chanduv23
03-26 12:35 PM
I had a reqruiter discussing a great job opportunity and finally when it came to the status thing, it was my mistake, i said "I have EAD". She said "That's fine" and never got back to me, she said she will be in touch via email but never did that.
So this is a pattern now.
Reqruiters and HR know they can say "Sorry we do not sponser visas" so they say it without any issue but not EAD.
I am just baffled as to why are some people so fussy about EAD. Isn't EAD holders a piece of cake for the company? People with skills and eligible to work for any employer????
I am sure the hiring managers would love to bring good people on board. But unfortunately, these reqruiters and HR are creating the mess.
Looks like for reqruiters, they think they can just apply the filter to lessen their burden on collecting resumes.
So this is a pattern now.
Reqruiters and HR know they can say "Sorry we do not sponser visas" so they say it without any issue but not EAD.
I am just baffled as to why are some people so fussy about EAD. Isn't EAD holders a piece of cake for the company? People with skills and eligible to work for any employer????
I am sure the hiring managers would love to bring good people on board. But unfortunately, these reqruiters and HR are creating the mess.
Looks like for reqruiters, they think they can just apply the filter to lessen their burden on collecting resumes.
wallpaper #14: Mission Impossible III
needhelp!
09-09 06:10 PM
NumbersUSA is SICK
Several baseless allegations and an attempt to stop HR 5882 bill by NumberUSA: http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/september-8-2008/vote-expected-wednesday-recapturing-unus.html :mad:
This is time for us to work together, leaving all differences aside.
Several baseless allegations and an attempt to stop HR 5882 bill by NumberUSA: http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/september-8-2008/vote-expected-wednesday-recapturing-unus.html :mad:
This is time for us to work together, leaving all differences aside.
CADude
09-25 09:57 PM
I called 2 weeks back to her office. Her staff told me to contact my reps. If any one lives in San Jose then he/she can contact her office.
how to send an email to Lofgren her website only talks about CA certain areas. Any idea please guys do u have her direct email id , i am sending email , fax along with my area congressmen. Trying something to think out of blue.
how to send an email to Lofgren her website only talks about CA certain areas. Any idea please guys do u have her direct email id , i am sending email , fax along with my area congressmen. Trying something to think out of blue.
2011 This game will like this
axyl
05-17 06:57 PM
Does one need to be physically present in US in order to file I-485 application? I had already booked my travel to India on May 25th before I came to know that the my Priority Dates had become current. Will I need to be in US till I get the filing receipt? I was curious on how would UCSIS know that I'm out of country on the day of filing?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
drona
07-11 01:51 PM
Yes, Lou Dobbs will only want to quote the Al Jazeera article.
needhelp!
01-14 03:59 PM
Please check out first few posts on this thread. New templates have been added. Please start using the new ones as well.
more...
royus77
06-29 02:12 PM
I read somewhere in the forum that one guy contacted USCIS regarding I-140 PP and he was told by USCIS representative that they honor Postmark date. If USCIS honors Postmark date not the receive date they one must be careful sending application on June 29th.
Edit/Delete Message
I think the classis example of April 1 2007 . If that was true USICS might have to reject 1,30,0000 petitions .Received date is important .
Edit/Delete Message
I think the classis example of April 1 2007 . If that was true USICS might have to reject 1,30,0000 petitions .Received date is important .
2010 makeup mission impossible game
eb3retro
02-24 03:41 PM
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes it is all there :-)
but, no mention of able to file 485 without priority dates though.
but, no mention of able to file 485 without priority dates though.
more...
YesGC_NoGC
05-28 12:09 AM
I have all the approval Notices and I -04 that came at the bottom of 797. I traveled back and gavce my first I-94 back at air port, I do not have copy of that I-94. Do I need to have it to File the 485. Or my Current I-94 is good enough for filing?
hair MaX PaYNe: MiSSioN iMPoSSiBLE
coopheal
07-09 07:15 PM
Yes I think flower campaign is our great success. Hopefully media and politicians will pay some attention to our issues.
more...
abhijitp
01-13 05:16 PM
wGpSCdeEkB4
hot Mission Impossible II (2000)
Jitamitra
01-10 08:14 PM
Just a thought. I think something is holding back folks to write up these letters directly to president. Do you guys think it's a good idea just to have these letters mailed to IV and then pass it along to white house administration when IV meets them.
Those who are against IV and have never supported or never wanted to do anything just make it a point that they will NEVER do it. The reason they give will be a "Silence" or a "change in topic of discussion".
Pessimists will say "Nothing will happen" or "So did you get your GC? after the rally?"
Some say "Who cares for GC when you have choice to go home"
Chanduv23:
I understand your enthusiasm of spreading +ve ness , but you need to also look at the practical implications on the situation. You are too criticizing and self-centric in what you beleive is the right thing to do.
