blue_line
07-15 05:41 PM
in the past lou also made comments that h-1 bs don't pay taxes... which we know is far from truth.
you should inlcude this in the petition
you should inlcude this in the petition
wallpaper 2010 Amazing wedding cake with red black and white wedding cakes with red.
Macaca
12-17 04:14 PM
From page 8 of Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
Critics hope to make any increase in H-1B visas contingent on imposing new restrictions on companies hiring foreign-born professionals, scientists and engineers. While many of the critics’ attacks have centered on so-called “outsourcing” companies, the intent is to impose new restrictions on all companies that seek access to skilled foreign-born talent. As discussed later in this analysis, many of the restrictions put forward by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) would impact all U.S. companies hiring foreign-born talent.
Senator Grassley has said there is a "high amount of fraud and abuse" involving H-1B visas. However, an examination of objective data belies this statement. When questioned by the Wall Street Journal a Grassley spokeswoman cited only anecdotal evidence, saying, “People have called our office.” By objective measurements there is not evidence of significant abuse but modest problems that are addressed through agency enforcement.
The data show it would be mistake to tar all companies with the faults of literally a few. Of the $4.8 million owed in back wages in 2004, more than half (53 percent) came from findings against just 7 companies, none of whom are household names. Abuse does occur but the evidence indicates it is limited and of a character that can be handled within existing laws and regulations.
In fact, the amount of back wages owed to H-1B workers, small as it is, actually fell between FY 2005 and FY 2006. Moreover, the aggregate total of back wages owed is almost infinitesimal placed in the context of a $13 trillion economy. In FY 2005, only $5.2 million in back wages were owed to H-1B professionals based on DOL investigations and the total dropped to $4.6 million in FY 2006. Consistent with other years, 86 percent of the cases investigated (104 of 121) in FY 2005 resulted in no civil monetary penalties being assessed. In FY 2006, no civil monetary penalties were assessed in 89 percent of the cases completed (14 of 133).
The data show the vast majority of cases investigated by the Department of Labor have involved only paperwork violations, not willful abuse, and that back wage payments were generally fairly small. The proportion of H-1B professionals owed back wages is also small. Back wages were owed to less than 1 percent (0.28 percent) of the individuals who received H-1B status between FY 1999 and FY 2002 – a total of 1,323 individuals out of approximately 473,000 individuals.
Critics hope to make any increase in H-1B visas contingent on imposing new restrictions on companies hiring foreign-born professionals, scientists and engineers. While many of the critics’ attacks have centered on so-called “outsourcing” companies, the intent is to impose new restrictions on all companies that seek access to skilled foreign-born talent. As discussed later in this analysis, many of the restrictions put forward by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) would impact all U.S. companies hiring foreign-born talent.
Senator Grassley has said there is a "high amount of fraud and abuse" involving H-1B visas. However, an examination of objective data belies this statement. When questioned by the Wall Street Journal a Grassley spokeswoman cited only anecdotal evidence, saying, “People have called our office.” By objective measurements there is not evidence of significant abuse but modest problems that are addressed through agency enforcement.
The data show it would be mistake to tar all companies with the faults of literally a few. Of the $4.8 million owed in back wages in 2004, more than half (53 percent) came from findings against just 7 companies, none of whom are household names. Abuse does occur but the evidence indicates it is limited and of a character that can be handled within existing laws and regulations.
In fact, the amount of back wages owed to H-1B workers, small as it is, actually fell between FY 2005 and FY 2006. Moreover, the aggregate total of back wages owed is almost infinitesimal placed in the context of a $13 trillion economy. In FY 2005, only $5.2 million in back wages were owed to H-1B professionals based on DOL investigations and the total dropped to $4.6 million in FY 2006. Consistent with other years, 86 percent of the cases investigated (104 of 121) in FY 2005 resulted in no civil monetary penalties being assessed. In FY 2006, no civil monetary penalties were assessed in 89 percent of the cases completed (14 of 133).
The data show the vast majority of cases investigated by the Department of Labor have involved only paperwork violations, not willful abuse, and that back wage payments were generally fairly small. The proportion of H-1B professionals owed back wages is also small. Back wages were owed to less than 1 percent (0.28 percent) of the individuals who received H-1B status between FY 1999 and FY 2002 – a total of 1,323 individuals out of approximately 473,000 individuals.
waitingGC
02-06 04:07 PM
Until EB3 ROW becomes current....
