vxb2004
04-27 09:21 PM
Nice compilation!
wallpaper Jesus the resurrection
dr_vroeg
06-22 03:18 PM
I'd agree to that
Illegalx17
06-20 12:36 AM
Hey, this is a great idea for a battle. Sign me up, i'll enter :D. I wish we could enter two entries though. . .pleeeez?
2011 jesus resurrection coloring.
raj1998
04-19 09:37 AM
Congrats OP. That is real good news. encouragement to all other eb3 folks out there.
Good to know, some thiing got cleared at such pace, when USICS is notoriously known for working at snail's pace.
Good to know, some thiing got cleared at such pace, when USICS is notoriously known for working at snail's pace.
more...
satishku_2000
05-24 11:59 PM
I am not working in permanent job. I am also in consulting job. I am not supporting the restrictions. I am giving comments. Some comments were not liked by some IV members and they are suspecting that I am anti immigrant from alipac or numbersusa. But I strongly suspect Indian bodyshoppers and consulting companies used big portion of H1bs, and that might be reason for those restrictions. Till 3 months before everything was going well and all of IV provisions were there in the skil bill and strive. But suddenly Durbin bill was introduced and just a few weeks back they sent a notice to Top most Indian companies about H1b. Whatever reply Indian companies give may create more trouble.So something went terriably wrong in past 3 months. Not even one pro legal immigrant amendment in Senate. I am not seeing anyone working seriously except IV. Immigration lawyers are more bothered about point system and family based immigration system.
I understand your views and sentiments but you should be outraged too at the CIRcus bill...
I understand your views and sentiments but you should be outraged too at the CIRcus bill...
Bradman
11-05 08:50 AM
Write to Mr. Bush (no kidding). They will send an inquiry to FBI and you will get something from FBI NNCP (name check division). If that does not help, file a lawsuit against USCIS/FBI. Or you can file a lawsuit first and then write a letter to save some time. The lawsuit will get things moving. The do-it-yourself guide is located here:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check
It worked man !!!
Gotta the Card production mail this morning after writing to the presidents office
Thanks a ton for your valuable advise !!!
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FBI_name_check
It worked man !!!
Gotta the Card production mail this morning after writing to the presidents office
Thanks a ton for your valuable advise !!!
more...
smisachu
08-01 05:34 PM
Hi smisachu,
Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you referring to "Flash Trading"
or the whole of HFT?
Yes Flash trading, ELP (enhanced liquidity program), direct access trading and even other program trading. The programs seek out discreet blocks that are being routed into the market and front run them. The main culprit according to many is GS. And to acheive a significant alpha the size and leverage are huge. Some program with a bug will dump a lot of shares on the market some day and before any one can react. Here is an article on some info that was made available only to bloomberg users.
"Lime Brokerage: "The Next 'Long Term Capital' Meltdown Will Happen In
A Five-Minute Time Period."
Posted by Tyler Durden at 11:25 AM
A recent Bloomberg piece that for some reason was made available only
to terminal subscribers, provides a very interesting discussion on the
dangers of sponsored access, how the associated pre-trade vs post-
trade monitoring deliberations by "regulators" will influence short
selling curbs, and not surprisingly, the desire by Goldman to not only
dominate this yet another aspect of high-frequency trading, but to
dictate market policy at will.
What is sponsored access:
In sponsored access, a broker-dealer lends its market participation
identification (MPID) number to clients for them to trade on exchanges
without going through the broker's trading system, to avoid slowing
down the execution. That places responsibility on the broker-dealer to
make sure the participant abides by securities regulations, and that
its trading, which can involve hundreds or thousands of orders a
second, does not run amok.
Is it thus surprising, that none other than Goldman Sachs is muscling
its way into providing not only a sponsored access platform to its
clients, but a new form of sponsored access that needs the blessing of
regulators:
Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs, now launching its own sponsored-
access service to lend clients its identification to access securities
exchanges directly, said last week it favors monitoring client orders
prior to execution.
"Our view is that there is a real need for pre-trade checks in the use
of sponsored access to fulfill [broker-dealers'] regulatory
responsibilities," said Greg Tusar, managing director at Goldman.
Goldman's stand in favor of pre-trade instead of post-trade monitoring
of sponsored clients' activity is one side of a debate in which
regulators may choose a middle ground. The regulators' decision on how
to monitor sponsored access may also influence their deliberations on
restricting short sales.
