Macaca
05-27 06:06 PM
In December, KPMG was retained by China Integrated Energy, which claimed to be a leader in the production of biodiesel. Just hiring a Big Four auditor enabled it to raise $24 million from institutional investors in the United States. Three months later, KPMG certified the financials.
Six weeks after that, KPMG repudiated the report and resigned. By then, China Integrated Energy executives had refused to cooperate with a board investigation into claims that the company was a complete fraud.
The Chinese audit firms, while they are affiliated with major international audit networks, have never been inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires those inspections for accounting firms that audit companies whose securities trade in the United States, but China has refused to allow inspections.
In a speech at a Baruch College conference earlier this month, James R. Doty, chairman of the accounting oversight board, called on the major firms to �improve preventative global quality controls,� but said that actual inspections were needed.
Two weeks ago, Chinese and American officials meeting in Washington said they would try to reach agreement �on the oversight of accounting firms providing audit services for public companies in the two countries, so as to enhance mutual trust.�
Frauds and audit failures can, and do, happen in many countries, including in the United States. But the audacity of these frauds, as well as the efforts to intimidate auditors, stand out. If investors such as Goldman Sachs and Hank Greenberg cannot fend for themselves, something more needs to be done if Chinese companies are to continue to trade in American markets.
Corporate China's political shadows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/corporate-china-political-shadows) By Isabel Hilton | Guardian
The Truth about the Three Gorges Dam (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/24/the-truth-about-the-three-gorges-dam/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
AIDS Funds Frozen for China in Grant Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/asia/21china.html) By SHARON LaFRANIERE | New York Times
Kicking the Great Firewall (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/25/kicking-the-great-firewall/) By Mu Chunshan | The Diplomat
China opens doors to despots with series of pariah state visits (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-opens-doors-to-despots-with-series-of-pariah-state-visits-2289723.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Ai Weiwei's Zodiac heads
It's political (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/05/ai_weiweis_zodiac_heads)
The Economist
China�s jasmine crackdown and the legal system (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/26/china-s-jasmine-crackdown-and-the-legal-system/) By Donald C. Clarke | George Washington University Law School
Six weeks after that, KPMG repudiated the report and resigned. By then, China Integrated Energy executives had refused to cooperate with a board investigation into claims that the company was a complete fraud.
The Chinese audit firms, while they are affiliated with major international audit networks, have never been inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires those inspections for accounting firms that audit companies whose securities trade in the United States, but China has refused to allow inspections.
In a speech at a Baruch College conference earlier this month, James R. Doty, chairman of the accounting oversight board, called on the major firms to �improve preventative global quality controls,� but said that actual inspections were needed.
Two weeks ago, Chinese and American officials meeting in Washington said they would try to reach agreement �on the oversight of accounting firms providing audit services for public companies in the two countries, so as to enhance mutual trust.�
Frauds and audit failures can, and do, happen in many countries, including in the United States. But the audacity of these frauds, as well as the efforts to intimidate auditors, stand out. If investors such as Goldman Sachs and Hank Greenberg cannot fend for themselves, something more needs to be done if Chinese companies are to continue to trade in American markets.
Corporate China's political shadows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/corporate-china-political-shadows) By Isabel Hilton | Guardian
The Truth about the Three Gorges Dam (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/24/the-truth-about-the-three-gorges-dam/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
AIDS Funds Frozen for China in Grant Dispute (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/asia/21china.html) By SHARON LaFRANIERE | New York Times
Kicking the Great Firewall (http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/05/25/kicking-the-great-firewall/) By Mu Chunshan | The Diplomat
China opens doors to despots with series of pariah state visits (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-opens-doors-to-despots-with-series-of-pariah-state-visits-2289723.html) By Clifford Coonan | Independent
Ai Weiwei's Zodiac heads
It's political (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/05/ai_weiweis_zodiac_heads)
The Economist
China�s jasmine crackdown and the legal system (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/26/china-s-jasmine-crackdown-and-the-legal-system/) By Donald C. Clarke | George Washington University Law School
wallpaper Table of contents | Page list
paskal
04-07 05:27 PM
Can there be a differentiation between extensions/renewals/company changes and new H1bs?