I really don't understand here.
I really don't understand here.
2011 More Black amp; White Wedding
gc_ki_khoj
07-16 01:08 PM
Signed
more...
ibb
11-06 01:11 PM
These consulting firms are really annoying. USCIS should try to close this loophole.
Like I said, I did not catch the whole speech, but from what I heard, he was not talking completely against it, he mentioned that businesses need more H1B's and should be able to hire foreign talent.
He was mainly against abuse by big consulting firms (he gave out a statistic that 20K of the H1B went for 8 or 9 of the top consulting firms or something like that).
At least there is something happening..... we have only two weeks....... this may be our only chance this year to attach anything EB
Like I said, I did not catch the whole speech, but from what I heard, he was not talking completely against it, he mentioned that businesses need more H1B's and should be able to hire foreign talent.
He was mainly against abuse by big consulting firms (he gave out a statistic that 20K of the H1B went for 8 or 9 of the top consulting firms or something like that).
At least there is something happening..... we have only two weeks....... this may be our only chance this year to attach anything EB
gk_2000
04-22 07:54 PM
Ok. But how does this apply to immigration?
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:
The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?
More later ..
On the page you quote, below is what I see -
The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in:
Education
Employment
Housing
Lending
Public Accommodations
Law Enforcement / Police Misconduct
Voting
The "per-country limit" is definitely unfair within the realm of employment-based immigration due to the outdated and irrelevant law which needs reform. However skewing this to make it a civil rights issue is pushing it a bit too much.
So coming back to Immigration (which is what, I believe, we are discussing), below is what I came across on congress.gov.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]
In other words, the Constitution does not specifically mention immigration but based on the above, delegates power to the Congress to pass laws to regulate immigration. This Article of the Constitution also clarifies the part about rules for immigrants and quotas being set at the Federal level and not State level.
The above is a fact, not my opinion. Therefore, No - I do not agree that your reasoning has any direct parallel to our case since the correct approach and reasoning involves challenging a Supreme Court Ruling on Article 1 of the Constitution, which you would agree is next to impossible.
There are far too many points here to address at one go. Let me touch upon this for starters:
The Article 1, Section 8 has this clause, regarding the power of congress:
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Are we disputing the fact that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
No. We are not. We are just saying, that the current Rule of Naturalization is in violation of the discrimination clause in the constitution, and ought to be disregarded. We are not asking to strip congress of this power, so this argument you make is not relevant. Agreed?
More later ..
more...
waitin_toolong
07-17 03:12 PM
I applaud you for starting this effort but the petition needs correction, You are calling Lou Dobbs of lying but all the instances you quote are from Sen Tancredo . You may accuse Lou Dobbs of supporting these lies by letting them stand unchallenged not correcting them.
When we fight we should get our facts straight so that no one can point a finger at us.
I am saying all this at the risk of being ridiculed and abused by some of you. But before you do read the petition again and read my statement with cool head.
Victory will come to those who are righteous not impetuous
We need to document all the inaccuracies floating around and patiently with the backing of facts dismantle each and every one of them.
When we fight we should get our facts straight so that no one can point a finger at us.
I am saying all this at the risk of being ridiculed and abused by some of you. But before you do read the petition again and read my statement with cool head.
Victory will come to those who are righteous not impetuous
We need to document all the inaccuracies floating around and patiently with the backing of facts dismantle each and every one of them.
2010 Red, Black, and White Wedding
485Mbe4001
02-01 05:20 PM
maybe we should have a 'sounding board' section where such threads can be started where you can cirb all you want about desi companies/consultants and other issues you want to get out of your system. You do realize that many people read these threads. Spritied discussions are great but upto a certain point and if they help the cause.
We are a small community here and all of us are stuck in a problem we DID NOT create. we are a part of a system that is broken. Instead of crying about problems, lets try and figure out ways to solve one for a change.
if people cannot contribute financially, conrtibute your time and talk to people about IV. Try to meet sucessful/influential immigrants and see if they can help us out, see if they can help us with their contacts. Try to seek people who are stuck in this mess and educate them about it. Get leads on people who can help us out.
Start a thread that mentions what you have done to help IV maybe people will learn from that
thanks,
We are a small community here and all of us are stuck in a problem we DID NOT create. we are a part of a system that is broken. Instead of crying about problems, lets try and figure out ways to solve one for a change.
if people cannot contribute financially, conrtibute your time and talk to people about IV. Try to meet sucessful/influential immigrants and see if they can help us out, see if they can help us with their contacts. Try to seek people who are stuck in this mess and educate them about it. Get leads on people who can help us out.
Start a thread that mentions what you have done to help IV maybe people will learn from that
thanks,
more...
h1b_alex
04-05 04:37 PM
@sorcerer666 Thanks mate , i do understand in what you said here i will keep you guys updated once i get back home and will keep you updated about what happened from DOL.
@bugsbunny Thanks to you too, i shall post all the proceedings and the outcome with the name of the employer here pal, i would surely like to save some asses here.
@bugsbunny Thanks to you too, i shall post all the proceedings and the outcome with the name of the employer here pal, i would surely like to save some asses here.
hair Black And White And Red
DCQC
07-18 02:11 PM
Hi Folks,
I know that with a deluge of applications, the question I am asking might not be relevent in the current scenario (July filers), but what is the historical EAD processing time? I know they say that USCIS will issue one within 90 days, but does it always take 90 days or is lot lesser?
I remember when I got EAD during OPT, it took like 30-40 days on average. Does the same hold for the EAD for EB too?
Appreciate your response. thanks!
I know that with a deluge of applications, the question I am asking might not be relevent in the current scenario (July filers), but what is the historical EAD processing time? I know they say that USCIS will issue one within 90 days, but does it always take 90 days or is lot lesser?
I remember when I got EAD during OPT, it took like 30-40 days on average. Does the same hold for the EAD for EB too?
Appreciate your response. thanks!
more...
m306m
06-11 01:23 PM
Thanks guys for the moral support and quick responses.
More details are as follows:
1. This accident occurred in 18 months back in CA
2. We were going on high way and suddenly the car infront of me came to a sudden halt and as I didn't had any reaction time, even though I applied brakes I went and rammed into the van in front of me, which in turn hit the car infront (like a ripple effect) and totally 8 cars were involved in that collision.
3. So at first we thought it is entirely my fault as I was coming at 50s and I rear ended the care which inturn created this ripple effect.
4. But the actual scenario is, the van infront of me came to halt, as it rear ended the car infront of it and due to which the other car hit the one infront.
So already one accident happened and I caused one more and as mine was a 11 seater and coming at 50s the impact was high and involved in 8 cars.
All this happened within in mins or secs, I would say
--> --> --> --> --> --> --> -->
Myself car1 car2 car3 car4 car5 car6 car7
In the above pictorial representation,
a) car 1 hit car2 which in turn hit car3 (1st impact)
b) Myself hit car1 again which ripple effected all the way upto car7 (2nd one)
I was the only person injured and and had to be hospitalized with bi-lateral hip fractures and right knee fractures and was out of work for 4 months.Luickly my insurance covered most of the amount thats been charged(around 300K)
Finally I recovered to a great extent and out of blue gets a lawsuit from the owner of car3 against myself, Car1 and car2.
BTW, insurance determined that my fault is 80% as I caused the greater collision and they paid the property damages for all the cars involved.
As per the lawsuit, seems car3 drivers spouse had herniated disc due to this accident and are expecting $200,000 for future treatment
So they are claiming the following:
3 milliion for : other damages(emotional etc.....)
200,0000 for: future treatment
50,000 for: lost wages
Thats is what the story of my life :(
Hope this gives u more details to provide me with more suggestions.
Firstly, I am not a lawyer and I would recommend that you get a lawyer to help out.
As mentioned before this is a civil lawsuit and not a crimial lawsuit. Impact on GC should not be a factor but consult an immigration lawyer.
Now depending on the state law you should not be liable for Cars2 through Cars7. It could easily be argued that they did not leave a safe distance between them and hence the ripple effect. What the insurance determines is the fault is not necessarily how the law would interpret it. So if you insurance of any of the car insurance assign percentages of fault, it is pretty much based on their calculations. Did you recieve a traffic citation? If so did it indicate that you were at fault for all the subsequent accidents? Did you contest the citation? If so what was the outcome. If you contested the citation and got the charges dropped you have a stronger case against each of the other plaintiffs.