What is the difference between pre-trade and post-trade monitoring? In
brief:
Pre-trade
Compliant with Reg SHO
Nip problems before they happen
View activity across exchanges
Post-trade
Faster order executions
Pre-trade systems still fallible
And another tidbit:
In traditional sponsored-access arrangements, a broker-dealer
determines a client's suitability to access market centers directly
and then allows the client to trade without monitoring its individual
orders prior to execution.
In other words, the Goldman endorsed pre-trade approach will allow
"monitoring of individual orders prior to execution." Whether or not
pre-trade checks provide the capacity to observe not just wholesale
exchange activity in the context of sponsored access but from a much
broader market angle is a discussion for another time, although this
could be one place where Sergey Aleynikov could shed an infinite
amount of light, especially as pertains to Goldman's sponsored-access
service. Conveniently, his gag order will prevent him from saying much
if anything until such time as there is an appetizing settlement to
keep him gagged in perpetuity. The bottom line is that with a pre-
trade environment, the sponsored access providers will be able to have
the potential to front run all those who use their platforms. The
residual question of how far they go to comply with regulations to
prevent this from happening, and remain true to their ethics standards
is also a topic for another day.
Going back to the topic at hand. Here is why sponsored access could
easily be quite a bother to capital markets sooner rather than later:
Unchecked errors or unintended repeat orders could deplete broker-
dealers' capital, and potentially wreak havoc in the broader market.
Concerns have arisen, however, about whether all broker-dealers are
able to fulfill that duty in today's electronic trading environment,
and according to which standards.
And here Goldman chimes in to not only promote their proposed
architecture but to expound on the virtues of pre-trade checking.
"In the case of high-frequency trading, in particular guarding against
technology failures, oversized orders and other situations where
there's potentially systemic market impact, we believe strongly that
pre-trade checks are a prerequisite," Tusar says.
Nasdaq's proposal as well as Securities and Exchange Commission
officials' speeches a few months ago appeared to lean toward
bolstering the traditional approach.
"We don't believe that's strong enough or what the regulators want
now, because of the potentially dire consequences, and because we-as
broker-dealers-bear much of that risk," Tusar says.
Now the reason why this is very relevant in the context of not just
potential front running, but also market structure is that Regulation
SHO, which is the primary regulatory framework for short selling (and
the purvey of potential Uptick Rule reinstatement, which will happen
once the market is allowed to hit a bid) is a post-trade
architecture.
Wedbush [Morgan] routinely tests clients' systems to ensure they are
compliant with Reg SHO. In addition, he says, the brokerage sets
limits on clients available locates-as well as credit and trading
limits--before the start of each trading day that its system tracks,
prohibiting shorts without locates and providing a type of pre-trade
check.
Or as has recently become the case, seeing rolling buy ins in the
middle of the day as borrowable shares in even the most liquid stocks
mysteriously disappear (look at today's market action for yet another
blatant example of this practice).
Anticipating the regulators' likely response, one should not be
surprised to see them siding with Goldman and against shorters:
As the SEC also seeks to appease investor concerns over rampant short
selling, especially naked short selling, new sponsored-access
standards may provide part of the solution. Given that day-traders may
be the last remaining culprits of such activity,, increasing and
standardizing scrutiny over their trading may reduce uncovered (and
illegal) shorts even further.
How about appeasing concerns over rampant, unjustified buying? When
will the downtick buy rule be implemented? But we jest.
And I digress again. Why should all this be concerning to advocates of
stability of high-frequency trading:
The mother of all concerns is a sponsored firm's algorithm going awry
and executing thousands of problematic trades across a range of
securities and market centers.
Well, this is not really a problem when it happens to the upside as
has been the case for months now - it is only a threat when Joe
Sixpack's 401(k) may be impacted, i.e., to the downside.
