gin07
02-20 12:33 PM
hey guys in one of the forum you r talking about some A# in H1 approval under beneficiary box......but in my approval i don't have any number.....what does it mean??? i have to face PIMS problem:mad:
wallpaper Pretty Woman and Julia
caliguy
10-22 05:19 PM
@ fatjoe
I will call them tomorrow to find the status. Thanks for providing the phone #.
Btw, can you send me a pvt msg with your email address? Thanks!
Did you send 7001 to Ombudsman? So, Ombudsman is also hopeless?
Did you call them to find out the status? Here is Om's #, in case you don't know: 202-282-8000. Call them and update us as well.
[/QUOTE]
I will call them tomorrow to find the status. Thanks for providing the phone #.
Btw, can you send me a pvt msg with your email address? Thanks!
Did you send 7001 to Ombudsman? So, Ombudsman is also hopeless?
Did you call them to find out the status? Here is Om's #, in case you don't know: 202-282-8000. Call them and update us as well.
[/QUOTE]
Libra
07-09 10:06 PM
If she know the actual problem she wouldn't have said that, she has only half knowledge about the pain many of guys took. so its waste of time to responding to her post. ignore her.
Ms. Smitha nobody became voilent when you said India is great, ok? so cut it off stop visiting this forum so that you'll and others get some peace of mind.
I agree what you said but why the heck the USCIS make my life restless for 2 weeks. i spent 5000 dollors for nothing... that is what we are asking for not to go ahead of people with older priority dates
Ms. Smitha nobody became voilent when you said India is great, ok? so cut it off stop visiting this forum so that you'll and others get some peace of mind.
I agree what you said but why the heck the USCIS make my life restless for 2 weeks. i spent 5000 dollors for nothing... that is what we are asking for not to go ahead of people with older priority dates
2011 Favorite Movie: Pretty Woman,
wandmaker
01-14 08:05 AM
^^^^^^
more...
sammyb
02-25 03:49 PM
And called the DOS customer help line to check if my H1B info is there in the PIMS system... what the lady told me is unless I submit my application at the US consulate abroad they can�t check the status .. Let me know if others have different experience...
This whole PIMS thing becoming a pain for people like us :mad: ... wish they did import all the petition info first before releasing this system to all the US missions abroad...
Veeru123,
What number did you call DOS at? I am also going to India and want to make sure my info is there in PIMS database.
Thanks in advance.
This whole PIMS thing becoming a pain for people like us :mad: ... wish they did import all the petition info first before releasing this system to all the US missions abroad...
Veeru123,
What number did you call DOS at? I am also going to India and want to make sure my info is there in PIMS database.
Thanks in advance.
abhijitp
07-09 07:15 PM
First: They will ignore you (that's what preciously happened for so many years, no ear eager to listen about the problems of legal immigrants)
Second: They will laugh at you (that's what is taking place. Instead of accepting the mistake and offering an apology, USCIS has only issued a statement about forwarding flowers to Army Medical Center)
Third: They fight with you (I guess that's what they are gonna do in the court)
Fouth: Finally you win.
So stay tuned guys ...... victory is not far away!!
BTW whether or (as someone said, more likely) not we are strictly following Gandhian principles, I am sure he would have been unhappy for people who opt for inaction as opposed to any peaceful means of protest.
Second: They will laugh at you (that's what is taking place. Instead of accepting the mistake and offering an apology, USCIS has only issued a statement about forwarding flowers to Army Medical Center)
Third: They fight with you (I guess that's what they are gonna do in the court)
Fouth: Finally you win.
So stay tuned guys ...... victory is not far away!!
BTW whether or (as someone said, more likely) not we are strictly following Gandhian principles, I am sure he would have been unhappy for people who opt for inaction as opposed to any peaceful means of protest.
more...
