nareshg
10-09 12:56 AM
Was there a similar thread started by pappu ?
wallpaper punk very short haircuts
arnab221
12-15 12:19 PM
Kill 2 birds with the same stone . Nice . Weigh loss + Green card Gain
ags123
03-02 01:47 PM
Finally 7 more days to go :)
One more consistent fact for the last few bulletins is that it is published on the dot on the monday after the first week.
In this case March 9th.
Also another interesting titbit I found was VB moves only by dates
1st
8th
15th and
22nd
When the VB is 1st Feb 05 it covers dates 1st to 7th , when it is 8th 8th to 14th and so on.
One more consistent fact for the last few bulletins is that it is published on the dot on the monday after the first week.
In this case March 9th.
Also another interesting titbit I found was VB moves only by dates
1st
8th
15th and
22nd
When the VB is 1st Feb 05 it covers dates 1st to 7th , when it is 8th 8th to 14th and so on.
2011 hairstyles for very short hair
santb1975
06-06 12:58 AM
That is awesome
Amount: $50.00 USD
Transaction ID: *1701P
Please come forward and contribute guys!
Amount: $50.00 USD
Transaction ID: *1701P
Please come forward and contribute guys!
more...
imm_pro
09-12 02:11 PM
Thanks IV...way to go.
Just made a modest contribution of $200.
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 11:28 AM PDT
Google Order #313190031134013
Just made a modest contribution of $200.
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 11:28 AM PDT
Google Order #313190031134013
abhijitp
07-15 01:33 PM
For the long run, we REALLY need "monthly sign-ups"! However every drop counts, so I am going to pitch in with my $5! Good initiative eb3_nepa!
more...
baburob2
03-15 06:25 PM
Overall no big progress w.r.t our title's though Brownback's comment on immigration numbers is good.
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
Senate Judiciary Committee Continues Slow Progress in Markup of Immigration Reform Legislation
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06031540 (posted Mar. 15, 2006)"
The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its consideration today of draft legislation on comprehensive immigration reform sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The Committee officially took up the bill, known as the �Chairman�s Mark,� on March 2 but has made very slow progress to date.
The following is a very brief summary of the amendments that were addressed during today�s session. See our previous update on last week�s markup sessions. We will continue to update you as action on the bill continues.
1. The Committee passed by a voice vote a compromise amendment by Feingold that would preserve some level of judicial review over naturalization applications.
2. A Specter 2nd degree amendment to a Sessions amendment on evading inspection passed.
3. A Leahy amendment on security-related issues passed by voice vote.
4. A Kennedy amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s retroactive provisions was debated and deferred.
5. A Feinstein amendment to modify the provisions of the Mark relating to border security was deferred for future action.
6. A Durbin amendment to strike the Mark�s criminalization of unlawful status was once again deferred for future consideration. Feinstein attempted to offer a 2nd degree amendment that would provide aliens with a 60-day grace period for visa overstays before they are subject to criminal prosecution under INA � 275(a), but Specter would not allow it since Durbin�s underlying amendment was set aside.
7. A Durbin amendment to ameliorate the Mark�s smuggling provision so as not to criminalize humanitarian assistance was once again debated and deferred. Kyl spoke in opposition to the amendment. Cornyn had a second degree that Hatch thought was insufficient. Hatch, Schumer and Biden spoke in opposition to Cornyn�s 2nd degree. Cornyn was not convincing, but Kyl did some damage.
8. A Sessions amendment to affirm the inherent authority of state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal civil immigration laws during the normal course of carrying out their duties was discussed. Specter offered a 2nd degree that would limit the inherent authority of states and localities to the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws. Sessions would only support the 2nd degree if the provisions of the Mark criminalizing unlawful presence remain intact. Thus, if the Durbin amendment to strike those provisions passes, Sessions wants to revisit the Specter 2nd degree. Specter�s 2nd degree passed by voice vote.
