dealsnet
09-04 05:26 PM
Now I think new people are running IV.
Aman Kapoor (Walden Pond) is not controlling now. That is the reason these idiots have got the admin previlages. Now they do nothing worthwhile. Bunch of jockers.
If this was about you being having admin previledges,you wud have been taken to trial for misusing this board.....AH...
Aman Kapoor (Walden Pond) is not controlling now. That is the reason these idiots have got the admin previlages. Now they do nothing worthwhile. Bunch of jockers.
If this was about you being having admin previledges,you wud have been taken to trial for misusing this board.....AH...
wallpaper Short, red tints
songlan
07-13 09:59 AM
Can you share with us the steps (or a link maybe) to file on our own.? I have heard of Maple a lot and most of my friends in the west coast are going through them. That's why I referred their name here. Note: I am not paid to market them and they are very expensive :(
thks!!
lotr
You can easily find the steps at the official website www.cic.gc.ca . I followed the instructions on this web site step-by-steps and got GC approval for whole family in 12 months. I did not complete the final steps (pay the final fee and land to Canada for at least once), because I thought the chance to get US GC is still with us. Now I got US GC 3 weeks ago (at the crazy peak of approval June 15 June 30 , you knew it).
I made many researches about the chance to live in Canada for an ex-US H1B (asking the friends there, compare the living cost, job search in canada, visit canadian forum etc ...) and found the decision to quit US and get GC in Canada is very various and depends on individual cases/family. You have to make your own research and find Canada GC is suitable for your situation , your family or not.
for short, you can do-it-yourself the the application canadian GC, you certainly DO NOT NEED an immigration service . Paying such services could only cause your case more delays (everything get though attorneys first .....) ....
thks!!
lotr
You can easily find the steps at the official website www.cic.gc.ca . I followed the instructions on this web site step-by-steps and got GC approval for whole family in 12 months. I did not complete the final steps (pay the final fee and land to Canada for at least once), because I thought the chance to get US GC is still with us. Now I got US GC 3 weeks ago (at the crazy peak of approval June 15 June 30 , you knew it).
I made many researches about the chance to live in Canada for an ex-US H1B (asking the friends there, compare the living cost, job search in canada, visit canadian forum etc ...) and found the decision to quit US and get GC in Canada is very various and depends on individual cases/family. You have to make your own research and find Canada GC is suitable for your situation , your family or not.
for short, you can do-it-yourself the the application canadian GC, you certainly DO NOT NEED an immigration service . Paying such services could only cause your case more delays (everything get though attorneys first .....) ....
indyanguy
07-03 10:43 AM
My case details:
Visa on the passport up until Feb 2009
6 year term ending on Feb 2010
Date on I94 in passport is Feb 2010
I140/I485 concurrently applied on July 07
Currently have EB3 I-140 filed based on Substitute Labor at NSC.
Questions -
1. If my I-140 case gets picked up AFTER Feb 2009 (less than 365 days of H1 6 year term ending) and is denied (God forbid!), will I be eligible to file for a post 6 year H1 extension? Since this is Labor Sub, the labor doesn't have my name on it.
2. Can I file for a new EB2 PERM at that time and get an extension based on that (H1 6 year ending term < 365 days at that time)?
3. As a backup, can I apply for EB2 PERM NOW for a different position from the same company? How will it affect my pending EB3-140?
Thanks in advance
Visa on the passport up until Feb 2009
6 year term ending on Feb 2010
Date on I94 in passport is Feb 2010
I140/I485 concurrently applied on July 07
Currently have EB3 I-140 filed based on Substitute Labor at NSC.
Questions -
1. If my I-140 case gets picked up AFTER Feb 2009 (less than 365 days of H1 6 year term ending) and is denied (God forbid!), will I be eligible to file for a post 6 year H1 extension? Since this is Labor Sub, the labor doesn't have my name on it.
2. Can I file for a new EB2 PERM at that time and get an extension based on that (H1 6 year ending term < 365 days at that time)?
3. As a backup, can I apply for EB2 PERM NOW for a different position from the same company? How will it affect my pending EB3-140?