And here is where a SEC Comment submitted by broker Lime Brokerage is
a very troubling must read by all who naively claim that High-
frequency trading is a boon to an efficient market (which doesn't
provide . Well, yes and no - it is, until such moment that it causes
the market to, literally, break. I will post a critical excerpt from
the Lime submission, and leave the rest to our readers' independent
analysis:
Lime's familiarity with high speed trading allows us to benchmark some
of the fastest computer traders on the planet, and we have seen CDT
(Computerized Day Trading) order placement rates easily exceed 1,000
orders per second. Should a CDT algorithm go awry, where a large
amount of orders are placed erroneously or where the orders should not
have passed order validation, the Sponsor will incur a substantial
timelag in addressing the issue. From the moment the Sponsor�s
representative detects the problem until the time the problematic
orders can be addressed by the Sponsor, at least two mintues will have
passed. The Sponsor�s only tools to control Sponsored Access flow are
to log into the Trading Center�s website (if available), place a phone
call to the Trading Center, or call the Sponsee to disable trading and
cancel these erroneous orders � all sub-optimal processes which
require human intervention. With a two minute delay to cancel these
erroneous orders, 120,000 orders could have gone into the market and
been executed, even though an order validation problem was detected
previously. At 1,000 shares per order and an average price of $20 per
share, $2.4 billion of improper trades could be executed in this short
timeframe. The sheer volume of activity in a concentrated period of
time is extremely disruptive to the process of maintaining a �fair and
orderly� market. This shortcoming needs to be addressed if the
practice of Naked Access is going to be permitted to continue;
otherwise, the next �Long Term Capital� meltdown will happen in a five-
minute time period.
Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you referring to "Flash Trading"
or the whole of HFT?
Yes Flash trading, ELP (enhanced liquidity program), direct access trading and even other program trading. The programs seek out discreet blocks that are being routed into the market and front run them. The main culprit according to many is GS. And to acheive a significant alpha the size and leverage are huge. Some program with a bug will dump a lot of shares on the market some day and before any one can react. Here is an article on some info that was made available only to bloomberg users.
"Lime Brokerage: "The Next 'Long Term Capital' Meltdown Will Happen In
A Five-Minute Time Period."
Posted by Tyler Durden at 11:25 AM
A recent Bloomberg piece that for some reason was made available only
to terminal subscribers, provides a very interesting discussion on the
dangers of sponsored access, how the associated pre-trade vs post-
trade monitoring deliberations by "regulators" will influence short
selling curbs, and not surprisingly, the desire by Goldman to not only
dominate this yet another aspect of high-frequency trading, but to
dictate market policy at will.
What is sponsored access:
In sponsored access, a broker-dealer lends its market participation
identification (MPID) number to clients for them to trade on exchanges
without going through the broker's trading system, to avoid slowing
down the execution. That places responsibility on the broker-dealer to
make sure the participant abides by securities regulations, and that
its trading, which can involve hundreds or thousands of orders a
second, does not run amok.
Is it thus surprising, that none other than Goldman Sachs is muscling
its way into providing not only a sponsored access platform to its
clients, but a new form of sponsored access that needs the blessing of
regulators:
Wall Street heavyweight Goldman Sachs, now launching its own sponsored-
access service to lend clients its identification to access securities
exchanges directly, said last week it favors monitoring client orders
prior to execution.
"Our view is that there is a real need for pre-trade checks in the use
of sponsored access to fulfill [broker-dealers'] regulatory
responsibilities," said Greg Tusar, managing director at Goldman.
Goldman's stand in favor of pre-trade instead of post-trade monitoring
of sponsored clients' activity is one side of a debate in which
regulators may choose a middle ground. The regulators' decision on how
to monitor sponsored access may also influence their deliberations on
restricting short sales.
What is the difference between pre-trade and post-trade monitoring? In
brief:
Pre-trade
Compliant with Reg SHO
Nip problems before they happen
View activity across exchanges
Post-trade
Faster order executions
Pre-trade systems still fallible
And another tidbit:
In traditional sponsored-access arrangements, a broker-dealer
determines a client's suitability to access market centers directly
and then allows the client to trade without monitoring its individual
orders prior to execution.
In other words, the Goldman endorsed pre-trade approach will allow
"monitoring of individual orders prior to execution." Whether or not
pre-trade checks provide the capacity to observe not just wholesale
exchange activity in the context of sponsored access but from a much
broader market angle is a discussion for another time, although this
could be one place where Sergey Aleynikov could shed an infinite
amount of light, especially as pertains to Goldman's sponsored-access
service. Conveniently, his gag order will prevent him from saying much
if anything until such time as there is an appetizing settlement to
keep him gagged in perpetuity. The bottom line is that with a pre-
trade environment, the sponsored access providers will be able to have
the potential to front run all those who use their platforms. The
residual question of how far they go to comply with regulations to
prevent this from happening, and remain true to their ethics standards
is also a topic for another day.
