nikh
11-06 03:35 PM
As I mentioned in my post, I had a resident Indian A/C - account that was opened when I was legally a resident Indian (salary a/c incidentally). No way it can be confused with one of N/RE/O accounts. I had INR in my account. It was wired over to my account here in the US, I got $s. Simple. If you look through the link that I posted, ICICI's instructions are quite clear - you can say family maintenance as a good reason.
As a couple of people commented in subsequent posts, it is straightforward to send money, INR to $.
I read somewhere that according to RBI rules an NRI is not supposed to maintain any regular account in INDIA. One can only ve NRO/NRE accounts.
You said yu got the money from the old account. Do you think it was all according to RBI regulations
here is the link
http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14549040
As a couple of people commented in subsequent posts, it is straightforward to send money, INR to $.
I read somewhere that according to RBI rules an NRI is not supposed to maintain any regular account in INDIA. One can only ve NRO/NRE accounts.
You said yu got the money from the old account. Do you think it was all according to RBI regulations
here is the link
http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14549040
wallpaper Bass Guitar Notes Diagram
makemygc
07-06 11:30 AM
Guys,
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what we must stress on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a week case. Nos USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS decalred "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out ot everbody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the leagl instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able save it face and limit on visa numbers wil automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
How do you define "All effected"?
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what we must stress on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a week case. Nos USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS decalred "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out ot everbody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the leagl instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able save it face and limit on visa numbers wil automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
How do you define "All effected"?
BharatPremi
11-08 02:32 PM
Somebody gave me "Green" with comment "Green dot - GotGC??" . Thanks. No, I am still in wait hell.
2011 Guitar Chords-Power chords
pappu
03-09 11:17 AM
Visa Bulletin For April 2011 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5368.html)
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
4. INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal. The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas: CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
5. On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and "U" means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available. (NOTE: Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)
Family- Sponsored All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F1 01MAY04 01MAY04 01MAY04 15FEB93 01APR95
F2A 01APR07 01APR07 01APR07 01JUL06 01APR07
F2B 15APR03 15APR03 15APR03 15JUL92 01DEC99
F3 15MAR01 15MAR01 15MAR01 08NOV92 01JAN92
F4 01FEB00 01JAN00 01FEB00 01FEB96 08MAR88
*NOTE: For April, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01JUL06. F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01JUL06 and earlier than 01APR07. (All F2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no F2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)
Employment- Based
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 22JUL06 08MAY06 C C
3rd 22JUL05 01MAR04 08APR02 08MAY04 22JUL05
Other Workers 22JUL03 22APR03 08APR02 22JUL03 22JUL03
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C
5th C C C C C
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs C C C C C
The Department of State has available a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. This recording will be updated in the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.
B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY
Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal sources of current immigration to the United States. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This reduction has resulted in the DV-2011 annual limit being reduced to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.
For April, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2011 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
Region All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA 35,450 Except: Egypt 27,600
Ethiopia 22,150
Nigeria 14,100
ASIA 19,250 Except:Bangladesh 18,350
EUROPE 23,200
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) 8
OCEANIA 1,000
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN 1,075
Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2011 program ends as of September 30, 2011. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2011 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2011 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2011. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2011 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.
C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK
CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN MAY
For May, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2011 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
Region All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA 42,000
Except: Egypt 31,200
Ethiopia 26,200
Nigeria 15,450
ASIA 23,500
EUROPE 27,800
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) 12
OCEANIA 1,175
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN 1,150
D. RETROGRESSION OF FAMILY PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES
Continued heavy applicant demand for numbers in the Family First (F1) preference category has required the retrogression of the Worldwide, China-mainland born, and India cut-off date for the month of April.
Further retrogressions cannot be ruled out should demand continue at the current levels for some categories and countries.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.
Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "Other Workers".
Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
4. INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or following to join the principal. The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These provisions apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas: CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
5. On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and "U" means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available. (NOTE: Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)
Family- Sponsored All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed CHINA-mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
F1 01MAY04 01MAY04 01MAY04 15FEB93 01APR95
F2A 01APR07 01APR07 01APR07 01JUL06 01APR07
F2B 15APR03 15APR03 15APR03 15JUL92 01DEC99
F3 15MAR01 15MAR01 15MAR01 08NOV92 01JAN92
F4 01FEB00 01JAN00 01FEB00 01FEB96 08MAR88
*NOTE: For April, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01JUL06. F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01JUL06 and earlier than 01APR07. (All F2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no F2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)
Employment- Based
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 22JUL06 08MAY06 C C
3rd 22JUL05 01MAR04 08APR02 08MAY04 22JUL05
Other Workers 22JUL03 22APR03 08APR02 22JUL03 22JUL03
4th C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C
5th C C C C C
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs C C C C C
The Department of State has available a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. This recording will be updated in the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.
B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY
Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal sources of current immigration to the United States. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This reduction has resulted in the DV-2011 annual limit being reduced to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.
For April, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2011 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
Region All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA 35,450 Except: Egypt 27,600
Ethiopia 22,150
Nigeria 14,100
ASIA 19,250 Except:Bangladesh 18,350
EUROPE 23,200
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) 8
OCEANIA 1,000
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN 1,075
Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2011 program ends as of September 30, 2011. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2011 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2011 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2011. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2011 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.
C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK
CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN MAY
For May, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2011 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
Region All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA 42,000
Except: Egypt 31,200
Ethiopia 26,200
Nigeria 15,450
ASIA 23,500
EUROPE 27,800
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) 12
OCEANIA 1,175
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN 1,150
D. RETROGRESSION OF FAMILY PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES
Continued heavy applicant demand for numbers in the Family First (F1) preference category has required the retrogression of the Worldwide, China-mainland born, and India cut-off date for the month of April.
Further retrogressions cannot be ruled out should demand continue at the current levels for some categories and countries.
more...
sk.aggarwal
02-06 02:02 PM
Hello mr sk
Could you pls help-
What is I140 tracking number? How to get it?(I don't have any info about my i140 - only that it was approved and I have h1 extension petition of 3 yrs based on that.)
And did you request part info or full info therein? Your case is a light in tunnel- you got the info in about 3 months - right?
Thanks much
Yes, I got a CD from USCIS with all my I-140. I requested for copy of I-140 approval notice corresponding to I-140 tracking number SRC.XXXXXXXXXXX. This is the same number I got from my employer for online tracking on USCIS website. It took over 4 months. I submitted this as soon as got approval on my I-140. If you dont have the tracking number, you may try to get your A# from employer or attorney. You can use the same reason that you are changing address or that you need it for visa stamping. I believe they ask for A# in visa interview form.
I have heard that few people got the tracking number using Infopass. Not sure how. I would suggest, that do not delay. Submit the FOIA form with whatever info you have. They might be able to pull your records based on the SSN# or I-94# etc. No harm in trying. I didnt had A#, so I left it blank.
Could you pls help-
What is I140 tracking number? How to get it?(I don't have any info about my i140 - only that it was approved and I have h1 extension petition of 3 yrs based on that.)
And did you request part info or full info therein? Your case is a light in tunnel- you got the info in about 3 months - right?
Thanks much
Yes, I got a CD from USCIS with all my I-140. I requested for copy of I-140 approval notice corresponding to I-140 tracking number SRC.XXXXXXXXXXX. This is the same number I got from my employer for online tracking on USCIS website. It took over 4 months. I submitted this as soon as got approval on my I-140. If you dont have the tracking number, you may try to get your A# from employer or attorney. You can use the same reason that you are changing address or that you need it for visa stamping. I believe they ask for A# in visa interview form.
I have heard that few people got the tracking number using Infopass. Not sure how. I would suggest, that do not delay. Submit the FOIA form with whatever info you have. They might be able to pull your records based on the SSN# or I-94# etc. No harm in trying. I didnt had A#, so I left it blank.
n_2006
01-15 03:31 PM
Do not worry. I will tell your name when I see them next time.
The pattern of these killings is so strange that most of the people that got killed are from AP.