Thanks in advance
2011 and medium brown ends.
gagbag
07-03 09:56 PM
http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS219US220&ncl=1117797588&hl=en&scoring=n
more...
Kushal
07-28 12:23 AM
Amway guys motto is to harass people even after you say NO and its been the same experienced by some of my friends and see similar ones in this thread as well. So again in plain english No means NO.. (If you did not understand what i said in plain english..)
"If you are not interested why would they bother you?"
Ask your amway friends/buddies and you are more than welcome to join them in the backseat of a police car with handcuffs.. :D..
Sure with dead bobhead braincells of yours, nobody expects your self image to be high enough. Its not for wimps wearing zippers to the side like you. If you are man enough come and talk to me, and will see who gets handcuffed.
"If you are not interested why would they bother you?"
Ask your amway friends/buddies and you are more than welcome to join them in the backseat of a police car with handcuffs.. :D..
Sure with dead bobhead braincells of yours, nobody expects your self image to be high enough. Its not for wimps wearing zippers to the side like you. If you are man enough come and talk to me, and will see who gets handcuffed.
kshitijnt
07-17 12:39 PM
Is it accurate to say that new way of allocating spill over visas effectively acheive same effect as eliminiating country limits?
For short term yes. Long term No.
If there is a surge of ROW applicants. India & China applicants are at severe disadvantage.
For short term yes. Long term No.
If there is a surge of ROW applicants. India & China applicants are at severe disadvantage.
more...
lazycis
02-14 12:58 PM
Galvez v. Howerton 503 F. Supp. 35, 39 (C.D. Cal. 1980)
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14843
"Plaintiffs herein allege that officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have engaged in affirmative misconduct in failing to process their applications for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident aliens. They seek a court order compelling the defendants to issue them appropriate visa numbers."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). The central inquiry here is the determination whether or not the conduct of the INS, including the failure of the INS officials to understand the applicable law, the improper rejection of plaintiffs' visa applications on two occasions, and the ensuing delay, constitute affirmative misconduct.
It is the duty of the agency to inform itself of the law which Congress has authorized it to enforce. The INS admits that its personnel were not familiar with the current statute applicable to plaintiffs' visa eligibility and thus erred in returning [**8] the plaintiffs' applications on the basis of a misinterpretation of the relevant law. This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law").
Another aspect of the present misconduct relates to the agency's failure to fulfill a statutory duty. The INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress. 6 The legislative history of the Immigration & Naturalization Act indicates that this duty has not been left to agency discretion, see S.Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & [*39] Ad.News, pp. 3328, 3337-38, but is obligatory upon the agency. "
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and defendants' [**14] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Court orders the defendant Secretary of State to issue A.T. Cortes and E. Cortes Fifth Preference visa numbers and to charge them to the 1979 visa allotments"
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1838094&postcount=14843
"Plaintiffs herein allege that officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have engaged in affirmative misconduct in failing to process their applications for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident aliens. They seek a court order compelling the defendants to issue them appropriate visa numbers."
"Where there has been affirmative misconduct on the part of the INS, the United States may be estopped to deny the availability of visas to those otherwise eligible but for the government's acts. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8-9, 94 S. Ct. 19, 21-22, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973); see also Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Santiago v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 526 F.2d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S. Ct. 2167, 48 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1976). The central inquiry here is the determination whether or not the conduct of the INS, including the failure of the INS officials to understand the applicable law, the improper rejection of plaintiffs' visa applications on two occasions, and the ensuing delay, constitute affirmative misconduct.
It is the duty of the agency to inform itself of the law which Congress has authorized it to enforce. The INS admits that its personnel were not familiar with the current statute applicable to plaintiffs' visa eligibility and thus erred in returning [**8] the plaintiffs' applications on the basis of a misinterpretation of the relevant law. This failure to act in accordance with law is an aspect of the agency's affirmative misconduct which the Court cannot overlook. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. � 706(2)(A) (agency action to be set aside where "not in accordance with law").