ItIsNotFunny
11-14 04:12 PM
Bump ^^^^
2010 julia roberts pretty woman
sheela
09-11 09:27 PM
I will call as many
more...
sve0390
07-09 06:35 PM
Is this for real???
Can you post a link here?
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Can you post a link here?
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f4b3076eb0f93110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1958b0aaa86fa010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
hair Julia Roberts in Pretty
puddonhead
06-18 12:58 PM
>> I disagree. By not reporting the fraud at workplace, it puts rest of workforce not at level playing field.
Hmmm.. Level playing field. You mean the field where you set the rules? UAW did that in GM - you know?
If there is someone who can do my job cheaper or better or more efficiently - by all means it should go to him. I need to then find something where I am good at. Thats what competition is! Of course - this "efficiency" can not come by illegal behavior. Illegal behavior (like the L1 fraud) has other hidden problems.
So on your question about "l1 fraud": by all means I am for reporting it. However, there is another overriding concern for ALL OF US - how will the economy behave? I dont want to worsen things by "reporting fraud" at a mass scale right now and create trouble for companies that are already suffering. I will do that when that will be beneficial for the US Economy (translation - "all of us - even citizens").
I am not for tolerating or condoning illegal behavior - however, I am all for moderating my responses and prioritizing the fights. I am also for not behaving like the UAW members.
>> You are right. If you are not impacted by fraud, one will be least interested in reporting the fraud. Only when you get impacted, the fraud appears real and serious.
You are reading between the lines too literally - so much so that you misinterpret everything like the bible-thumpers. Impact "me" = Impact "us" = Impact "everybody in the US - including the US Citizens".
>> Taking your example further, due to budget constraints, the manager will be more inclined to replace workers to L1 workers to save cost. Do you want this? This will impact people in short term.
Same answer as the first question.
It's a pretty nuanced position. I hope I have been able to explain it properly.
Hmmm.. Level playing field. You mean the field where you set the rules? UAW did that in GM - you know?
If there is someone who can do my job cheaper or better or more efficiently - by all means it should go to him. I need to then find something where I am good at. Thats what competition is! Of course - this "efficiency" can not come by illegal behavior. Illegal behavior (like the L1 fraud) has other hidden problems.
So on your question about "l1 fraud": by all means I am for reporting it. However, there is another overriding concern for ALL OF US - how will the economy behave? I dont want to worsen things by "reporting fraud" at a mass scale right now and create trouble for companies that are already suffering. I will do that when that will be beneficial for the US Economy (translation - "all of us - even citizens").
I am not for tolerating or condoning illegal behavior - however, I am all for moderating my responses and prioritizing the fights. I am also for not behaving like the UAW members.
>> You are right. If you are not impacted by fraud, one will be least interested in reporting the fraud. Only when you get impacted, the fraud appears real and serious.
You are reading between the lines too literally - so much so that you misinterpret everything like the bible-thumpers. Impact "me" = Impact "us" = Impact "everybody in the US - including the US Citizens".
>> Taking your example further, due to budget constraints, the manager will be more inclined to replace workers to L1 workers to save cost. Do you want this? This will impact people in short term.
Same answer as the first question.
It's a pretty nuanced position. I hope I have been able to explain it properly.
more...
indio0617
07-09 06:39 PM
This is perfect. It will drag more media attention!!!
Yes Guys. Keep it up. The message will be LOUD and CLEAR now. Make sure that all of you communicate this to the media, whoever you talk to.
Yes Guys. Keep it up. The message will be LOUD and CLEAR now. Make sure that all of you communicate this to the media, whoever you talk to.
hot hot Pretty Woman (1990) julia
pmb76
07-14 06:08 PM
I was Just watching CNN and was reporting a part of Lou Dobbs episode,
Tom Tancredo saying people overstay on H-1B after its "5 year" Expiration.
I think he do not even have a clue about H-1 B programme.
