Mike Tyson Tattoos

Your common sense tells you to abandon your GC because it is taking too long? Then with your defeatist mentality, you should leave the country now. In case you didn't read a word of what I said, the interest you pay is tax deductible.

What is the difference if you had your GC or not? If you had it would you still be renting? The ONE and ONLY reason I would ever rent is if it was a rent stabilised apartment in a good location in Manhattan, or when I am saving up enough money to buy.

It's not rocket science, just common sense. In case you are aware, lot of people on this forum don't have gc in hand. What will they do if they decide to leave due to gc taking too long to come through. Ask they bank to give back the money they spend on stupid interest for 10 years for a house upside down ?

Common sense is to rent until you are sure you're staying for good.

I think Lou Dobbs is mostly comic relief for most of us at this point. The only tragedy in this scenario is that he has access to idiot boxes across the country for an hour eveyday, and there are people who wholeheartedly believe the drivel he spews everyday. :( CNN should be embarrassed.

Admin, I have responded to your message. Also please understand that it was my response to his PM using very harsh and abusive language.

Its good we talk healthy now!

Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007

In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.

Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.

The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.

Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.

"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "

Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.

But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.

Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.

At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"

No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.

If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.

Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.

Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.

The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.

"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.

Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.

The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "

The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."

"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."

The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.

Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.

New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.

"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.

Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.

"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."

One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.

Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.

"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.

If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "

look at this thread.. counterproductive higher taxes to sustain the government spending on food, shelter and medical care.... means more technology job outsourcing..

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=345957#post345957

Nothing great ever happens by trying to undermine each other. Laws are laws, some fair and some unfair, just deal with it and focus on remedying the whole broken system.

Awesome piece of advice..I've got to meet ya!!

Because you Can't Leave America.

You said it.


Consulting requires ability to learn quickly and ability analyzie the problem quickly and honestly consulting is not a profession for every one.

Select Readings


Alessandrini, Michele and Tullio Buccellato (2008), �China, India and Russia: Economic reforms, structural change and regional disparities,� Economics Working Paper No.97, December 2008, London: Centre for the Study of Economic and Social Change in Europe, 33 pp.
Hoffmann, Steven A (1990), India and the China Crisis, Berkeley: University of California Press, 324 pp.
Malone, David M. and Rohan Mukherjee (2010), �India and China: Conflict and
Cooperation,� Survival, vol.52: 1, pp. 137-158.
Bajpaee, Chietigj (2007),�The Panda and the Peacock,� China Security, vol. 3 no. 4 Autumn 2007, pp. 103 � 123.

Asian Development Bank (2010), Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010, �The Rise of Asia�s Middle Class,� 41st Edition, 2010, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, August 2010, 283 pp.
Pew Global Attitudes Project (2010) (http:/ /pewglobal.org/files/2010/10/Pew-Global-Attitudes-India-Report-FINAL-October-20- 2010.pdf), Indians See Threat From Pakistan, Extremist Groups, Released: Wednesday, October 20, 2010; Accessed online 12 December 2010
The Chinese Central Government�s Official Web Portal (http://www.gov.cn/english/leaders/wenjiabao.htm); Accessed online 16-20 December 2010

�Chinese premier calls for enhanced cooperation, trade with India (http:// www.gov.cn/english/2010-12/16/content_1766862.htm)�

�China-India friendship,� Chinese premier tells teenagers in India with calligraphy (http://www.gov.cn/english/2010-12/16/content_1766822.htm)�
Ministry of External Affairs (http://www.mea.gov.in/)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People�s Republic of China (http://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/)

�We�ll be able to reach strategic consensus, says Wen (http:// www.hindustantimes.com/specials/coverage/jiabaovisit/We-ll-be-able-to-reachstrategic-consensus-says-Wen/newdelhi/SP-Article10-639024.aspx),� Hindustan Times
�Prime Minister and Wen to talk trade, stir sticky issues (http://www.hindustantimes.com/Prime-Minister-andWen-to-talk-trade-stir-sticky-issues/Article1-639018.aspx),� Hindustan Times

�India, China developing relationship of substance: Indian ambassador (http:// news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-12/13/c_13646832.htm),� Xinhua News