Another aspect of the present misconduct relates to the agency's failure to fulfill a statutory duty. The INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress. 6 The legislative history of the Immigration & Naturalization Act indicates that this duty has not been left to agency discretion, see S.Rep. No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & [*39] Ad.News, pp. 3328, 3337-38, but is obligatory upon the agency. "
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and defendants' [**14] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Court orders the defendant Secretary of State to issue A.T. Cortes and E. Cortes Fifth Preference visa numbers and to charge them to the 1979 visa allotments"
2010 83 Medium Neutral Brown
WeldonSprings
09-15 02:16 PM
Here is what I researched and found out-
From the data for India
For Permanent applications 2004 => Reduction in Recruitment (EB2 cases)
From 1 April 1004 to 16 August 2004 => 430 appox(All countries)
No data from 17 August 2004 to 28 February 2005.
From 01 March 2005 to 30 September 2005, For Level III- 263 For Level IV-271
= 500 approx.
For 01 October 2005 to March 2006, For Level III- 2500, Level IV-1770
= 4300 approx.
Now, of the GCs approved last Aug.08 and Sept.08 were from the Texas Service Center.
That meant Atlanta Processing Center was the Labor Approval Center.
So, For 01 October 2005 to March 2006
For Level III- 1100, Level IV-770.
So, total left = (2500-1100) + (1770-770) = 1400 + 1100= 2500
Therefore toatl from 01 April 2004 to Mar. 2006=>
430(2004) + 400(mystery number from 16 Aug. 04 to 01 March 2005) + 500(2005) +2500(2006)= 3900 principal applicants.
Multiply by 2 for dependents = 7800 EB2 India pending before Mar. 06.
Please comment on my analysis or feel free to ask questions.
From the data for India
For Permanent applications 2004 => Reduction in Recruitment (EB2 cases)
From 1 April 1004 to 16 August 2004 => 430 appox(All countries)
No data from 17 August 2004 to 28 February 2005.
From 01 March 2005 to 30 September 2005, For Level III- 263 For Level IV-271
= 500 approx.
For 01 October 2005 to March 2006, For Level III- 2500, Level IV-1770
= 4300 approx.
Now, of the GCs approved last Aug.08 and Sept.08 were from the Texas Service Center.
That meant Atlanta Processing Center was the Labor Approval Center.
So, For 01 October 2005 to March 2006
For Level III- 1100, Level IV-770.
So, total left = (2500-1100) + (1770-770) = 1400 + 1100= 2500
Therefore toatl from 01 April 2004 to Mar. 2006=>
430(2004) + 400(mystery number from 16 Aug. 04 to 01 March 2005) + 500(2005) +2500(2006)= 3900 principal applicants.
Multiply by 2 for dependents = 7800 EB2 India pending before Mar. 06.
Please comment on my analysis or feel free to ask questions.
more...
Lasantha
02-12 02:21 PM
Yes, I wonder too. The new memo with the 180 day rule for FBI name check may create a considerable demand for visa numbers and could slow things down.
If the current EB3-ROW move is any indication one can rely on, I think you will be current in next month's bulletin. I bet you can't wait.
I wonder what kind of move we might see for eb3 -row next month.
If the current EB3-ROW move is any indication one can rely on, I think you will be current in next month's bulletin. I bet you can't wait.
I wonder what kind of move we might see for eb3 -row next month.
hair Updo with long rown hair
ras
07-05 04:09 PM
There has been parallel thread going on enquiring about the AC 21 portability for porting from Software engineer to software quality engineer. I did small bit of search and got the following info.
DOT CODE 030.062-010 Software Engineer
SOC Code
15-1011.00 Computer and Information Scientists, Research In-Demand
15-1031.00 Computer Software Engineers, Applications In-Demand
15-1099.01 Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software In-Demand
DOT CODE033.262-010 Quality Assurance Analyst
15-1099.01 Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers
We wanted to know from the attorney
if the above DOT codes
030.062-010 and 033.262-010 can be considered to be similar.
or
SOC codes
15-1011.00 and 15-1031.00 and 15-1032.00 or 15-1099.01 can be considered to be similar.
