PlainSpeak
03-28 08:19 PM
I recommend you apologize to MC and don't make this a circus
Not sure what you mean here. MC is not angry at me, If anything he is angry at snathan :D
Also i admire you digging through my old emails to get that nugget of information out but you wasted your time going through the old posts unless it has opened your minds at last but wait !!!!! what am i thinking. You belong to the 2 gang !!!!
Also the reason for the . is very simple. I was using it to test whether my post was still being blocked by IV or not. ironic huh :)
thats pretty ridiculous, why don't you prove it
Now i don't need to prove anything. You have done that by your reply.
Garv Se Bolo Legal Immigrant
Garv Se Bolo Regular (Not Highly) educated Skilled applicant for GC
Garv Se Bolo EB3 I
Not sure what you mean here. MC is not angry at me, If anything he is angry at snathan :D
Also i admire you digging through my old emails to get that nugget of information out but you wasted your time going through the old posts unless it has opened your minds at last but wait !!!!! what am i thinking. You belong to the 2 gang !!!!
Also the reason for the . is very simple. I was using it to test whether my post was still being blocked by IV or not. ironic huh :)
thats pretty ridiculous, why don't you prove it
Now i don't need to prove anything. You have done that by your reply.
Garv Se Bolo Legal Immigrant
Garv Se Bolo Regular (Not Highly) educated Skilled applicant for GC
Garv Se Bolo EB3 I
wallpaper Kitchens
chanduv23
09-05 12:49 PM
Add 1 to counter. I am in from California...
Way to go. U DA MAN, see u in DC
Way to go. U DA MAN, see u in DC
sam_i02
07-17 08:36 PM
i think this is the same guy who created a huge fuss on july 2nd when we found out that all 485s will be rejected and said that we all deserve it since we did not "remember" people in pbec.
do u want to go thru somthing like that again....by unbanning him?
bestia do not feel sorry for ppl like these...because they kick you when u r happy
hahaha. i also remember one guy telling everyone on this bbs to not file till July 29, so the PDs remain current for August. some one later found out by reading his old posts that he had already filed his 485 :eek:
do u want to go thru somthing like that again....by unbanning him?
bestia do not feel sorry for ppl like these...because they kick you when u r happy
hahaha. i also remember one guy telling everyone on this bbs to not file till July 29, so the PDs remain current for August. some one later found out by reading his old posts that he had already filed his 485 :eek:
2011 Under a kitchen island makes a
m306m
05-01 02:57 PM
<<bump>>
more...
amitjoey
05-31 04:38 PM
http://www.parlipro.org/table.htm
Purpose:
The Object of this motion is to enable the assembly, in order to attend to more urgent business, to lay aside the pending question in such a way that its consideration may be resumed at the will of the assembly as easily as if it were a new question, and in preference to new questions competing with it for consideration. It is to the interest of the assembly that this object should be attained instantly by a majority vote, and therefore this motion must either apply to, or take precedence of, every debatable motion whatever its rank.
The motion to Lay on the Table is undebatable, and requires only a majority vote, notwithstanding the fact that if not taken from the table the question is suppressed.
These are dangerous privileges which are given to no other motion whose adoption would result in final action on a main motion. There is a great temptation to make an improper use of them, and lay questions on the table for the purpose of instantly suppressing them by a majority vote, instead of using the previous question, the legitimate motion to bring the assembly to an immediate vote.
The fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate. The motion to lay on the table being undebatable, and requiring only a majority vote, and having the highest rank of all subsidiary motions, is in direct conflict with these principles, if used to suppress a question. If habitually used in this way, it should, like the other motions to suppress without debate, require a two-thirds vote. [Note: The current (Tenth) edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, does not permit this usage of Lay on the Table to suppress a question.]
As motions laid on the table are merely temporarily laid aside, the majority should remember that the minority may all stay to the moment of final adjournment and then be in the majority, and take up and pass the resolutions laid on the table. They may also take the question from the table at the next meeting in societies having regular meetings as frequently as quarterly. If not taken from the table at the next meeting, however, the motion dies.
Purpose:
The Object of this motion is to enable the assembly, in order to attend to more urgent business, to lay aside the pending question in such a way that its consideration may be resumed at the will of the assembly as easily as if it were a new question, and in preference to new questions competing with it for consideration. It is to the interest of the assembly that this object should be attained instantly by a majority vote, and therefore this motion must either apply to, or take precedence of, every debatable motion whatever its rank.
The motion to Lay on the Table is undebatable, and requires only a majority vote, notwithstanding the fact that if not taken from the table the question is suppressed.
These are dangerous privileges which are given to no other motion whose adoption would result in final action on a main motion. There is a great temptation to make an improper use of them, and lay questions on the table for the purpose of instantly suppressing them by a majority vote, instead of using the previous question, the legitimate motion to bring the assembly to an immediate vote.
The fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote for every motion that suppresses a main question for the session without free debate. The motion to lay on the table being undebatable, and requiring only a majority vote, and having the highest rank of all subsidiary motions, is in direct conflict with these principles, if used to suppress a question. If habitually used in this way, it should, like the other motions to suppress without debate, require a two-thirds vote. [Note: The current (Tenth) edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, does not permit this usage of Lay on the Table to suppress a question.]
As motions laid on the table are merely temporarily laid aside, the majority should remember that the minority may all stay to the moment of final adjournment and then be in the majority, and take up and pass the resolutions laid on the table. They may also take the question from the table at the next meeting in societies having regular meetings as frequently as quarterly. If not taken from the table at the next meeting, however, the motion dies.
gsc999
09-20 04:18 PM
Excellent idea!! Senior citizens are quite active politically and many of them are more mature given their age & experience. We should certainly take this one up...
jazz
Thumb-up for the DC Rally! I think our efforts will be long-term. We got to get the idea across to as many people as possible. Rally is powerful, but we also need to use other types of campaign--big or small to get our voice heard.
One idea my American friend shared with me was to make presentations at retirement centers or community centers/ events. We need to be visible and our contribution to the country made known.
Wonderlust
Wonderlust and Jazz:
Can you guys team up and take this action item to explore this option.
Please communicate in e-mails or PMs from now on. I would be glad to assist you two.
jazz
Thumb-up for the DC Rally! I think our efforts will be long-term. We got to get the idea across to as many people as possible. Rally is powerful, but we also need to use other types of campaign--big or small to get our voice heard.
One idea my American friend shared with me was to make presentations at retirement centers or community centers/ events. We need to be visible and our contribution to the country made known.
Wonderlust
Wonderlust and Jazz:
Can you guys team up and take this action item to explore this option.
Please communicate in e-mails or PMs from now on. I would be glad to assist you two.
more...
krishmunn
05-23 09:38 AM
I have been successfull to motivate a co-worker (EB3-ROW) to contribute to this cause.
Guys, remember not only India/China are suffering, EB3-ROW is also impacted . Forward this to anyone from EB3-ROW that you know
Guys, remember not only India/China are suffering, EB3-ROW is also impacted . Forward this to anyone from EB3-ROW that you know
2010 Restaurant-style island (pp.
ramus
06-14 05:46 AM
Yes you can file for 485..
I missed this news.
Who can apply for 485?
My Labor was approved and I-140 pending.
My PD is Feb, 2006.
Can I apply for 485 now.
My both daughters are in India.
If I can apply now then I will have to bring my daughters immdtly to U.S.
Please can some body help me.
With regards,
Ricky
I missed this news.
Who can apply for 485?
My Labor was approved and I-140 pending.
My PD is Feb, 2006.
Can I apply for 485 now.
My both daughters are in India.
If I can apply now then I will have to bring my daughters immdtly to U.S.
Please can some body help me.
With regards,
Ricky
more...
bekugc
06-04 12:28 PM
hi smartboy;
as far as i know -> if spouse is working on EAD, she is NO LONGER on H4.
and the agreed way of re-instating h1/h4 is via H1/h4 extension or amendment or via h1/h4 stamping.
if she leaves US and wanna come back , then she can use AP.
if she still has a valid h4 stamping in the passport, i guess she may be tempted to use it; but i dont know what the implications cud be at the POE. the IO can chk her SSN and find out easily that she is on payroll at employment and paying taxes etc and can question "well it seems like u were working, and now u want to come back to H4? did u quit ur job etc etc". im just guessing but these cud be very valid questions.
assuming her h4 is accpted at POE, then she comes back to h4 nonimmig visa and is immediately not eligible to work.
One may say that - oh ok, now taht im back in the US, let me use EAD again and get back to work. but this becomes like flipfloping and just misusing H4 for travel purposes.
it may be a grey area, chk with a lawyer regarding this. who knows theoritically it may be allowed to flipflop between h4 and ead.
as far as i know -> if spouse is working on EAD, she is NO LONGER on H4.
and the agreed way of re-instating h1/h4 is via H1/h4 extension or amendment or via h1/h4 stamping.
if she leaves US and wanna come back , then she can use AP.
if she still has a valid h4 stamping in the passport, i guess she may be tempted to use it; but i dont know what the implications cud be at the POE. the IO can chk her SSN and find out easily that she is on payroll at employment and paying taxes etc and can question "well it seems like u were working, and now u want to come back to H4? did u quit ur job etc etc". im just guessing but these cud be very valid questions.
assuming her h4 is accpted at POE, then she comes back to h4 nonimmig visa and is immediately not eligible to work.