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
In some sense there already is, since the former are not subject to cap, while the latter are.
So, why not extend the same argument to other situations?
Get an LCA and impose all kinds of restrictions on new H-1Bs, but don't apply these on existing H-1Bs, especially if they have had their labors filed.
That way, they don't get rid of existing H1B employees.
They only make it harder for new people to get H1bs. Which, it is my understanding, is not our fight.
I agree, new H1b is not our concern..well not directly or immediately.
maybe the way to approach this is to ask that a PERM/LC once approved be considered as fulfilling the requirement for any certification needed for the job- in any case if it's the same process, it amounts to useless duplication to keep certifying a job again and again...
jayleno
10-01 07:58 PM
I'm a great fan of Obama for what he has achieved so far and in all probability he will win in Nov. I hope the new CIR will not be similar to CIR 2007 as far legal immigration is concerned. After 8 years of paying taxes I would definitely feel greatly disappointed if we get a raw deal for being legal
2011 Table of Contents (Page 1)
alterego
11-21 05:37 PM
This man is truly delusional and ignorant and a total propaganda machine.
Tonight he is stating that India is going to transfer sensitive nuclear technology that it will get from the USA through the nuclear deal to China.
Does he even realise India got its ass kicked in a border war with China in the past, and that India and China share a border so that it rather than the US faces a more imminent danger from an all conquering and enabled nation.
What a moron. Tonight I realised the extent of his hillbilly journalism. All he is after is ratings, he chats pure S#*&. Harvard ought to be ashamed of him.
Tonight he is stating that India is going to transfer sensitive nuclear technology that it will get from the USA through the nuclear deal to China.
Does he even realise India got its ass kicked in a border war with China in the past, and that India and China share a border so that it rather than the US faces a more imminent danger from an all conquering and enabled nation.
What a moron. Tonight I realised the extent of his hillbilly journalism. All he is after is ratings, he chats pure S#*&. Harvard ought to be ashamed of him.
more...
file485
07-08 05:41 PM
thanks UN..
a sense of relief after seeing your posts...
any prediction for the Oct bulletin for Eb2/Eb3 India...?
a sense of relief after seeing your posts...
any prediction for the Oct bulletin for Eb2/Eb3 India...?
SunnySurya
08-05 03:41 PM
Good one, I missed reading this. This put an end to the debate...You got some green dots from me...
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
Incorrect. Read for yourself.
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date. -- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any classification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify. In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date. A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition. A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
more...
jonty_11
08-06 02:23 PM
speaking of DOTs..how do you give Dots?
2010 table of contents and you
fide_champ
04-04 11:43 PM
We just offered for a townhome and the offer has been accepted. We are now waiting for the process to take its course and hopefully settle in the house in a month. Thanks for all those who gave their valuable suggestions/ideas.
more...
ZeroComplexity
08-05 03:07 PM
Nothing great ever happens by trying to undermine each other. Laws are laws, some fair and some unfair, just deal with it and focus on remedying the whole broken system.
hair The Table of Contents follows:
purgan
04-06 11:03 PM
I don't think this bill is going to go anywhere, atleast in the Senate. Durbin and Grassley have long harbored anti-H1B feelings (Grassley is a restrictionist in general, while Durban is only pro-illegal), so no wonder IEEE and Prog Guild approached them to introduce this bill. The fininshing touch came when 60 engineer-lobbyists from IEEE came to Capitol Hill the week before to influence lawmakers...
more...
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
hot Depending on the content,
abcdgc
12-27 01:08 AM
Indian government recently shared with Saudi the evidence of Pakistan government direct involvement in Mumbai attacks. This evidence has not been made public because Indian public wanting to go to war from raise from 80% to 100%. It will be impossible for the government not respond to the war started by Pakistan.