Going back to the topic at hand. Here is why sponsored access could
easily be quite a bother to capital markets sooner rather than later:
Unchecked errors or unintended repeat orders could deplete broker-
dealers' capital, and potentially wreak havoc in the broader market.
Concerns have arisen, however, about whether all broker-dealers are
able to fulfill that duty in today's electronic trading environment,
and according to which standards.
And here Goldman chimes in to not only promote their proposed
architecture but to expound on the virtues of pre-trade checking.
"In the case of high-frequency trading, in particular guarding against
technology failures, oversized orders and other situations where
there's potentially systemic market impact, we believe strongly that
pre-trade checks are a prerequisite," Tusar says.
Nasdaq's proposal as well as Securities and Exchange Commission
officials' speeches a few months ago appeared to lean toward
bolstering the traditional approach.
"We don't believe that's strong enough or what the regulators want
now, because of the potentially dire consequences, and because we-as
broker-dealers-bear much of that risk," Tusar says.
Now the reason why this is very relevant in the context of not just
potential front running, but also market structure is that Regulation
SHO, which is the primary regulatory framework for short selling (and
the purvey of potential Uptick Rule reinstatement, which will happen
once the market is allowed to hit a bid) is a post-trade
architecture.
Wedbush [Morgan] routinely tests clients' systems to ensure they are
compliant with Reg SHO. In addition, he says, the brokerage sets
limits on clients available locates-as well as credit and trading
limits--before the start of each trading day that its system tracks,
prohibiting shorts without locates and providing a type of pre-trade
check.
Or as has recently become the case, seeing rolling buy ins in the
middle of the day as borrowable shares in even the most liquid stocks
mysteriously disappear (look at today's market action for yet another
blatant example of this practice).
Anticipating the regulators' likely response, one should not be
surprised to see them siding with Goldman and against shorters:
As the SEC also seeks to appease investor concerns over rampant short
selling, especially naked short selling, new sponsored-access
standards may provide part of the solution. Given that day-traders may
be the last remaining culprits of such activity,, increasing and
standardizing scrutiny over their trading may reduce uncovered (and
illegal) shorts even further.
How about appeasing concerns over rampant, unjustified buying? When
will the downtick buy rule be implemented? But we jest.
And I digress again. Why should all this be concerning to advocates of
stability of high-frequency trading:
The mother of all concerns is a sponsored firm's algorithm going awry
and executing thousands of problematic trades across a range of
securities and market centers.
Well, this is not really a problem when it happens to the upside as
has been the case for months now - it is only a threat when Joe
Sixpack's 401(k) may be impacted, i.e., to the downside.
And here is where a SEC Comment submitted by broker Lime Brokerage is
a very troubling must read by all who naively claim that High-
frequency trading is a boon to an efficient market (which doesn't
provide . Well, yes and no - it is, until such moment that it causes
the market to, literally, break. I will post a critical excerpt from
the Lime submission, and leave the rest to our readers' independent
analysis:
Lime's familiarity with high speed trading allows us to benchmark some
of the fastest computer traders on the planet, and we have seen CDT
(Computerized Day Trading) order placement rates easily exceed 1,000
orders per second. Should a CDT algorithm go awry, where a large
amount of orders are placed erroneously or where the orders should not
have passed order validation, the Sponsor will incur a substantial
timelag in addressing the issue. From the moment the Sponsor�s
representative detects the problem until the time the problematic
orders can be addressed by the Sponsor, at least two mintues will have
passed. The Sponsor�s only tools to control Sponsored Access flow are
to log into the Trading Center�s website (if available), place a phone
call to the Trading Center, or call the Sponsee to disable trading and
cancel these erroneous orders � all sub-optimal processes which
require human intervention. With a two minute delay to cancel these
erroneous orders, 120,000 orders could have gone into the market and
been executed, even though an order validation problem was detected
previously. At 1,000 shares per order and an average price of $20 per
share, $2.4 billion of improper trades could be executed in this short
timeframe. The sheer volume of activity in a concentrated period of
time is extremely disruptive to the process of maintaining a �fair and
orderly� market. This shortcoming needs to be addressed if the
practice of Naked Access is going to be permitted to continue;
otherwise, the next �Long Term Capital� meltdown will happen in a five-
minute time period.
