Mike Tyson Tattoos

1) Contact Senator office. Which you did!! But have you called all the Senator from your state. Keep matter confidential between Senator office.

2) Which center has your application? If it is Nebraska, then you can talk to an Immigration Officer by dialing these sequence of number

1-800-375-5283, press 1..2..2..6..1..your case number..1..
wait for the automated status message then. select.3..4

3) Take Infopass appointment to meet an officer. Take all immigration paper. Tell your problem. Hope you get some help

4) Call customer service - 1-800-375-5283 and talk to rep.

Best of luck

Assuming your husband is here from 2000, they are asking for 7 years, i.e. 12 * 7 = 84 months of paystubs? This is ridiculous. How many people keep paystubs from 7 years ago? Infact in those days paystubs used to have their social security numbers on them, they should be shredded, atleast that's the common advice.

My pay stub still has SSN.

Its always good to keep all the paystubs / w2/ tax returns / employment verifications letter / what ever other evidences you have.. especially employment based GC applicants

this info is for lou dobbs and he can search for this information in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (for all the middle-class that can get free information, most likey coded by an H1B)

[edit] Taxation status of H-1B workers
H-1B workers are legally required to pay the same taxes as any other US resident, including Social Security and Medicare.[2] Any person who spends more than 183 days in the US in a calendar year is a tax resident and is required to pay US taxes on their worldwide income. From the IRS perspective, it doesn't matter if that income is paid in the US or elsewhere. If an H-1B worker is given a living allowance, it is treated the same by the IRS as any other US resident. In some cases, H-1B workers pay higher taxes than a US citizen because they are not entitled to certain deductions (eg. head of household deduction amongst many others). Some H-1B workers are not eligible to receive any Social Security or Medicare benefits unless they are able to adjust status to that of permanent resident.[3] However, if their country of citizenship has a tax agreement with the United States, they are able to collect the Social Security they've earned even if they don't gain permanent residency there. Such agreements are negotiated between the United States and other countries, typically those which have comparable standards of living and public retirement systems

So Mr. Trained Reservist,
Let's say the war is won in 15-20 days based on your expert knowledge, what is next? India occupies Pakistan? and acquires 160 million muslim population along with Talibans? You think that will end terrorism and riots in India?

Oh BTW, there is another trained reservist in the history who claimed Iraq war would be won in two weeks. Do you know who he is? Hint: he became the worst president in the history of the US.

The war was won in two weeks. Americans have traditionally poured billions of dollars in rebuilding nations that they have destroyed. What was unexpected was the insurgencies and the sectarian violence, which Iraqis themselves are guilty of. The war went horribly wrong because of the atrocious cost of the war and the drain on the failing economy. Saddam was an evil dictator and the fact that there is so much insurgency is a clear indication that Iraq was the hotbed of terror.
That is why its taking longer than expected.

If you want to debate on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, read the kind of savages the Japanese were. Read about comfort women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women. It will make you really uncomfortable. Worse, till date the Japs are unapologetic saying there is no credible proof that this ever existed. Also, read about Bangladesh war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War where 200k women were repeatedly raped giving birth to thousands of war babies, who were exported to orphanages in Europe and America.

Its a known tendency of hindu groups of radicalizing muslims, so much so that Jinnah took into consideration and formed pakistan.

Still the hindus will target an abominal act of 11 people and make a community of muslims, a country victim of their acts.

Yet, even if a hindu preaches infanticide of girls, he is not terrorist, a hindu scripture preaching burning alive of widows is not terrorist doctrine, a mythical god preaching murder of low caste for chanting holy rhymes is not a terrorist! Hail Ram!

India could fight british militantly under Subhash Chandra, and under Gandhi, and that is fight for freedom, yet Palestinians fighting for free country is terrorism! Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?

Here is my case details

In US from Feb 2000 - till date
PD :Aug 2002
I140 approved on Aug 2004 (no rfe)
I485 rcpt :sep 2005 pending for approval...

worked with Company A and 2002,2003 w2's are way too low 9k and 25k. Went to home country for vacation 3 times on 2004, 2005.
my 2000,2001, 2004,2005,2006 till looks okie.. I dont have any other overstay or other issue.

Applied I485 on
2005. I guess my attorney filed my 2003 w2 with my i485 petion.
I chaged from company A to company B on 2005

Will im in trouble? UN or somebody can please help?


You should be ok. don't know why your attorney would have proactively send in the 2003 w2 when it hurts more then it helps. Looks like you were one of the unlucky few who didn't get approval in early july.

We may be missing the issue by this infighting (which is not useful to anyone)

I think any firm involved in unethical behavior (immigration / tax/ state laws/employment laws) perspective should get targeted by USCIS/ICE/DOL and mother of all DHS etc.

In my understanding following are the type of employees....

a) Full time employees of large and small Companies like Engineers/Pharmacist/Internal positions/...ex GE/Microsoft/Google/Wellpoint. These guys do not work for "Clients". Usually do not have bench. (there may be some exceptions but minimal unethical behavior is expected).

b) Full time employees who work for large (Big5 and more) and small CONSULTING firms and consult to other organization... They work for specific project at a "client". Get paid at all times when on project and and on bench. (minimal unlawful activity)

c) Full time employees of small mom and pop firms (small business/ grocery store/restaurants etc) Get paid a salary but a lot of perk (which are not on w2 in order to save taxes...and that is unethical behavior).

d) Employee (may be not full time) focused on work at "Client". They are not full time because they do not get paid when they are not on project. Usually smaller "consulting" firms (i would prefer to call them "contracting" firms) do this. There may be many many layers of contracting firms. Each is involved in some sort of unlawful activity.

I think USCIS should/will go after folks involved in unlawful activities like untaxed money paid...wrong skills listed etc etc etc......Lastly, Just because one was able to do this before does not mean it was legal...

Stop the infighting......do not generalize...if you want to generalize...generalize only on 1 dimension...LAWFUL vs.UNLAWFUL

My 2 cents...

Future Tense
Are the United States and China on a collision course? (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan)
By Aaron Friedberg | The New Republic

In October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers�with the United States�s financial system seemingly about to buckle and Washington in desperate need of cash to prevent a total economic collapse�a State Department official contacted his Chinese counterpart about China buying U.S. securities. To his surprise, the Chinese, who had previously displayed an insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasury bills, suddenly balked at lending a hand. The reason, the Chinese official said, was the recent announcement of an impending sale of U.S. armaments to Taiwan.

This not-so-subtle threat, detailed in a memo released by Wikileaks, turned out to be a bluff, but it signaled a striking shift in the tone and content of Chinese foreign policy. Over the course of the past two years, Beijing has adopted a more assertive posture in its dealings with Washington, as well as with many of America�s allies in Asia. Among other things, China has threatened for the first time to impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan; intensified its claims to virtually all of the resource-rich South China Sea; and conducted its largest-ever naval exercises in the Western Pacific.

America�s �China hands� have long attributed any tensions between the two countries to misunderstandings or readily correctable policy errors. But with the passage of time it has become increasingly apparent that the differences between China and the United States spring from deeply rooted sources and aren�t likely to be resolved anytime soon. Indeed, as recent events suggest, it appears that the two nations are in for a long, tense, perhaps even dangerous struggle. And, most disconcerting of all, it�s a struggle in which, at least for the moment, China seems to be gaining the upper hand.


If you look back over the last 2,500 years�from the days of Athens and Sparta through the cold war�there has inevitably been mistrust, rivalry, and often open conflict between leading global powers and rising states that seek to displace them. In these scenarios, the leading power has wanted to preserve its privileges, while fearing that emerging challengers would seek to overturn the international order that it dominates. Rising powers, for their part, chafe at hierarchies of influence that were put in place when they were relatively weak.

Much of the tension in today�s U.S.-China relationship is a reflection of this familiar dynamic. But this tension is exacerbated by an additional factor that has only sometimes been present in great power rivalries of the past: deep ideological differences. One often hears it said that, because China is no longer truly a communist country, ideology has ceased to be a factor in its relations with the United States. This misses the point. Today�s Chinese leaders may no longer be anti-capitalist Marxists but they govern as Leninists and, as such, are determined to preserve the Communist Party�s exclusive monopoly on political power. China�s rulers see the United States as intent on spreading its brand of democracy to every corner of the earth. For their part, the American people continue to eye with suspicion a regime they see as repressive and autocratic. Ideology may not be sufficient, in itself, to provoke conflict between the United States and China, but it aggravates and amplifies the geopolitical tensions between the two.

This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States. In contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, America�s strategy for dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to challenge America�s interests and those of our allies in Asia, while at the same time nudging China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will �tame� China by giving it a stake in the existing international order�and, over the long run, encourage the growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India).

China�s strategy for dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, China�s leaders recognized that the previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other. Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called �24 Character Strategy� was that China had little choice but to �hide its capabilities and bide its time.� That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power�economic, military, technological, and political.

Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Party�s grip on political power; it seeks, in effect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for this reason, China�s leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia, constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii.

UN, you are genius in immigarion matteres and better than any of this screwed up attorneys, Pls help this community as much as you can. I didn't come across any one close to you in immigration matters

If the past employer didn't pay salary, you can file a complaint with DOL regarding unpaid wages (I believe that there are some time limits for such complaints - please check).

Even if you are not going to file such a complaint, you might be able to use it to get the required experience letter from the past employer if needed.

It is not the Law. It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.

Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?

A guy walks into a bar with his pet monkey.

He orders a drink and while he's drinking, the monkey starts jumping all over the place. The monkey grabs some olives off the bar and eats them, then grabs some sliced limes and eats them, then jumps up on the pool table, grabs the cue ball, sticks it in his mouth and swallows it whole.

The bartender screams at the guy, "Did you see what your monkey just did?" The guy says, "No, what?" "He just ate the cue ball off my pool table - whole!" says the bartender.

"Yeah, that doesn't surprise me," replies the patron. "He eats everything in sight, the little jerk. I'll pay for the cue ball and stuff." He finishes his drink, pays his bill, and leaves.

Two weeks later he's in the bar again, and he has his monkey with him. He orders a drink and the monkey starts running around the bar again. While the man is drinking, the monkey finds a maraschino cherry on the bar. He grabs it, sticks it up his butt, pulls it out, and eats it.

The bartender is disgusted. "Did you see what your monkey did now?" "Now what?" asks the patron. "Well, he stuck a maraschino cherry up his butt, then pulled it out and ate it!" says the barkeeper. "Yeah, that doesn't surprise me," replies the patron.

"He still eats everything in sight, but ever since he ate that cue ball he measures everything first!"


Moderators .. please delete if inappropriate

Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?

Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.

Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.

Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.

In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.

The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.

Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.

Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.

Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.

Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.

That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.

Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.

Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.

Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.

Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.

"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.

He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.

"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."

Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.

Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.

Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.

To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.

I was quoting you to make a point, did not mean to put words in your mouth. Apologies.

I totally agree about the transperancy part and the affect measuring people has on productivity. My receipt date is 07/30/07 and notice date is 09/06/2007, there were cases filed after mine on which RFEs were issued. Does it mean they have preadjudicated/looked at my case ? I can only wish as it is pretty hard to believe that it was looked at.

Didn't say anything about "systematic" at all - I think we all know better than to use "systematic" and "USCIS" in the same sentence!:D However, they definitely seem to be making some progress on adjudications even if none the country caps limit green cards issual. Aamazing how you can change behaviour when you set a goal and start to measure people on it - looking at the bits and pieces of info being released by USCIS, you can see something is changing and I would suspect a lot has to do with the new leadership in government, that has a mandate for greater transparency (unlike their predecessors). Given the lack of visibility to Case Officers of cases with old PD's (they track by RDs and not PDs), I cannot but believe this will be good for getting some structure into the system.

bfadlia,

I agree with you on most things you have said in your post and if you take a honest vote among the folks on this thread, you will find the overwhelming majority on the following views:

1. The human loss and suffering of the innocent Gaza people is sad and horrific.
2. Israel has reacted too strongly and used aggression to unacceptable limits.
3. Palestine deserves its own state and power to govern itself.

Now, the reason you have the same majority of folks respond in a manner that you, refugee and rayyan object and feel offended about is due to the following:

1. You fail to acknowledge the role of Hamas in initiating this conflict AND not resolving this conflict. Even if you personally did, others have very ineffectively shied away from this point.

2. There seems to be a lack of similar anguish and sympathy offered by you guys when it came to the mumbai attacks. Not saying you applauded the attackers but you didn't denounce them with the same vigor you are using to denounce Israel.

