senthil1
12-06 05:12 PM
If you are in L1 with Manager or Above category then you can file EB1. There are some more restrictions for this. Because you converted to H1B you may not eligible. Check whether you have any loophole for this. If you are in H1B you should have a PHd and job requirement should be PHd.
Of course any persons like sports, Research, arts with international level skills also eligible. Those people are very rare.
There are two ways to satisfy the requirements for an EB-1-1 immigrant visa. The first is receiving a major, internationally recognized award. Fortunately for those who haven�t won the Nobel Prize yet, the second set of standards is not as difficult to achieve.
The INS regulations (8 C.F.R. � 204.5(h)(3)) require that a petitioner fulfill at least three of the following ten standards:
1. Receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize for achievement in your field. This could include a medical fellowship, a Fulbright award, or a Caldecott award.
2. Membership in associations in your field that require "outstanding achievement" of their members. This standard is relatively vague. Associations that are open to all members of a given profession can be considered, but associations that limit membership to only the most accomplished members of the profession are certainly more valuable.
3. Material published about you in major trade publications or other major media. The material must concern your work in the field. Publications could range from journals specific to your field, like The Journal of Otolaryngology, to major newspapers, like The New York Times. You are not limited to print; a story about you on "60 Minutes" might also fulfill this requirement.
4. Serving as a judge of others in your field either individually or on a panel. Sitting on the Nobel Prize Committee would fulfill the requirement, as would participating in the peer review process of a scientific article or acting as a member of a thesis review committee.
5. Original, scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in your field. This standard is wide open. Basically, the INS will base its judgment of your contribution on the letters of support that others in the field submit. So letters from recognized authorities in your field who consider your contributions original and significant will satisfy this requirement.
6. Authorship of scholarly articles in your field. This refers to articles that you wrote concerning your work rather than material written about you by others, as is the case with standard 3 above. Again, the publications can range from major trade journals to mass media. Although the regulations refer specifically to "articles," other forms of publication such as visual media should fulfill this requirement.
7. Display of your work in exhibitions or showcases. The regulations do not mention how prestigious the exhibition must be.
8. Performing a critical or leading role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. This could be acting as curator for the Metropolitan Museum of Art or serving as an essential researcher for an important laboratory.
9. Commanding a high salary in your field. The regulation requires that your salary or remuneration be high in relation to others in the field, so a teacher need not make as much as a professional football player.
10. Commercial success in the performing arts. This can be demonstrated by box office receipts from your films or plays, sales of your record, or selling your video documentary to a network for a notable sum.
Satisfying three out of the ten criteria does not guarantee that the INS will grant you EB-1-1 classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The INS looks for quality as well as quantity. As in so many other aspects of immigration law, comprehensive documentation of your qualifications is all important.
Of course any persons like sports, Research, arts with international level skills also eligible. Those people are very rare.
There are two ways to satisfy the requirements for an EB-1-1 immigrant visa. The first is receiving a major, internationally recognized award. Fortunately for those who haven�t won the Nobel Prize yet, the second set of standards is not as difficult to achieve.
The INS regulations (8 C.F.R. � 204.5(h)(3)) require that a petitioner fulfill at least three of the following ten standards:
1. Receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize for achievement in your field. This could include a medical fellowship, a Fulbright award, or a Caldecott award.
2. Membership in associations in your field that require "outstanding achievement" of their members. This standard is relatively vague. Associations that are open to all members of a given profession can be considered, but associations that limit membership to only the most accomplished members of the profession are certainly more valuable.
3. Material published about you in major trade publications or other major media. The material must concern your work in the field. Publications could range from journals specific to your field, like The Journal of Otolaryngology, to major newspapers, like The New York Times. You are not limited to print; a story about you on "60 Minutes" might also fulfill this requirement.
4. Serving as a judge of others in your field either individually or on a panel. Sitting on the Nobel Prize Committee would fulfill the requirement, as would participating in the peer review process of a scientific article or acting as a member of a thesis review committee.
