pixar movies coloring pages

images hair pixar cars coloring
monsters,coloring pages




harrydr
06-29 06:32 PM
Hello,
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?

My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.

Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.
---




wallpaper monsters,coloring pages
Disney amp; Pixar#39;s Toy Story




insbaby
09-15 04:25 PM
Any ideas? (My wife and son are in india now).
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.

for couple of days you can try walk on your hands...
---





color pages of content,




apb
09-14 01:26 PM
did anybody see any lud on their case?
---




2011 Disney amp; Pixar#39;s Toy Story
pixar up coloring pages.




GCNirvana007
10-08 05:03 PM
You have to actually work for company A- be on their staff, be on their payroll, be there full time employee. W2 is only issued if u work with them and draw salary.

Ok. So whoever runs my payroll is my employer. Lets say its Company C.

Question is

Am I obligated to Company A in any way?
Am I obligated to Company B which had my recent H1B?

Based on the answers i am assuming no but will wait to hear from you guys.
---


more...



Pixar Up 2 coloring pa




edaltsis
07-23 07:14 AM
It's not consultant, you mean to say that you applied through an agent. Know that you are the consultant but not the company or anyone else.
---





Pixar Movies 2010 - Page 2




Phaedra
05-30 11:28 PM
Thanks a lot, Raysaikat.
I appreciate the response.Here are a few of my immidiate thoughts....

1)I have been unemployed for a little over 180 days now.The key question is what is the penalty for remaining in the country for doing so?
This is the year when most people actually did NOT get jobs...I am guessing there are a lot of people in my position.

2)How does USCIS actually track who is employed and who is not?

3)If I were to catch the next flight back home (India), will I face problems while leaving the US/or entering India?

4)Can I get a letter from a firm/company stating that I was doing an unpaid internship with them?(which will be counted towards the employment period)Are there any repurcursions for the company?

Any thoughts/opinions wouldbe most appreciated.
Thanks!
---


more...



dresses Cars Coloring Pages




trueguy
08-09 09:27 AM
^^^^^^^

bump

^^^^^^^
---




2010 color pages of content,
hair pixar cars coloring




cheg
08-30 08:53 PM
Congratulations!!! Celebrate! :D
---


more...



So, enjoy these coloring pages




nixstor
08-03 11:56 PM
This just confirms the pathetic state of concern and sincerity USCIS associates to people awaiting these updates. Guess nobody bothered to even review this report before making it public. Oh, it was reviewed but in the same manner our applications are adjudicated. Go figure!

C mon, man give them a break. Lets try to solve the bigger problem by doing what we have to do. Lets activate participate in the DC rally on 13th Sept
---




hair pixar up coloring pages.
pixar up coloring pages.