My friends from AP, Be careful. They are coming after you :)
The pattern of these killings is so strange that most of the people that got killed are from AP.
My friends from AP, Be careful. They are coming after you :)
more...
GreenCard4US
03-10 07:56 PM
Hope my small donation helps. I am encouraging my friends to contribute.
Receipt number for this payment is: 2553-5233-6038-5007
Receipt number for this payment is: 2553-5233-6038-5007
2010 Learn Guitar Chords
sapota
08-21 11:52 PM
For EB3 India Apr 04 PD, 3 more years seems about right.
more...
boreal
05-13 12:17 PM
My heart really goes out for Neelima and her family! I also faced this kind of situation in my office to a lesser extent.
I am working as a permanent employee for a company and there are very few Asians working in this company. One of the business unit is outsourced to India and in our annual off-site meeting, the manager of that business unit sarcastically mentioned in the meeting infront of all the employees, how people in India lie about their resumes and how Indians are inefficient etc. etc. I felt so angry, sad and immediately walked out of the meeting.
Sorry to hear about such cases. We all have to realize one thing here. The employers need us equally bad as we need them (more often than not, not talking about Indian consultancies here). If ever one encounters such racial discrimination and open abuse at the work place, the best recourse is to file a complaint with the higher ups in the HR, start searching for another employer and ditch the current racist employer at the right moment with an appropriate email sent to everyone detailing why the person is leaving at such an important phase of the product development. Yeah, this might sound un-ethical, but sometimes situations do demand such drastic measures to send the right message. That's when all these racist employers would realize the importance of the person that just left the company. Then they can try to fill in the position with their preferred race qualified person and see how difficult that gets!!
Better still, please talk to your friends and family in other parts of the US and find the areas in the US that are cosmopolitan and try to move to those places. Yeah that is very difficult in the short-term, but in the long-run, you would have peace of mind and a good quality of life after making such a move. Fortunately, i am in the Bay area and i have rarely encountered such racial prejudices out here. Just my two cents.
Good luck.
I am working as a permanent employee for a company and there are very few Asians working in this company. One of the business unit is outsourced to India and in our annual off-site meeting, the manager of that business unit sarcastically mentioned in the meeting infront of all the employees, how people in India lie about their resumes and how Indians are inefficient etc. etc. I felt so angry, sad and immediately walked out of the meeting.
Sorry to hear about such cases. We all have to realize one thing here. The employers need us equally bad as we need them (more often than not, not talking about Indian consultancies here). If ever one encounters such racial discrimination and open abuse at the work place, the best recourse is to file a complaint with the higher ups in the HR, start searching for another employer and ditch the current racist employer at the right moment with an appropriate email sent to everyone detailing why the person is leaving at such an important phase of the product development. Yeah, this might sound un-ethical, but sometimes situations do demand such drastic measures to send the right message. That's when all these racist employers would realize the importance of the person that just left the company. Then they can try to fill in the position with their preferred race qualified person and see how difficult that gets!!
Better still, please talk to your friends and family in other parts of the US and find the areas in the US that are cosmopolitan and try to move to those places. Yeah that is very difficult in the short-term, but in the long-run, you would have peace of mind and a good quality of life after making such a move. Fortunately, i am in the Bay area and i have rarely encountered such racial prejudices out here. Just my two cents.
Good luck.
hair Guitar Chord Components Chart
LC2002
09-06 11:15 AM
It's just bad luck to get that kind of CBP officer. It's upto you to ignore this or escalate it. In my opinion behaviour of CBP officer was wrong.
If you want, You can write letter to Commisioner of CBP about the incidence, following is the address :
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/headquarters.xml
This happened in DC's large Dulles Intl airport.
If you want, You can write letter to Commisioner of CBP about the incidence, following is the address :
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/headquarters.xml
This happened in DC's large Dulles Intl airport.
more...
Bpositive
09-05 01:52 PM
you should possibly also carry a copy of the AP application. At least my application clearly stated that travel was for business/personal reasons...
I am sorry you had a bad experience...possibly because of the officer's ignorance...worth a complaint...maybe you can draft something with your lawyer....don't just ignore such bad behavior...