9. A Sessions amendment that would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide information to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) related to aliens who may have violated certain immigration laws passed by a voice vote. The broadly worded amendment would encompass visa overstayers, other civil violators, and even members of vulnerable populations such as asylum-seekers who are improperly documented but seeking relief. Leahy and Kennedy voted against the amendment and Leahy spoke in opposition to overloading the NCIC database with individuals who do not belong in it. A Specter 2nd degree amendment that would provide a procedure for requesting removal from the database and modify the group of individuals included in it passed by voice vote.
10. A Sessions amendment that would require at least one law enforcement agency in each state to enter into a � 287(g) cooperative enforcement agreement to enforce immigration laws against alien smugglers was considered. Sessions accepted a Coburn 2nd degree amendment that would clarify: (1) that such agreements would be purely voluntary, and (2) that the �287(g) enforcement authority would not be limited to alien smuggling. There was no quorum to vote on these, however, and they were set aside.
Part way through the markup, Specter attempted to jump to a debate on the issue of the undocumented population, noting that he has reiterated to Senate Majority Leader Frist that he (Specter) opposes bringing immigration reform to the Senate Floor before the Senate Judiciary Committee had completed its consideration of the Chairman�s Mark. Biden and Kennedy voiced their support of Specter�s desire to complete work in Committee. Kennedy added, �this issue is NOT going away, like some other issues,� and urged deferral of the Title VI discussion until tomorrow (Title VI contains the provisions dealing with the undocumented population). He added that we need to deal with ALL aspects of reform to have real, lasting border security�going forward with any of these components alone will fail.
Durbin said that, to defeat the House bill (H.R. 4437), the Committee needs to pass a strong bipartisan bill with the support of about 12 members. He feels the Committee should do an extra markup session on a day when there is no other Senate business. �We need to watch the House,� noted Durbin, adding: �They have a bill we need to fight at all costs. We need bipartisan support out of this Committee.�
Brownback stated that the Committee has started a process to create broad bipartisan support for good policy, and that this is the most significant legislation of the year. �We have serious problems with immigrant numbers,� he said. �We can�t live with these and need to change them. McCain/Kennedy would deal with this. How do we get the Mark to deal with these numbers? We need a way NOT to end up here again after 10 years. We can�t move too quickly.�
Cornyn described the process as akin to �digging out of a big hole,� noting that with enforcement done first, other issues would get simpler. He believes we need to impose circularity---not permanent immigration.
Coburn said that, like it or not, we have to deal with issue of the undocumented population. He urged the Committee to split the bill in two and do enforcement first, and work to reach consensus on other parts later in the year. �No one in the country trusts us on this issue because we haven�t enforced our existing laws,� he said.
Feinstein stated her concerns about the process, and also spoke out against comprehensive immigration reform and in favor of her more limited agricultural pilot program idea. She said she had met with Senator Craig (the sponsor of AgJobs) yesterday to see if they could work out their differences but there has been no resolution yet. She also expressed much frustration with Frist�s artificial timeline. She indicated her opposition to the House bill, and said that consensus was needed in the Committee (she believes the Committee has come to some consensus on the enforcement pieces but little else). She urged Specter to go back to Frist and ask for more time.
Sessions said we need to focus on enforcement now, and then have a national discussion later on the other elements of immigration reform. He believes Congress needs to focus on enforcement to build credibility with the public. �I�m not prepared to repeat 1986,� he said. �We should slow down.�
Specter repeatedly voiced his concern about �line-jumping,� arguing that the McCain/Kennedy bill would �leap frog� the current undocumented population over individuals who have been waiting in the backlogs. He also said that he�d prefer it if the legislation contained a path to citizenship but, as Chair, was trying to balance both sides.
In other hurdles to the Judiciary Committee�s completion of work on the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, argued that the Finance Committee should have jurisdiction over the provisions of the Mark relating to the Social Security Act, adding that the IRS has raised serious concerns about some of these amendments. However, several other senators argued for consideration of these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. It is also possible that Grassley could exercise the Finance Committee�s authority by managing those amendments during floor debate.