5. Original, scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in your field. This standard is wide open. Basically, the INS will base its judgment of your contribution on the letters of support that others in the field submit. So letters from recognized authorities in your field who consider your contributions original and significant will satisfy this requirement.
6. Authorship of scholarly articles in your field. This refers to articles that you wrote concerning your work rather than material written about you by others, as is the case with standard 3 above. Again, the publications can range from major trade journals to mass media. Although the regulations refer specifically to "articles," other forms of publication such as visual media should fulfill this requirement.
7. Display of your work in exhibitions or showcases. The regulations do not mention how prestigious the exhibition must be.
8. Performing a critical or leading role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. This could be acting as curator for the Metropolitan Museum of Art or serving as an essential researcher for an important laboratory.
9. Commanding a high salary in your field. The regulation requires that your salary or remuneration be high in relation to others in the field, so a teacher need not make as much as a professional football player.
10. Commercial success in the performing arts. This can be demonstrated by box office receipts from your films or plays, sales of your record, or selling your video documentary to a network for a notable sum.
Satisfying three out of the ten criteria does not guarantee that the INS will grant you EB-1-1 classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The INS looks for quality as well as quantity. As in so many other aspects of immigration law, comprehensive documentation of your qualifications is all important.
wallpaper sin cara unmasked wwe. sin
punjabi
09-29 09:57 AM
My cousin went for her sister-in-law's wedding and at New Delhi airport, the Customs Officer asked her to show the bag. Apparently, there was good amount of jewelry. And she had to declare it in her passport.
She was not charged any duty but she had to show it again during the departure.
Hope it helps.
Has anybody travelled TO India with personal gold jewellery? I am not concerned about theft/security. My question is about Customs clearance at the airport. Do we need to declare it or pay customs duty?
If you have any experience doing this, please do share it here.
Thank you.
She was not charged any duty but she had to show it again during the departure.
Hope it helps.
Has anybody travelled TO India with personal gold jewellery? I am not concerned about theft/security. My question is about Customs clearance at the airport. Do we need to declare it or pay customs duty?
If you have any experience doing this, please do share it here.
Thank you.
lord_labaku
07-06 05:21 PM
longer guns, rifles have less strict carry requirement as they cannot be concealed. Usually handguns need a carry permit to be carried around concealed.
A citizen should follow the constitution & the 2nd amendment is part of the constitution. Just get educated on safety techniques 1st. NRA website has good info. Local gun ranges will allow safe renting too without needing to own one if you just want to use guns as hobby (which is what I do).
Ruger or Browning .22LR guns are good to start. ( I am sure other brands are probably good as well...)
A citizen should follow the constitution & the 2nd amendment is part of the constitution. Just get educated on safety techniques 1st. NRA website has good info. Local gun ranges will allow safe renting too without needing to own one if you just want to use guns as hobby (which is what I do).
Ruger or Browning .22LR guns are good to start. ( I am sure other brands are probably good as well...)
2011 WWE Raw Results – April 18,
Jitamitra
05-31 12:14 PM
Recently joined.
Contributed $200.
Contributed $200.
more...
aadimanav
09-05 04:05 PM
Thanks for telling me.
saps
07-09 12:09 PM
I think the exams do expire. Just carry the copy of your old medical tests to the doctor and you might not need to take the vaccination shots again as most of them are valid for long period. But your wife will have to retake the TB and other tests. Just take the RFE with you to the doctor's office.
more...
PlainSpeak
04-07 12:25 PM
When one should feel to donate, they can donate. Doesn't mean that you donated, means everyone should donate.
It is about donation, not Haptaa-vasooli.....
So, before taunting anyone you should understand the meaning of "Donation".
If some one directs a post to you and asks you directly about whether you donated or not then you can then send out posts of the above kind
In the mean time if you believe in the cause donate else dont but there is no use arguing about pros/cons and definition of donation per se or difference between donation and contribution.
It is about donation, not Haptaa-vasooli.....
So, before taunting anyone you should understand the meaning of "Donation".