I have travelled on AP and didn't have any problems..although the officer stamped a wrong date (one day earlier) on my passport..talk about incompetence
I am sorry you had a bad experience...possibly because of the officer's ignorance...worth a complaint...maybe you can draft something with your lawyer....don't just ignore such bad behavior...
I have travelled on AP and didn't have any problems..although the officer stamped a wrong date (one day earlier) on my passport..talk about incompetence
hot Part of the Bass Guitar For
nixstor
04-25 07:20 PM
Possibly congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's own ideas.
more...
house blank guitar chords.
a1b2c3
10-06 10:31 PM
hope folks who weathered out 2001-02 recession on h1b, don't have to do it again without an approved gc.
tattoo 2010 Chart | Guitar Scale ass
srgadi
05-22 03:31 PM
Just signed up to contribute $20 per month. Will bump up the amount soon!!
more...
pictures Note: The sample for this
rkay
06-03 11:15 AM
Ronhia, I appreciate your comments. It needs conviction, dedication and consistent efforts to make such accomplishments. Moreover it also demonstrates the character of a person, who can motivate and inspire other kids in a positive way.. especially in an environment full of negative distractions.
If spelling bee competition is considered merely as just cramming the dictionary, as you rightly said we need to really spend some time looking beyond your own shell.
When you open a magazine, for sure, you tend to come across pages that may not be of interest to you. We skip the page and move on rather whining with words (yucky, stupid, senseless) that are inappropriate.
"Winning a national competition is not so great"... again it depends on what is so great to you !!!..
Well said. If some american kid had won, these same guys would have said "wow, how I wish .."
When it is our kids winning, it is all cheap and silly !
If spelling bee competition is considered merely as just cramming the dictionary, as you rightly said we need to really spend some time looking beyond your own shell.
When you open a magazine, for sure, you tend to come across pages that may not be of interest to you. We skip the page and move on rather whining with words (yucky, stupid, senseless) that are inappropriate.
"Winning a national competition is not so great"... again it depends on what is so great to you !!!..
Well said. If some american kid had won, these same guys would have said "wow, how I wish .."
When it is our kids winning, it is all cheap and silly !
dresses ass guitar notes diagram.
singam
09-07 03:48 AM
US economy is designed this way, everyone will get their own share. No one bothers about optimizing the chain and reducing the cost. If they do that whole economy will collapse. If people started sticking to one marriage and stop taking the divorces, these lawyers will not have work and that portion of economy will collapse. If you have time please watch this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4343898391323537541&hl=en
you will know more about US economy.
:D
Awesome lecture by Mr Venkatesh.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4343898391323537541&hl=en
you will know more about US economy.
:D
Awesome lecture by Mr Venkatesh.
more...
makeup Beginner Guitar Chord Chart
chanduv23
12-15 10:11 AM
Denied licenses, legal immigrants sue state Registry
Say status wrongly contested
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | December 15, 2006
Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles employees are routinely and unlawfully denying driver's licenses to immigrants who are here legally, according to a class-action law suit filed yesterday.
According to the suit, Registry workers asked the immigrants for proof of legal residency when they were not authorized to do so. The workers then denied licenses to the applicants, incorrectly concluding that the immigrants had not demonstrated they were in the United States legally, the suit alleges.
In all cases, the immigrants' lawyers said, the Registry workers were overstepping their legal authority and violating the immigrants' constitutional rights.
"They don't have the authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, who is representing the seven immigrants who brought the suit. "But they've taken it upon themselves to do it, and they're doing it wrong. It's not an isolated case here and there. This appears to be policy."
Wunsch said hundreds of other immigrants have similarly been denied licenses.
A spokeswoman for the Registry of Motor Vehicles declined to comment, saying Registry lawyers had not yet had a chance to review the lawsuit.
Under state policy, applicants for a driver's license must present proof of their identity by providing a valid Social Security number, which the Registry checks against a Social Security Administration database.
In order to obtain a valid Social Security number, an immigrant must be in the country legally. Applicants must also show proof of their age and address.
