China set, he found a craftsman through Etsy who made similar ottomans for $160 but allowed customers to choose the fabrics.
"It's much more satisfying," said Kaplan, whose blog chronicles his attempts to find products made in the U.S. "The most important thing when it comes to buying American is being aware and asking yourself, 'Where is this made?'"
Is College a Rotten Investment?
Why student loans are not like subprime mortgages. (http://www.slate.com/id/2293766/)
By Annie Lowrey | Slate
logiclife
04-07 01:01 PM
One possible solution is to establish a separate quotas for companies perfoming R&D in the US. Something like this already exists in the tax code where companies establish eligibility for the R&D tax credit. A similar bar could be used to administer a R&D quota for H1B or GC. That should address concerns around the quota for top US companies.
Research institutes hiring employees for research are already exempt from H1 quota. So are non-profits and universities.
What are you talking about?
Research institutes hiring employees for research are already exempt from H1 quota. So are non-profits and universities.
What are you talking about?