mmk123
09-13 11:40 AM
There is NO Eb1/Eb2/Eb3 divide for our cause... the issue is unfair country based quota for highly skilled immigrants. I have many friends who are rotting in EB3 even though they qualify for EB2 (due to company policies).. one of Ivy League PhD graduates I know is rotting in EB2 (C).. so these are thin lines..
Only solution is to convince lawmakers about our genuine issues using correct, democratic, non fear-mongering ways.
Healthcare debate is a good indicator of what is coming next... fasten your seat belts and be ready!
one more thing i want to add: let's not worry about ppl using wrong ways to get this GC, they will fail in long run or get caught somewhere else. They will have to pay for this during their lifetime only. And BTW, this also includes L1 managers. Our lives is not only GC, it is much more than that. Easier said than done.. but that's how we convince ourselves.
Only solution is to convince lawmakers about our genuine issues using correct, democratic, non fear-mongering ways.
Healthcare debate is a good indicator of what is coming next... fasten your seat belts and be ready!
one more thing i want to add: let's not worry about ppl using wrong ways to get this GC, they will fail in long run or get caught somewhere else. They will have to pay for this during their lifetime only. And BTW, this also includes L1 managers. Our lives is not only GC, it is much more than that. Easier said than done.. but that's how we convince ourselves.
wallpaper derrick rose shirtless. pictures of derrick rose; pictures of derrick rose
arihant
10-26 05:13 PM
A) Yes, you can transfer the pending h1 extension to premium.
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
Thank you for your response. ANy idea how long the conversion would take?
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
Thank you for your response. ANy idea how long the conversion would take?
Canuck
02-03 01:50 AM
People,
The country listed here is country of citizenship. We all know though that GCs are granted based on country of birth. Thus, there may be even more people charged to India than listed. Conversely, you may have a couple of Indian citizens who were not born in India that will fall in the ROW category...
The country listed here is country of citizenship. We all know though that GCs are granted based on country of birth. Thus, there may be even more people charged to India than listed. Conversely, you may have a couple of Indian citizens who were not born in India that will fall in the ROW category...
2011 Joakim Noah, Derrick Rose,
DDLMODES
07-05 02:48 PM
Until they say is open again, it is still closed.
I don't think they will say that until 2 weeks have passed and they put out all I-140's they had in premium processing...
I don't think they will say that until 2 weeks have passed and they put out all I-140's they had in premium processing...
more...
nav_kri
04-01 08:09 PM
Yes, the info is right
Found this text at http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/srsvisaholder.html
Important note: A new and updated version of the AINP Occupations Under Pressure List for the Strategic Recruitment Stream � U.S. Visa Holder Category will be posted to this site on April 15, 2009. Any applications postmarked before April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the list currently posted. All applications postmarked on or after April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the revised list that will be posted on April 15, 2009.
Found this text at http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/immigrate/srsvisaholder.html
Important note: A new and updated version of the AINP Occupations Under Pressure List for the Strategic Recruitment Stream � U.S. Visa Holder Category will be posted to this site on April 15, 2009. Any applications postmarked before April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the list currently posted. All applications postmarked on or after April 15, 2009 will be assessed based on the revised list that will be posted on April 15, 2009.
fide_champ
08-04 06:50 PM
Hi,
Thanks , for point 3 , I can apply for premium COS with future date as effective(say 6 weeks from now) , I will know on approval within 2 weeks since its a premium n then i can get my family here since I know for sure L1-H1 is approved , this will avoid family either going to stamping at chennai or every one (all of us) leaving back to india due to non approval of COS. But now Major question is , if I apply for premium COS will it be possible to include dependents COS as well in the same request , with dependents currently being in India ? or if i were to apply COS for them after they are here , will it be same cost n procedure as mine (COS that was successfully processed just for myself)?
You cannot do a COS for them while they are in india. It would be better if you can apply COS for all including yourself at the sametime to avoid complications. Basically the COS for your family must be applied before your COS gets approved. I suggest you speak with a lawyer for exact interpretation of rules.
Thanks , for point 3 , I can apply for premium COS with future date as effective(say 6 weeks from now) , I will know on approval within 2 weeks since its a premium n then i can get my family here since I know for sure L1-H1 is approved , this will avoid family either going to stamping at chennai or every one (all of us) leaving back to india due to non approval of COS. But now Major question is , if I apply for premium COS will it be possible to include dependents COS as well in the same request , with dependents currently being in India ? or if i were to apply COS for them after they are here , will it be same cost n procedure as mine (COS that was successfully processed just for myself)?