One may say that - oh ok, now taht im back in the US, let me use EAD again and get back to work. but this becomes like flipfloping and just misusing H4 for travel purposes.
it may be a grey area, chk with a lawyer regarding this. who knows theoritically it may be allowed to flipflop between h4 and ead.
hair kitchen islands,
gc28262
03-21 10:35 AM
OK. loud and clear Desi :D
Now, I have provided the reference to part of AC21 law with my interpretation, which allows visa portability (unofficially known as transfer) from one sponsor to another and excempt from numeric limits.
All I hear is "incorrect", "wrong" followed by individual interpretation or opinion. I respect all disagreement part, Which may be/not be accurate. Why don't you quantify your comments with references to law or CIS memo? Don't you think discussion need to be healthy and fair?
Now, I have a lot of filthy and rediculous offensive messages on the discussion threads with reds, which I would not like to post in public. If this is what our anonymous so called "highly skilled" can bring to the table, then I am speachless.
gapala,
This thread is not a discussion thread. OP asked a question. We need to provide him a precise and satisfactory answer. There is no point in confusing him with endless discussion.
His situation is very simple. There is no question of out of status here to begin with. OP knows this very well. Many of the people who responded here ( excluding me ) are quite knowledgeable in immigration matters.
When in doubt, always refer lawyer's newsletter/USCIS memos rather than us trying to interpret the law. We are no lawyers.
Now, I have provided the reference to part of AC21 law with my interpretation, which allows visa portability (unofficially known as transfer) from one sponsor to another and excempt from numeric limits.
All I hear is "incorrect", "wrong" followed by individual interpretation or opinion. I respect all disagreement part, Which may be/not be accurate. Why don't you quantify your comments with references to law or CIS memo? Don't you think discussion need to be healthy and fair?
Now, I have a lot of filthy and rediculous offensive messages on the discussion threads with reds, which I would not like to post in public. If this is what our anonymous so called "highly skilled" can bring to the table, then I am speachless.
gapala,
This thread is not a discussion thread. OP asked a question. We need to provide him a precise and satisfactory answer. There is no point in confusing him with endless discussion.
His situation is very simple. There is no question of out of status here to begin with. OP knows this very well. Many of the people who responded here ( excluding me ) are quite knowledgeable in immigration matters.
When in doubt, always refer lawyer's newsletter/USCIS memos rather than us trying to interpret the law. We are no lawyers.
more...
amslonewolf
03-06 07:11 AM
I received the same response.
I would like to contribute as well.
I would like to contribute as well.
hot Kitchen Islands Design Ideas
scamp
05-10 09:27 PM
Hi,
My company just laid off although I am not one of them my question is can i stiil apply labor certification substitution?
Thanks.
My company just laid off although I am not one of them my question is can i stiil apply labor certification substitution?
Thanks.
more...
house around this kitchen island
danu2007
06-23 04:49 PM
Called just now..
tattoo Kitchen islands suck space.
Jimi_Hendrix
11-08 07:12 PM
For those interested in knowing who the new House Reps are, there is a complete list on this link:
http://asp.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/NationalElectionResultsByStateCounty.aspx?sp=CA&oi=H&rti=G&&tf=l
http://asp.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/NationalElectionResultsByStateCounty.aspx?sp=CA&oi=H&rti=G&&tf=l
more...
pictures Kitchen Island Paradise
nk2
06-13 08:41 PM
We have more then 1000 members online..
Should we start our fund drive..
Just kidding but won't hurt to do it though as everybody is so happy..
I think we should, this is a good time, people are happy. We should ask them to sign-up for monthly.
Should we start our fund drive..
Just kidding but won't hurt to do it though as everybody is so happy..
I think we should, this is a good time, people are happy. We should ask them to sign-up for monthly.
dresses island kitchen antique
RRG
07-18 02:39 PM
People like bigtime008 are loosers.
They will think of themselves only. Characteristics of such peoiple are: Selfish
Instead of celebrating the greater good for all, they are just worried about what they are getting out of it.
These people join a group for security; but will always think only about themselves and will take every opportunity to demoralize the whole team.
We know BEC is an issue and there is sympathy for them, but does it mean we want to stop 700K people with families not getting a chance to better their lives.
They will think of themselves only. Characteristics of such peoiple are: Selfish
Instead of celebrating the greater good for all, they are just worried about what they are getting out of it.
These people join a group for security; but will always think only about themselves and will take every opportunity to demoralize the whole team.
We know BEC is an issue and there is sympathy for them, but does it mean we want to stop 700K people with families not getting a chance to better their lives.
more...
makeup kitchen with island and pot
NolaIndian32
02-18 01:24 PM
Now y'all got some competition going on, LA will probably never catch CA, but TX better watch out! :)
girlfriend -modular-kitchen-islands
Winner
05-18 11:07 AM
Sent email to TX senators and got an auto response from each one of them.
hairstyles kitchen island by Pedini
jhaalaa
01-12 09:04 AM
Countrywise visa allocation limits contradicts Equal Employment Opportunity law, specially in the presence of the Diversity visa lottery.