3. Finally, the biggest reason you are getting such unwarranted and to an extent shameful posts on your religion is because you are not only ready to defend it when it's followers are the victim BUT also when it's followers are the aggressors (like in Mumbai attacks). And with all due respect to Palestinians, there seem to be more muslim aggressors in today's world than victims.

In conclusion, I have nothing against you or the others. I am sure if I met you socially you will be a decent person. Lets hope peace is given a chance in Gaza and despite the differences educated people like us unite to fight for the common good...in these forums, it is EB Green cards.

Cheers.

bondgoli007, i'm glad we have some common ground.. i am sure my posts expressed that I despise intentional attacks on civilians.. i was disgusted hearing about the mumbai attacked and expressed that in its thread, although the guys there converted it into attack-islam thread
having said that, i am still amazed the people starting history at the point hamas fired rockets and israel retaliated.. this is a more than 60 year struggle, with palestinians driven out of their homes and israeli settlements built over its rubble and tens of UN resolutions ordering israel to let the palestinians back and end the occupation but these just swept under the carpet based on israel's allies veto power.. point is hamas is resisting the wrong way by targeting civilians, but people resisting occupation will always happen regardless of how violently they are retaliated against

I am not foreclosed and neither is anyone I know. Who do you know is foreclosed? Were they smart or stupid in their investment? How much did they put down? Did they crunch the numbers and do the math?

You do not invest without a plan to cover all scenarios and you definitely do not invest beyond your means. The people that caused the meltdown and caused foreclosures couldnt afford the property to begin with. Is that you? Do you fit into that category? If so, do not buy.
There are many homeowners who are underwater but not foreclosed. That does not make it a good investment. All I'm pointing out is unless your property's rent covers your monthly mortgage+property tax+insurance+maintenance and upkeep it can not be called a good investment. You should have positive (at least non negative) cash flow out of your rental properties. Is this a general case? I think not. At least in my area I'm 100% sure rent does not cover mortgage and the difference between the two is significant.

If you have a negative cash flow on your rental properties then the only thing you are betting on is price appreciation of your properties (above inflation) in future which is speculation again.

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the other, "Does this taste funny to you?"

NO RED DOT (with comment - Racist Joke) FOR THIS JOKE PLEASE ;)

Americans are fair minded for the most part. They saw the propoganda of the far right for what it was. This election did not tilt on immigration, but on other issues. However the fact that the conservatives got zero traction from their hard line approach implies that the country was looking for a more comprehensive solution.
I think that the american public does want secure borders and to some extent is unhappy with the status quo on the border. However they are also cognisant of the fact that immigrant labour benefits them and their lifestyles tremendously. They by and large do not favour a get tough only policy. They could easily embrace a policy where hardworking people can "earn their way" into the kingdom. Bipartisanship will perhaps show the way forward. Imagine those guys like Sensenbrenner,Tancredo would not even negotiate with the Senate or allow anything pro any kind of immigration to a general house vote taking advantage of their majority position by their "majority of the majority rule". They even actively stripped legal immigration provisions in conference last year. As for Sensenbrenner and his types. Lets see how much they enjoy being in the "minority of the minority" now, I guess the bulldog that chewed out the senators and cleaned his teeth with their bones is now but a mere poodle in the room! Gotta love elections in a democracy.

Search the threads there is a link , if you entered to US in less than a year before filing I-485 they wil send a copy of G-325a to Consulate. If they dont get response in 6 months they move forward, they dont wait for the response. this does not cause backlog as far as i know. They keep consulate visa interview forms for an year , thats what i read in the link

Ok . here is the link

http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cis-sop-aos/7-3-3.html It is 60 days ( not 6 months which i said above)

Do you really think they would send the G-325a to the consulate? Do the consulates keep all the records? For how long? I heard from immigrationportal, somebody said they only send G-325a to the consulate if one applied a visa within one year prior to AOS application. Can anyone confirm this?

If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.

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!!

My point is, they keep the spotlight on Hamas and go kill as many innocent civilians as possible.

Even when they kill school kids, we still blame Hamas. We don't blame the killer and try to stop their mad actions. Thats my point.

Democrats will continue their push for CIR even after election.

Illegal immigrant numbers are in millions. Illegals are guaranteed vote banks for democrats. These illegals once legalized will permanently shift the political fortunes in favor of democrats.

If CIR is passed, we may not see another republican president in US history !