Things do not work the way you expect at times and backfire. All I am saying is to give it a second thought if you are not getting a huge turn out of people. If you believe you are the smartest ass in the forums, tell me how many people you beleive would come forward and write a letter to the president. It's nothing to do with whether you did it, but are taking off the apprehensions and motivate other people to do it.
I agree with comments from walking_dude as it's inspiring and has a point. Get out of the shell and look at the world from a different perspective.
Those who are against IV and have never supported or never wanted to do anything just make it a point that they will NEVER do it. The reason they give will be a "Silence" or a "change in topic of discussion".
Pessimists will say "Nothing will happen" or "So did you get your GC? after the rally?"
Some say "Who cares for GC when you have choice to go home"
Chanduv23:
I understand your enthusiasm of spreading +ve ness , but you need to also look at the practical implications on the situation. You are too criticizing and self-centric in what you beleive is the right thing to do.
Things do not work the way you expect at times and backfire. All I am saying is to give it a second thought if you are not getting a huge turn out of people. If you believe you are the smartest ass in the forums, tell me how many people you beleive would come forward and write a letter to the president. It's nothing to do with whether you did it, but are taking off the apprehensions and motivate other people to do it.
I agree with comments from walking_dude as it's inspiring and has a point. Get out of the shell and look at the world from a different perspective.
more...
house Secret Mission Impossible
ivar
08-20 11:21 AM
Dude, Are you joking.... Is there a link or something u can pass on... Dont be a DH....
BR,
Karthik
Karthik,
what is DH....? means
go to www.vonage.com and click on plans
BR,
Karthik
Karthik,
what is DH....? means
go to www.vonage.com and click on plans
tattoo Max Payne : Mission Impossible
deba
06-16 12:38 PM
What is this 'Period of stay' form mentioned in the very first post of this thread? This is not the g-325a. What exactly is this form #? What is the url for downloading it? Thanks
more...
pictures Mission Impossible III (2006)
pappu
11-06 03:28 PM
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
dresses Max payne mission impossible
nc14
09-09 03:53 PM
Took 45 minutes to cover all of them but time well spent. GO IV GO...
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
more...
makeup kal1th MaX PaYNe: Mission
eb3_nepa
07-10 10:44 AM
I still think, the USA is the best place for democracy loving people. Govt and its agencies try their best to be accountable to law. Now if you want our Immigration issue to be put before IRAQ in the Congress, I would think that is selfishness. I have colleagues whose sons are in IRAQ. For me their lives are more important than my GC. Now that does not mean we stop making our point to Congress.
Vinabath i do NOT expect the nation to put Legal Immigration before the IRAQ WAR. Ofcourse I do not expect that. What I am trying to point out is that this is going to be a LONG LONG ongoing issue and if not the war, there will be OTHER issues like the presedential elections etc.
On another note, the US is a capitalistic economy. If you are not selfish, ur a nice guy and nice guys finish LAST.
Vinabath i do NOT expect the nation to put Legal Immigration before the IRAQ WAR. Ofcourse I do not expect that. What I am trying to point out is that this is going to be a LONG LONG ongoing issue and if not the war, there will be OTHER issues like the presedential elections etc.
On another note, the US is a capitalistic economy. If you are not selfish, ur a nice guy and nice guys finish LAST.
girlfriend Download Free PC Games
Ramba
08-25 03:21 PM
Nice math.:)
wrong calculation 5000/2500=2. It is 2 cents perminute. Have you used C# program?:)
Any way with vonage, one can call other friends in all other 60 counties and others part of us too..
wrong calculation 5000/2500=2. It is 2 cents perminute. Have you used C# program?:)
Any way with vonage, one can call other friends in all other 60 counties and others part of us too..
hairstyles Front Mission
SunnySurya
08-07 11:51 AM
Yes, my GC is in Peril and thats exactly what I am trying to do...
So what are you waiting for.. run to a good law-firm and file a lawsuit or class-action or whatever.. Stop looking at the screen.. run... Your GC is in peril!
So what are you waiting for.. run to a good law-firm and file a lawsuit or class-action or whatever.. Stop looking at the screen.. run... Your GC is in peril!
Meghna
05-16 02:11 PM
I came here on F1 and i was on F1 when we applied for 485.
after i got my masters i did not apply for opt and used the EAD card i got through 485 for working.
I changed my status from F1 to H4 once i graduated.I never traveled after i came here.
Will i face any problems in future when our pd becomes current.
Our lawyer says there should not be any problem but i don't know if he is correct.:(
after i got my masters i did not apply for opt and used the EAD card i got through 485 for working.
I changed my status from F1 to H4 once i graduated.I never traveled after i came here.
Will i face any problems in future when our pd becomes current.
Our lawyer says there should not be any problem but i don't know if he is correct.:(
alias
08-07 11:52 AM
No, I have the conviction, but don't have money...
HAHAHAHAHAH......WHAT A JOKER!
HAHAHAHAHAH......WHAT A JOKER!
No comments:
Post a Comment