gc_in_30_yrs
09-11 04:03 PM
My PD is Aug, 2004. Got 45 Days letter sometime in March 2006 and replied. No movement. No changes. No information. Employer says, he did not hear anything from them to start advertising.
wallpaper Download HD Food Wallpapers
StuckInTheMuck
07-11 11:59 AM
When I went recently for my EAD renewal FP (I deliberately e-filed EAD renewal to get this FP notice, and it came fast), I took a copy of my I485 receipt notice, and explained to them that I have been waiting for that other FP for almost a year (never opened SR). They promptly took both FPs (code-1 for I485 and code-2 for EAD), and also told me I should never have waited this long, and instead should have contacted them (I guess they meant by Infopass) after 2-3 months.
Milind123
08-16 06:05 AM
I would like to share my experience with the immigration officer in India.
Way back in 2000 when I landed in India, the IE went thru my passport and asked me if I had overstayed my stay in US. (US Visa had expired for over a year my current H1 papers were in my travel bag which had to be checked in because the European Lufthansa staff thought the bag was too big to be used as a carry in). Anyways, I did not have the papers to show and I requested the office to let me go to the baggage claim area to retrieve my papers. I don't know why he was suspicious and he said and I paraphrase "I am going to impound your passport, If I don't see those papers as you have overstayed your visa".
to be continued.....
Way back in 2000 when I landed in India, the IE went thru my passport and asked me if I had overstayed my stay in US. (US Visa had expired for over a year my current H1 papers were in my travel bag which had to be checked in because the European Lufthansa staff thought the bag was too big to be used as a carry in). Anyways, I did not have the papers to show and I requested the office to let me go to the baggage claim area to retrieve my papers. I don't know why he was suspicious and he said and I paraphrase "I am going to impound your passport, If I don't see those papers as you have overstayed your visa".
to be continued.....
2011 wallpaper dark angel. hd
telekinesis
09-06 03:59 PM
I did it a little different: first, I took the one pixel wide column marque tool and picked a vertical spot that I wanted to stretch; second, I used edit >> define pattern and used the marque tool and made it the length I wanted and filled it with my pattern edit >> fill and pick our pattern that ou just defined; third, duplicate layers and mess with color dodge, screen, multipy, color burn, and so on!
more...
lunar
07-21 08:38 AM
Normally my wife is the one who is used to post or follow up on the latest here.
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
This came up a week ago. I have been working from home in a different state and we do not have any company office near my home. Nearest office location is about 3 hours. I had to move this far away due to personal reasons.
Now after working from home for 3 years (extending EAD, H1Bs etc) Fragomen (most of you know who they are) says I cannot do work from home anymore due to this conflict with uscis. it seems USCIS doesnt recognize your home as a Govt recognized work location. Hence I cannot work from home.
Now my manager wants me to only work from the office since folks reporting to me are also in that state. Now he is using Fragomen and HR emails as a reason for me to move back.
Anythoughts ? I am sure you all will agree that is the law. but why all this now ? even after working for 12 years.
One other point the fragomen lawyer said is - this is going to be the case for all thier clients.
freddyCR
January 4th, 2005, 07:35 PM
Found this picture waiting for me in the poor side of town.
Comments appreciated
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/2555new_matress_bw_landscape_Medium_.jpg
Comments appreciated
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/2555new_matress_bw_landscape_Medium_.jpg
more...
TUnlimited
09-16 12:46 PM
I don't know what "UNKNOWN" means. My wife is on her F1 (OPT). Same is the case with my friend. Both of our's says unknown.
TUnlimited: is your wife also on F1? I am about to call USCIS customer service on Monday.
Guys, please update if you know any more details about this.
No. My wife is H4. Call them and let us know what they said...
TUnlimited: is your wife also on F1? I am about to call USCIS customer service on Monday.
Guys, please update if you know any more details about this.
No. My wife is H4. Call them and let us know what they said...
2010 computer wallpaper hd. desktop
GCKabhayega
01-09 03:04 PM
Every time why does feel like that I have been in this dilemma before. I think we will gain almost nada frm this bulletin either.
My guess
EB2 : 1000 BC
EB3 : January 1962
My guess
EB2 : 1000 BC
EB3 : January 1962
more...
pbuckeye
08-04 08:16 AM
While the thread was started on a light note, I think this is a serious topic.
.
.
.
And do not forget to do some exercise everyday. 30-40 minutes of walk, bicycling, swimming, playing some games; any thing will do.
Completely agree with your message that - prefer unprocessed food and do everything in moderation.
However, are you suggesting blue label is healthier than a cheaper whiskey, its funny.
And - although I agree that some traditional breakfast items could be low on fats/calories .. some of them are not (aalu paratha, pakoda etc), so cereal/oatmeal or egg white is an alternative.
.
.
.
And do not forget to do some exercise everyday. 30-40 minutes of walk, bicycling, swimming, playing some games; any thing will do.
Completely agree with your message that - prefer unprocessed food and do everything in moderation.
However, are you suggesting blue label is healthier than a cheaper whiskey, its funny.
And - although I agree that some traditional breakfast items could be low on fats/calories .. some of them are not (aalu paratha, pakoda etc), so cereal/oatmeal or egg white is an alternative.
hair Wallpaper, Dark, Knight
jonty_11
10-23 01:08 PM
Thanks for ur reply... but i ve already bought the ticket...so shud i buy another one-way ticket :confused:
I guess that is teh only option u have...
