- kim kardashian silver paint
- Kim Kardashian hot photo shoot
- kim kardashian silver paint cover shoot. Photo shoot silver paint Page
- kim kardashian silver paint
- tattoo kim kardashian silver
- kim kardashian w cover
- Kim Kardashian, 29, bared it
- kim kardashian silver paint
- Kim Kardashian in silver paint
- kim kardashian silver paint
- kim kardashian silver paint w
- kim kardashian silver
- Kim Kardashian was left
- kim kardashian silver paint w
- kim kardashian silver paint
- kim kardashian silver paint
- kim kardashian silver paint
- kim kardashian silver paint photo shoot. Kim Kardashian Silver Paint
- kim kardashian silver paint
images kim kardashian silver paint 
wallpaper kim kardashian silver paint
2011 Kim Kardashian hot photo shoot.jpg "kim kardashian silver paint")
more...
more...
2010 kim kardashian silver paint cover shoot. Photo shoot silver paint Page
more...
hair kim kardashian silver paint
more...
hot tattoo kim kardashian silver
more...
house kim kardashian silver paint
tattoo kim kardashian w cover
more...
pictures Kim Kardashian, 29, bared it
dresses kim kardashian silver
more...
makeup Kim Kardashian in silver paint
girlfriend kim kardashian silver paint w
hairstyles kim kardashian silver paint w
Source URL: https://geofflow.blogspot.com/2011/06/kim-kardashian-silver-paint-cover-shoot.html
Visit tattoo makjruss for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
Ramba
07-04 08:13 PM
Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0482.shtm
others: various law firm sites, including
www.ilw.com
http://pubweb.fdbl.com/news1.nsf/9abe5d703b986cff86256e310080943a/41399c23bb40f2ff8525730c007f830a?OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated new 485 filings. : 700K is conservative. May be wrong too.
LC s certified from BEC: about 200K (from 2001 to 2005 filings)
PERM Certifed labor: About 200K (from Mar 2005 to June 2007)
Total LC: 400K. Let us assume 100K already appliled. Lets say 300K is affected by retrogression.
The dependents for 300k will be 450K (1.5 times primary)
So total AOS applicants will be 750K just based on LC. Excluding EB1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
wallpaper kim kardashian silver paint
sunty
11-11 12:33 PM
In addition to sending the letter, we may try this avenue as well (look at the page bottom)
How to Contact Us (http://travel.state.gov/about/info/info_308.html)
"For immigrant visa inquiries, call the National Visa Center at 603-334-0700 or
email: NVCINQUIRY@state.gov"
Any idea if these is the correct number to call ?
Maybe inundating them with calls might help us reach Mr. Charles Oppenheim office and get some explaination about the visa allocation process.
I tried calling, but today is a Federal Holiday. Will try again tomorrow.
How to Contact Us (http://travel.state.gov/about/info/info_308.html)
"For immigrant visa inquiries, call the National Visa Center at 603-334-0700 or
email: NVCINQUIRY@state.gov"
Any idea if these is the correct number to call ?
Maybe inundating them with calls might help us reach Mr. Charles Oppenheim office and get some explaination about the visa allocation process.
I tried calling, but today is a Federal Holiday. Will try again tomorrow.
jhegde
04-20 02:10 PM
Attn: California Members � Please participate in this even to support STRIVE ACT.
This is a public rally organized by Congressman Gutierrez (Sponsor of STRIVE ACT) in San Jose, CA on Saturday April 21st at 4:00 PM.
Address:
1775 Story Road.
San Jose CA 95122.
Date and Time:
Saturday April 21 4:00 PM.
---------------------------------------
If you want to gather and meet other Immigration Voice members before the meeting, then please come at 3:30 PM at
Wal-Mart Store:
777 Story Road.
San Jose CA 95122.
----------------------------------------
Purpose:
To stand in support of STRIVE act of 2007 and thereby support title 5 of high-skills legal immigration. It is very important for Immigration Voice to show up in large number so that we can project our strength and also confirm our support to the congressman and thank him for working to reform the broken system by including provisions to remove skilled-immigration backlog.