DOT CODE 030.062-010 Software Engineer
SOC Code
15-1011.00 Computer and Information Scientists, Research In-Demand
15-1031.00 Computer Software Engineers, Applications In-Demand
15-1099.01 Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software In-Demand
DOT CODE033.262-010 Quality Assurance Analyst
15-1099.01 Software Quality Assurance Engineers and Testers
We wanted to know from the attorney
if the above DOT codes
030.062-010 and 033.262-010 can be considered to be similar.
or
SOC codes
15-1011.00 and 15-1031.00 and 15-1032.00 or 15-1099.01 can be considered to be similar.
more...
ramus
07-03 04:06 PM
Anybody have any contact with NPR.. Can we just 10 mins somewhere..
hot a tint on your rown hair
vikki76
05-13 07:17 PM
RE: Jaime,
Well, I am not sure of your reason..but whatever, if you are serious, then join any major tech company in US, and ask them to relocate to India.Cisco,Intel,Sun Microsystems, Accenture,Citibank etc. are always on look out for expatriate.
If you won't join tech company,and explore for direct employment then max pay you might get is Rs 15 Lakh per annum. or 15,000,00.
If you are an airline pilot,you will be welcome by open arms.Aviation sector is facing huge shortage.
Well, I am not sure of your reason..but whatever, if you are serious, then join any major tech company in US, and ask them to relocate to India.Cisco,Intel,Sun Microsystems, Accenture,Citibank etc. are always on look out for expatriate.
If you won't join tech company,and explore for direct employment then max pay you might get is Rs 15 Lakh per annum. or 15,000,00.
If you are an airline pilot,you will be welcome by open arms.Aviation sector is facing huge shortage.
more...
house red tints in your hair,
pamposh
12-14 03:27 PM
So that interprets to "7% limit for every country" - seems to be "Equality"
does not seem "Equality" at all, not to me.
as most of us here, I think this is something we should explore. I think this is a complete discrimination and if US wants to limit/diversify within EB category as well (which I think is absurd to start with, because this is employment based, all that should count is your credentials/education... ) then it should be somehow proportionate to the country size/population as well.
does not seem "Equality" at all, not to me.
as most of us here, I think this is something we should explore. I think this is a complete discrimination and if US wants to limit/diversify within EB category as well (which I think is absurd to start with, because this is employment based, all that should count is your credentials/education... ) then it should be somehow proportionate to the country size/population as well.
tattoo dark hair with red tips.
chiragmodi
09-28 07:18 PM
Is it mendetory to file AC21 if your job title and duties are identical in your new job???
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
pictures color only red tint
sachug22
09-24 03:32 PM
I know you are talking about "7% country speciific limit for primary applicants" and "2% country specific dependent limit" So actually it is 9% limit - country specific together.
But question is " what is the meaning of it?"
The tables what are published in bulletin are meant for "Visa number availability".
So numbers (28.6% divided by 5 per each preference-country) are meant for USCIS to process and assign visa numbers till that limit reached.
"7% + 2%" country specific limit is meant for "Sending Greencard /Ordering Greencard".
In simplest form, EB-I will have 8008 X 3 (Without spilied over) = 24024 applications assigned Visa number this year and out of that ( 9% X 140000 = 12600) lucky ones will get their physical green cards THIS YEAR. The rest will get their physical green cards next year though their files have been assigned numbers (Pre-adjudicated.) this year.
Above mentioned explanation is the real meaning of this bullshit.
I think I have tried my best to explain the process.:)
Not sure what you are talking about. There are two rules as follows
28.8% EB visas for each category EB1/EB2/EB3 and 6.8% for EB4/EB5
7% limit for each country in EB category (India will get 9800 visa in all EB1-5 categories)
To enforce the limit each EB subcategory (EB1/EB2/EB3/EB4/EB5) enforces country cap, no more than 2822 visa for India in EB1/EB2/EB3 categories.