loveiv
05-25 10:23 PM
Most of I-485 applications are currently stuck with the State Department's Visa Bulletin retrogression which are many years behind. However, aside delays which are attributed to the visa number retrogressions, the cases which were filed during the July 2007 Visa Bulletin fiasco period are expected to take nearly three years from the end of the USCIS itsself processing and adjudications in terms of the workloads, according to the CRS report. July 2007 VB fiasco filers, go figure!
According to the CRS report, the USCIS issues before the Congress are as follows from the perspectives of FY 2009 budget:
USCIS Issues for Congress. USCIS issues for Congress include the surgein immigration benefit applications that occurred in FY2007 and which resulted in an increase in the agency’s backlog, and the use of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation’s (FBI’s) National Name Check program to vet immigration benefitapplications.
Surge in Benefit Applications and Resulting Backlog. According to the testimony of USCIS Director Emilo T. Gonzalez, USCIS experienced an increasein its backlog of naturalization applications in the second half of FY2007.116 From May through July of 2007 USCIS received three and a half times more applications than during the same three months in the previous year.117 Consequently, published accounts indicate that processing time for applications filed during the FY2007 “surge” would be between 16-18 months, as compared to 6-7 months for applications filed in the same period during FY2006.118 For all immigration benefits, the USCIS director testified that the agency received over 1.2 million more applications during the FY2007 surge than in the same period during FY2006, for a total of over 3 million applications. According to media reports, USCIS officials believe that the backlog created by the application surge could take close to three years to clear. Although citizenship campaigns and a contentious national immigration debate have been cited as contributing factors, many observers believe most of the surge in
applications may be attributed to the USCIS fee increase of July 30, 2007. These fee adjustments followed an internal cost review and they increased application fees by a weighted average of 96% for each benefit. The cost of naturalization, formmigration benefit applications that occurred in FY2007 and which resulted in an increase in the agency’s backlog, and the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) National Name Check program to vet immigration benefit applications.example, increased from $330 to $595. Critics of this new naturalization backlog have mainly raised concerns that applicants would not naturalize in time toparticipate in the 2008 election. USCIS did not include a request for direct appropriations to hire additional temporary personnel to adjudicate the backlog.
Use of FBI National Name Check Program. An additional potential issue for Congress concerns USCIS’ use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Name Check Program. USCIS officials have estimated that roughly 44% of 320,000 pending name checks for immigration benefit applications have taken more than six months to process, including applications for legal permanent residence (LPR) and naturalization. As a result, the White House has authorized USCIS to grant approximately 47,000 LPR applicants their immigration benefits without requiring completed FBI name checks. Critics of this decision believe it could expose the United States to more security threats. The USCIS ombudsman, however, has argued that USCIS employment of the FBI name check process is of limited value to public safety or national security because in most cases the applicants are living and working in the United States without restriction.

Source: www.immigration-law.com

Three years clock ticks from the day filed, one year is down, two to go.
---


more...



color pages of content,




go_guy123
05-14 06:13 PM
It is time to pass the DREAM Act.

DREAM Act is held hostage up by the CIR advocates just like skilled immigration.

But the repeated failures will weaken the CIR coalition as some Latino organizations
like MALDEF have grudgingly started thinking about piecemeal options.

Dream act gives GC to illegals brought here as children by illegal parents. But then why shouldn't non-USC children of H1B get
GC before non-USC children of illegals. It is extremely hard to justify illegals are ahead of line of legals. But legals themselves
are so massively backlogged that asking illegals to go to the end of the line behind legals means nothing (practically) for illegals
amnesty advocates. H1Bs/EBs will put up with the country quota pain but La Raza et al will never buy that.

In fact, it is hard core anti-amnesty camp that is using the "piecemeal" strategy and winning again and again by ratcheting up the pressure through piecemeal bills like REAL ID act, Arizona law and its copy cat in different states.
---




hot Pixar Up 2 coloring pa
pixar up coloring pages.




go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)

Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta

As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).

Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.

In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.

At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8

Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.

Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10

�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�

Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:

1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�

It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
---


more...


house bratz coloring pages - free,
girlfriend coloring pages




mbartosik
11-04 12:09 PM
It sounds like the UK is planning on increasing the points required for residence. I see nothing wrong with regulating the points required for residence based on needs of the country. Here it is done my H1B quota, but they forgot to change the EB GC quota too, and that's much of our aim here. In the UK it is done by points. Of course increasing the points will mean that average wage by those of non-British origin will go up. I'm quite sure that we on H1B have above average wage in US too.

In the UK things are further complicated because of migration within the EU to the UK both legal and illegal.

Anyway, this is interesting, but what's happening in the UK is of academic interest only. As far as I'm aware there is not a 12 year wait in the UK for an "indefinite leave to stay" stamp in passport (equiv of GC), and there is not a country quota.

If we don't work with IV, then Lou Dobbs will be saying that "immigrants are being paid more", and then in the next breath, "immigrants are under cutting US citizens". Hang on, I think that I've heard him say both of these things already!

That's why we need to act now, before we are kicked out for both earning more and under cutting!
---




tattoo Pixar Movies 2010 - Page 2
pixar cars coloring pages.




