jliechty
November 9th, 2004, 10:42 AM
I have browsed at two local specialist camera stores but the only digitals were either very old or cost more than I can buy new on line.:(
When you buy a film camera, you can "upgrade" the image quality, up to a certain point, by buying different film. With a digital SLR, you're essentially buying the camera plus a certain (but unknown) amount of "film." Any camera will fail at some point in time, but the general probability is that the shutter of a $1000 film camera will last a while longer than the shutter of a $1000 digital camera (the former would be a pro model, while the latter is basically amateur or lower end prosumer).
What I'm not trying to do is convince you to buy a film SLR. I have one, and would upgrade to a DSLR at the drop of a hat if I could afford it. What I am attempting to caution you about, is that a used DSLR will come with no reasonable warranty, and a certain (unknown) amount of the "film" already used up. Given the apparent "free"-ness of digital capture, lots of people shoot thousands of frames per day without thinking (I have nothing against pros who need to "machine gun" it to capture the right moment in sports - this rant was against amateurs who shoot tons of frames without any thought, hoping something good may come out by chance). Thus, you have no idea how much life will be left in a used DSLR when you buy it, and more likely than not, there will be no guarantee if it does fail. It's like buying expired film on ebay... risky, but you pays your money and you takes your choice.
When you buy a film camera, you can "upgrade" the image quality, up to a certain point, by buying different film. With a digital SLR, you're essentially buying the camera plus a certain (but unknown) amount of "film." Any camera will fail at some point in time, but the general probability is that the shutter of a $1000 film camera will last a while longer than the shutter of a $1000 digital camera (the former would be a pro model, while the latter is basically amateur or lower end prosumer).
What I'm not trying to do is convince you to buy a film SLR. I have one, and would upgrade to a DSLR at the drop of a hat if I could afford it. What I am attempting to caution you about, is that a used DSLR will come with no reasonable warranty, and a certain (unknown) amount of the "film" already used up. Given the apparent "free"-ness of digital capture, lots of people shoot thousands of frames per day without thinking (I have nothing against pros who need to "machine gun" it to capture the right moment in sports - this rant was against amateurs who shoot tons of frames without any thought, hoping something good may come out by chance). Thus, you have no idea how much life will be left in a used DSLR when you buy it, and more likely than not, there will be no guarantee if it does fail. It's like buying expired film on ebay... risky, but you pays your money and you takes your choice.
laska sawade. Resume
Calouste
08-01 08:06 PM
guys, I appreciate the Mr Zoe's gesture , but I dont really think fees is a big issue here. If a company pays, its not an applicants problem. If the applicant pays, few thousand dollars extra will make us any poorer..
The problem is the huge backlog, 140000 limit, per country limit, visas being wasted while ppl wait for years.....
She has so much power, she should lobby for visa recapture
I don't think the main goal of Ms Lofgren is to lower the fees. She tries to find out what USCIS is going to do with the extra money, something they haven't been clear about. If it was about the fees, she could have proposed this bill weeks ago. The timing (at the last day the old fees were valid) is intended to put more pressure on the USCIS, because they will have to start refunding applicants if the bill is approved and they don't provide the information asked for.
The problem is the huge backlog, 140000 limit, per country limit, visas being wasted while ppl wait for years.....
She has so much power, she should lobby for visa recapture
I don't think the main goal of Ms Lofgren is to lower the fees. She tries to find out what USCIS is going to do with the extra money, something they haven't been clear about. If it was about the fees, she could have proposed this bill weeks ago. The timing (at the last day the old fees were valid) is intended to put more pressure on the USCIS, because they will have to start refunding applicants if the bill is approved and they don't provide the information asked for.
laska sawade. laska sawade
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
laska sawade. laska sawade
AtulKRaizada
07-18 06:12 PM
A lot of discussion happened on this topic in the past and the general consensus was that it will boomerang on us. We should not be demonstrating/protesting/demanding.