You cannot do a COS for them while they are in india. It would be better if you can apply COS for all including yourself at the sametime to avoid complications. Basically the COS for your family must be applied before your COS gets approved. I suggest you speak with a lawyer for exact interpretation of rules.
more...
maine_gc
04-20 03:30 PM
Thankk You Sunny1000. This is very helpful information. I will go to the nearest international airport and get it corrected. Thank you all for your advice. I will post here when i resolved the issue
2010 derrick rose tattoos 2011.
kaisersose
06-02 01:42 PM
you are right, but isnt that found only when you are travelling outside of the USA? If I am in USA till i get a gc and then add my wife, how will anyone know if she is out of status ?
If they know you changed employers to use EAD (your previous employer has to cancel your H-1b by law which also cancels the H-4), then they will know.
Check some of the RFEs that are coming in these days. They want to see documentation in support of lawful presence right from day one of the applicant's entry, even if it was 10 years ago.
If they know you changed employers to use EAD (your previous employer has to cancel your H-1b by law which also cancels the H-4), then they will know.
Check some of the RFEs that are coming in these days. They want to see documentation in support of lawful presence right from day one of the applicant's entry, even if it was 10 years ago.
more...
DudefromBombay
09-23 01:20 PM
I am eagerly waiting for the Nov Election results. Can't wait to see Democtas losing House and Senate and can't wait to see the Back of "BARRACK"
hair Brady looks how I feel about
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
more...
avi101
04-12 04:41 PM
I don't think the flaw is with Labor substitution per se. The problem is with the assignment of labor's original priority date to the new substituted alien.
An individual gets attached to the labor at the I140 stage, and thats the date they should use for substituted labor applications. This along with Perm's (ideal) processing times would make labor substitution insignificant.
Source:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-1248.htm
From above Source:
---------------------
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed rule on or before April 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB42, by any of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be submitted by e-mail to
fraud.comments@dol.gov. Include RIN 1205-AB42 in the subject line of
the message.
An individual gets attached to the labor at the I140 stage, and thats the date they should use for substituted labor applications. This along with Perm's (ideal) processing times would make labor substitution insignificant.
Source:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-1248.htm
From above Source:
---------------------
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed rule on or before April 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB42, by any of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be submitted by e-mail to
fraud.comments@dol.gov. Include RIN 1205-AB42 in the subject line of
the message.
hot With Derrick Rose emerging as
thomachan72
04-15 03:52 PM
My LC is still in process after auditing (EB2). My employer wants to 'drastically' cut back my salary due the national depression, which is particularly affecting the field my company is operating in (sub-primes). If he does that, and I accept it, is LC in jeopardy? We filed back in September 2007 with a certain salary and now it will be lower. Do we have to communicate the change to the DOL? And if yes, what will happen? Do we have to re-file? Thank you to everybody for all the info you can give me! Really!:(
For your H1b labor aproval the company has provided both the salary they are offering you as well as the prevailing wages for that particular job catagory. I dont think it is legal for the company to pay you below what was guranteed while hiring you, particulary as it goes against the basic requirement for H1b, which is to pay equal to or above the prevailing wages. Now due to economic depression, if the prevailing wages have decreased and the labor department has taken that into account maybe things might be different. See, the basic question is whether I can obtain a H1b worker promising 100K and later pay him 65k, citing general conditions like recession?
For your H1b labor aproval the company has provided both the salary they are offering you as well as the prevailing wages for that particular job catagory. I dont think it is legal for the company to pay you below what was guranteed while hiring you, particulary as it goes against the basic requirement for H1b, which is to pay equal to or above the prevailing wages. Now due to economic depression, if the prevailing wages have decreased and the labor department has taken that into account maybe things might be different. See, the basic question is whether I can obtain a H1b worker promising 100K and later pay him 65k, citing general conditions like recession?
more...
house derrick rose carlos boozer
cessua
10-13 07:09 PM
How much of an argument we have if US keeps toping rankings of most competitive countries to do business in the world?
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5454.html
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/BCI.pdf
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5454.html
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/BCI.pdf
tattoo derrick rose dunks on barbosa.
vjkypally
03-17 10:40 AM
You cant just divide 500000 by 3. The numbers are not same for all categories.Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
more...
pictures pictures of derrick rose
reachinus
10-31 12:40 PM
I am not sure what you want to say over here...
I told you are wrong in saying that they may issue the I-94 till the expiry of the Visa Stamp.