GreenLantern
03-07 10:05 PM
I agree, they all look good.

I voted for Dave, it looks like he really put a lot of time into the detail of his site.
---


more...


pictures dresses Cars Coloring Pages
coloring pages; ocean coloring pages printable disney pixar cars




gc007
08-04 01:36 PM
I think you are right. G-28 for I-140 shud be signed by layer and employer

And there shud be 3 separate G-28 's req for I-485/131/765 signed by layer and the actual applicant.

Mine was filled this way.

May be you shud get some information from others too who have done with one G28

Hope it helps

Hi,

My employer is filing my I-140 and I-485/131/765 concurrently. My lawyer/representative send a list which says G-28 signed by lawyer and my employer. I understand for I-140, G-28 is signed by lawyer and employer(petitioner). When filed concurrently is one G-28 is enough for whole forms?
I read we need to have G-28 form for each form and for 485/131/765 forms G-28 should be signed by the actual applicant and the lawyer instead of the petitioner(my employer). Right now in my case there is only G-28 form they were sending that was signed by my employer(petitioner) and the lawyer...is one G-28 is fine for whole application packet when filed concurrently...

USCIS website clearly says without G-28 form they will reject the application right away...but it didn't mentioned for each form though...but all my colleagues says they signed three G-28 forms one each 485/765/131...i am little confused and concerend..please suggest..

thanks in advance..
---




dresses pixar up coloring pages.
pixar cars coloring pages.




eb3_nepa
06-09 01:39 PM
When discussing premium processing, capitalism etc categories, we should not forget that USCIS is a monopolist. There is no alternative, hense all screw ups, "premiums" etc. Capitalism has nothing to do with USCIS. This organization is a typical crippled socialistic child.

I agree with this one. It is more about no competition and no incentive to do things faster. Premium processing is just what it says it is. Pay up and we will have an incentive to do it faster. Else put up with our delays.

I wish they wud do something like premium processing from the WHOLE Green card process. I am sure people wud be more than willing to pay for that.
---


more...


makeup So, enjoy these coloring pages
bratz coloring pages - free,




mnq1979
10-22 03:50 PM
^^^^
---




girlfriend pixar cars coloring pages.
hot pixar up coloring pages




ivjobs
11-10 06:59 PM
Folks, There are some hot discussions going on in the forum, if this area is something interesting to you why dont you join us in the group...

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/
---




hairstyles color pages of content,
color pages of content,




franklin
02-09 12:37 PM
I found one of Pappu's post with a list of resources :0 http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=694&page=3

Pappu was nice enough to send another http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=694&page=8

Within both posts are massive amounts of email addresses and organizations that we can all spend 5 mins a day contacting. This isn't "my idea", I'm just repeating it.

Please note that the following is meant with no offense to anyone, it is more my brainstorming how to "exploit the system" to our advantage. No matter what you say about american society, it is still a racially discriminatory one. People find the subject of immigration distasteful since a lot of immigrants (legal or otherwise) don't look like them. If they see the diversity of people in their face, it might chip away at the bias.

Why am I doing this? I've been fairly vocal criticizing the lack of diversity on this board. It was pointed out that other nationalities pick up the pace, so here I am :)

With some irony, I spent a chunk of time searching last night for associations in the states that are from my nationality background (don't hate me, I'm English). All I could find are associations regarding livestock (cows) and golf.... Gotta dig deeper!
---





redelite
08-26 10:07 AM
I want a smug smiley.

Also, the 'mad' one, :m: looks more like a steaming bun than an angry face ; )

I made this one the other day and put it up..http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47648&stc=1&d=1219355088

Not sure if that's quite what your looking for... but he's pretty angry :P
---





jthomas
10-12 11:19 AM
i filed for i-485, i-765 on July 11th. no receipt yet
---


Source URL: https://nsfwgirls.blogspot.com/2011/06/pixar-movies-coloring-pages.html
Visit nsfw girls for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection