images house maths times tables 
delax
07-14 09:35 AM
Well, why is there 33% quota for EB1,2 and 3 in the first place.They could have very well made it 100% for Eb1 and if there was any spill over, EB2 gets them and then finally EB3!Because, US needs people from all categories.
Now all that I am saying is there should be some % on the spill over that comes from EB1.
If there are 300,000 applicants in EB2 and if the spill over from EB1 is 30K every year, you think it is fair that EB2 gets that for over 6-7 years without EB3 getting anything?That is not fair and if that's what the law says, it has to be revisited.I am saying give 75% or even 90% to EB2 and make sure you clear EB3 with PD as old 2001 and 2002.That is being human.They deserve a GC as much as an EB2 with 2007 (and I am not saying that EB3 2007 deserves as much as an EB2 2007).
Bottom line, EB3 (or for that matter any category) can't be asked to wait endlessly just because there are some smart kids in another queue!We can come up with a better format of the letter; we can change our strategy to address this issue; we do not have to talk about EB2 and mention only our problems.We want EB3 queue to move.
Actually its 28.6% of the worlwide total for each category, but I'll ignore your ignorance about that.Remember that once a country retrogresses, there is a specific ORDER laid down by law on how to allocate visa numbers.It is only after the higher reservoir is full that visa numbers flow to the lower reservoir.If you are asking to fill both reserviors partially then what answer do you have to the EB2 candidate who did not get a visa number because an EB3 either ROW or from a retro country was allocated that number purely based on the length of wait.
Please understand that Law in general and immigration law in particular is about DUE PROCESS and DUE NOTICE.This flies in the face of both.Your argument is completely invalid for an EB-2 cadidate who did not get the visa number because of your 'fairness' rule.
If you sow the wind you'll reap the whirlwind!
Now all that I am saying is there should be some % on the spill over that comes from EB1.
If there are 300,000 applicants in EB2 and if the spill over from EB1 is 30K every year, you think it is fair that EB2 gets that for over 6-7 years without EB3 getting anything?That is not fair and if that's what the law says, it has to be revisited.I am saying give 75% or even 90% to EB2 and make sure you clear EB3 with PD as old 2001 and 2002.That is being human.They deserve a GC as much as an EB2 with 2007 (and I am not saying that EB3 2007 deserves as much as an EB2 2007).
Bottom line, EB3 (or for that matter any category) can't be asked to wait endlessly just because there are some smart kids in another queue!We can come up with a better format of the letter; we can change our strategy to address this issue; we do not have to talk about EB2 and mention only our problems.We want EB3 queue to move.
Actually its 28.6% of the worlwide total for each category, but I'll ignore your ignorance about that.Remember that once a country retrogresses, there is a specific ORDER laid down by law on how to allocate visa numbers.It is only after the higher reservoir is full that visa numbers flow to the lower reservoir.If you are asking to fill both reserviors partially then what answer do you have to the EB2 candidate who did not get a visa number because an EB3 either ROW or from a retro country was allocated that number purely based on the length of wait.
Please understand that Law in general and immigration law in particular is about DUE PROCESS and DUE NOTICE.This flies in the face of both.Your argument is completely invalid for an EB-2 cadidate who did not get the visa number because of your 'fairness' rule.
If you sow the wind you'll reap the whirlwind!
wallpaper hairstyles times tables
Macaca
02-16 09:38 AM
From Va.Bar Could Reverse Limits On Firms Hiring Legislators (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021502096.html).
RICHMOND -- The organization charged with regulating Virginia attorneys is pushing to erase an ethics rule that for a half-century has prohibited the state's legislators from being employed alongside lobbyists at the commonwealth's largest law firms.
The change, proposed by the Virginia State Bar's standing committee on legal ethics, could spark a bidding war among Richmond's leading law firms, which would be free to hire the speaker of the House of Delegates or the Senate floor leader even as their lobbyists prowl the halls of the General Assembly.
That has outraged some in the legislature, who say the move would create dangerous conflicts of interest for the lawmakers and the lobbyists.And they say it adds to a perception that the General Assembly is a good old boys' club where deals are cut behind closed doors instead of in public committee rooms.
RICHMOND -- The organization charged with regulating Virginia attorneys is pushing to erase an ethics rule that for a half-century has prohibited the state's legislators from being employed alongside lobbyists at the commonwealth's largest law firms.
The change, proposed by the Virginia State Bar's standing committee on legal ethics, could spark a bidding war among Richmond's leading law firms, which would be free to hire the speaker of the House of Delegates or the Senate floor leader even as their lobbyists prowl the halls of the General Assembly.
That has outraged some in the legislature, who say the move would create dangerous conflicts of interest for the lawmakers and the lobbyists.And they say it adds to a perception that the General Assembly is a good old boys' club where deals are cut behind closed doors instead of in public committee rooms.
My advice don't buy just for the 8k tax benefit.The reatlors main weapon is this 8k tax credit now.In NJ/NY it is less than the property tax u r paying for one year.In other places with less house prices it may be good.