Sometimes I wonder how these bozos get elected to office. These congressmen who misread the law, how can they get away with making such false statements over mainstream national media ? What is particularly appalling is , why haven't we heard any outbursts from media or other government quarters challenging his statements. What a mess...
Tom Tancredo saying people overstay on H-1B after its "5 year" Expiration.
I think he do not even have a clue about H-1 B programme.
Sometimes I wonder how these bozos get elected to office. These congressmen who misread the law, how can they get away with making such false statements over mainstream national media ? What is particularly appalling is , why haven't we heard any outbursts from media or other government quarters challenging his statements. What a mess...
more...
house Pretty Woman actress Julia
dealsnet
08-25 03:28 PM
You are wrong.
You will get 200 minutes to call India for $1. You will get 2 minutes of talk time for 1 cent.
Also unlimited US minutes.
Ok...the way I see this is 5000min/month at $25 (not adding taxes) is 5 cents a minutes...that is more than what I pay for my calling cards....bottom line....if your monthly calling bill is less than $ 25 there is no reason why you should get Vonage.
You will get 200 minutes to call India for $1. You will get 2 minutes of talk time for 1 cent.
Also unlimited US minutes.
Ok...the way I see this is 5000min/month at $25 (not adding taxes) is 5 cents a minutes...that is more than what I pay for my calling cards....bottom line....if your monthly calling bill is less than $ 25 there is no reason why you should get Vonage.
tattoo julia roberts pretty woman wig
serg
07-09 09:48 PM
we are giving USCIS options on how to deal with the campaign.
If they really do forward the flowers they need to think about seperating notes from flowers.
They will pay a smaaaaaaaall amount to delivery guys who will strip all notes and that's it. Or they could say "it's gov. necessity' to remove a message from bucket, and it will be free. :(
If they really do forward the flowers they need to think about seperating notes from flowers.
They will pay a smaaaaaaaall amount to delivery guys who will strip all notes and that's it. Or they could say "it's gov. necessity' to remove a message from bucket, and it will be free. :(
more...
pictures My hair is way better
sledge_hammer
07-10 02:13 PM
http://rodeo.cincinnati.com/getlocal/gpstory.aspx?id=100110&sid=115119
Flowers to Convey Hopes and Concerns of Skilled, Legal Immigrants
Contributed By Karthik Kumaraguru...
Flowers to Convey Hopes and Concerns of Skilled, Legal Immigrants
Contributed By Karthik Kumaraguru...
dresses Julia Roberts was named the
sundarpn
01-02 12:27 AM
This is useful info. But scary :(:mad:
I was planning to get my h1b visa revalidation done at Chennai end of Jan '08.
Can anyone who goes for H1b revalidation post their experiences?
is this showing any signs of improvement?
I was planning to get my h1b visa revalidation done at Chennai end of Jan '08.
Can anyone who goes for H1b revalidation post their experiences?
is this showing any signs of improvement?
more...
makeup ACTRESS JULIA ROBERTS HAIR
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
girlfriend Pretty Woman Pictures: Julia
purplehazea
05-09 11:56 AM
Diana,
It makes sense to file concurrently only when PD is current. Otherwise it is like applying for your citizenship before getting your GC!
In other words I do not understand why your lawyer wants you to file concurrently when your PD is not current. Just to collect his fees? Maybe. He is at least right aboout the fact that USCIS will do nothing with your I485 application unless your PD is current. So I would just wait till your PD is current. You can still file for your I140 and wait for that to get processed.
Regards,
PH
I am not an attorney, so you will appreciate that any reliance is at your will.
It makes sense to file concurrently only when PD is current. Otherwise it is like applying for your citizenship before getting your GC!
In other words I do not understand why your lawyer wants you to file concurrently when your PD is not current. Just to collect his fees? Maybe. He is at least right aboout the fact that USCIS will do nothing with your I485 application unless your PD is current. So I would just wait till your PD is current. You can still file for your I140 and wait for that to get processed.
