nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:46 PM
A lawyer was on his deathbed in his bedroom, and he called to his wife.
She rushed in and said, "What is it, honey?"
He told her to run and get the bible as soon as possible. Being a religious woman, she thought this was a good idea. She ran and got it, prepared to read him his favorite verse or something of the sort. He snatched it from her and began quickly scanning pages, his eyes darting right and left.
The wife was curious, so she asked, "What are you doing, honey?"
He shouted "I'm looking for loopholes!"
She rushed in and said, "What is it, honey?"
He told her to run and get the bible as soon as possible. Being a religious woman, she thought this was a good idea. She ran and got it, prepared to read him his favorite verse or something of the sort. He snatched it from her and began quickly scanning pages, his eyes darting right and left.
The wife was curious, so she asked, "What are you doing, honey?"
He shouted "I'm looking for loopholes!"
wallpaper Illustrator Tattoo
WantGCQuick
06-05 02:36 PM
This is a very healthy discussion!!.
My two cents.
Buying a house is the best decision no matter what, if you can get for a good price(price u can afford) at a GOOD LOCATION!!!. I think location is more important...
As far as real estate investment is concerned.. It is
LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION..
Nothing...else..!! .. Even if you are in H1B or GC if you know that u can stick to one job for a while and u get a house in a good location... this is the best time to invest!!
My two cents.
Buying a house is the best decision no matter what, if you can get for a good price(price u can afford) at a GOOD LOCATION!!!. I think location is more important...
As far as real estate investment is concerned.. It is
LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION..
Nothing...else..!! .. Even if you are in H1B or GC if you know that u can stick to one job for a while and u get a house in a good location... this is the best time to invest!!
Macaca
12-21 10:53 AM
Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.
But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.
Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.
Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.
But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.
"We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."
Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.
"At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."
At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.
"What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.
Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.
Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.
Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.
But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.
His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.
Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.
He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.
Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.
"Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.
Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.
"Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."
Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.
"It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.
The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."
Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."
2011 Art Eye Tattoos by Kathryn
alterego
12-27 11:23 AM
Ofcourse its Pakistan's responsibility since we created them. But the question is, where do you go from here?
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
I think much of India understands this perspective. India is generally a very secular and tolerant country. However this is something that has been going on for many years now. The worlds patience is wearing thin. Terrorism should invoke a ZERO TOLERANCE response from all states towards "non-state actors" acting within their territories. More promises, seldom achieve anything tangible is unacceptable. Given the past track record of Pakistan on such issues, India and the world has decided to keep up the pressure this time, and not a moment too soon. Innocents get killed and harmed and unnecessary harm is inflicted on a nations psyche and internal diverse harmony with such events.
Zardari has no real power in Pakistan. The military has a mind of its own there and are not there to serve the civilian adminstration. That is the problem.
The world cannot be expected to wait for 15-20 yrs and suffer through these sorts of attacks, while Pakistan decides if they want to "dismantle their jihadi infrastructure".
The pressure will continue on Pakistan and they will have to demonstrate more action to the world. Of course war will not be good for either country, arguably worse for Pakistan, however even absent war Pakistan could end up losing if they fail to act. The country will not thrive under this pressure and economic uncertainty and isolation, the economy already on the brink will collapse and the people will face unnecessary hardships, ala North Korea. The choice is up to Pakistan. We all hope Pakistan chooses rationally.
We would all love to see a thriving, prosperous and terrorism free Pakistan, rather than one controlled by a military strong man(ala Zia Ul Haq) and begging/manipulating the sugar daddy of the day be it the USA or China at the time.
Pakistanis need to figure out what they want for their future.
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
I think much of India understands this perspective. India is generally a very secular and tolerant country. However this is something that has been going on for many years now. The worlds patience is wearing thin. Terrorism should invoke a ZERO TOLERANCE response from all states towards "non-state actors" acting within their territories. More promises, seldom achieve anything tangible is unacceptable. Given the past track record of Pakistan on such issues, India and the world has decided to keep up the pressure this time, and not a moment too soon. Innocents get killed and harmed and unnecessary harm is inflicted on a nations psyche and internal diverse harmony with such events.
Zardari has no real power in Pakistan. The military has a mind of its own there and are not there to serve the civilian adminstration. That is the problem.