If some one directs a post to you and asks you directly about whether you donated or not then you can then send out posts of the above kind
In the mean time if you believe in the cause donate else dont but there is no use arguing about pros/cons and definition of donation per se or difference between donation and contribution.
2010 sin cara unmasked photos. sin
prinive
12-21 01:41 PM
What is that "Million $$$ drive". I did contrubute to omini bus 30K drive. But I havent heard of this drive?
Have you contributed to the MILLION dollar drive? Please visit the funding thread!
Have you contributed to the MILLION dollar drive? Please visit the funding thread!
more...
texcan
07-29 10:48 PM
I have a unique problem with possibly getting a green card too early. Please let me know how I can make this situation better. My priority date in EB2 India is in Jan 2006, which means potentially I could get my green card in 2-3 months.
I plan to get engaged in December 2008 and married in December 2009 to an Indian born Australian citizen. As far as I can see, her chargeability would be from India.
What are my options to make my life easier and to be able to successfully bring my future wife to the US the easiest possible way. So far, I have 2 options:
1. Use the special E3 work visa for Australian citizens.
2. If I dont get my GC within the next few months, do an early court marriage and invoke the following-to-join spouse when she is ready to come to the US.
well ...if the option is between "difficult spouse"/"GC " why bother with either....I thought of something else when i saw the title. pls donot mind...
On serious note, Since your spouse is australian citizen you can easily use E3 visa ( its very simple) or better yet just go ahead and marry her in court right away, register marriage and have the big gala family ....marriage event later.
My 2 cents...take it easy and make it simple. Its a happy occasion donot waste time on immigration issue in next few months, enjoy the courtship time...immigration will fall in place and even if not ...life matters.
I plan to get engaged in December 2008 and married in December 2009 to an Indian born Australian citizen. As far as I can see, her chargeability would be from India.
What are my options to make my life easier and to be able to successfully bring my future wife to the US the easiest possible way. So far, I have 2 options:
1. Use the special E3 work visa for Australian citizens.
2. If I dont get my GC within the next few months, do an early court marriage and invoke the following-to-join spouse when she is ready to come to the US.
well ...if the option is between "difficult spouse"/"GC " why bother with either....I thought of something else when i saw the title. pls donot mind...
On serious note, Since your spouse is australian citizen you can easily use E3 visa ( its very simple) or better yet just go ahead and marry her in court right away, register marriage and have the big gala family ....marriage event later.
My 2 cents...take it easy and make it simple. Its a happy occasion donot waste time on immigration issue in next few months, enjoy the courtship time...immigration will fall in place and even if not ...life matters.
hair wwe sin cara unmasked pics.
bathuzp
11-11 02:30 PM
where can i find this free attorney on net and do u have a number that i could call at.
more...
sirinme
07-29 10:29 AM
This second point is not true. Either that, or the USCIS is not enforcing that requirement consistently. I renewed my EAD 3 times so far, but never had to provide any salary statements with my renewal applications.
Two other issues could be:
2. You need recent salary statements for EAD renewal every year.
Two other issues could be:
2. You need recent salary statements for EAD renewal every year.
hot wallpaper wwe sin cara unmasked photos. wwe sin cara unmasked pics. wwe sin
chanduv23
11-15 10:19 AM
Still only 6 people have courage to speak out. What is running in your veins, water?
We may not be able make changes in the law now but we might be able to get some relief on restrictions, that does not allow law making.
Educate yourself or suffer...
I sent u a PM
We may not be able make changes in the law now but we might be able to get some relief on restrictions, that does not allow law making.
Educate yourself or suffer...
I sent u a PM
more...
house sin cara unmasked wwe. sin
kondur_007
07-30 09:56 PM
then you are in a good shape. Make sure you keep ur employer and attorney aware of everything.
Good luck.