Pratik will be attending this with many other members of IV in San Jose and Bay area including a couple of other core group members. I will be driving to this event from Reno unless there is severe weather on I-80 at Donner pass. If anyone from Reno wants to carpool with me, please email me at jay@immigrationvoice.org
Please show your support for STRIVE act and our support to congressman as its very important to be vocal and active for upcoming bills in Senate (May) and House (June-July).
Questions:
If you have questions about this event, please email Pratik at pratik@immigrationvoice.org (pratik@immigrationvoice.org)
I will be coming with my other friend. We are commuting from Tracy / Stockton area. Anybody bringing the banners / hand signs to support STRIVE ACT?
This is a public rally organized by Congressman Gutierrez (Sponsor of STRIVE ACT) in San Jose, CA on Saturday April 21st at 4:00 PM.
Address:
1775 Story Road.
San Jose CA 95122.
Date and Time:
Saturday April 21 4:00 PM.
---------------------------------------
If you want to gather and meet other Immigration Voice members before the meeting, then please come at 3:30 PM at
Wal-Mart Store:
777 Story Road.
San Jose CA 95122.
----------------------------------------
Purpose:
To stand in support of STRIVE act of 2007 and thereby support title 5 of high-skills legal immigration. It is very important for Immigration Voice to show up in large number so that we can project our strength and also confirm our support to the congressman and thank him for working to reform the broken system by including provisions to remove skilled-immigration backlog.
Pratik will be attending this with many other members of IV in San Jose and Bay area including a couple of other core group members. I will be driving to this event from Reno unless there is severe weather on I-80 at Donner pass. If anyone from Reno wants to carpool with me, please email me at jay@immigrationvoice.org
Please show your support for STRIVE act and our support to congressman as its very important to be vocal and active for upcoming bills in Senate (May) and House (June-July).
Questions:
If you have questions about this event, please email Pratik at pratik@immigrationvoice.org (pratik@immigrationvoice.org)
I will be coming with my other friend. We are commuting from Tracy / Stockton area. Anybody bringing the banners / hand signs to support STRIVE ACT?
2011 Kim Kardashian hot photo shoot
.jpg "kim kardashian silver paint")
PresidentO
02-11 01:23 PM
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
You rock dude! Am I the only one to remember how visa numbers spill between FB and EB every other year? (or) Am I hallucinating?
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
You rock dude! Am I the only one to remember how visa numbers spill between FB and EB every other year? (or) Am I hallucinating?
more...
crystal
02-15 04:19 PM
Are you sure this is the reason why they have per country limits :confused:
Or you dont want that way :D
It is just that the policy is here since they don't want everyone (waiters, DMV clerks, etc) in Silicon Valley to be forced to learn Mandarin or Persian or whatever.
Or you dont want that way :D
It is just that the policy is here since they don't want everyone (waiters, DMV clerks, etc) in Silicon Valley to be forced to learn Mandarin or Persian or whatever.
harrybond
08-19 03:34 PM
[
JunRN
Senior Member
what's ur reasoning behind ur statement?
QUOTE=JunRN;150114]To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.[/QUOTE]
JunRN
Senior Member
what's ur reasoning behind ur statement?
QUOTE=JunRN;150114]To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.[/QUOTE]
more...
gcsim
12-10 09:28 AM
what r these guys playing immigration-immigration with us.
2010 kim kardashian silver paint cover shoot. Photo shoot silver paint Page
velan
06-30 09:18 PM
Thanks for the update.
more...
immigrant2007
09-10 10:20 AM
EB2 I/C won't be current in the next 4-5 Years, the EB2 I/C demand till date (Today�s Date) is in the 100K - 120K Range. The EB2I/C demand till Jul/Aug 2007 is easily in the 40-45K Range so it will require a very over optimistic scenario to clear by Sep 2011. EB3 ROW will reach end of 2006 by FY 2011. So there is a very long way to go. All the movement is under many assumptions most important being the economy and unemployment, anytime this changes all spillover will collapse and there will really be no difference between EB2 I/C and EB3 I/C.