2010 Jesus Christ resurrection
USDream2Dust
07-18 12:00 PM
I am with you guys too. I know the battle is still not won. Getting EAD and AP is good but having GC is much better especially when you are paying 50% tax (atleast in my case) for no permanent status and the feeling of uncertainty when you visit your folks back home.
All for it. Let Core handle it and I would support it.;)
All for it. Let Core handle it and I would support it.;)
more...
still_waiting
04-26 12:48 PM
contributed $100 with pay date of 05/01/06.
You guys are doing great job !
You guys are doing great job !
hair jesus resurrection painting.
caliguy
09-17 08:03 PM
Thanks kubmilegaGC!
I will call the senators immigration liaison tomorrow. Hopefully she will not tell me that they cannot do anything besides what they have done because that is what they told me in September last year when I got a standard response last year.
Unfortunately nobody understands the pain and agony we are going through. For them, its just another day at the office, they couldnt care less. Nevertheless, I am going to try tomorrow.....hey, cant give up that easy.
I will call CS again tomorrow, I dont mind being yelled at and I am gonna tell her this time that I have not opened a SR. Atleast, she will then transfer my call to a IO.
Let's see what tomorrow has in store for me!!
Thanks @natraj @fatjoe @Vikki @apb - thanks for all suggestions -:)
@ cali - talk to senators's immigration liaison and explain the contradicting response(s) that you are receiving and ask if they could help - at this time lets take a diff approach - let them ping USCIS rather that you..see if that works.
@fat - 2nd SR was for wife and we seriously think that IT did the trick
I am wishing THE BEST for all of you who are waiting...next few days guys - you will get it! 100%
I will call the senators immigration liaison tomorrow. Hopefully she will not tell me that they cannot do anything besides what they have done because that is what they told me in September last year when I got a standard response last year.
Unfortunately nobody understands the pain and agony we are going through. For them, its just another day at the office, they couldnt care less. Nevertheless, I am going to try tomorrow.....hey, cant give up that easy.
I will call CS again tomorrow, I dont mind being yelled at and I am gonna tell her this time that I have not opened a SR. Atleast, she will then transfer my call to a IO.
Let's see what tomorrow has in store for me!!
Thanks @natraj @fatjoe @Vikki @apb - thanks for all suggestions -:)
@ cali - talk to senators's immigration liaison and explain the contradicting response(s) that you are receiving and ask if they could help - at this time lets take a diff approach - let them ping USCIS rather that you..see if that works.
@fat - 2nd SR was for wife and we seriously think that IT did the trick
I am wishing THE BEST for all of you who are waiting...next few days guys - you will get it! 100%
more...
snathan
04-26 03:13 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2009/db20090423_219068.htm
But advocates for skilled immigrants�many of whom remain stuck for years on H-1Bs waiting in the long queue for permanent residency�worry that the bill is a political maneuver rather than an earnest effort at reform. Aman Kapoor, president of the skilled immigrant advocate group Immigration Voice, says that a more effective bill would ensure H-1B visa workers are on a level playing field with U.S. workers. "Skilled immigrants on H-1Bs don't get the same rights and protections as everyone else," says Kapoor. "So wouldn't the solution be to empower and enable the skilled immigrants on H-1Bs such that�skilled immigrants on H-1s have adequate protections so that no one can take advantage of [them]? But no one wants to talk about protections for skilled immigrants."
I posted my commnets on thiss....did you.
But advocates for skilled immigrants�many of whom remain stuck for years on H-1Bs waiting in the long queue for permanent residency�worry that the bill is a political maneuver rather than an earnest effort at reform. Aman Kapoor, president of the skilled immigrant advocate group Immigration Voice, says that a more effective bill would ensure H-1B visa workers are on a level playing field with U.S. workers. "Skilled immigrants on H-1Bs don't get the same rights and protections as everyone else," says Kapoor. "So wouldn't the solution be to empower and enable the skilled immigrants on H-1Bs such that�skilled immigrants on H-1s have adequate protections so that no one can take advantage of [them]? But no one wants to talk about protections for skilled immigrants."
I posted my commnets on thiss....did you.
hot hot jesus resurrection
stldude
07-19 09:44 AM
PD : EB3 , May 2003
Date Delivered : July 02 8:44 am
Service Center : NSC
Rejected: Not yet.. ( I hope not)
Date Delivered : July 02 8:44 am
Service Center : NSC
Rejected: Not yet.. ( I hope not)
more...
house Resurrection Of Jesus Coloring
gcformeornot
12-12 09:15 PM
here is above age of 21. They know what's good for them and what is bad.