Good luck.
tattoo makeup sin cara unmasked
arihant
03-14 04:43 PM
http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/consular_services/visa/transit.html
after a legal stay in the USA (this includes holders of valid approval notices), Canada or Switzerland- return to the country whose citizenship they hold
do not need an airport transit visa
I presume the above is what you are referring to. My wife (on H4) and I (on H1B) are planning to fly to India later this year on Lufthansa. Both of our Visas have expired although we hold valid H extension approval notices. Will we need transit visas or will the above rule apply? Any body with experience of similar situation?
after a legal stay in the USA (this includes holders of valid approval notices), Canada or Switzerland- return to the country whose citizenship they hold
do not need an airport transit visa
I presume the above is what you are referring to. My wife (on H4) and I (on H1B) are planning to fly to India later this year on Lufthansa. Both of our Visas have expired although we hold valid H extension approval notices. Will we need transit visas or will the above rule apply? Any body with experience of similar situation?
more...
pictures 2010 sin cara unmasked wwe.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
dresses house sin cara unmasked wwe.
Siboo
08-03 11:21 PM
My wife's case is still Pending.
July 2 filer.
PERM
EB2 - India
PD : 08/2005
July 2 filer.
PERM
EB2 - India
PD : 08/2005
more...
makeup wwe sin cara unmasked photos.
kaisersose
11-15 05:34 PM
No Sir..Management is also included in 15-1031.00 - Computer Software Engineers, Applications. Here is quote from O*Net
"Supervise the work of programmers, technologists and technicians and other engineering and scientific personnel."
Link: http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/15-1031.00
Nope...this supervision is in the capacity of a senior engineer/technical resource. Once the word manager appears in the role it falls into the manager basket which I believe is is code 11.* It will probably never occur to the IO to consider job code 11 for a manager.
Perhaps there are some bold risk-takers out there willing to take chances and claim to be in code 15 although they have manager profiles, but I am not one of them.
"Supervise the work of programmers, technologists and technicians and other engineering and scientific personnel."
Link: http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/15-1031.00
Nope...this supervision is in the capacity of a senior engineer/technical resource. Once the word manager appears in the role it falls into the manager basket which I believe is is code 11.* It will probably never occur to the IO to consider job code 11 for a manager.
Perhaps there are some bold risk-takers out there willing to take chances and claim to be in code 15 although they have manager profiles, but I am not one of them.
girlfriend wwe sin cara unmasked pics. wwe sin cara unmasked images.
Vsach
07-17 05:20 PM
Thanks To You All It Would Not Have Been Possible Without Your Support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hairstyles 2010 tattoo wwe sin cara
Libra
08-15 12:12 PM
Congrats and welcome to IV, hope you become an active member and contribute your efforts to IV.
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
mith1234
05-19 08:08 AM
am staying in US for d past 4 yrs ,have a H1 B visa. i want to invite my younger brother and mom for a ONE month visit to US.My mom has already got 10 yrs of visa as she visited dis place in 2008. My brother has just completed his engineering , is 21 yrs of age and has got placed in infosys.His joining date is in December, so would it be easy for him to get d visitors visa as even i want him to have some fun b4 starting off with his work life. Should he carry his offer letter with him and also would it b wise to book d ticket in advance and show them d return ticket as a proof just to tell them tat he will b back in a month and also would like to know the other questions which r expected. Please HELP.Looking forward to your replies
thanks in advance:)
thanks in advance:)
a_tyagi26
02-02 12:10 PM
Assume:
This mean from the date this bill gets enacted, one should stay in USA for five years continuously.
It's impossible, atleast for me. I can't even think that I won't be able to go to India for 5 years. It would be a torture on my soul. This kind of clause works for an un-documented immigrant, who don't have a choice to leave but not for legal immigrant.
What my company tell me to go to another country say some Brazil to implement project and infrastructure and I had to stay 2 months? Then I have to start afresh ?
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
This mean from the date this bill gets enacted, one should stay in USA for five years continuously.
It's impossible, atleast for me. I can't even think that I won't be able to go to India for 5 years. It would be a torture on my soul. This kind of clause works for an un-documented immigrant, who don't have a choice to leave but not for legal immigrant.
What my company tell me to go to another country say some Brazil to implement project and infrastructure and I had to stay 2 months? Then I have to start afresh ?
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
No comments:
Post a Comment