The world cannot be expected to wait for 15-20 yrs and suffer through these sorts of attacks, while Pakistan decides if they want to "dismantle their jihadi infrastructure".
The pressure will continue on Pakistan and they will have to demonstrate more action to the world. Of course war will not be good for either country, arguably worse for Pakistan, however even absent war Pakistan could end up losing if they fail to act. The country will not thrive under this pressure and economic uncertainty and isolation, the economy already on the brink will collapse and the people will face unnecessary hardships, ala North Korea. The choice is up to Pakistan. We all hope Pakistan chooses rationally.
We would all love to see a thriving, prosperous and terrorism free Pakistan, rather than one controlled by a military strong man(ala Zia Ul Haq) and begging/manipulating the sugar daddy of the day be it the USA or China at the time.
Pakistanis need to figure out what they want for their future.
more...
satishku_2000
08-02 06:12 PM
Guys
A simple question here ... I know that if an I 140 gets rejected 485 results in automatic denial as well as denial of all associated benifits. Is there any use with the labor? Can it be used to file for 140 again or can it be used to extend the H1B after 6 years.
A simple question here ... I know that if an I 140 gets rejected 485 results in automatic denial as well as denial of all associated benifits. Is there any use with the labor? Can it be used to file for 140 again or can it be used to extend the H1B after 6 years.
rbharol
11-14 09:39 PM
If he keeps doing this, soon people will know what he is up to and will stop taking him seriously....
more...
snathan
01-11 01:38 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
I don�t agree with your argument. Who is holing up the innocents..? Hamas using the kids and civilians as human shield. I also don�t consider the civilians as innocent there. They are whole heartedly support and elected Hamas -the terror organization. They are the one poisoning the kids with hatred. But I feel very sorry for the kids and the developments are very much disturbing.
The Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria � the devil�s club will never achieve their goal � wipe out ISREAL from the map. ISREAL is IS REAL and this mullahs needs to understand that.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
I don�t agree with your argument. Who is holing up the innocents..? Hamas using the kids and civilians as human shield. I also don�t consider the civilians as innocent there. They are whole heartedly support and elected Hamas -the terror organization. They are the one poisoning the kids with hatred. But I feel very sorry for the kids and the developments are very much disturbing.
The Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria � the devil�s club will never achieve their goal � wipe out ISREAL from the map. ISREAL is IS REAL and this mullahs needs to understand that.
2010 Tattoos Eyes
Beemar
12-26 06:02 PM
I am no military expert but it seems Pak is concentrating its forces on Punjab border and POK. I wonder why India cant do something unique this time. Like use aircraft carriers to enter Pak territory from Baluchistan and hit Karachi or attack from the South from Gujarat border. Something unique other than just attacking in Punjab/POK. Ofcourse I sure am no strategist, but if someone knows please inform.
Actually the best strategy will be to build up troops in Kandahar, completely in secrecy. Afghan govt can help India if India plays some deft diplomatic moves. Then hit Quetta by launching an attack from Kandahar. Pakistanis won't even know what hit them. They will be waiting for attack to come from their eastern border.
Actually the best strategy will be to build up troops in Kandahar, completely in secrecy. Afghan govt can help India if India plays some deft diplomatic moves. Then hit Quetta by launching an attack from Kandahar. Pakistanis won't even know what hit them. They will be waiting for attack to come from their eastern border.
more...
H1B-GC
02-23 10:35 AM
As the Article says,Lou Dobb defends Legal Immigration in an Interview with Newsweek which is total Crap . He Attacked H1B Program on his Daily Show and the Guest was no Doubt Kim Berry to give his Input. These things make everyone laugh at Lou Dobbs , the Lofer.
hair eyelid eyes tattoo
WaitingYaar
04-05 09:05 AM
One thing is for sure that pending GC cannot take over the lifestyles of the individuals. One should continue doing thinking long term prosperity and standard of living. It is a good time to make this move if you have some cash to make 20% down, otherwise the rates, and type of loan programs are no longer attractive. The housing market is probably at the bottom, and hopefully with the new efforts to revive the housing market things may be improving soon. So considering interest rates are still low, housing values at 2004 level, it is a good combination. Just my 2 cents to the discussion!!
more...
santb1975
09-29 11:17 AM
I am really frustrated being in this limbo after spending more than 10 years of my life here. This great land has given a lot to me and I really want to be part of this great nation and contribute to this land all my life. However, with my status still being temporary after 10 years it does not seem logical to make long term plans or make any investments in here.
This year 4 of my class mates (from engineering college in India) have moved out of the US. I have one other classmate who had picked a position in Singapore over one being offered in the US two years back, and he already has his PR there. He did not want the uncertainty of not know what to call home even after 5 or 8 or 10 years. He called it "settling down".
When we were graduating from engineering college, there was peer pressure to come to the US and pursue higher education and the "American Dream". Now I feel like my time to head out may come sooner rather than later.
This year 4 of my class mates (from engineering college in India) have moved out of the US. I have one other classmate who had picked a position in Singapore over one being offered in the US two years back, and he already has his PR there. He did not want the uncertainty of not know what to call home even after 5 or 8 or 10 years. He called it "settling down".
When we were graduating from engineering college, there was peer pressure to come to the US and pursue higher education and the "American Dream". Now I feel like my time to head out may come sooner rather than later.
hot Steve#39;s 69 Eyes Ankh by
dontcareanymore
08-05 01:58 PM
Why, what is difference? Why was labor substitution bad. It was perfectly legal after all.
Yes IT WAS. You either have not seen through the issue or can't distinguish the cases.
Yes IT WAS. You either have not seen through the issue or can't distinguish the cases.
more...
house All sEEing EyE EyElid tattOO
srikondoji
08-14 09:11 AM
On TV, when someone barks without any research backing it up, there is no one to counter him.
Only few shows have a chance to counter, but again the anchor is so smart that he will make sure that his guest receives little time to attack the host.
Guys the world is all about who is powerfull.
It is time to go to gym.
bye
How the hell did he arrive at that figure ? the whole trouble with lou is he fabricates "research" such as the above statement with absolutely nothing to back it up. So much for the Harvard educated economist in him.
Only few shows have a chance to counter, but again the anchor is so smart that he will make sure that his guest receives little time to attack the host.
Guys the world is all about who is powerfull.
It is time to go to gym.
bye
How the hell did he arrive at that figure ? the whole trouble with lou is he fabricates "research" such as the above statement with absolutely nothing to back it up. So much for the Harvard educated economist in him.
tattoo eye tattoo. eye tattoo on
gc_chahiye
08-14 08:49 PM
To United Nation
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
UN can correct me, but I believe upto 180 days of out of status is automatically pardoned in EB-AOS cases. Since yours is within that limit, you should be ok.
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
UN can correct me, but I believe upto 180 days of out of status is automatically pardoned in EB-AOS cases. Since yours is within that limit, you should be ok.
more...
pictures makeup Eye Tattoo: Tattoo Art
singhsa3
08-05 09:35 AM
There is no point in dividing the forum. I think if someone wants to do something like this then the best course of action is to take this outside the forum or through PM.
Lawsuits are not child's play...
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
Lawsuits are not child's play...
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
dresses Butterfly Tattoo Gallery
bondgoli007
01-06 05:06 PM
At the same time read about "Greater Middle East", "Greater Isreal" and "New world Order" , "Unipolar world" etc if you have time.
What would be the purpose of reading all that? I thought the spotlight was on hamas...this is how you try to move the spotlight away huh!!
What would be the purpose of reading all that? I thought the spotlight was on hamas...this is how you try to move the spotlight away huh!!
more...
makeup 3D Tattoo
amitjoey
08-05 01:29 PM
I am an EB3 2003. I think I did qualify for EB2, but the job position did not require me to be in that category, moreover EB2 & Eb3 were both current and various other factors were considered and they decided to apply in EB3.
NOW: It was my bad that I got stuck in the stupid BEC. A fellow I know with lesser qualifications applied in EB3 in 2004, then changed jobs, applied in EB2 in 2004 and has a green card already.
DO YOU MEAN TO SAY: THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DENY ME MY 2003 PD IF I APPLY IN EB2. FORGET THINKING ABOUT IT! Not that it is easy or I am doing it. As a matter of fact, I am not interested!.