Well. In non-immigrant visa admissions at POE, ICE officers has their own "power" in determining the period of stay. Even if anyone has 10 year visa stamp, they can admit only for 10 days if they want; no one can argue/challange it at POE. Further truth is; even they can deny admission to GC holder if they want or if they found something fishy. Nothing is guarentee at POE as well as in consulate for getting non-immigrant visa. So, the departure date in latest I-94 is the important date to comply with (to leave US or extend on time).
I told you are wrong in saying that they may issue the I-94 till the expiry of the Visa Stamp.
Well. In non-immigrant visa admissions at POE, ICE officers has their own "power" in determining the period of stay. Even if anyone has 10 year visa stamp, they can admit only for 10 days if they want; no one can argue/challange it at POE. Further truth is; even they can deny admission to GC holder if they want or if they found something fishy. Nothing is guarentee at POE as well as in consulate for getting non-immigrant visa. So, the departure date in latest I-94 is the important date to comply with (to leave US or extend on time).
dresses photoshoot shirtless 2011.
desi3933
09-05 05:53 PM
Thanks, nice reply.
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
The minimum California franchise tax is the amount a California corp must pay the first quarter of each tax year whether it is active, operates at a loss or does not do business. The current minimum tax is $800.
The $800 tax payment is not due during the corporation's FIRST tax year. The first $800 minimum tax is due on the 15th day of the 4th month of the corporation's SECOND tax year.
Please note that LLCs are liable for the minimum franchise tax in all years (no two year exemption for LLCs).
Please check details with California Franchise Tax Board. The web site is http://www.ftb.ca.gov
*** Disclaimer - This is general info and use it at your own risk *****
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
The minimum California franchise tax is the amount a California corp must pay the first quarter of each tax year whether it is active, operates at a loss or does not do business. The current minimum tax is $800.
The $800 tax payment is not due during the corporation's FIRST tax year. The first $800 minimum tax is due on the 15th day of the 4th month of the corporation's SECOND tax year.
Please note that LLCs are liable for the minimum franchise tax in all years (no two year exemption for LLCs).
Please check details with California Franchise Tax Board. The web site is http://www.ftb.ca.gov
*** Disclaimer - This is general info and use it at your own risk *****
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
more...
makeup Four Derrick Rose
bfadlia
03-22 09:51 AM
may be two weeks later than the website indicated, but i got the approval.
girlfriend derrick rose photo shoot
rnvd
10-30 03:48 PM
Hi all,
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
hairstyles pictures of derrick rose
a_paul1
03-30 01:48 PM
If no, you deserve this and rot in hell.
How in the world did you get so many greens??
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
How in the world did you get so many greens??
You have done your bit. Great! But that doesnt mean everyone has to believe in what you believe. You are acting as if you made a mistake by contributing to IV because other people are not contributing and that is frustrating to you. Please don't think you are doing a favor to anybody by contributing to IV. You are doing it for your own benefit. If somebody doesn't want to contribute, that's fine. Nobody needs a preaching here.
Contributing to IV is not the only possible contribution that a person may make to this world.
GCKaMaara
10-15 11:58 AM
I think that is the humanitarian parole......but there have been over aggressive officers at the POE who mix up the two......
My suggestion to you is use your H1B(if possible) or take an infopass and get an expedited AP.
I Second this idea.
My suggestion to you is use your H1B(if possible) or take an infopass and get an expedited AP.
I Second this idea.
dixie
08-23 11:37 PM
Recognize that there are many among us who have Phds from top 5 schools and are currently employed as professors and researchers. Many of them are in EB-2 and going through this same BS as you and me. If you feel so frustrated and betrayed, imagine what these professors and researchers must be going through. Life is never fair .. that is nature's way.
Some people will inevitably get a GC on a platter .. whether that is by way of winning a diversity lottery, or family immigration or a fake marriage. No point wasting time in self-pity.
People who did BSc and BA...have gotten thier Gc approved recently...by getting pre-approved..LC's applying in e2-rir even though they do not qualify in EB2.people who did MS from top schools and stayed with good companies are in e2/ e3 categories are in BEC.....What an irony..
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
Some people will inevitably get a GC on a platter .. whether that is by way of winning a diversity lottery, or family immigration or a fake marriage. No point wasting time in self-pity.
People who did BSc and BA...have gotten thier Gc approved recently...by getting pre-approved..LC's applying in e2-rir even though they do not qualify in EB2.people who did MS from top schools and stayed with good companies are in e2/ e3 categories are in BEC.....What an irony..
Is there any use in comming here as a student?? anymore..
0 comments:
Post a Comment