All of the plaintiffs presented valid Social Security numbers when they applied for licenses, Wunsch said. Even so, Registry workers rejected their applications.
In some of the cases, applicants were not given any reason why they were rejected. In the others, Registry employees improperly sought additional proof of the applicants' immigration status and then said the documents were not adequate.
Registry spokeswoman Amy Breton, speaking generally, said Registry employees do not enforce immigration laws.
But she added: "Certainly, we've had to become more familiar with immigration documents. We want to make sure we are issuing licenses to Massachusetts residents, because that is what the law calls for."
She said the Registry has been responsive to complaints that immigrants have been treated unfairly. On Wednesday night, the head of the agency, Registrar Anne L. Collins, met with about 300 immigrants and their advocates in Hyannis to hear their concerns about the license application process, she said.
In many cases, Breton said, immigrants who feel they have been unfairly denied a license can file an appeal, which costs $50.
Lawyers for the seven plaintiffs say their clients should not have to spend money to challenge what is clearly a discriminatory practice.
"The Registry seems to be asking immigrants to produce justification for their presence in the United States," said lead attorney Kenneth Berman of Nutter McClennen & Fish.
The lawyers said that the problems demonstrate the danger of having state employees who are not trained in immigration law taking on enforcement of that law.
Two immigrant advocacy groups are also plaintiffs in the suit, alleging that the Registry's discrimination against immigrants forces them to divert time and resources from other activities.
"This is extremely common," said Desmond FitzGerald, an immigration lawyer who represents four immigrants who were denied licenses in a separate case to be heard early next year. "We want the Registry to regulate the safety of our roads, not enforce immigration rules."
One of FitzGerald's clients, the wife of a prominent Spanish scientist who is in the United States on a visa reserved for persons of exceptional ability, was denied a license because Registry workers who asked for proof of her legal residency did not recognize her visa. After she sued the Registry, the agency settled the case, granting her a license.
One of the plaintiffs in the class action suit filed yesterday is an immigrant from Zimbabwe who has a pending application for asylum. The woman, a nurse, has work authorization and had already been granted a driver's license.
When she tried to renew that license this week, she produced her old license, her Social Security number, and proof of her car insurance coverage, which showed her address. Still, she was asked for her passport.
The woman, who fled political persecution in Zimbabwe, does not have a current, government-issued passport from that country. She showed the Registry employee a document showing that the US government had granted her permission to remain here. Her application was still denied, as was her daughter's application for a learner's permit.
"Given how dependent we all are on the right to drive an automobile, the denial of a license is causing real hardship to the people I represent," Berman said.
The issue of driver's licenses for immigrants has become highly charged over the past year, as the national debate on immigration has grown more fractious.
The question of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants was a matter of fierce dispute during this year's gubernatorial race, in which Governor-elect Deval Patrick said he would consider giving licenses to those who are here illegally. He was pilloried for that suggestion by his opponent, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, who with Governor Mitt Romney has taken an aggressive stance against illegal immigration.
Immigrants' advocates said they worry that the Republican administration's zeal is causing Registry employees to punish immigrants who had followed all the rules.
Earlier this year, I haad problems getting a driver's lisence in CT, the officer would not accept my h1b papers and would say it is fake. I wrote a strong complaint to DMV and they replied back to me that I must go back to DMV and go through the process again and if I have trouble again, I must report to DMV. I went next time and I got it.
Most times it is improper education that makes people do it. They keep hearing negative thhings about immigrants and they be advised by their bosses to strictly scrutinize immigrants, and they try to experiment their crack down on us. It is very unfortunate that such things are happening.
There seems to be an agenda to catch illegal immigrants. As Illegals who cross the border are getting busted through raids, those who violate visa regulations or overstay visas, or do not have proper work authorization come under strict scrutiny when they approach govt agencies. Unfortunately, it is us legal immigrants who are bearing the brunt because we also go through the same scrutinity. DMV people are not educated in immigration law ,so is the common public and it is this process that's hurting us a lot.
Say status wrongly contested
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | December 15, 2006
Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles employees are routinely and unlawfully denying driver's licenses to immigrants who are here legally, according to a class-action law suit filed yesterday.