We can give guests only read access after verifying their immigrativeness (sorry for the innovation of word).........
We can give guests only read access after verifying their immigrativeness (sorry for the innovation of word).........
tattoo jesus resurrection coloring.
coolest_me
05-08 06:39 PM
Hi,
I got the Insurance for my mother-in law from Patriot America . for 3 month it costs 360$ (250 deductible, 50K max). One thing that I came to know was that Patriot America and Protection America both are the same insurance from same underwriter. Only difference is that you cannot renew Patriot America if you purchase it for less than 3 months.
If your parents will be here for at least 3 month then look at this option. Protection America costs > 400 for 3 months.
I know they have a good network but nothing much about how good they are in processing claims
I got the Insurance for my mother-in law from Patriot America . for 3 month it costs 360$ (250 deductible, 50K max). One thing that I came to know was that Patriot America and Protection America both are the same insurance from same underwriter. Only difference is that you cannot renew Patriot America if you purchase it for less than 3 months.
If your parents will be here for at least 3 month then look at this option. Protection America costs > 400 for 3 months.
I know they have a good network but nothing much about how good they are in processing claims
more...
pictures Jesus resurrection appearances
letstalklc
08-25 02:12 PM
You do NOT have to go anywhere - what you are saying is "SBI Rapid Remittance" by SBI where the money will reach your Foreign account the very next day ( But you might have to wire the money as well to BOA-NY or SBI-NY ?)
www.onlinesbi.com/rr - This is SBI's response to rapid exchange.
What i'm talking is "SBI Direct Remit" & takes 3-4 business days but just click of computer mouse once you are set up. I actually set it up Monday morning EST and Friday Morning EST i see my money at Foreign account. No need to open a account at SBI-NY or anywhere but its good to have the target account at SBI ( it can be your mom/dad's SBI a/c or yours , doesn't matter really )
www.onlinesbi.com/glsus
P.S: By the way - i also had the idea that SBI is "sarkari bank" - slow , unprofessional etc... etc.. But the band of peoples who handles this division are really young and bright - my experience for last 6 months is just terrific. Customer Serivice also replies via email the next morning ...
What you said is 200% correct, I am also using their service from past 6 months, they are the best I have seen in Govt sector so far....ICICI bank is really verst in terms of every thing except global custeomer care....
I have stopped using ICICI year ago...Guys better use onlinesbi.com/gls, better exchange rates....
www.onlinesbi.com/rr - This is SBI's response to rapid exchange.
What i'm talking is "SBI Direct Remit" & takes 3-4 business days but just click of computer mouse once you are set up. I actually set it up Monday morning EST and Friday Morning EST i see my money at Foreign account. No need to open a account at SBI-NY or anywhere but its good to have the target account at SBI ( it can be your mom/dad's SBI a/c or yours , doesn't matter really )
www.onlinesbi.com/glsus
P.S: By the way - i also had the idea that SBI is "sarkari bank" - slow , unprofessional etc... etc.. But the band of peoples who handles this division are really young and bright - my experience for last 6 months is just terrific. Customer Serivice also replies via email the next morning ...
What you said is 200% correct, I am also using their service from past 6 months, they are the best I have seen in Govt sector so far....ICICI bank is really verst in terms of every thing except global custeomer care....
I have stopped using ICICI year ago...Guys better use onlinesbi.com/gls, better exchange rates....
dresses jesus tomb coloring pages.
gc_for_desi
04-14 03:00 PM
I've filed for my 140 with a substitute labor in July of 2007 under EB 3. The labour had a priority date in 2002.
My company has around 50+ employees and has been doing good from over 12 years. All the employees are being paid as promised from the start.
I joined the company in Jan of 2006 and was being paid in time and as promised from day 1.
There was an RFE raised on my 140 filed with substitution with rgrds to Ability to Pay. The proferred wage mentioned in the Labour was 75K and my company had the ability to pay in 2002, 2003 and 2004 based on their financial documents except for the year 2005.
In 2005 the company started a new division and hired several people, basically they were restructuring their company for the future and there net or gross whatever income was in -ve, They spent a lot of money on training, hiring etc.., which are reflected in their financial documents.