�Jiabao�s visit to focus on strengthening Indo-China trade (http:// www.moneycontrol.com/news/cnbc-tv18-comments/jiabaos-visit-tofocusstrengthening-indo-china-trade_505188.html),� CNBC
�Has Chinese premier�s visit strengthened India-China bonds? (http:// www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/has-chinese-premiers-visitstrengthened-india-china-bonds_505516.html),� CNBC
�China-India ties fragile, need special care: Chinese envoy (http:// timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/China-India-ties-fragile-need-special-careChinese-envoy-/articleshow/7092210.cms),� The Times of India
�RCom to raise $1.9 bn from China bank (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ tech/news/telecom/RCom-to-raise-19-bn-from-China-bank/articleshow/ 7106651.cms),� The Times of India
�India, China cement ties with 49 pacts (http://financialexpress.com/news/indiachina-cement-ties-with-49-pacts/725349/2),� Financial Express
�China�s domestic demand push boon for Indian exporters (http:// www.financialexpress.com/news/chinas-domestic-demand-push-boon-forindian-exporters/724771/2),� Financial Express
�Indian drug firms look to scale the Great Wall (http:// www.financialexpress.com/news/indian-drug-firms-look-to-scale-the-greatwall/724785/),� Financial Express
�Pact on financial services likely to open doors for Chinese banks (http:// www.financialexpress.com/news/pact-on-financial-services-likely-to-open-doorsfor-chinese-banks/724780/),� Financial Express
�India, China May Sign Banking Accord During Wen Jiabao�s Visit (http:// www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/india-china-may-sign-banking-accord-during-wen-visit-easing-icbc-s-entry.html),� Bloomberg
�Shanghai Halts Fixed-Asset Lending through Year End (http://online.wsj.com/ article/SB10001424052748703929404576022550653865350.html), � The Wall Street Journal
�PBOC Officials: Interest Rate Hike Could Hamper Economic Soft Landing (http:/ /online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101220-702333.html),� The Wall Street Journal
�Foreign Ministers should look into pending issues: Wen (http:// www.thehindu.com/news/national/article956137.ece),�
�Officials should sort out stapled visa issue: Wen (http://www.thehindu.com/ news/national/article956256.ece),� The Hindu
�Muslim women lead protests in restive west China (http:// www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31853732/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/),� MSNBC
�China�s Galloping Inflation (http://blogs.forbes.com/ gordonchang/2010/12/12/chinas-galloping-inflation/),� Gordon G. Chang | Forbes,
�Business interests further Sino-Indian ties (http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/ foreign-view/2010-12/603015.html),� GlobalTimes

�Al Qaeda urges Uighur jihad in China. So what? (http://www.csmonitor.com/ World/Global-News/2009/1008/al-qaeda-urges-uighur-jihad-in-china-so-what),�

�The story of Chinese monetary sterilization (http://www.livemint.com/2010/ 12/20215815/The-story-of-Chinese-monetary.html),�
�Chinese banks scaling back loans to ship owners, yards (http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/shippingtimes/story/0,4574,417590- 1292443140,00.html?),� December 15, 2010,

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.

Actually Version 2 is the latest draft:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262392#post262392

Excellent letter. - I support even I am EB2.

One should not point other category and ask for the right.

Despite �High Note,� Bush Scolds Congress as Wasteful (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21bush.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1198249370-yXwz0kW/+W6bJYa4zIwlqA) By STEVEN LEE MYERS | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007

WASHINGTON � Having beaten back most of the Democrats� legislative initiatives, President Bush chided Congress on Thursday for wasteful spending and announced that his budget director would seek ways to reverse some of the thousands of spending projects attached to a huge spending bill.

Mr. Bush said he and the Congress had ended the year �on a high note,� welcoming a new energy bill, provisions to help people struggling to refinance mortgages, a deferral of the alternative minimum tax that could have affected millions of middle-class taxpayers and an agreement on a $555 billion spending plan that avoided new taxes.

But reflecting the partisan divides that overshadowed those accomplishments, he promptly criticized Congress, citing a sluggish pace of work, refusal to adopt other pieces of legislation important to the White House and its affection for pet spending projects known as earmarks.

�The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year,� Mr. Bush said, returning to a near-constant theme of accusing the Democrats who control Congress of fiscal irresponsibility. �When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way to run this government.�

The flurry of activity virtually ending the first session of the 110th Congress left many issues unresolved, setting the stage for new confrontations when Congress returns after the holidays. They include expanding a federal health care program for children, extending legislation allowing intelligence agencies to monitor communications and approving more spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress has so far agreed to $70 billion of the $196 billion the White House has requested in emergency spending for the wars.