The limit can be extended when there are leftover visas (this is what has extended the limit for EB1/EB2/EB3 India for last few years).
But question is " what is the meaning of it?"
The tables what are published in bulletin are meant for "Visa number availability".
So numbers (28.6% divided by 5 per each preference-country) are meant for USCIS to process and assign visa numbers till that limit reached.
"7% + 2%" country specific limit is meant for "Sending Greencard /Ordering Greencard".
In simplest form, EB-I will have 8008 X 3 (Without spilied over) = 24024 applications assigned Visa number this year and out of that ( 9% X 140000 = 12600) lucky ones will get their physical green cards THIS YEAR. The rest will get their physical green cards next year though their files have been assigned numbers (Pre-adjudicated.) this year.
Above mentioned explanation is the real meaning of this bullshit.
I think I have tried my best to explain the process.:)
Not sure what you are talking about. There are two rules as follows
28.8% EB visas for each category EB1/EB2/EB3 and 6.8% for EB4/EB5
7% limit for each country in EB category (India will get 9800 visa in all EB1-5 categories)
To enforce the limit each EB subcategory (EB1/EB2/EB3/EB4/EB5) enforces country cap, no more than 2822 visa for India in EB1/EB2/EB3 categories.
The limit can be extended when there are leftover visas (this is what has extended the limit for EB1/EB2/EB3 India for last few years).
dresses long rownish redish hair
lazycis
02-13 02:37 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_lit_030402a.asp
WASHINGTON, D.C.- Immigrant advocates filed a national class action lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) misadministration of a law that provides persons granted asylum the right to live and work in the United States permanently. The suit, filed by the American Immigration Law Foundation and Dorsey & Whitney LLP, seeks to compel the INS to issue all allotted "green cards" fairly on a first-come, first-served basis.
Some 50 named plaintiffs represent tens of thousands of asylees throughout the country. The plaintiffs are all refugees who fled persecution in their home countries and were granted asylum in the United States. Under U.S. law, they may apply to become permanent residents, or so-called green card holders, of the United States. Congress has imposed a cap of 10,000 on the number of asylees who can attain permanent resident status each year.
The lawsuit alleges that the government failed to distribute more than 18,000 green cards in the last eight years while more than 60,000 asylees wait in legal limbo; failed to process applications on a first-come, first-served basis as required by law; and kept thousands of asylees on the wait list who are exempt from the cap. The lawsuit also challenges the government's practice of requiring asylees to obtain a new employment authorization card each year-at a cost that presents a hardship for many families-while they wait for their permanent status.
If 50 asylees managed to get enough money for action, 50 high-skilled immigrants can do it too. Otherwise I'll be greatly dissappointed. Lack of action is a killer. I was shoked to read walking_dude's post that nobody from MI volunteered to be a plaintiff in DL case. If people do not want to help themselves, IV won't be able to help them.
WASHINGTON, D.C.- Immigrant advocates filed a national class action lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) misadministration of a law that provides persons granted asylum the right to live and work in the United States permanently. The suit, filed by the American Immigration Law Foundation and Dorsey & Whitney LLP, seeks to compel the INS to issue all allotted "green cards" fairly on a first-come, first-served basis.
Some 50 named plaintiffs represent tens of thousands of asylees throughout the country. The plaintiffs are all refugees who fled persecution in their home countries and were granted asylum in the United States. Under U.S. law, they may apply to become permanent residents, or so-called green card holders, of the United States. Congress has imposed a cap of 10,000 on the number of asylees who can attain permanent resident status each year.
The lawsuit alleges that the government failed to distribute more than 18,000 green cards in the last eight years while more than 60,000 asylees wait in legal limbo; failed to process applications on a first-come, first-served basis as required by law; and kept thousands of asylees on the wait list who are exempt from the cap. The lawsuit also challenges the government's practice of requiring asylees to obtain a new employment authorization card each year-at a cost that presents a hardship for many families-while they wait for their permanent status.