Try to settle out of court and get the lawyers to drop the case. The way you do that is to claim that you don't have any money. Remember the lawyers for each of the plaintiffs have done an asset check on you and they know how much you have. Although the judge could request that each of the transactions to reverse. Do the following:
Read this post: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=249649#post249649
1. Take out second mortage on the house (if you own it) and transfer cash to a relative's name in India
2. Sell cars and lease new cars
3. Cash savings etc should be transferred to relative's names in India.
Show the lawyers you don't have any money and they will not be able to recover their fees from this lawsuit. Do not capitualte to threats. Instead offer to settle out of court. Let them come up with the offer and then bargain like hell.
I hope this helps. If you need to talk more send me a private message.
More details are as follows:
1. This accident occurred in 18 months back in CA
2. We were going on high way and suddenly the car infront of me came to a sudden halt and as I didn't had any reaction time, even though I applied brakes I went and rammed into the van in front of me, which in turn hit the car infront (like a ripple effect) and totally 8 cars were involved in that collision.
3. So at first we thought it is entirely my fault as I was coming at 50s and I rear ended the care which inturn created this ripple effect.
4. But the actual scenario is, the van infront of me came to halt, as it rear ended the car infront of it and due to which the other car hit the one infront.
So already one accident happened and I caused one more and as mine was a 11 seater and coming at 50s the impact was high and involved in 8 cars.
All this happened within in mins or secs, I would say
--> --> --> --> --> --> --> -->
Myself car1 car2 car3 car4 car5 car6 car7
In the above pictorial representation,
a) car 1 hit car2 which in turn hit car3 (1st impact)
b) Myself hit car1 again which ripple effected all the way upto car7 (2nd one)
I was the only person injured and and had to be hospitalized with bi-lateral hip fractures and right knee fractures and was out of work for 4 months.Luickly my insurance covered most of the amount thats been charged(around 300K)
Finally I recovered to a great extent and out of blue gets a lawsuit from the owner of car3 against myself, Car1 and car2.
BTW, insurance determined that my fault is 80% as I caused the greater collision and they paid the property damages for all the cars involved.
As per the lawsuit, seems car3 drivers spouse had herniated disc due to this accident and are expecting $200,000 for future treatment
So they are claiming the following:
3 milliion for : other damages(emotional etc.....)
200,0000 for: future treatment
50,000 for: lost wages
Thats is what the story of my life :(
Hope this gives u more details to provide me with more suggestions.
Firstly, I am not a lawyer and I would recommend that you get a lawyer to help out.
As mentioned before this is a civil lawsuit and not a crimial lawsuit. Impact on GC should not be a factor but consult an immigration lawyer.
Now depending on the state law you should not be liable for Cars2 through Cars7. It could easily be argued that they did not leave a safe distance between them and hence the ripple effect. What the insurance determines is the fault is not necessarily how the law would interpret it. So if you insurance of any of the car insurance assign percentages of fault, it is pretty much based on their calculations. Did you recieve a traffic citation? If so did it indicate that you were at fault for all the subsequent accidents? Did you contest the citation? If so what was the outcome. If you contested the citation and got the charges dropped you have a stronger case against each of the other plaintiffs.
Try to settle out of court and get the lawyers to drop the case. The way you do that is to claim that you don't have any money. Remember the lawyers for each of the plaintiffs have done an asset check on you and they know how much you have. Although the judge could request that each of the transactions to reverse. Do the following:
Read this post: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=249649#post249649
1. Take out second mortage on the house (if you own it) and transfer cash to a relative's name in India
2. Sell cars and lease new cars
3. Cash savings etc should be transferred to relative's names in India.
Show the lawyers you don't have any money and they will not be able to recover their fees from this lawsuit. Do not capitualte to threats. Instead offer to settle out of court. Let them come up with the offer and then bargain like hell.