One of the main things that could help us to make a correct guess is number of approved and pending I-140s per country per year of priority.
USCIs shouldn't say they don't have this data and we shouldn't say we never requested this
One of the main things that could help us to make a correct guess is number of approved and pending I-140s per country per year of priority.
USCIs shouldn't say they don't have this data and we shouldn't say we never requested this
hair kim kardashian silver paint
ArunAntonio
04-21 11:02 PM
I was at the meeting / Rally today. There was a decent turn out for the Legal Immigration reformsupporters. The one thing that stuck out when I walked out after the meeting was "NUMBERS MATTER" and this is the first time I saw it first hand. The Supporters of refrom for Undocumented workers were present in VAST numbers when compared to the supporters of Legal Immigration reforms. The other thing I noticed is that Rep. Gutierrez seems to be a grassroots level person who connects with the issues faced by the common man dues to the obsolete immigraiton policies.
However we have some thing from our end to do and that is to:
- Call the lawmakers and ask them to support the STRIVE act
- Keep reminding the lawmakers that our issues need to be addressed
- Make sure our issues get as much attention and coverage as possible
- Make our presence felt
- contribute, so that even though we may not have the numbers, we can make a difference with the $$
- Keep at it.
So my comments to all those who were there today and felt that it was not very productive, Please do not get disheartened, it did make a difference, the congressman saw and noticed that the people backlogged in the Legal Immigration channel are also willing to come out and get their word out. It also showed that we all in the IV community are connected enough to generate a showing agaisnt such small notice, we need to keep doing this, but in much bigger numbers and keep active and get out message out.
- Peace.
However we have some thing from our end to do and that is to:
- Call the lawmakers and ask them to support the STRIVE act
- Keep reminding the lawmakers that our issues need to be addressed
- Make sure our issues get as much attention and coverage as possible
- Make our presence felt
- contribute, so that even though we may not have the numbers, we can make a difference with the $$
- Keep at it.
So my comments to all those who were there today and felt that it was not very productive, Please do not get disheartened, it did make a difference, the congressman saw and noticed that the people backlogged in the Legal Immigration channel are also willing to come out and get their word out. It also showed that we all in the IV community are connected enough to generate a showing agaisnt such small notice, we need to keep doing this, but in much bigger numbers and keep active and get out message out.
- Peace.
more...
kumarc123
04-09 03:37 PM
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
hot tattoo kim kardashian silver
anjs
08-10 09:56 PM
I am in for this.
anjs
anjs
more...
house kim kardashian silver paint
ajthakur
07-14 06:44 PM
I dont remember that. I saw my online profile with USCIS just now. There is a LUD for yesterday 07/13/2008 on my 140 approved in 2006.
Do you see any LUD change on your I-140 after you changed employers?
Do you see any LUD change on your I-140 after you changed employers?
tattoo kim kardashian w cover
unitednations
12-21 10:48 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I had written about this in the past. When I went for local office interview; he had requested all w2's and tax returns from my initial entry shown on g-325( LAST ADDRESS OUTSIDE USA FOR MORE THEN ONE YEAR) which was 1999.
It said prove that you maintained status on each entry.
Now: i didn't have any issues but I was pretty upset that officer was going way outside the law and testing periods that he wasn't supposed to. My date of last entry before filing 485 was December 2002 and he was requesting 1999-2006.
I did inform him that he wasn't supposed to ask for this as it was outside the law. However; what I gathered is that although 245k does have some significant protection for everyone; uscis tries to go other ways in catching/snagging you. Another link was provided in this link where a person listed an employer on his g-325a but he was on bench and never got paid. USCIS was trying to deny his 485 due to fraud. Fraud overrules 24k any time.
Therefore; uscis uses many different avenues to get at other aspects; especially to get you to lie, cover up, mislead in things you don't need to but inadvertently do because you think it is problematic when it really wasn't.