The Committee disbanded about noon, due to a number of votes on the Senate Floor and the attendant low probability of maintaining a voting quorum in the Committee.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=18835
2010 short haircuts 2011 images.
sri1309
09-10 05:31 PM
Guys,
Now that the delay happened, lets ask for Citizenship, . We waited 10 years, played by the rules. And we have seen the drama for the last 3-4 years. So why do you want to do these calculations, spillovers etc. We must ask our fair share,,
Think,
Sri..
Now that the delay happened, lets ask for Citizenship, . We waited 10 years, played by the rules. And we have seen the drama for the last 3-4 years. So why do you want to do these calculations, spillovers etc. We must ask our fair share,,
Think,
Sri..
more...
nosightofgc
07-14 10:19 PM
Just Contributed $20.
hair Short haircuts
ravish_kaipa
09-12 12:29 PM
Here are my details.
Confirmation Number: 5HL471558P745653V
Amount $100
Confirmation Number: 5HL471558P745653V
Amount $100
more...
meridiani.planum
12-19 12:40 AM
I agree with you. I think USCIS has made a conservative estimate, most likely, based on past spillover numbers. However, situation is little different this time. With the bad economy, there were less number of PERM applications filed in FY2009 that will claim visa numbers in FY2010. Also, with DOL taking ages to approve new PERM applications, there will be less applicants, that filed PERM this FY, claiming visa number. Thus, there will be lot more spillover this time than previous years. IV has taken this into consideration while doing its math but we cannot expect the same from USCIS. I think EB2I should at least move till mid if not till 2008.
bad economy of 2009 is irrelevant to PD movement because of the huge backlog of pending cases. Just see the stats the USCIS had released earlier. Also, PERM applications dont take visa number. A visa number is allocated when a 485 is being approved.
So EBI reaching 2008 is almost certainly a zero possibility unless there are some legislative changes. There are simply too many pending cases from 2005, 2006.
bad economy of 2009 is irrelevant to PD movement because of the huge backlog of pending cases. Just see the stats the USCIS had released earlier. Also, PERM applications dont take visa number. A visa number is allocated when a 485 is being approved.
So EBI reaching 2008 is almost certainly a zero possibility unless there are some legislative changes. There are simply too many pending cases from 2005, 2006.
hot And Very Short Hairstyle
amslonewolf
08-13 05:27 PM
EB3 from June 2008 bulletin
All Charge-ability Areas -1-Mar-06
China - 22-Mar-03
India - 1-Nov-01
Mexico - 1-Jul-02
Philippines - 1-Mar-06
September 2008 bulletin -Comment
D. VISA AVAILABILITY FOR OCTOBER
The Mexico F2A and Employment Third preference cut-off dates are “unavailable” for both August and September, since those FY-2008 annual limits have been reached. The Visa Office had originally anticipated that this would be a temporary situation. Then with the start of the new fiscal year in October the cut-off dates would have returned to those which had applied during June. However, continued heavy demand in those categories may require the establishment of cut-off dates which are earlier than those which had applied in June. A formal decision determination of the October cut-off dates will not be possible until early September.
My take on this is that there might be some balancing act across the EB3-Sub categories. If you notice in the June 2008 dates, there is a huge discrepancy in the EB3- Sub categories.
For example, Philippines is 1-Mar-06 and India is 1-Nov-01.
Who knows, they might move back the EB3- Philippines/ROW and move forward (or leave it on 1-NOV-01) the EB3-India dates.. This is a possibility from the text of the September 2008 bulletin. So, it's not all gloom and doom for EB3 Categories..