I hope this helps. If you need to talk more send me a private message.
hot coordinated the wedding cake
javadeveloper
08-20 03:29 PM
My 4 year old would sponsor my GC after 17 years. I have already made her sign the paper work. Who knows, after living 21 years in this country, she can change her mind too.:D:D:D
You are lucky man , my daughter is just 3 years old , I have to wait 1 year more than you :D:D:D:D
You are lucky man , my daughter is just 3 years old , I have to wait 1 year more than you :D:D:D:D
more...
house cupcakes white/lack/Red
satyasaich
01-29 08:49 PM
What you said was absolutely correct. However most of the times the delays caused in big companies are due to various layers of communications as well as approvals.
I'm a live example of how i lost the opportunity to file 485 before Dec31/2004 for EB3 category, just because of unnecessary (so called) procedural delays
NOw, this new rule in place will certainly prompt for good changes in the big companies if they truly want to sponser GC
Yes, they must act in a timely manner. one way to do is HR should get all the necessary approvals from managers / directors so that they don't lose time. Secondly my observation is there is always a substanial delay at Attorney's office(few exceptions are there) to prepare the paperwork.
I dont think companies are really geared to file for 140 within 45 days of labor approval.
Most of the companies take 4-6 weeks to just send the documents the lawyers request for filing 140. Then the lawyers, most likely forget something and request more documents. It takes another 2 weeks for company to send those.
All in all, on average I think companies need 3 months after approved labor to be ready to Fedex that 140 petition. No malicious intent on the part of employer, its just how things are. 45 days is going to make things difficult for many companies and many of the lazy, slow, procrastinating law firms.
I'm a live example of how i lost the opportunity to file 485 before Dec31/2004 for EB3 category, just because of unnecessary (so called) procedural delays
NOw, this new rule in place will certainly prompt for good changes in the big companies if they truly want to sponser GC
Yes, they must act in a timely manner. one way to do is HR should get all the necessary approvals from managers / directors so that they don't lose time. Secondly my observation is there is always a substanial delay at Attorney's office(few exceptions are there) to prepare the paperwork.
I dont think companies are really geared to file for 140 within 45 days of labor approval.
Most of the companies take 4-6 weeks to just send the documents the lawyers request for filing 140. Then the lawyers, most likely forget something and request more documents. It takes another 2 weeks for company to send those.
All in all, on average I think companies need 3 months after approved labor to be ready to Fedex that 140 petition. No malicious intent on the part of employer, its just how things are. 45 days is going to make things difficult for many companies and many of the lazy, slow, procrastinating law firms.
tattoo The cupcakes iced in lack
WeShallOvercome
07-12 11:34 AM
Friends,
There is a rumor going around now. One of my colleagues here claims that he got a call from his attorney that there is going to be a new bulletin for july, released either tomorrow or on Monday. Can someone talk to their attorney and confirm this?
I'm unable to reach my attorney now.
Man, this is becoming unbearable now. Although it seems to be the right thing given the news that USCIS has returned some visa numbers to DOS, I think they won't do it for the fear of looking like fools and humiliation of their mistakes publicly
There is a rumor going around now. One of my colleagues here claims that he got a call from his attorney that there is going to be a new bulletin for july, released either tomorrow or on Monday. Can someone talk to their attorney and confirm this?
I'm unable to reach my attorney now.
Man, this is becoming unbearable now. Although it seems to be the right thing given the news that USCIS has returned some visa numbers to DOS, I think they won't do it for the fear of looking like fools and humiliation of their mistakes publicly
more...
pictures This lack and white wedding
gcseeker2002
07-18 09:05 AM
Date Delivered To USCIS: July 2
Time Delivered To USCIS: 7.55 AM
Service Center: NSC
Rejected: Dont Know
Time Delivered To USCIS: 7.55 AM
Service Center: NSC
Rejected: Dont Know
dresses Featured Wedding by Bella
Raji
07-17 10:42 AM
We advice not to use this template and form. The message and the organization sending it for their advocacy agenda is very important. Even if you change the wording, people will hardly read the letter. They will look at the organization that sent it and its agenda.
It is better to call or email your senators and congressmen with a personal message. When there is a need for a fax campaign, IV will activate its fax campaign system here http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_webfax&task=getContactDetails&Itemid=46
If you email or call your Congressmen or Senator, do tell them that you are a member of ImmigrationVoice so that their office can make the connection to your calls, meetings and emails in our advocacy meetings. Another point to note that in person meetings have much more effect than emails. You may get a standard reply to your emails. Sometimes the response may talk about a general immigration position of the senator rather than a specific reply to your question.
BTW do not quote any bill # yet. If you want to talk about Recapture, just say recapture of unused visas for Employment based category.
Hi Pappu,
Not sure I follow your argument here. Why should we not pursue the CIR and Recapture Bill action alert via AILA site. Also I am curious to know why IV has not put up a fax campaign for the same - given that this issue is clearly the focus on much of the IV agenda. Finally, I would think that while it is important to campaign directly to those in the know and power, as IV does and encourages members to do, there is something to be said for the strength of numbers. And one of the many ways IV can demonstrate that strength is not just to quote numbers in lobbying efforts but also to display direct interest of members and indeed non-members via faxes sent. IV Core and Donor Forum - some response from you would help us understand the path being pursued here.
Regards,
Raji
It is better to call or email your senators and congressmen with a personal message. When there is a need for a fax campaign, IV will activate its fax campaign system here http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_iv_webfax&task=getContactDetails&Itemid=46
If you email or call your Congressmen or Senator, do tell them that you are a member of ImmigrationVoice so that their office can make the connection to your calls, meetings and emails in our advocacy meetings. Another point to note that in person meetings have much more effect than emails. You may get a standard reply to your emails. Sometimes the response may talk about a general immigration position of the senator rather than a specific reply to your question.
BTW do not quote any bill # yet. If you want to talk about Recapture, just say recapture of unused visas for Employment based category.
Hi Pappu,
Not sure I follow your argument here. Why should we not pursue the CIR and Recapture Bill action alert via AILA site. Also I am curious to know why IV has not put up a fax campaign for the same - given that this issue is clearly the focus on much of the IV agenda. Finally, I would think that while it is important to campaign directly to those in the know and power, as IV does and encourages members to do, there is something to be said for the strength of numbers. And one of the many ways IV can demonstrate that strength is not just to quote numbers in lobbying efforts but also to display direct interest of members and indeed non-members via faxes sent. IV Core and Donor Forum - some response from you would help us understand the path being pursued here.
Regards,
Raji
more...
makeup Red Black And White Wedding
laborfd
04-26 05:39 PM
Sent a contribution of $50 through pay pal
IV is doing great job, Sincere thanks to all the core members for doing all these great work :)
IV is doing great job, Sincere thanks to all the core members for doing all these great work :)
girlfriend 2011 Black and White Wedding red black and white wedding cakes.
new2gc
09-17 10:44 AM
did you check it on this page?
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
It says "Continued Committee Markup of: H.R. 6598, H.R. 6020, H.R. 5882, H.R. 5924, H.R. 5950, and"
The web cast link is also there...looks like people are still settling down
I was checking the c-span.org and couldn't find this.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
It says "Continued Committee Markup of: H.R. 6598, H.R. 6020, H.R. 5882, H.R. 5924, H.R. 5950, and"
The web cast link is also there...looks like people are still settling down
I was checking the c-span.org and couldn't find this.
hairstyles Red, Black, and White Wedding
malaGCPahije
08-12 02:33 PM
Steady march!, not fast march!! ;) I am very hopeful of the dates moving past mid 2002 for FY 2009. (which is about 8 months movement from now, and I think that is very possible).
I am thinking we have about 5-6% representation for the earlier years on this poll? What is everyone's estimate on the representation??
abt 5%. I think people from 2001/02/03 must have got so much frustrated that very few of them even check the visa dates, forget about checking IV regularly.
I am thinking we have about 5-6% representation for the earlier years on this poll? What is everyone's estimate on the representation??
abt 5%. I think people from 2001/02/03 must have got so much frustrated that very few of them even check the visa dates, forget about checking IV regularly.
gaz
09-17 02:23 PM
even criminals involved in illegal gambling are ahead of legals...
WTF?!
an amendment to respect religious freedom by King
and agreed to
Be happy Mr King..please be nice to Zoe and us now
WTF?!
an amendment to respect religious freedom by King
and agreed to
Be happy Mr King..please be nice to Zoe and us now
pou-pou
06-12 09:10 AM
here's the one i did earlier :S not too marvelous :D
0 comments:
Post a Comment