I have pledged $1K for the lawsuit, because I believe in this just cause.
We need to find a good attorney to fight it - can anyone talk to the Big names - one name who sounds passionate in his posts is Ron G.
I have no big name lawyers around this remote interior place. I urge the folks who truly believe in this cause to:
- Talk to a few good attorneys
- come up with a plan for action and form an action committee
- Let the attorney determine the way we fund it ( A bare minimum $ amount be advertised), so that a conditional collective representation as well as refund clause is present in the agreement.
- We shall all collectively urge others to contribute too.
- If we do not receive the minimum amount by a certain date (say 60days), we would trust the Attorney to refund the cheque amounts as per the agreements we sign.
- It should not matter whether we win or loose. At least we would have stood for Justice and Equality for all.
I have pledged $1K for the lawsuit, because I believe in this just cause.
We need to find a good attorney to fight it - can anyone talk to the Big names - one name who sounds passionate in his posts is Ron G.
I have no big name lawyers around this remote interior place. I urge the folks who truly believe in this cause to:
- Talk to a few good attorneys
- come up with a plan for action and form an action committee
- Let the attorney determine the way we fund it ( A bare minimum $ amount be advertised), so that a conditional collective representation as well as refund clause is present in the agreement.
- We shall all collectively urge others to contribute too.
- If we do not receive the minimum amount by a certain date (say 60days), we would trust the Attorney to refund the cheque amounts as per the agreements we sign.
- It should not matter whether we win or loose. At least we would have stood for Justice and Equality for all.
spicy_guy
05-20 01:17 AM
Will not be able to make it though..
Again, I strongly suggest inviting folks from other Forums too, like Murthy, , etc.
This is for a common cause.. and many would like to join..
Guys who are active members of other forums can post this link there...
My 2 cents...
Again, I strongly suggest inviting folks from other Forums too, like Murthy, , etc.
This is for a common cause.. and many would like to join..
Guys who are active members of other forums can post this link there...
My 2 cents...
qvadis
03-20 08:33 PM
The visa office's interpretation is correct and if you read 202 (a) (5) it clearly says that the country limits should be ignored for unused visa numbers.
Well, which interpretation? The one from April '08 or from November '05? They substantially differ. That's part of the controversy. What motivated them to change it?
I do think that the interpretation is, at least, debatable, and I can see both interpretations. In the end, the question comes down to: does the country limit have priority over the EB category, and I don't think you can have a conclusive answer.
I have gone through the sections of 202 (a) (5) and 203 (b) and the text of the law does not say that prefer country limits over categories.
But it also doesn't say the opposite.
In 202 (a) (5) it actually says assign visa numbers wasted in any category can be assigned with out per country limits. If you look at how they overflow from one category to another, those visa numbers belong to that category before they do NOT belong to a oversubscribed state or belong to ROW.
It also states: if Visas available. You can certainly construe the case that Visas can only be available if they cannot be assigned to a lower category. 202 (a) (5) (B) actually states that only in application of 202 (e), Visas should be deemed to be required. Does that mean they are not required otherwise? 203(b) actually uses the same terminology to allow non-required visas to fall through.
Historically, before AC-21 was added, Visa numbers were wasted because they needed to be assigned in proportion. Irrespective of the interpretation of 202 (a) (5) this cannot happen with AC-21.
Well, which interpretation? The one from April '08 or from November '05? They substantially differ. That's part of the controversy. What motivated them to change it?
I do think that the interpretation is, at least, debatable, and I can see both interpretations. In the end, the question comes down to: does the country limit have priority over the EB category, and I don't think you can have a conclusive answer.
I have gone through the sections of 202 (a) (5) and 203 (b) and the text of the law does not say that prefer country limits over categories.
But it also doesn't say the opposite.
In 202 (a) (5) it actually says assign visa numbers wasted in any category can be assigned with out per country limits. If you look at how they overflow from one category to another, those visa numbers belong to that category before they do NOT belong to a oversubscribed state or belong to ROW.
It also states: if Visas available. You can certainly construe the case that Visas can only be available if they cannot be assigned to a lower category. 202 (a) (5) (B) actually states that only in application of 202 (e), Visas should be deemed to be required. Does that mean they are not required otherwise? 203(b) actually uses the same terminology to allow non-required visas to fall through.
Historically, before AC-21 was added, Visa numbers were wasted because they needed to be assigned in proportion. Irrespective of the interpretation of 202 (a) (5) this cannot happen with AC-21.
No comments:
Post a Comment