Welcome to the world of white collar politics.:)
This is ridiculous, there is a saying that even a mom doesn't feed her own child unless he cries.
I strongly feel that we should make a genuine effort.
Welcome to the world of white collar politics.:)
This is ridiculous, there is a saying that even a mom doesn't feed her own child unless he cries.
I strongly feel that we should make a genuine effort.
more...
laska sawade. laska sawade. laska sawade
inetuser
08-03 10:23 PM
I just entered arbit number and guess what turned up..
Receipt Number: lin0722554233
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On August 3, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Receipt Number: lin0722554233
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On August 3, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
laska sawade. laska sawade
detroit2009
07-11 03:48 PM
THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH FOR PRECISE REPLY BUEHLER but am I not within my legal right to work for any hospital branch because they are all with one name.
My final question would be YES I was told that I will have a new ID and new payroll number and a separate paycheck but what can be done to rectify this situation. Like do they have to amend the H1B petition(mine is a non-cap hospital--- a charity hospital).
My H1B stipulates that I am a full-timer with 40 hrs per week but starting from next week it is going to be 32 sometimes and 40 hrs some weeks as we are not seeing many patients into our hospital due to the economy,jobs etc.
What is the solution. Do I have to move to a different job or can there be a solution to work for the same company (in different branches)
My final question would be YES I was told that I will have a new ID and new payroll number and a separate paycheck but what can be done to rectify this situation. Like do they have to amend the H1B petition(mine is a non-cap hospital--- a charity hospital).
My H1B stipulates that I am a full-timer with 40 hrs per week but starting from next week it is going to be 32 sometimes and 40 hrs some weeks as we are not seeing many patients into our hospital due to the economy,jobs etc.
What is the solution. Do I have to move to a different job or can there be a solution to work for the same company (in different branches)
more...
laska sawade. laska sawade
number30
06-15 11:54 AM
If Birth Certificate issue by Indian consulate then it should be ok, as it is from consulate
Birth certificate issued by Indian consulate is not accepted. It needs to be from original source. Submit as it is. If they ask later you can submit affidavit from Parents or nearest relatives.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/reciprocity/reciprocity_3582.html
Birth certificate issued by Indian consulate is not accepted. It needs to be from original source. Submit as it is. If they ask later you can submit affidavit from Parents or nearest relatives.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/reciprocity/reciprocity_3582.html
laska sawade. laska sawade
Siddharta
03-13 01:43 AM
Agree with you Infinite_Patience_GC.......for desis I would not recommend doing a full time MBA unless you get into top 10. Foreign students are having a hard time finding a job even at top 10 schools these days.
Although one good thing about part time is that it is less risky and usually lot of big companies help in reimbursing some of the tuition.
Although one good thing about part time is that it is less risky and usually lot of big companies help in reimbursing some of the tuition.
more...
laska sawade. laska sawade
smartboy75
11-05 01:35 PM
hey gcseeked2002...
There are many who have received their EAD and have their FP done, but are awaiting AP...You are in the other boat ..where in your have AP waiting for EAD....I would recommed not stressing out...eventually you will receieve it.....With the July-Aug visa fiasco, USCIS is under tremendous pressure to issue out EAD within the 90 days to everyone...Allow them so room for error.....your EAD will eventually come....hang in there...just like everybody else you is waiting for AP....
There are many who have received their EAD and have their FP done, but are awaiting AP...You are in the other boat ..where in your have AP waiting for EAD....I would recommed not stressing out...eventually you will receieve it.....With the July-Aug visa fiasco, USCIS is under tremendous pressure to issue out EAD within the 90 days to everyone...Allow them so room for error.....your EAD will eventually come....hang in there...just like everybody else you is waiting for AP....
laska sawade. laska sawade
Refugee_New
06-13 10:25 AM
Sorry to hear your situation. Not yet got GC ,inspite of your PD is current ..... consult senators and congraswoman Lofgren.