They were back too good numbers in 2006 and 2007 while i was working for them. In 2006 my W-2 show salary less then the proferred wage in the labour and at that point of time the company nor myself had any idea that we would substitute this X labour for me, But the companies numbers were good to support the difference of amount in 2006.
In the year 2007, i had a good hike, but was still below the proferred wage but only by 3K, and again the company had enuf finances to support the difference of amount.
Starting of 2008, i got another good hike and am way above the proferred wage.
Now the RFE was raised for Ability to pay from 2002 to current date, the current date being March 2008 when the RFE was raised.
My company submitted all the docs required and for the RFE and also clearly explained the reasons for the numbers being bad in 2005. They submitted my w-2's for 2006, 2007 and salary stubs for Jan and Feb of 2008 along with their tax returns, etc from 2002 to 2007.
Now the Response has been file on March 28th and am awaiting the decision, has anybody faced any similar situations and what could be the results you guys predict.
Would the USCIS consider only 2 months of my salary stubs in 2008 to qualify my case as being paid more than the proferred wage or would they scrutinize every other thing....
Any replies are appreciated.... Thanks
My company has around 50+ employees and has been doing good from over 12 years. All the employees are being paid as promised from the start.
I joined the company in Jan of 2006 and was being paid in time and as promised from day 1.
There was an RFE raised on my 140 filed with substitution with rgrds to Ability to Pay. The proferred wage mentioned in the Labour was 75K and my company had the ability to pay in 2002, 2003 and 2004 based on their financial documents except for the year 2005.
In 2005 the company started a new division and hired several people, basically they were restructuring their company for the future and there net or gross whatever income was in -ve, They spent a lot of money on training, hiring etc.., which are reflected in their financial documents.
They were back too good numbers in 2006 and 2007 while i was working for them. In 2006 my W-2 show salary less then the proferred wage in the labour and at that point of time the company nor myself had any idea that we would substitute this X labour for me, But the companies numbers were good to support the difference of amount in 2006.
In the year 2007, i had a good hike, but was still below the proferred wage but only by 3K, and again the company had enuf finances to support the difference of amount.
Starting of 2008, i got another good hike and am way above the proferred wage.
Now the RFE was raised for Ability to pay from 2002 to current date, the current date being March 2008 when the RFE was raised.
My company submitted all the docs required and for the RFE and also clearly explained the reasons for the numbers being bad in 2005. They submitted my w-2's for 2006, 2007 and salary stubs for Jan and Feb of 2008 along with their tax returns, etc from 2002 to 2007.
Now the Response has been file on March 28th and am awaiting the decision, has anybody faced any similar situations and what could be the results you guys predict.
Would the USCIS consider only 2 months of my salary stubs in 2008 to qualify my case as being paid more than the proferred wage or would they scrutinize every other thing....
Any replies are appreciated.... Thanks
more...
makeup jesus resurrection coloring.
unchew
06-04 07:14 PM
I'm going to do one after I finish with my GCSE studying!
girlfriend JESUS RESURRECTION COLORING
reddy2cool
10-02 11:07 PM
Well, I don't think gctest is against EB3. He is against consultants from sleazy bodyshopping companies, which is right.
A career based on lies and deception is criminal in my humble opinion. There are people who actually came to US with valid experience and education, but still end up applying in EB-3 because the employer did not oblige. Sad for them, but it again boils down to the fact that if the job description qualified them for EB-2, then they got cheated. Otherwise, it is just.
I would like to clear the stand that I am a MS holder from an American university and I work as a Sr. Engineer in one of the top internet firms. I left an offer from that crappy operating system maker because that job did not require MS or even BS+5. It was BS+3. I chose a job where I get to apply in EB2.
People who crib about not getting a chance, even though their job description did not support it are wrong, IMO. NO ONE forced you in to that job. This is not slavery and US is not the only place where you can get a job.
Sorry but i dont agree if you call the consultants sleazy or any other thing. Everybody fights to survive here and they are taking a risk at their own cost hence they are benefitting. I donno whether you would not take a eb1 if uscis itself offers u one ? Anyways may be you arent lying but check your company ..all the big companies do creative accounting tell lies to share holders and what not ..does it make them any inferior or superior ..in the end behind every success there are things that are right. So even people who applied in eb2 did somethings right which enabled them to get qualified under it. Dont be a crybaby ..be a man ...u american graduate take risk or show ability to qualify under eb1.
