wandmaker
11-05 09:10 PM
You dont need to pay the fees, as it is USCIS mistake - Send the new application form with a cover letter, you can send it yourself.
Now my Lawyer is advising me to include the old fees and a new application with a letter stating motion to refile seeking correction. He is insisting on us to send the fees ($350) again. Any suggestions? Can I send it directly to INS?
Now my Lawyer is advising me to include the old fees and a new application with a letter stating motion to refile seeking correction. He is insisting on us to send the fees ($350) again. Any suggestions? Can I send it directly to INS?
wallpaper images Quotes About Your Mom. quotes about your mom.
pamposh
10-05 08:12 AM
Recently a friend of mine hot has GC approved. He is EB2, PD Dec 2005.
Nothing makes sense.
Thanks
Senthil
Are you serious? what country is he from... just curious... i am EB2 sep 2005, sounds like I should not loose my hope...:cool:
Nothing makes sense.
Thanks
Senthil
Are you serious? what country is he from... just curious... i am EB2 sep 2005, sounds like I should not loose my hope...:cool:
raju123
06-26 12:25 PM
NumberUSA reported following possible amendments. Nothing for EB !!!
If this is the case, we should strongly oppose the bill.
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/senateaction0507.html
According to El Bolet�n, �the official Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force newsletter,� the following proposals are now under consideration for possible consideration if cloture is invoked:
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
If this is the case, we should strongly oppose the bill.
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/senateaction0507.html
According to El Bolet�n, �the official Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force newsletter,� the following proposals are now under consideration for possible consideration if cloture is invoked:
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
2011 2011 cute love quotes for your
piyu7444
04-01 02:37 PM
Hi Vinnysuru
Case is approvable but my question is - will I have to wait till Visa bulletin has PD date showing NOV 2006 or beyond or Current or they can just get a visa number now (say April 08) and send it for card prodcution ?
Case is approvable but my question is - will I have to wait till Visa bulletin has PD date showing NOV 2006 or beyond or Current or they can just get a visa number now (say April 08) and send it for card prodcution ?
more...
roseball
04-07 10:36 PM
A small correction - the notice sent by IRS did not mention that my filing status was changed from "married filing jointly" to "married filing separately" or "filing single". The notice says that
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
In this case, I would file her W-7, call IRS when the ITIN is available and follow their instructions.
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
In this case, I would file her W-7, call IRS when the ITIN is available and follow their instructions.
amitga
02-15 11:29 AM
The best way to generate Revenue is to attract Advertisements on IV website. There is lot of traffic in IV from Indians and Chinese and some people from ROW.
IV can create a job board which where employers who are willing to Hire H1B can post the jobs and pay a fraction of Fee compared to other job boards. That will increase the membership also. Also we can charge a fee from people who want to search and find Jobs.
IV can create a job board which where employers who are willing to Hire H1B can post the jobs and pay a fraction of Fee compared to other job boards. That will increase the membership also. Also we can charge a fee from people who want to search and find Jobs.
more...
Friend
02-15 10:45 AM
We (me, my wife and my son) are submitted 485 applications on July 7th to Nebraska service center latter they transferred to Vermont from there it again transferred to Taxes Service. Unfortunately I forgot to write the amount in wordings in my wife's 485 application check so they rejected my wife's application on Oct 9th, they enclosed the letter to re submit the application by using the new fee. We re submitted on Oct 15th by enclose the two checks $325 and $1010 along with the covering letter and the letter what they are given.
Again they rejected the application in Dec 12th by mentioning Visa number is not available for this application. That time my attorney is not there He went to India so no body inform to me. He came back on Jan 28th we re submitted again by explaining all the details, but they reject on Feb 14th mentioning the same reason Visa Number is not available.
I have seen so many people are got their receipt numbers if they re submitted the application for any mistakes. Me my son got the receipt numbers and Fingerprint every thing.
My Attorney is telling we need to wait for PD current. Mine is PD for EB2 India 6/6.
My wife doesn't get her receipt 485 number I am not able to use my EAD.
Can any body suggest how to approach this case? Or is any one face same issue.
Thanks.
Again they rejected the application in Dec 12th by mentioning Visa number is not available for this application. That time my attorney is not there He went to India so no body inform to me. He came back on Jan 28th we re submitted again by explaining all the details, but they reject on Feb 14th mentioning the same reason Visa Number is not available.
I have seen so many people are got their receipt numbers if they re submitted the application for any mistakes. Me my son got the receipt numbers and Fingerprint every thing.
My Attorney is telling we need to wait for PD current. Mine is PD for EB2 India 6/6.
My wife doesn't get her receipt 485 number I am not able to use my EAD.
Can any body suggest how to approach this case? Or is any one face same issue.
Thanks.
2010 uponapr By more your mom
yadav
10-24 03:31 PM
my lawyer sent mine on july 27 (normal no premium) and on october 10 i got an email from USCIS that my application is approved, yesterday got email from lawyer that he received the approval.
Your might be on the way, i would suggest wait for few more days, if lucky might save 1000$.
Your might be on the way, i would suggest wait for few more days, if lucky might save 1000$.
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hair poems for your mom on her
.jpg "your mom quotes about your")
thomachan72
01-19 03:43 PM
Let us start a thread to list of EB3 Immigrants that have done well in USA.