The feeling i got from my interview is that is what he was exactly trying to do.
more...
pictures Kim Kardashian, 29, bared it
shukla77
09-26 10:14 AM
Wrote to editor to correct the mistake.
dresses kim kardashian silver
GCwaitforever
12-26 04:24 PM
Business needs define rules in this country. Western Union was sending money to mexico. Then American Banks started chipping into that business, accepting different documents as valid for money transfer. You get the drift.
As for Citi bank not opening e-accounts for existing account holders, it is a bit surprising. Once they vetted you in the process, they are repeating it just to verify your identity? My bank lets me open different accounts online as I am known to them for a long long time.
As for Citi bank not opening e-accounts for existing account holders, it is a bit surprising. Once they vetted you in the process, they are repeating it just to verify your identity? My bank lets me open different accounts online as I am known to them for a long long time.
more...
makeup Kim Kardashian in silver paint
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
07-13 07:46 PM
just spoke to our firms Immigration lawyer, per them, we will see more movement in Aug Bulletin and in Sept Bulletin we will see Retrogression back to May/aug 2005 for EB2
reasoning was Oct # would be released so they r trying to capture as many # as they can
I am april 2006 and it seems it will be a 1 yr wait foir me now.
This is completely bullshit...... I bet on it that the dates will never come back to Augst 2005.
He must have said Aug 2006 not Aug 2005.
Whoever the lawyer is, he has no idea of how cutoff dates are calculated
reasoning was Oct # would be released so they r trying to capture as many # as they can
I am april 2006 and it seems it will be a 1 yr wait foir me now.
This is completely bullshit...... I bet on it that the dates will never come back to Augst 2005.
He must have said Aug 2006 not Aug 2005.
Whoever the lawyer is, he has no idea of how cutoff dates are calculated
girlfriend kim kardashian silver paint w
Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
hairstyles kim kardashian silver paint w
NKR
09-05 04:07 PM
chandu,its not same all the time as i believe in the candidate potential then the experience..i have seen so many case in my past 5 yrs of experience that a Guy who has 8yrs of experience failed to impress the hiring manager and technical lead in an personal interview where as a fresh graduate from well know university cracked the same interview a got the project� IT is the place where we all have to learn new thing every day...experience only matters how the a person approaching to get the things done...it all depends on how each individual is capable of job get done..this is what i belive in...no offence to any one.
I think it is more than that. A guy with lots of experience unless he is looking for a job that suits his experience will not get a job for which he will be over qualified.
An experience guy might find it difficult to answer questions like �what is operator precedence?� at first, cause he has moved from there to advanced levels, but a guy straight out of college can perform better in the interview and get the job.
Also remember for just a techie job, a middle aged (or older) guy will be a liability on the company as that can change the dynamics of medical insurances and other benefits for himself and his family. The company would rather take in a less experienced person and spend less, the company will not tell that for legal reasons but that is an unwritten rule that they will follow.
I think it is more than that. A guy with lots of experience unless he is looking for a job that suits his experience will not get a job for which he will be over qualified.
An experience guy might find it difficult to answer questions like �what is operator precedence?� at first, cause he has moved from there to advanced levels, but a guy straight out of college can perform better in the interview and get the job.
Also remember for just a techie job, a middle aged (or older) guy will be a liability on the company as that can change the dynamics of medical insurances and other benefits for himself and his family. The company would rather take in a less experienced person and spend less, the company will not tell that for legal reasons but that is an unwritten rule that they will follow.
Springflower
10-25 11:32 AM
PD is March 2004 / EB3 India / I 140 Approved / 485 Pending
GCBy3000
01-16 10:10 AM
I have already signed up through my bank to send $20 everymonth to IV. It will also have memo with my name gcby3000.
So you can count me against $20.
So you can count me against $20.
Source URL: https://geofflow.blogspot.com/2011/06/kim-kardashian-silver-paint-cover-shoot.html
Visit tattoo makjruss for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
.jpg)
