st4rguitar
04-06 02:10 PM
It is worse than that.. :)
Please watch the following youtube video to understand how USCIS works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30BZtpvaTY
LMAO - thanks for this post - hilarious!! :)
Please watch the following youtube video to understand how USCIS works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30BZtpvaTY
LMAO - thanks for this post - hilarious!! :)
wallpaper Susan Coffey Wallpapers
amitjoey
08-05 01:10 PM
The requirements of the job dictates whether or not you can qualify for EB2. So if you have a PHD or Post doctoral research, will not matter if the job you are doing only requires a Bachelors degree holder with minimal experience.
On the other hand if the job requires that you have Bachelors with atleast 5 years of experience you could. Also, you have to pass the market labor test. So, the job has to be for skills that are in demand for which there is no US citizen available.
On the other hand if the job requires that you have Bachelors with atleast 5 years of experience you could. Also, you have to pass the market labor test. So, the job has to be for skills that are in demand for which there is no US citizen available.
pbuckeye
08-03 08:36 PM
A beer bottle actually has only about 65 calories, so I would consider it diet food :D
On a serious note - consider switching from a traditional breakfast to oatmeal/cereal.
On a serious note - consider switching from a traditional breakfast to oatmeal/cereal.
2011 Susan Coffey woman photography
GKBest
11-04 12:25 PM
A little over a months time, I received a letter saying that the typo on my last name has been corrected. I could confirm that since the mailing address had all the correct details.
Hence, I guess, their typo correction system is a bit slow but it works!
ISSUE RESOLVED!
When did you or lawyer notify USCIS about the typo error? My lawyer also gave me a confirmation receipt # to correct the error but I still haven't received any letter saying that it has been corrected.
Hence, I guess, their typo correction system is a bit slow but it works!
ISSUE RESOLVED!
When did you or lawyer notify USCIS about the typo error? My lawyer also gave me a confirmation receipt # to correct the error but I still haven't received any letter saying that it has been corrected.
more...
newuser
07-22 08:00 PM
My five stars. Also e-mailes to friends and colleagues to watch and rate the video
hanu0913
10-08 03:12 PM
Your sentences are confusing. Please no offense.
You can file your wife's I-485(derivative adjustment) once the PD is current. So just relax and keep on looking Visa Bulletin every month to check if the priority dates are current.
My case : got GC on June. Filed wife's case in June and she has an EAD.
All the best.
so here is exact question , what about if i get GC approval before my PD gets current?
You can file your wife's I-485(derivative adjustment) once the PD is current. So just relax and keep on looking Visa Bulletin every month to check if the priority dates are current.
My case : got GC on June. Filed wife's case in June and she has an EAD.
All the best.
so here is exact question , what about if i get GC approval before my PD gets current?
more...
saileshdude
07-26 07:58 PM
It is best that you never be out of job. If you lose job, try to get one ASAP. It normally takes a month or two to get one if you work hard and try
Hi Chandu
Were you able to talk to any good immigration attorney regarding what happens if I-140 is revoked. You can PM me to let me know.
Thanks.
Hi Chandu
Were you able to talk to any good immigration attorney regarding what happens if I-140 is revoked. You can PM me to let me know.
Thanks.
2010 Susan Coffey chica dulce
americandesi
08-11 05:39 PM
That is not a flaw in the system and in the USCIS manual, they know it. Since the previous I-140 is already approved and you've stayed more than 6 months in that I-140, then there's no need for the ability to pay. USCIS is treating your case as if you already have a GC, it is just that it is pending.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
What you say holds good only if employer A had already paid the proffered wage during those 6 months.
Suppose employer A is currently paying 70K and the wage for the proposed GC position is 80K and if employer A is able to prove that his Net Income or Net Assets is >=80K then it’s sufficient to prove ability to pay. In such a case, he is bound to pay 80K only after I-485 approval.
Going by above, the employee wasn’t paid 80K at anytime. Even then, USCIS approves his I-485 if he is able to provide an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A, though the abilty to pay 80K by employer C is in question.
If one has a GC, he can transfer to another employer. It is your risk if your new employer has not the ability to pay you. The same is true with portability, USCIS doesn't care anymore if you transfer to an employer with no ability to pay you because the first I-140 is already approved and you worked for it already. They are concerned now about your I-485 (AOS) and your qualifications under it.
What you say holds good only if employer A had already paid the proffered wage during those 6 months.
Suppose employer A is currently paying 70K and the wage for the proposed GC position is 80K and if employer A is able to prove that his Net Income or Net Assets is >=80K then it’s sufficient to prove ability to pay. In such a case, he is bound to pay 80K only after I-485 approval.
Going by above, the employee wasn’t paid 80K at anytime. Even then, USCIS approves his I-485 if he is able to provide an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A, though the abilty to pay 80K by employer C is in question.
more...
dreamworld
09-12 03:46 PM
Any advise about Unpaid vacation period in usa for h1b's and staying in usa.