According to the suit, Registry workers asked the immigrants for proof of legal residency when they were not authorized to do so. The workers then denied licenses to the applicants, incorrectly concluding that the immigrants had not demonstrated they were in the United States legally, the suit alleges.
In all cases, the immigrants' lawyers said, the Registry workers were overstepping their legal authority and violating the immigrants' constitutional rights.
"They don't have the authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, who is representing the seven immigrants who brought the suit. "But they've taken it upon themselves to do it, and they're doing it wrong. It's not an isolated case here and there. This appears to be policy."
Wunsch said hundreds of other immigrants have similarly been denied licenses.
A spokeswoman for the Registry of Motor Vehicles declined to comment, saying Registry lawyers had not yet had a chance to review the lawsuit.
Under state policy, applicants for a driver's license must present proof of their identity by providing a valid Social Security number, which the Registry checks against a Social Security Administration database.
In order to obtain a valid Social Security number, an immigrant must be in the country legally. Applicants must also show proof of their age and address.
All of the plaintiffs presented valid Social Security numbers when they applied for licenses, Wunsch said. Even so, Registry workers rejected their applications.
In some of the cases, applicants were not given any reason why they were rejected. In the others, Registry employees improperly sought additional proof of the applicants' immigration status and then said the documents were not adequate.
Registry spokeswoman Amy Breton, speaking generally, said Registry employees do not enforce immigration laws.
But she added: "Certainly, we've had to become more familiar with immigration documents. We want to make sure we are issuing licenses to Massachusetts residents, because that is what the law calls for."
She said the Registry has been responsive to complaints that immigrants have been treated unfairly. On Wednesday night, the head of the agency, Registrar Anne L. Collins, met with about 300 immigrants and their advocates in Hyannis to hear their concerns about the license application process, she said.
In many cases, Breton said, immigrants who feel they have been unfairly denied a license can file an appeal, which costs $50.
Lawyers for the seven plaintiffs say their clients should not have to spend money to challenge what is clearly a discriminatory practice.
"The Registry seems to be asking immigrants to produce justification for their presence in the United States," said lead attorney Kenneth Berman of Nutter McClennen & Fish.
The lawyers said that the problems demonstrate the danger of having state employees who are not trained in immigration law taking on enforcement of that law.
Two immigrant advocacy groups are also plaintiffs in the suit, alleging that the Registry's discrimination against immigrants forces them to divert time and resources from other activities.
"This is extremely common," said Desmond FitzGerald, an immigration lawyer who represents four immigrants who were denied licenses in a separate case to be heard early next year. "We want the Registry to regulate the safety of our roads, not enforce immigration rules."
One of FitzGerald's clients, the wife of a prominent Spanish scientist who is in the United States on a visa reserved for persons of exceptional ability, was denied a license because Registry workers who asked for proof of her legal residency did not recognize her visa. After she sued the Registry, the agency settled the case, granting her a license.
One of the plaintiffs in the class action suit filed yesterday is an immigrant from Zimbabwe who has a pending application for asylum. The woman, a nurse, has work authorization and had already been granted a driver's license.
When she tried to renew that license this week, she produced her old license, her Social Security number, and proof of her car insurance coverage, which showed her address. Still, she was asked for her passport.
The woman, who fled political persecution in Zimbabwe, does not have a current, government-issued passport from that country. She showed the Registry employee a document showing that the US government had granted her permission to remain here. Her application was still denied, as was her daughter's application for a learner's permit.
"Given how dependent we all are on the right to drive an automobile, the denial of a license is causing real hardship to the people I represent," Berman said.
The issue of driver's licenses for immigrants has become highly charged over the past year, as the national debate on immigration has grown more fractious.
The question of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants was a matter of fierce dispute during this year's gubernatorial race, in which Governor-elect Deval Patrick said he would consider giving licenses to those who are here illegally. He was pilloried for that suggestion by his opponent, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, who with Governor Mitt Romney has taken an aggressive stance against illegal immigration.
Immigrants' advocates said they worry that the Republican administration's zeal is causing Registry employees to punish immigrants who had followed all the rules.