Mr. Bush offered no indication that he would be any more compromising with the Democrats.

�Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people�s business,� he said. �The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years.�

For Mr. Bush and the White House, who began the year facing Democratic majorities in Congress, the mood near the end of the session was almost ebullient. After shoring up wavering support for Iraq from Republicans in the summer, the White House managed to keep the party united, defeating Democratic initiatives, even if failing to win Mr. Bush�s own proposals, most prominently changes in immigration laws.

�On taxes, and national security issues generally, Republicans are in lockstep,� the White House director of legislative affairs, Candi Wolff, said in an interview, describing the president�s ability to hold his party. �We could hold the House on most votes at 146, and therefore had the veto-sustaining strength to say that bad legislation can�t get through.�

At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the budget director, James A. Nussle, would review 9,800 earmarks in the last spending bill, along with 2,100 more attached to a military spending bill passed earlier.

Mr. Nussle�s spokesman, Sean M. Kevelighan, said the administration could seek to cut or redirect some spending projects approved by Congress.

�There are potential options available,� Mr. Kevelighan said, adding that it was too soon to say what, if any, spending projects could be eliminated or changed.

Frustrated Democrats accused the president of hypocrisy for attacking them after years of increasing spending under a Republican-controlled Congress. They responded by saying the earmarks in current spending bill were far more transparent � and so less wasteful � than those passed by Republican majorities during Mr. Bush�s presidency.

�Nobody said we were going to end them,� Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a telephone interview in which he boasted of two of his own earmarks for schools and the police in his district. �We said you�d know who put them in.�

My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regularly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?

There are some serious issues here.

You got 29k salary for 2 years and still maintain that you had valid status for these 2 years.

I suggest you consult a good attorney.

______________________________
Not a legal advice.

I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.

That case had a lot more things in it.

1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location


Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.

Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.

But in the Baltimore case, AAO was questioning that the beneficiary never resided in the state his H1 was petitioned for...But I wonder, shouldn't that be allowed as long as the place of work remains the same...I mean, let's say, if I work work in NY and live in NY, then as per AAO, it's fine. What if I work in NY (same location) and live in NJ, then it's not ok as per AAO? What if I can commute even longer distances dailiy, like living in Philly and commuting to DC, etc.? May be that's the reason why AAO directed the local office to give the petitioner a chance to provide any such evidence?

No, they figured out that it is consulting companies that are exploiting loopholes. Tell me what proof you have that ALL consulting companies are complying with H-1B requriements.

Is benching that happens in consulting legal? Is paying salary according to prevailing wages in Maine and sending the contractor to work in Manhattan legal? Please tell me how these practises by desi consulting firms are legal.

And you're telling me I am ignorant! You're funny :D

All your assumptions about H1B is only for full time jobs is flawed. USCIS has not said that. There is no law that says that.

BTW why do you think LCA requirements are meant only for consulting companies ? It is applicable to all H1B candidates. That has been the law for a long time. Nothing new here for you to be happy about.

Your posts are driven by your ignorance than any legal base. You need to educate yourself in immigration perspective.

Why USCIS audits are focused on consulting companies ?
It is not because consulting is not allowed on H1B. It is because they figured out that H1B violation are more prominent among small companies.

Asain-Americans seems to favor Obama overwhelmingly as per this survey. its interesting to read the survey - these immigrants who have gone thru the process themselves and might have friends/relatives in the process - didnt mention immigration as one of their important topic to decide on the vote. Understandably economy is the top topic but was expecting to see immigration atleast behind economy.
POLITICS-US: Asian Americans Tilt Heavily Toward Obama - IPS ipsnews.net (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44144)

Bulk come through family based/asylum etc and very little come through skilled immigration. As H1B you are better off with GOP.
GOP wants to restrict the family based as well....source of chain immigration.

of course not....
The provision defeats the purpose of whole whistle blower clause...

Oh ok. Sorry, I was not sure about the message of your earlier post.

And for this purpose, the provisions which seem to be protecting H1 employees are actually falling short of providing any protection to make H1 program more efficient. At the same time, the bill is imposing so many restrictions that it would make the entire H1 program "non-workable" and "useless", as highlighted by the administrator.

well said. people should realize that EB visa system is based on principles that are thought to benefit US. retrogressed EB2 categories cannot whine about EB1 saying that EB2 should be current also. personally I know many Physicians who have applied in EB2 and have been waiting for years even though many of them qualify for EB1. In the same manner EB3 cannot complain about EB2 saying that spill over should go to EB3 when EB2 is itself retrogressed. remember that the directive for the correct interpretation of the law came from Congress itself. This has actually revealed that EB2 was unfairly disadvantaged last year when all the spillovers got passed to EB3 while EB2 was unavailable. They may even consider to compensate retrogressed categories in EB2 with all those Visa numbers that were improperly given to EB3 ROW by giving EB3 ROW visas to EB2 retrogressed categories from this years and next years quota. I totally understand the plight of EB3 I and agree that there needs to be a solution for this. But complaining to State Department or USCIS will not change a thing as they are only there to follow the laws and not make any changes to the existing laws. campaign from the whole EB community has not produced much result this year to eliminate retrogression. I don't think campaign by one category (EB3) from just one country (India) is going to achieve the result by this letter campaign. rather, the efforts should be concentrated in ending retrogression for all the categories through effective legislation and can only be achieved by cooperation between all the categories.

Disclaimer: I am an EB3-Indian with a PD of Oct 2003.

Delax: I agree entirely with what you are saying. Your arguments are 100% valid. The part that I don't get is why are you trying so desperately hard to convince EB3-Indians that their letter campaign lacks merit?

Remember, a drowning man will clutch on to a straw for hope. You are like a sailor in a boat trying to tell the drowning man that a straw is no good. So, if you cannot get Eb3-Indians to see your point-of-view, just lay off this thread. Do you really expect all EB3-Indians to say "Thanks to delax, we now see the folly of our arguments. Let's stop this irrational effort, and instead just do nothing!"

I can assure you that despite being an EB3-Indian, I am not participating in this campaign. Because I know that it is a ridiculous argument to expect PD to take preference over skills. And honestly, I cannot come up with a single rational reason to demand a GC for me over any EB1 or EB2 applicant.

To all you EB3-Indians, chisel this into your brain: The US immigration system wants EB1 first, then EB2 and then EB3. It doesn't matter what your qualifications are or what the profession is...what matters is in which employment-based category was your LC filed. If you think, you are skilled enough, then stop wasting time in arguing with EB2 folks. Use your skills to apply for EB1 (which is current) or EB2 and get your GC fast. Otherwise, get this chiselled into your head as well: You are less skilled than EB2 and EB1 (purely on the basis of the LC category), so it makes 100% sense that US will give you the lowest priority. Period.

As I wrote earlier, I'm an EB3-Indian as well. Only differences being, I have still maintained my sanity, and I have the patience to wait for IV to deliver the official guidance on proceeding further.

I don't think it's good time to buy in CA.. Just wait for option ARM reset and market will drop more.

In California have anyone explored a Duplex/Triplex market where 2 parties buy a multiplex togather they pay less money, get a good location and good school district. I have heard a lot of success stories, plus duplex is like 2 single family homes with yards/decks etc. 2 friends buy the property togather, you also get usual tax deduction and NO HOA like town homes... (if you pay 300/mo HOA you end up paying 108000 in 30 years). I think owning a multiplex for about 5 years then renting it out and getting a single family home makes a lot of sense for long term...what say!

It is true that 99.99% of Muslims are not terrorists. But 99.99% of World's hardcore terrorists are Muslims.


What has this to do with immigration ??? Does Antulay support EB2/EB3 reforms ? Do he mention anything about wasted visa numbers.
This is not a place to post/preach religious, spiritual believes unless it gets you the Green Card. If many Indians visit this forum, it does not become hosting agent for your thoughts. Now don't waste your time and server hard disk space posting something back on this thread.

UN, can you please reply? Thanks!


No; it is not fraud. I have seen many g-325a's and many people seem to miss last address outside usa for more then one year and last occupation for more then one year outside usa.

There are many uses for this. If you look at the bottom left hand corner of g-325a there is some annotations to it. One of the g-325a's get sent to the consulate. Now; what does the consulate do with it???? Do they compare it with your original visa application of what your last occupation/address was?

One of the other uses of this information is that a person could have come to usa 8 years ago but you only need to show 5 years of biographical information. USCIS can then calculate when you really came into the country and see if you maintained the status ever since you left your foreign residence.