All Charge-ability Areas -1-Mar-06
China - 22-Mar-03
India - 1-Nov-01
Mexico - 1-Jul-02
Philippines - 1-Mar-06
September 2008 bulletin -Comment
D. VISA AVAILABILITY FOR OCTOBER
The Mexico F2A and Employment Third preference cut-off dates are “unavailable” for both August and September, since those FY-2008 annual limits have been reached. The Visa Office had originally anticipated that this would be a temporary situation. Then with the start of the new fiscal year in October the cut-off dates would have returned to those which had applied during June. However, continued heavy demand in those categories may require the establishment of cut-off dates which are earlier than those which had applied in June. A formal decision determination of the October cut-off dates will not be possible until early September.
My take on this is that there might be some balancing act across the EB3-Sub categories. If you notice in the June 2008 dates, there is a huge discrepancy in the EB3- Sub categories.
For example, Philippines is 1-Mar-06 and India is 1-Nov-01.
Who knows, they might move back the EB3- Philippines/ROW and move forward (or leave it on 1-NOV-01) the EB3-India dates.. This is a possibility from the text of the September 2008 bulletin. So, it's not all gloom and doom for EB3 Categories..
more...
house very short hair styles for
EndRetro
03-08 01:42 PM
Thanks for the real time updates. Please keep on doing it...
tattoo Styles,Short hairstyles
DCQC
08-21 04:03 PM
Hi,
Can we use the I-485 receipt notice for extension of DL for my wife. She was on H4 which expires Oct 20. She plans to use the EAD card to work and we will not extend her H4 unless EAD does not come before Oct 20. She got a letter from DMV yesterday asking for additional proof for extended stay. Also will EAD suffice as evidence?
We live in California.
Can we use the I-485 receipt notice for extension of DL for my wife. She was on H4 which expires Oct 20. She plans to use the EAD card to work and we will not extend her H4 unless EAD does not come before Oct 20. She got a letter from DMV yesterday asking for additional proof for extended stay. Also will EAD suffice as evidence?
We live in California.
more...
pictures very short blonde hairstyles
gctest
09-15 04:19 PM
That memo/document you pointed out is an interpretation. We have already said that USCIS's interpretation is incorrect. We intend to correct this interpretation with this lawsuit.
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Incorrect.
Please read this pdf document
AFM Update: Chapter 22: Employment-based Petitions (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf)
Please pay attention to section (3) Priority Date Based on Earlier Petition on page 28 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
For example:
Company A files a labor certification request on behalf of an alien ("Joe") as a janitor on January 10, 2003. The DOL issues the certification on March 20, 2003. Company A later files, and USCIS approves, a relating I-140 visa petition under the EB-3 category. On July 15, 2003, Joe files a second I-140 visa petition in his own behalf as a rocket scientist under the EB-1 category, which USCIS approves. Joe is entitled to use the January 10, 2003, priority date to apply for adjustment under either the EB-1 or the EB-3 classification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest, you talk to an attorney before using words like illegal. It may be unfair, but still be legal.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
dresses cute short haircuts for curly
pbojja
09-11 05:19 PM
i have stopped giving a F**K about red dots. they honestly don't mean shit.
I agree , Even though I m a not big contributor , I have got so many reds in the past ...when you disagree with others opinion you just get a red, they dont dare to express
I agree , Even though I m a not big contributor , I have got so many reds in the past ...when you disagree with others opinion you just get a red, they dont dare to express
more...
makeup very short hairstyles
ItIsNotFunny
03-09 07:52 AM
This is becoming like a person who buys lottery regularly. Then every time before the results are going to come out, starts dreaming and then gets disappointed as his number is not drawn.
Stop dreaming! This is not a lottery. Please contribute to FOIA and lets find the real numbers.
Stop dreaming! This is not a lottery. Please contribute to FOIA and lets find the real numbers.
girlfriend hair Celebrity Very Short Hair
anilnag
02-23 02:09 PM
At NSC I am seeing the following entry
-----
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications 4 Months
-----
What does 4 months mean?
It means USCIS has pre-adjudicated your I-485 if it was filed before october 2008.
-----
I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status Employment-based adjustment applications 4 Months
-----
What does 4 months mean?