NOW: It was my bad that I got stuck in the stupid BEC. A fellow I know with lesser qualifications applied in EB3 in 2004, then changed jobs, applied in EB2 in 2004 and has a green card already.
DO YOU MEAN TO SAY: THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DENY ME MY 2003 PD IF I APPLY IN EB2. FORGET THINKING ABOUT IT! Not that it is easy or I am doing it. As a matter of fact, I am not interested!.
girlfriend tattoo on eye.
Refugee_New
01-06 02:27 PM
Refugee_New,
It all depends on people's mind. You don't need to answer me, and I am sure you are pure by heart as my many muslim friends.
It depends where your bias is. Are you (you means in general people, not you particularly) biased to religion or you are biased to humanity! When a christian or hindu gets killed, if it doesn't pain you as much when a muslim gets killed, you are more biased towards religion.
People are biased towards religion often shelter under humanity sentences to prove their point. But quite ofter they become onesided. Like People were igniting fire crackers in Pakistan when Mumbai massacre happened. When one of them gets killed, they shout on name of humanity.
My sympathies are with poor innocent kids of palestine got killed.
But people should come out and unshelter terrorists who live in civilian facilities. Same as Dawood & Azhar Masood. People want to harbour them but them if other country takes military action to capture them and some civilians killed because they were in civilian area, it is bad to shout on name of humanity. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THEY ARE REALLY NOT INNOCENT.
It pained me a lot when terrorist struck Mumbai and i did condemn the mindless killing just like fellow Indian and Indian Muslim. Don't you think Muslims in India united and showed their unity and condemned Pakistan?
Don't compare terrorists like Dawood and Masood Azhar with those who are elected democratically by people of their nation.
It all depends on people's mind. You don't need to answer me, and I am sure you are pure by heart as my many muslim friends.
It depends where your bias is. Are you (you means in general people, not you particularly) biased to religion or you are biased to humanity! When a christian or hindu gets killed, if it doesn't pain you as much when a muslim gets killed, you are more biased towards religion.
People are biased towards religion often shelter under humanity sentences to prove their point. But quite ofter they become onesided. Like People were igniting fire crackers in Pakistan when Mumbai massacre happened. When one of them gets killed, they shout on name of humanity.
My sympathies are with poor innocent kids of palestine got killed.
But people should come out and unshelter terrorists who live in civilian facilities. Same as Dawood & Azhar Masood. People want to harbour them but them if other country takes military action to capture them and some civilians killed because they were in civilian area, it is bad to shout on name of humanity. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THEY ARE REALLY NOT INNOCENT.
It pained me a lot when terrorist struck Mumbai and i did condemn the mindless killing just like fellow Indian and Indian Muslim. Don't you think Muslims in India united and showed their unity and condemned Pakistan?
Don't compare terrorists like Dawood and Masood Azhar with those who are elected democratically by people of their nation.
hairstyles cat eyes tattoo.
dealsnet
01-08 01:15 PM
Read their explanation, Rayaan, regugee_new are upset about the Mumbai tread. It means what??. Need a teacher or preacher to interpret it??
We can understand what they mean.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
We can understand what they mean.
dealsnet,
I am just quite spectator , but could not resist to respond you on this ... I don't see any "Support" for terrorist or Mumbai attacks posted by Rayyan.
PLEASE Stop making assumptions,Dude.
As Bfadila said, you have serious language comprehension issues....
gc_aspirant_prasad
09-26 02:52 PM
Whats even worse is that our son who is a US citizen will grow up in some other nation.
Well.. time to move on.
For a number of us this is the unfortunate truth, that our US citizen children will grow up in other countries and may never have the opportunity to form the strong bond with the land of their birth. If they return, they will have to undertake the hard process of acclimatization again.
For those of us who have slightly older children like teens and such - its going to be a major issue as they will have spent considerable time in this system ( educational / social ).
Well.. time to move on.
For a number of us this is the unfortunate truth, that our US citizen children will grow up in other countries and may never have the opportunity to form the strong bond with the land of their birth. If they return, they will have to undertake the hard process of acclimatization again.
For those of us who have slightly older children like teens and such - its going to be a major issue as they will have spent considerable time in this system ( educational / social ).
xyzgc
01-10 11:04 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