What is the legal vacation period in usa for h1b's? And how long it could be!!!
few weeks or few months???
Thanks...
What is the legal vacation period in usa for h1b's? And how long it could be!!!
few weeks or few months???
Thanks...
hair shes justjan Susan+coffey
terpcurt
January 6th, 2005, 08:07 PM
Simple technique:-
Add a duplicate layer
Desaturate the top layer, make it the shade you like etc etc
select the eraser tool
make sure it's flowing 100% and you're viewing the picture at 100%
erase the area you want coloured and the colour from the bottom layer will come through.
flatten
bingo!!!
Like this??
Thanks for the quick lesson............... just another weapon in digital ...........
Add a duplicate layer
Desaturate the top layer, make it the shade you like etc etc
select the eraser tool
make sure it's flowing 100% and you're viewing the picture at 100%
erase the area you want coloured and the colour from the bottom layer will come through.
flatten
bingo!!!
Like this??
Thanks for the quick lesson............... just another weapon in digital ...........
more...
sintax321
09-04 01:28 PM
Would someone mind posting a link to a pixel stretching tutorial? I do a lot of photoshop work and have never seen it yet.
hot Re: Symbianize BisDak Pasok!
yabadaba
05-21 07:29 AM
was this when you were entering canada?
more...
house Group H (Coffey vs.
skd
06-03 02:44 AM
then suggest what you like on text pkv
tattoo Susan Coffey Drawing iPhone
gxtrader
08-17 02:27 PM
HOW your answer relates to my question?
Think, deside and do and don't think again! But Review it.
..Maybe he thought he heard you say..
"Don't think, decide and do and don't think again! And don't review it. :)
Don't worry too much..worst case is to re-file ead & ap w/ newer fees.
He'll eventually get GC & will be driving a Lexas in Dallus, Texus ;).
Think, deside and do and don't think again! But Review it.
..Maybe he thought he heard you say..
"Don't think, decide and do and don't think again! And don't review it. :)
Don't worry too much..worst case is to re-file ead & ap w/ newer fees.
He'll eventually get GC & will be driving a Lexas in Dallus, Texus ;).
more...
pictures Susan Coffey Wallpapers
chris
12-31 04:04 PM
Did the transfer notice say... we are transferring to speed up your case....?
Yes. I got a letter from Texas service center saying, "To speedup the process we are transferring this case to Vermont ".
Our cases transferred in March 2008.
Yes. I got a letter from Texas service center saying, "To speedup the process we are transferring this case to Vermont ".
Our cases transferred in March 2008.
dresses Susan Coffey
vkxml
06-29 02:59 PM
Hi
I am trying to change my I140 regular to I140 premium by completing the I-907 form, so that it can be sent before July 2nd deadline. However, my employer is not willing to proceed as he has recently received an RFE on I140 for one of other employee; he is working on the necessary documentation for that RFE, At this juncture, he says that escalating my I140 would jeopardice the situation.
Still, I am still not convinced; I want him to push it. Will there be any issues for the organization or for me. Any response would be greatly appreciated.
- VK~XML
I am trying to change my I140 regular to I140 premium by completing the I-907 form, so that it can be sent before July 2nd deadline. However, my employer is not willing to proceed as he has recently received an RFE on I140 for one of other employee; he is working on the necessary documentation for that RFE, At this juncture, he says that escalating my I140 would jeopardice the situation.
Still, I am still not convinced; I want him to push it. Will there be any issues for the organization or for me. Any response would be greatly appreciated.
- VK~XML
more...
makeup Connectingsusan coffey
hojo
09-05 09:36 PM
awesome splash dan
girlfriend Susan Coffey wallpaper
RayP
12-11 02:31 AM
wow !! Good... so you too applied after your EAD had expired... and you continued to work on H1. That gives me a good feeling... thanks. Can you share your situation a little more (or I can give my email seperately). I was also wanting to know if you ae aware whether EAD can be applied from outside the US, just in case I had to do that...
hairstyles Susan-Coffey-susan-coffey-
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
pani_6
01-21 04:39 PM
:)Action now
binadh
07-09 01:52 PM
I am not asking how to snatch the sugarcane out of an Elephant's mouth. I just want to poke the cane in his mouth until he bleeds, so that he will think twice before he grabs on the sugarcane next time. You know what I mean???
I learned my lesson and just want to teach him something out of this as well. HELP ME here?
Lawyers do not refund any payments (period).
An Indian saying comes to mind (roughly translated): Never try to snatch the sugarcane out of an elephant's mouth.
I learned my lesson and just want to teach him something out of this as well. HELP ME here?
Lawyers do not refund any payments (period).
An Indian saying comes to mind (roughly translated): Never try to snatch the sugarcane out of an elephant's mouth.