It means USCIS has pre-adjudicated your I-485 if it was filed before october 2008.
hairstyles Short Wedding Hair
9years
11-16 08:10 AM
Update. My attorney has sent a letter (interfiling process) to USCIS mentioning that my case is current now. One of my friends got 485 approved within 2 weeks after initiating interfiling process. I hope it would be the same case with me.
Thank you for sharing VayuMahesh. I hope I have to do the same. Can you please share, is there any form he has to fill while doing this or he has to write a letter.
Thank you for sharing VayuMahesh. I hope I have to do the same. Can you please share, is there any form he has to fill while doing this or he has to write a letter.
xyzgc
02-09 09:49 PM
My stand is based on the premise that a man is financially responsible for his wife and his kids and not to wife's parents! The point I was making is about a completely non working spouse. It is not about a wife that leaves workforce for medical reason temporarily.
Let us not confuse the responsibility towards a man's wife and kids with that of in-laws!
Using the same token, a man shouldn't expect/demand any property/cash from in-laws!
I'm perfectly OK with humanitarian and need based help. What crosses the line, according to me, is that 'taking for granted' attitude!
If the brother in OP's story is taking care of his parents, then this situation wouldn't have occurred. Look at it other way. If the man's parents are in need of money, it is better to ask the man instead of their son-in-law!
A man taking a stand and be done with it has a better chance of saving a marriage than a man caving to the demand and building resentment. Hey, if a man is willing to please his in-laws in all possible ways, then who are we to stop him! Let him enjoy!!
I think, gcisadawg, the problem is the structure of the indian society. This is true with westerners too but as much true.
An Indian/asian guy has to earn because he is perceived to be a bread winner. Unless he is properly settled he is not eligible for marriage.
On the other hand, if a girl is not career-oriented she can still get good husbands depending on her personality and so on.
And such girls invariably forfeit the right to send money to their parents. In such cases, one should not expect girl's parents to give her a share in their property. Its all clean.
You have Indian house wives (many of them) but you have fewer house husbands. Even if your wife works, it is supplementary income and not the main.
This is a complex equation and husbands and wives must understand the social structure we live in and adjust with each other.
Let us not confuse the responsibility towards a man's wife and kids with that of in-laws!
Using the same token, a man shouldn't expect/demand any property/cash from in-laws!
I'm perfectly OK with humanitarian and need based help. What crosses the line, according to me, is that 'taking for granted' attitude!
If the brother in OP's story is taking care of his parents, then this situation wouldn't have occurred. Look at it other way. If the man's parents are in need of money, it is better to ask the man instead of their son-in-law!
A man taking a stand and be done with it has a better chance of saving a marriage than a man caving to the demand and building resentment. Hey, if a man is willing to please his in-laws in all possible ways, then who are we to stop him! Let him enjoy!!
I think, gcisadawg, the problem is the structure of the indian society. This is true with westerners too but as much true.
An Indian/asian guy has to earn because he is perceived to be a bread winner. Unless he is properly settled he is not eligible for marriage.
On the other hand, if a girl is not career-oriented she can still get good husbands depending on her personality and so on.
And such girls invariably forfeit the right to send money to their parents. In such cases, one should not expect girl's parents to give her a share in their property. Its all clean.
You have Indian house wives (many of them) but you have fewer house husbands. Even if your wife works, it is supplementary income and not the main.
This is a complex equation and husbands and wives must understand the social structure we live in and adjust with each other.
h1techSlave
05-01 02:35 PM
Cool
The gray dots come when you get either approval/disapproval from somebody who has:
less than 30 posts.
overall negative reputationgray dots have no affect on your reputation. This is to prevent new or disreputes from irresponsibly affecting others' reputations.
The gray dots come when you get either approval/disapproval from somebody who has:
less than 30 posts.
overall negative reputationgray dots have no affect on your reputation. This is to prevent new or disreputes from irresponsibly affecting others' reputations.
No comments:
Post a Comment