Earlier this year, I haad problems getting a driver's lisence in CT, the officer would not accept my h1b papers and would say it is fake. I wrote a strong complaint to DMV and they replied back to me that I must go back to DMV and go through the process again and if I have trouble again, I must report to DMV. I went next time and I got it.
Most times it is improper education that makes people do it. They keep hearing negative thhings about immigrants and they be advised by their bosses to strictly scrutinize immigrants, and they try to experiment their crack down on us. It is very unfortunate that such things are happening.
There seems to be an agenda to catch illegal immigrants. As Illegals who cross the border are getting busted through raids, those who violate visa regulations or overstay visas, or do not have proper work authorization come under strict scrutiny when they approach govt agencies. Unfortunately, it is us legal immigrants who are bearing the brunt because we also go through the same scrutinity. DMV people are not educated in immigration law ,so is the common public and it is this process that's hurting us a lot.
girlfriend 3-key-chord-chart.
mhkumar
02-18 01:57 PM
I filed FOIA request for my i-140 approval notice(using i-140 receipt #) and I got the response from USCIS. Surprisingly they said they were not able to find my approval
notice. They could find my i-140 petition and sent me copies to 2 pages from
the petition. I am not sure why they couldn't find the approval notice.
I double checked my FOIA request and I mentioned the receipt number correctly.
On the USCIS case status page, it clearly shows that i-140 is approved.
I have the i-i40 receipt notice. Are there any alternatives?
notice. They could find my i-140 petition and sent me copies to 2 pages from
the petition. I am not sure why they couldn't find the approval notice.
I double checked my FOIA request and I mentioned the receipt number correctly.
On the USCIS case status page, it clearly shows that i-140 is approved.
I have the i-i40 receipt notice. Are there any alternatives?
hairstyles Program Name: Bass Guitar Mode
malaGCPahije
09-26 03:53 PM
Why is llc less risk? i know that the legal paper trail requirements are lower... but i dont know of any other major benefit than ability to share profit and loss disproportionate to ownership stake... which could be a double edged sword too... what risk is covered in llc that is not covered in corp?
in fact i chose corp because it was cheaper.... thats it.
the low risk lies in the fact that any adverse decision you may have to take ever (God forbid) like bankruptcy does not affect your own personal credit history and assets. I am not sure whether the same exists for corp or not. So I may be wrong regarding the low risk factor of LLC. But I always had the notion of starting any venture as an LLC and then moving on to a corp.
in fact i chose corp because it was cheaper.... thats it.
the low risk lies in the fact that any adverse decision you may have to take ever (God forbid) like bankruptcy does not affect your own personal credit history and assets. I am not sure whether the same exists for corp or not. So I may be wrong regarding the low risk factor of LLC. But I always had the notion of starting any venture as an LLC and then moving on to a corp.
spicy_guy
04-19 12:29 PM
change - that is all that is left in my pocket
lol!
lol!
lazycis
12-11 02:57 PM
Send email to who ? Can you pls describe in detail what email they need to send and what reason they need to put in. My local office always says NSC is processing July cases so you should have it soon, but that "soon" has never happened. It is 160+ days since I applied.
If you haven't tried it yet, try to follow the procedure I described on the 1st page
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=199646&postcount=3
The only reason you need is that yor EAD app is pending more than 90 days. Ask for a receipt that they followed procedures outlined in memo. They have to contact service center where your I-765 is pending and request expedite processing. You can also print federal regulations
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26mar20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/janqtr/pdf/8cfr274a.13.pdf
Section 274a.13(d) sets that 90 days deadline.
If you haven't tried it yet, try to follow the procedure I described on the 1st page
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=199646&postcount=3
The only reason you need is that yor EAD app is pending more than 90 days. Ask for a receipt that they followed procedures outlined in memo. They have to contact service center where your I-765 is pending and request expedite processing. You can also print federal regulations
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26mar20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/janqtr/pdf/8cfr274a.13.pdf
Section 274a.13(d) sets that 90 days deadline.
No comments:
Post a Comment