Just like Kargil, this is now an old trick. Pakistan used soilders from its army to attack Kargil and later claimed that those people were not from Pakistan. Its like a joke that rain falling from the sky is not coming from the clouds. Mushraff played this trick in Kargil and got rid of Shraif. Kayanai is using Mushraff's play book and wants to get rid of Zardari. US wants to think that Zardari is democratically elected government. The problem is he has no power. Kayanai is calling the shots and he wants to be the President. But for Kayani to become President, there is no reason for India to be at the receiving end. Attackers have come from Pakistan. Pakistan has to pay the price.
Just like Kargil, this is now an old trick. Pakistan used soilders from its army to attack Kargil and later claimed that those people were not from Pakistan. Its like a joke that rain falling from the sky is not coming from the clouds. Mushraff played this trick in Kargil and got rid of Shraif. Kayanai is using Mushraff's play book and wants to get rid of Zardari. US wants to think that Zardari is democratically elected government. The problem is he has no power. Kayanai is calling the shots and he wants to be the President. But for Kayani to become President, there is no reason for India to be at the receiving end. Attackers have come from Pakistan. Pakistan has to pay the price.
more...
house My example Table of Contents
trictrac
08-02 12:49 PM
My case is intent-to-hire for 485, so my attorney just took 3 paystubs and 1 w2 for filing. Is that ok?
tattoo table of contents example:
SunnySurya
08-05 03:10 PM
It is not the Law. It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.
Nothing great ever happens by trying to undermine each other. Laws are laws, some fair and some unfair, just deal with it and focus on remedying the whole broken system.
Nothing great ever happens by trying to undermine each other. Laws are laws, some fair and some unfair, just deal with it and focus on remedying the whole broken system.
more...
pictures Intro: Table of Contents Page
485Mbe4001
08-05 04:35 PM
Dude..if the rules for EB2 eligibility were followed to the T, most of the EB2 jobs would fall back to EB3. Stop the holier-than-thou postings, it is your first post. you were able to apply in EB2 good for you, you might dissaprove the post bit that is ok with me. you want to file a lawsuit sure go ahead, i also want a file a lawsuit with the FBI for messing up my name check, easier said than done.
I have been in this mess since 2001, i have seen cases where jobs are modified to suit the resume and resumes are modified to suit the job and most of those guys have GCs by now.
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
I have been in this mess since 2001, i have seen cases where jobs are modified to suit the resume and resumes are modified to suit the job and most of those guys have GCs by now.
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.
Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.
2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.
If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
dresses a table of contents that
yabadaba
08-11 12:26 PM
dont know about lou's total viewership but every day his online polls have less than 15,000 respondents
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/26653.exclude.html
i m sure its basically everybody who is a member of numbersusa, fair and other nut job establishments
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/26653.exclude.html
i m sure its basically everybody who is a member of numbersusa, fair and other nut job establishments
more...
makeup Table of Contents Sample
GCKaMaara
01-09 01:42 PM
refugee, you must learn a few thing from alisa. alisa is a pakistani and look at his well-structured arguments. In contrast, look at you and your abusive language. When will guys you (buddyinfo, acool) learn to show restraint and be intellectuals instead of howling like mad dogs?
Well said!
Well said!
girlfriend Table of Contents
nogc_noproblem
08-25 04:43 PM
What men say and what they actually mean . . .
� "I'M GOING FISHING" Means: "I'm going to drink myself dangerously stupid, and stand by a stream with a stick in my hand, while the fish swim by in complete safety."
� "YES, DEAR..." Means: Absolutely nothing. It's a conditioned response.
� "IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO EXPLAIN" Means: "I have no idea how it works."
� "TAKE A BREAK HONEY, YOU'RE WORKING TOO HARD". Means: "I can't hear the game over the vacuum cleaner."
� "THAT'S INTERESTING, DEAR." Means: "Are you still talking?"