A career based on lies and deception is criminal in my humble opinion. There are people who actually came to US with valid experience and education, but still end up applying in EB-3 because the employer did not oblige. Sad for them, but it again boils down to the fact that if the job description qualified them for EB-2, then they got cheated. Otherwise, it is just.
I would like to clear the stand that I am a MS holder from an American university and I work as a Sr. Engineer in one of the top internet firms. I left an offer from that crappy operating system maker because that job did not require MS or even BS+5. It was BS+3. I chose a job where I get to apply in EB2.
People who crib about not getting a chance, even though their job description did not support it are wrong, IMO. NO ONE forced you in to that job. This is not slavery and US is not the only place where you can get a job.
Sorry but i dont agree if you call the consultants sleazy or any other thing. Everybody fights to survive here and they are taking a risk at their own cost hence they are benefitting. I donno whether you would not take a eb1 if uscis itself offers u one ? Anyways may be you arent lying but check your company ..all the big companies do creative accounting tell lies to share holders and what not ..does it make them any inferior or superior ..in the end behind every success there are things that are right. So even people who applied in eb2 did somethings right which enabled them to get qualified under it. Dont be a crybaby ..be a man ...u american graduate take risk or show ability to qualify under eb1.
hairstyles jesus resurrection coloring.
lost_in_migration
06-21 05:32 PM
If you are filing on 1st July then you shud not leave US till you get your receipt notice. With the current processing timelines it is very unlikely that you will get your receipt notice b4 20th July. So hold on till 14th July for next visa-bulletin. If dates are current even in Aug, which is most likely the case, then do your filing in August, else return back b4 July end and file 485
Hi, friends,
I need help from you guys I am getting married on 20th july and then coming back on 3rd august, so can I just apply for myself on 1stjuly and then add her after we come back . Is this possible.. what say experts?
Thanks in advance ,
Hi, friends,
I need help from you guys I am getting married on 20th july and then coming back on 3rd august, so can I just apply for myself on 1stjuly and then add her after we come back . Is this possible.. what say experts?
Thanks in advance ,
m306m
12-13 03:52 PM
Jazz,
As far as the fund drive is concerned I disagree that without the VB we would have not reached our goal We over 22.5K in 6 days. The VB provided a push but I am sure we could have collected the remaining 7.5K in 24 days.
Do you think the drive would have reached its original goal yesterday/early today without the January visa bulletin retrogressing us even further...?
I have my doubts about that... :)
And how far in the past would we need to retrogress to get another funding drive done...?
jazz
As far as the fund drive is concerned I disagree that without the VB we would have not reached our goal We over 22.5K in 6 days. The VB provided a push but I am sure we could have collected the remaining 7.5K in 24 days.
Do you think the drive would have reached its original goal yesterday/early today without the January visa bulletin retrogressing us even further...?
I have my doubts about that... :)
And how far in the past would we need to retrogress to get another funding drive done...?
jazz
piyushmittal
07-11 10:21 PM
[QUOTE=sachug22;261611]We know:
EB1 and EB2-ROW was current the whole year, which means there are not many pending+ready cases.
They have used all EB3 visas.
What they are left with is 20,000 visas(10-15% of 140,000 since more than 80% was used in first 3 quarters). This will be mostly for EB2 India/China.
They may not have enough pending+ready application for pre-april-2004 (previous VB). So they had to moved the date forward to get enough applicantions not to waste the numbers.
I think the above reasoning is right. They have many visa numbers left and also have visa numbers spilling from EB1. They dont want to waste it (finally!!) thus moved the date forward to approve many visa quickly as they did June 2007 before July fiasco. They approved 30-40 K applications at that time.
EB1 and EB2-ROW was current the whole year, which means there are not many pending+ready cases.
They have used all EB3 visas.
What they are left with is 20,000 visas(10-15% of 140,000 since more than 80% was used in first 3 quarters). This will be mostly for EB2 India/China.
They may not have enough pending+ready application for pre-april-2004 (previous VB). So they had to moved the date forward to get enough applicantions not to waste the numbers.
I think the above reasoning is right. They have many visa numbers left and also have visa numbers spilling from EB1. They dont want to waste it (finally!!) thus moved the date forward to approve many visa quickly as they did June 2007 before July fiasco. They approved 30-40 K applications at that time.
No comments:
Post a Comment