I guess that is teh only option u have...
more...
chris
12-31 01:21 PM
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
Is your case complicated
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?[/QUOTE]
Family of three.
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
Is your case complicated
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?[/QUOTE]
Family of three.
hot Dark Violet Wallpaper HD by
supers789
07-11 04:12 PM
As most of you know USCIS is auditing all PERM applications filed by Fragomen. My application filed on April 20th 2008 also received audit (as filed by fragomen). I was wondering how long is it taking to get the response back for these audits? Anyone receilved response for their audits filed by Fragomen?
This is mainly important for me since with PD moved to June 2006, my PD is current (carrying over from old employer), but since PERM is in Audit I cannot file for 485.
Thanks!
This is mainly important for me since with PD moved to June 2006, my PD is current (carrying over from old employer), but since PERM is in Audit I cannot file for 485.
Thanks!
more...
house superman desktop wallpaper.
small2006
07-11 05:30 PM
Where was your finger printing? Did you talk to any IO there? My EAD FP is scheduled and I will try to utilize the chance if possible.
Thanks
FYI: I know you didn't direct the question to me but just thought I'd let you know my experience there.
The two times that I have been there, I was told that they don't do anything with EB GC applications. Instead they are a strictly family based GC processing center. That must be BS because when I talk to USCIS they ask me to go there 'coz that's the nearest but when I go there, nothing happens.
I'd like to hear from anybody else who have any experience going to San Antonio center. (Fourwinds Drive location).
Thanks
FYI: I know you didn't direct the question to me but just thought I'd let you know my experience there.
The two times that I have been there, I was told that they don't do anything with EB GC applications. Instead they are a strictly family based GC processing center. That must be BS because when I talk to USCIS they ask me to go there 'coz that's the nearest but when I go there, nothing happens.
I'd like to hear from anybody else who have any experience going to San Antonio center. (Fourwinds Drive location).
tattoo The Dark Knight Symbol HD
aau
08-08 10:34 AM
Sorry to hear about your friend's situation.
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
more...
pictures 1024x640 — download HD Dark
pandu_hawaldar
09-09 01:04 PM
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
dresses HTC HD2 UNLOCKED Images
bathuzp
11-11 02:30 PM
where can i find this free attorney on net and do u have a number that i could call at.
more...
makeup dark green wallpaper.
small2006
07-21 10:21 AM
FYI:
I don't know if this is old news but thought of sharing it anyway.
I was in the same boat as many others here i.e, no FP notice even 1yr after filing for 485. With my PD becoming current in Aug 2008, I called my attorney to see if he can do anything to help me out. He told me that due to several complaints from people like us and a law suit threat (or an actual lawsuit, not sure) from AILA, the Texas center has sent has set up an exclusive fax line for such requests. This system came into existence only about 2-3 weeks ago.
He sent a fax on my behalf to that number last Tuesday 7/15/08. My wife and I both received FP notices on Sat 7/19/08! So looks like for a change, something that’s set up for our own good is actually working. Frankly, I hadn’t pinned any hopes on the fax having a positive impact but I was pleasantly surprised. Our appointments are for next week.
Hope this little tip will help others in the same boat if their attorneys are either not aware and/or haven’t told their clients about it.
The fax number is not made available to the general public. Only attorneys have access to it.
BTW: As a result of all this, I haven't seen any LUD changes (soft or hard) on my case status online....I thought that was strange.
I don't know if this is old news but thought of sharing it anyway.
I was in the same boat as many others here i.e, no FP notice even 1yr after filing for 485. With my PD becoming current in Aug 2008, I called my attorney to see if he can do anything to help me out. He told me that due to several complaints from people like us and a law suit threat (or an actual lawsuit, not sure) from AILA, the Texas center has sent has set up an exclusive fax line for such requests. This system came into existence only about 2-3 weeks ago.
He sent a fax on my behalf to that number last Tuesday 7/15/08. My wife and I both received FP notices on Sat 7/19/08! So looks like for a change, something that’s set up for our own good is actually working. Frankly, I hadn’t pinned any hopes on the fax having a positive impact but I was pleasantly surprised. Our appointments are for next week.
Hope this little tip will help others in the same boat if their attorneys are either not aware and/or haven’t told their clients about it.
The fax number is not made available to the general public. Only attorneys have access to it.
BTW: As a result of all this, I haven't seen any LUD changes (soft or hard) on my case status online....I thought that was strange.
girlfriend Free Black HD Dark Wallpapers,
rb_248
07-23 01:51 PM
If 15 months has passed since your last FP and your GC is still pending then you will receive an FP notice again. It does not mean things are moving and/or someone looking at your AOS file. If you EFILE the EAD - you will receive a FP notice each time for thumb and picture, this is different from 485 FP.
Oh...ok so I guess there is nothing to get excited about. Thanks
Oh...ok so I guess there is nothing to get excited about. Thanks
hairstyles Free Dark Fiction Wallpapers
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
uma001
05-24 10:15 AM
Here is my case again:
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM.
My employer is sponsering my green card
How many points will i get??
MS (computer engg) in US
US IT experience more than 6 years
No TOEFEL ( what native english speaker??)
Worked in high growth technology/employer (I assume)
come under STEM.
My employer is sponsering my green card
How many points will i get??
lostinbeta
10-03 02:18 AM
Glad I could help=)