BTW sorry to ask ,why your login id Refugee... You are not REFUGEE, you are highly skilled professional , paying heavy tax ....
Yo are very true. But unfortunately we are GC hostages.
Anyway i will contact local senator and congresswoman now
BTW sorry to ask ,why your login id Refugee... You are not REFUGEE, you are highly skilled professional , paying heavy tax ....
Yo are very true. But unfortunately we are GC hostages.
Anyway i will contact local senator and congresswoman now
more...
laska sawade. laska sawade
ar
02-04 06:07 PM
I don't think your design skills are quite good enough yet to be starting a studio. No offense but I think you'd be better off with a bit more practice before you step out in to the world of the design industry.
Who were you talking about
Who were you talking about
laska sawade. laska sawade
guitarbam
01-24 11:21 AM
I talked to her by phone on yesterday and seem like she know that i'm not believe on her. so she talked to my office manager and my office manager is trust on her....
how can i say ? what i can do ? :(
(But i already paid all the lawyer fee by myself on couple weeks ago....)
how can i say ? what i can do ? :(
(But i already paid all the lawyer fee by myself on couple weeks ago....)
more...
laska sawade. laska sawade
maximus777
05-06 03:44 PM
bring it on pa, ut, tx (although backing away)
the more the merrier! This certainly will bring the debates nationally all the time.
More # of states want to pile on, fed has to step in - with a ferocious appetite :d
:d
the more the merrier! This certainly will bring the debates nationally all the time.
More # of states want to pile on, fed has to step in - with a ferocious appetite :d
:d
laska sawade. laska sawade
jhaalaa
12-12 04:20 PM
Folks how are you and where are you all in OK. I am in Tulsa. Here are my details:
Labor Filing Date: 27 Sep 2002
Service Center: Texas Category: EB3
Application Mailed: 22 Jun 2007 USCIS Received Date: 26 Jun 2007
USCIS Notice Date: 03 Aug 2007 Filing Type: non-concurrent
I-140 Processing: regular I-140 Approval Date: 30 Mar 2006
Fingerprinting Date 1: 29 Aug 2007 Fingerprinting Date 2:
RFE: no RFE Reply Date:
Name Check Status: pending Name Check Approval/Denial Date: N/A
I-485 Status: pending Approval/Denial Date: N/A
Card Ordered Date: Card Received Date:
EAD Applied: yes AP Applied: yes
EAD Approval Date: 16 Aug 2007 AP Approval Date: 23 Aug 2007
Nationality: India
Labor Filing Date: 27 Sep 2002
Service Center: Texas Category: EB3
Application Mailed: 22 Jun 2007 USCIS Received Date: 26 Jun 2007
USCIS Notice Date: 03 Aug 2007 Filing Type: non-concurrent
I-140 Processing: regular I-140 Approval Date: 30 Mar 2006
Fingerprinting Date 1: 29 Aug 2007 Fingerprinting Date 2:
RFE: no RFE Reply Date:
Name Check Status: pending Name Check Approval/Denial Date: N/A
I-485 Status: pending Approval/Denial Date: N/A
Card Ordered Date: Card Received Date:
EAD Applied: yes AP Applied: yes
EAD Approval Date: 16 Aug 2007 AP Approval Date: 23 Aug 2007
Nationality: India
more...
laska sawade. laska sawade
harapatta
07-11 04:53 PM
Did you submit any documents for proof of PD
Hello All,
Just received in mail - 2 Year EAD card for me and my wife. Valid till July 2010. I have e-filed myself for both of us. Still waiting for AP docs.