If 50 asylees managed to get enough money for action, 50 high-skilled immigrants can do it too. Otherwise I'll be greatly dissappointed. Lack of action is a killer. I was shoked to read walking_dude's post that nobody from MI volunteered to be a plaintiff in DL case. If people do not want to help themselves, IV won't be able to help them.
more...
makeup dark-medium brown-red
chanduv23
02-14 02:39 PM
chandu...have u read the lawsuit outcome? do u still think that an administrative fix is easier to achieve than a lawsuit? lets say it comes down to either/or...either a lawsuit or an administrative fix...which one would IV support?
yabadaba - Talk to ur chapter lead - for clarification, or just PM the core team :)
yabadaba - Talk to ur chapter lead - for clarification, or just PM the core team :)
girlfriend to medium brown hair
akred
06-27 11:58 PM
That depends what the adjudicator think of her, some believe she was a saint and some think that she was, well, "(boolean) NOT saint" (i.e. anything but saint)... ;)
maybe she can hit the darned adjudicator in the head with the "holy grail" and sign the form herself... :D
At that point she can be deported for fraud. Of course USCIS will only wake up and deport her for fraud when the application for citizenship is filed 20 years later.
maybe she can hit the darned adjudicator in the head with the "holy grail" and sign the form herself... :D
At that point she can be deported for fraud. Of course USCIS will only wake up and deport her for fraud when the application for citizenship is filed 20 years later.
hairstyles Brown Hair Highlighted With
breddy2000
09-03 11:07 PM
breddy2000,
Stick to the point, on YSR. Or open a thread on your favorite topics.
AP has seen an unprecedented political killings, govt and personal land grabbing, corruption, and opportunistic politics just for one man thirst YSR.
It�s better to have none than these factionist gonads. As for my id, yes just for this and more and it should not matter you. If you have point, talk about it, otherwise just shut up and don�t preach like YSR�s family member that �Someone or something is better than none�
I cannot agrue with you based on how you personally attack someone who has a different point of view.
If you do not know how to debate objectively, no one can help
Your reputation from just 6 posts says it all and I'll end this here... Good luck with your Politics.
Stick to the point, on YSR. Or open a thread on your favorite topics.
AP has seen an unprecedented political killings, govt and personal land grabbing, corruption, and opportunistic politics just for one man thirst YSR.
It�s better to have none than these factionist gonads. As for my id, yes just for this and more and it should not matter you. If you have point, talk about it, otherwise just shut up and don�t preach like YSR�s family member that �Someone or something is better than none�
I cannot agrue with you based on how you personally attack someone who has a different point of view.
If you do not know how to debate objectively, no one can help
Your reputation from just 6 posts says it all and I'll end this here... Good luck with your Politics.
mbawa2574
02-16 08:27 AM
No. I can't understand fairshot and equality when major bodyshops from a certain nationality flood the market here with people from that certain nationality, u keep ignoring that and coming back to the stupid suggestion that it's only because u have more talent
suit urself, anyone who argues with you reasonably, tell them they are wrong and make assumptions about their motives and insult and alienate more members of your organization
good luck
Is this not racism ??
suit urself, anyone who argues with you reasonably, tell them they are wrong and make assumptions about their motives and insult and alienate more members of your organization
good luck
Is this not racism ??
mbawa2574
02-15 04:44 PM
Finally an honest admission. You finally say there are more Indian and Chinese here because they have huge population.
If you can't see the insult in keeping to say "best and brightest" then I would have wasted my time.
I am not saying that there are more Chinese and Indians here. I am saying that application process is not fair since it does not give everyone a fair shot.
I am saying if more highly skilled Chinese and Indians apply for the same job,no cap should prevent them from immigration. If there FIFO ( First In and First Out), how will ROW suffer ? Can you explain ?
If you can't see the insult in keeping to say "best and brightest" then I would have wasted my time.
I am not saying that there are more Chinese and Indians here. I am saying that application process is not fair since it does not give everyone a fair shot.
I am saying if more highly skilled Chinese and Indians apply for the same job,no cap should prevent them from immigration. If there FIFO ( First In and First Out), how will ROW suffer ? Can you explain ?
No comments:
Post a Comment