� "I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT YOU, AND GOT YOU THESE ROSES". Means: "The girl selling them on the corner was a real babe."
� "WHAT DID I DO THIS TIME?" Means: "What did you catch me at?"
� "I HEARD YOU." Means: "I haven't the foggiest clue what you just said, and am hoping desperately that I can fake it well enough so that you don't spend the next 3 days yelling at me."
� "YOU KNOW I COULD NEVER LOVE ANYONE ELSE." Means: "I am used to the way you yell at me, and realize it could be worse."
� "YOU LOOK TERRIFIC." Means: "Please don't try on one more outfit, I'm starving."
� "WE SHARE THE HOUSEWORK." Means: "I make the messes, she cleans them up."
� "I'M GOING FISHING" Means: "I'm going to drink myself dangerously stupid, and stand by a stream with a stick in my hand, while the fish swim by in complete safety."
� "YES, DEAR..." Means: Absolutely nothing. It's a conditioned response.
� "IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO EXPLAIN" Means: "I have no idea how it works."
� "TAKE A BREAK HONEY, YOU'RE WORKING TOO HARD". Means: "I can't hear the game over the vacuum cleaner."
� "THAT'S INTERESTING, DEAR." Means: "Are you still talking?"
� "I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT YOU, AND GOT YOU THESE ROSES". Means: "The girl selling them on the corner was a real babe."
� "WHAT DID I DO THIS TIME?" Means: "What did you catch me at?"
� "I HEARD YOU." Means: "I haven't the foggiest clue what you just said, and am hoping desperately that I can fake it well enough so that you don't spend the next 3 days yelling at me."
� "YOU KNOW I COULD NEVER LOVE ANYONE ELSE." Means: "I am used to the way you yell at me, and realize it could be worse."
� "YOU LOOK TERRIFIC." Means: "Please don't try on one more outfit, I'm starving."
� "WE SHARE THE HOUSEWORK." Means: "I make the messes, she cleans them up."
hairstyles Table of Contents,
GCNaseeb
08-02 07:34 PM
Thanks for your valuable suggestions UN.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Once 485 is filed then you are authorized to stay in USA. If you want to work then you can use EAD; if you want to go in/out of USA then you need advance parole.
At the same time you can have h-1b.
Both things allow you to stay here.
Now; once 485 is filed; you do not need to comply with the terms and conditions of your non immigrant status. However; you shouldn't start working with another employer until you have EAD.
Technically; you could sit at home and do nothing; as long as you have intent to work with the employer until 485 is pending for more then six months and employer doesn't pull the plug before 180 days then you would be fine.
You could try to convert the h-1b to part time or transfer to another company.
I only know of one case where person was doing future base employment and invoked ac21 at his local office interview (law says you can do this) and stated he was going to work with someone else.
USCIS adjudicator asked for a letter from the company that they had intent to hire him up until the 485 had been pending for more then six months. Company would not give the letter and his case was denied.
psam
07-13 05:57 PM
I have seen these arguments too many times. I have seen STEM vs non-STEM argue over fairness. Maths vs MBA. Now its EB-3 vs EB-2.
At a high level, we all are for skill based legal immigration. Lets work towards that broader goal.
At a high level, we all are for skill based legal immigration. Lets work towards that broader goal.
anandrajesh
03-24 11:17 AM
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
Its a problem when we dont speak out on our issues - nobody understands our pain
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Corporate Greed brought America down.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
Its a problem when we dont speak out on our issues - nobody understands our pain
Its a problem when we speak out on our issues - USCIS is offended that we have issues and wants to come hard on us.
What do we do? I am fine with USCIS rejecting or approving my application but reject it or approve it without putting me on hold for 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
It is the resume fakers and document fakers and the rule breakers who should be afraid of reaching out to people. The reason why we are in the mess is because of the greedy employers and ignorant and equally greedy employees. Corporate Greed brought America down.
No comments:
Post a Comment