Hello All,
Just received in mail - 2 Year EAD card for me and my wife. Valid till July 2010. I have e-filed myself for both of us. Still waiting for AP docs.
laska sawade. laska sawade. i; i. slidingjon. Sep 6, 08:23 AM. Amazing price drop! Coly cow! I paid the $1299 :( still worth every penny
anilvt
08-13 09:10 PM
IO told me in infopass that she can't tell me about my name check and don't worry about it since 180 day rule applies ,....i guess she had good knowledge of the rule
more...
laska sawade. laska sawade. famous funny quotes about life; famous funny quotes about life. kalisphoenix. Sep 22, 12:56 PM. It#39;s about time Wal-Mart gets burned to the
Fugu
01-10 12:12 PM
Hello, I just want some clarification please.
My husband has a L1A (we came to the US on an L1B which was converted to an L1A after 4.5 years). The current visa runs out June 2011, that will be our 7 years. We have decided to move forward with a Green Card. However, this morning we received a email from his HR saying they have checked with an immigration guru and they have said that we have to leave the US for 1 year (to re-enter as an L1A again) as we have L1A status and not H1B status, (if we had H1B status they could move forward with the GC). They also said, they can however start the GC process whilst we are out of the country but it will take from 6 -8 years. Do we have to leave the US for a year or can we convert an L1A to a GC.
Also if we did not get a green card before June 2011 (visa expiration) would we have to leave the US or could we stay awaiting the GC processing.
Thanks for any help.
My husband has a L1A (we came to the US on an L1B which was converted to an L1A after 4.5 years). The current visa runs out June 2011, that will be our 7 years. We have decided to move forward with a Green Card. However, this morning we received a email from his HR saying they have checked with an immigration guru and they have said that we have to leave the US for 1 year (to re-enter as an L1A again) as we have L1A status and not H1B status, (if we had H1B status they could move forward with the GC). They also said, they can however start the GC process whilst we are out of the country but it will take from 6 -8 years. Do we have to leave the US for a year or can we convert an L1A to a GC.
Also if we did not get a green card before June 2011 (visa expiration) would we have to leave the US or could we stay awaiting the GC processing.
Thanks for any help.
laska sawade. quotes
Michael chertoff
02-15 09:38 PM
Bank denied a consumer loan ,after approval due to immigration status specifically they said no loan unless you are a citizen. i am a permanent resident , leaving in the US for over 15 years. Applying for naturalization this year. Also the same bank had approved a consumer loan 2 years ago and now they say "oh we made a mistake then". Case or no case? I think I have been discriminated against.
Some one please help him.. I dont know what to do...
Papuu please advise him.
MC
Some one please help him.. I dont know what to do...
Papuu please advise him.
MC
laska sawade. laska sawade. quotes for
sprash
03-02 04:55 PM
I was interviewed by American Public Media's "Marketplace (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/)" regarding my experience with this issue. She introduced this research by Wadhwa asked me I was considering going back, but I am not considering that option. I did highlight the woes of legal immigrants, but while she empathized with our situation, she was more interested in stories of people who are planning to go back.
I think she said this story will be appearing on NPR Monday (today or next, I'm not sure). I don't think my story will be featured though (because of aforementioned reasons).
I think she said this story will be appearing on NPR Monday (today or next, I'm not sure). I don't think my story will be featured though (because of aforementioned reasons).
whiteStallion
01-20 02:24 PM
Great looking site ! Kudos to all those who made this happen over the past few days ! Way 2 go...
saint_2010
07-11 05:21 PM
hi saint, nothing against you, i wonder what is the freakin logic USCIS uses to decide on 2 year EAD approval, here i am with pd not being current for atleast next 2-3 years (given the halt of eb3-I), 2nd ead extn, in my 8th year of h1b, i got a one year EAD extn, where as a eb2 person gets a 1 year validity...i only wish we can know whats going in the minds of these decision makers..
Non taken my friend. I was surprised myself to see 2 yr extns. I think they have some wierd fuzzy logic on approvals..which is beyond our intelligent minds:cool:.
Non taken my friend. I was surprised myself to see 2 yr extns. I think they have some wierd fuzzy logic on approvals..which is beyond our intelligent minds:cool:.
No comments:
Post a Comment