Regards,
PH
I am not an attorney, so you will appreciate that any reliance is at your will.
hairstyles To me, Julia Roberts is one of
PD_Dec2002
06-21 08:20 AM
I cannot name any lawyers in my post, so I leave it up to you whether to treat this as serious advice or not...
My lawyer says USCIS does not allow one person to be represented in more than one 485 applications....whether the person is primary or beneficiary.
My wife's lawyer (I won't name this lawyer either) says there is no prohibition on filing multiple 485s.....however, it's just a waste of money (her opinion).
Thanks,
Jayant
My lawyer says USCIS does not allow one person to be represented in more than one 485 applications....whether the person is primary or beneficiary.
My wife's lawyer (I won't name this lawyer either) says there is no prohibition on filing multiple 485s.....however, it's just a waste of money (her opinion).
Thanks,
Jayant
yabadaba
01-08 09:29 AM
example of a personal blurb
Sir, I came to the United States of America 8 years back. I graduated from <xyz> University with a Masters in <XYZ> and started working for <ABC> company where I hold the position of <ABC>. While in many respects I live the American dream of participating in a thriving economy, the dream is still incomplete because I cannot buy a home because the lenders do not consider me as a viable risk considering my Employment Authorization Document is valid for 1 year. According to them I am a risky prospect although I can easily put down 20% of the house value and have a stellar credit rating. This weighs on my mind heavily and many people I know are contemplating moving to other economies of the world to take advantage of a fairer immigration policy. In other circles I am also aware of developing nations trying to lure back their citizens to boost their Research and Development potential.
another one:
Sir, I came to the United States of America 8 years back. I graduated from <xyz> University with a Masters in <XYZ> and started working for <ABC> company where I hold the position of <ABC>. While in many respects I live the American dream of participating in a thriving economy, the dream is still incomplete because under the work visa provisions my wife of <x> years cannot work inspite of having a <MBA> from <XYZ> University. Many people I know are contemplating moving to other economies of the world to take advantage of a fairer immigration policy. In other circles I am also aware of developing nations trying to lure back their citizens to boost their Research and Development potential.
Sir, I came to the United States of America 8 years back. I graduated from <xyz> University with a Masters in <XYZ> and started working for <ABC> company where I hold the position of <ABC>. While in many respects I live the American dream of participating in a thriving economy, the dream is still incomplete because I cannot buy a home because the lenders do not consider me as a viable risk considering my Employment Authorization Document is valid for 1 year. According to them I am a risky prospect although I can easily put down 20% of the house value and have a stellar credit rating. This weighs on my mind heavily and many people I know are contemplating moving to other economies of the world to take advantage of a fairer immigration policy. In other circles I am also aware of developing nations trying to lure back their citizens to boost their Research and Development potential.
another one:
Sir, I came to the United States of America 8 years back. I graduated from <xyz> University with a Masters in <XYZ> and started working for <ABC> company where I hold the position of <ABC>. While in many respects I live the American dream of participating in a thriving economy, the dream is still incomplete because under the work visa provisions my wife of <x> years cannot work inspite of having a <MBA> from <XYZ> University. Many people I know are contemplating moving to other economies of the world to take advantage of a fairer immigration policy. In other circles I am also aware of developing nations trying to lure back their citizens to boost their Research and Development potential.
wantgc23
09-23 08:28 PM
Something is screwed up.....
Mexico has over 2000 cases in April 2001 yet its PD is May 1st 2001
India has less 500 cases in April 2001 yet its PD is Apr 15 2001
This along with CIS giving "bad/incorrect" data to IV is indication of someone's malicious intentions.
...
Indeed very interesting ...
Mexico has over 2000 cases in April 2001 yet its PD is May 1st 2001
India has less 500 cases in April 2001 yet its PD is Apr 15 2001
This along with CIS giving "bad/incorrect" data to IV is indication of someone's malicious intentions.
...
Indeed very interesting ...