We always say Einstein or Noble prize winner names. But those people are EB2 or EB1. What about EB3 that is most backlogged. There will be lot of great people who came in this category. Let us find their names and list here.
I think this is indeed a great idea.... but it might be difficult to get this information. Let me start by giving one name...
1) waitingwating
Others pls add more if you know:D:D
We always say Einstein or Noble prize winner names. But those people are EB2 or EB1. What about EB3 that is most backlogged. There will be lot of great people who came in this category. Let us find their names and list here.
I think this is indeed a great idea.... but it might be difficult to get this information. Let me start by giving one name...
1) waitingwating
Others pls add more if you know:D:D
more...
smuggymba
09-24 04:22 PM
Hi All,
Is there anyone planning to get H1-B/any visa stamping in Matamoras, Mexico in the next couple months? (I'm from dallas)
Is there anyone who already went for stamping in matamoras recently....
Please share your thoughts...
I'm planning to get my H1-B renewal stamping next month...
Thanks for all your replies in advance!!!
Thanks,
Raghu.
It's nice to see many ppl going to Mexico and getting renewals....I have my renewal coming up next year and this seems to be a good idea. Saves the hassle of travelling to India and getting stamping.
Is there anyone planning to get H1-B/any visa stamping in Matamoras, Mexico in the next couple months? (I'm from dallas)
Is there anyone who already went for stamping in matamoras recently....
Please share your thoughts...
I'm planning to get my H1-B renewal stamping next month...
Thanks for all your replies in advance!!!
Thanks,
Raghu.
It's nice to see many ppl going to Mexico and getting renewals....I have my renewal coming up next year and this seems to be a good idea. Saves the hassle of travelling to India and getting stamping.
hot makeup Take care of your Mom,
thomachan72
07-20 03:14 PM
the link does not work. pls check
more...
house quotes about your mom.
krish2005
11-09 08:47 PM
I am opposing STEM cell bill then, I dont want to see Kaurava's running around...::-)
:D
"Science is a double edged". I would support stem cell research if there are ways control it and not to jeopardize nature's protocols.
lol. I could imagine the comical kaurava clowns running around when you put that post. :D:D:D
:D
"Science is a double edged". I would support stem cell research if there are ways control it and not to jeopardize nature's protocols.
lol. I could imagine the comical kaurava clowns running around when you put that post. :D:D:D
tattoo Quotes About Your Mom.
21stIcon
10-15 04:37 PM
look this
http://www.investopedia.com
http://www.investopedia.com
more...
pictures quotes about your mom. quotes
sanjuatl
09-04 10:40 AM
I think the Medical's are valid for 18 Months and not one year.I checked this out when i took infopass.Correct me if i am wrong .
As I remember, the validity is one year.
As I remember, the validity is one year.
dresses Your mom had GC in 80s?
prem_goel
02-04 04:12 PM
Attorney's please advise. My sister has an active job offer where we would like to explore this opportunity if any of you can help us in handling it. I need to know if this is possible under the law and if you can help us? Please reply and I'll contact your office.
Much thanks in advance.
Much thanks in advance.
more...
makeup tattoo quotes about your son.
bkarnik
08-24 05:05 PM
Quick point:
I would request members to please post their threads under the proper forum header. The issue raised by this thread has nothing to do with IV Agenda or Legislative issues.
Thanks,
BKarnik
I would request members to please post their threads under the proper forum header. The issue raised by this thread has nothing to do with IV Agenda or Legislative issues.
Thanks,
BKarnik
girlfriend Your mom had GC in 80s?
CreatedToday
03-29 04:09 PM
Which airport in Bangalore you landed?
this is not a game , this happened really to me .I am Indian .They did not gave my passport back . They took my passport and send me to Bangalore Airport back .I know they don't have any right to hold any one's property that too a country citizenship passport.I am looking for an answer and advice , not question for a question
this is not a game , this happened really to me .I am Indian .They did not gave my passport back . They took my passport and send me to Bangalore Airport back .I know they don't have any right to hold any one's property that too a country citizenship passport.I am looking for an answer and advice , not question for a question
hairstyles hairstyles Your mom quotes allmom quotes about your mom. christian mothers
Queen Josephine
May 23rd, 2005, 10:34 AM
I like them all Gary, but agree with Chris about the cloning out that bright white rock , or whatever it is, in the first one. Also, unless you've been there before, it's difficult to capture the enormity of those rocks. The footpath catches my eye in the second photo which gives some perspective on where you are positioned. It looks like you are a quite a bit above and working your way down to the path. The 3rd pic looks like a crop? of the upper-center of the 2nd pic? And lastly, can I apply for a job where you work so I can travel too!
smileyslimey
11-30 01:42 PM
Thanks to everyone who responded.
Appreciate your advice.
regards.
Appreciate your advice.
regards.
ruchigup
08-22 03:52 PM
Were you kidding or serious? You just quoted the very same name that guy is to avoid.
Fragomen is the only part missing in the name you mentioned. I hope the other three didn't ditch Fragomen to start DBL..
Iskreddy, you r rightt.... "Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP" is the complete name :-)
Fragomen is the only part missing in the name you mentioned. I hope the other three didn't ditch Fragomen to start DBL..
Iskreddy, you r rightt.... "Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP" is the complete name :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment