fatboysam
05-16 09:40 AM
I have couple of doubts whether i will be able to qualify or not, which i want to clairify.
Ofcourse i will apply in Skilled workers category, i do not have any Canada experience, so according to the official website, i might not qualify because i am not a Manager.
I do not see any option for a software engineer, Am i missing anything ?
Immigrating to Canada: Skilled workers and professionals - Who can apply (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who.asp)
Ofcourse i will apply in Skilled workers category, i do not have any Canada experience, so according to the official website, i might not qualify because i am not a Manager.
I do not see any option for a software engineer, Am i missing anything ?
Immigrating to Canada: Skilled workers and professionals - Who can apply (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who.asp)
wallpaper Body Imaging System At Los
needhelp!
02-12 07:24 PM
Unbelievable!
At these places, we have run into several IV members who say things like: "OH THANK YOU, I have been wanting to write this letter.... now where do I need to sign???"
At these places, we have run into several IV members who say things like: "OH THANK YOU, I have been wanting to write this letter.... now where do I need to sign???"
Roger Binny
05-27 10:44 PM
Got the RFE document.
Attorney forgot to mention "NONE" in Part3 - Sction C of my 485 application.
Which center your 485 is in ?
Attorney forgot to mention "NONE" in Part3 - Sction C of my 485 application.
Which center your 485 is in ?
2011 Body Systems Flip Booklet
Mikoers
February 19th, 2004, 07:52 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it would be sheer genius if Kodak was to license the Canon mount? Imagine if they offered both Nikon and Canon mounts (even better - an interchangeable mount plate so you could have it both ways on one body)!
Surely this is possible. Perhaps Canon is blocking them or it's just not cost-effective?
Don
It could possibly be Kodak prefer Nikon bodies and lenses. Mike
Surely this is possible. Perhaps Canon is blocking them or it's just not cost-effective?
Don
It could possibly be Kodak prefer Nikon bodies and lenses. Mike
more...
psaxena
10-07 03:18 PM
Forget all the middle vendor and lawsuit , nobody will do anything.. In CA if you not aware, there is no legally binding contract that can restrict and employee to work for any employer. Non compete agreements also do not work there, these are just fear tactics. I left my employer and joined the client , and did this 2 times and also that too not even in CA , in other states. Noone did nothing, because it cost time and money and unless there is a 100% chance for the other party to win , they will not get into the lawsuit and stuff as it cost a lot of time and money.
So forget him and also save the middle vendor's number on your phone so next time you can avoid his call.
hi ,
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
So forget him and also save the middle vendor's number on your phone so next time you can avoid his call.
hi ,
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
cheg
07-13 04:24 AM
this forum is amazing. people are helping each other and trying to make things seem a bit brighter. good luck to everyone!:)
more...
saurav_4096
08-21 04:06 PM
I dont think there is system in place where It can be tracked for cash worker at GAS Station.
So do not understand what has happened with him ...???:confused:
So do not understand what has happened with him ...???:confused:
2010 Human Body Systems Tour | by
sachug22
07-21 05:12 PM
As it is mentioned in the RFE, I have to reply with the sealed envlope and copy of letter and the yellow paper attached. I did not receive any yellow paper along with the mail. Did any one received like this ?
The gold coversheet is sent to lawyer, you only get a copy of the RFE letter. You can still respond to RFE without this letter just make sure you provide all the details (Receipt number, Alien number, RFE refernce, copy of RFE) when responding to this RFE.
The gold coversheet is sent to lawyer, you only get a copy of the RFE letter. You can still respond to RFE without this letter just make sure you provide all the details (Receipt number, Alien number, RFE refernce, copy of RFE) when responding to this RFE.
more...
ivar
04-16 02:03 PM
Yes, I saw that you are applying for the third time, I saw in another post your 140 got approved too earlier. May I ask what screwed it up for you couple of times? You can IM me if you don't want to discuss here, just want to get some idea not complete details.
Good luck!!
I sent you a PM.
Thanks.
Good luck!!
I sent you a PM.
Thanks.
hair Body systems are made from
ss1026
06-06 10:50 AM
Are these all the ppl who voted out of 10k members
/\ /\
/\ /\
more...
chanduv23
06-18 03:13 PM
u never went to india since 5 years, your crazy :)
I met a US citizen of Indian origin who came to US in 1991 on a tourist visa and in those days, they managed to get green cards - dunno how. He never visited India. Got married here and still visualizes India as how it was in 80s.
I met a US citizen of Indian origin who came to US in 1991 on a tourist visa and in those days, they managed to get green cards - dunno how. He never visited India. Got married here and still visualizes India as how it was in 80s.
hot I Love Body Systems Tshirts by
dkupadhyay
11-23 12:59 PM
Hi,
I am from India. My previous attorney paper filed my I-140 in Nov. 2006. My new attorney filed I-485 in July 2007. My new attorney has received only the copy of I-140 application and receipt from the previous attorney.
In late 2008, with the help of a congressman, my new attorney was able to figure out that USCIS has lost my original I-140 application (filed at Nebraska center) and USCIS has issued the same I-140 receipt no. to somebody else. Then USCIS auto-created a new I-140 and gave me SRC receipt no. with filing date as Jan 2008 and as electronically filed by my previous attorney.
The new I-140 (SRC one) got approved in March 2009.
Got RFE in August 2009 for my I-485 application asking for the approval notice of my original I-140. My new attorney responded with all the history and the new I-140 approval notice.
Now I have received NOID for my I-485 threatening that if I don't submit the original receipt for the original I-140 then USCIS will deny my application. The USCIS is saying that auto-created I-140 has been filed more than 6 months later than filing I-485 case and can't be the base for filing I-485.
The previous attorney has not provided the original receipt of the original I-140 application and is not reachable via any means (doesn't respond to e-mail or phone calls. Office remains locked whenever I tried to visit him). So getting the original receipt from him is almost impossible. USCIS is not happy with the copy of the receipt.
Right now I don't have any proof (other than copy of the receipt of the original I-140 filing) to support that my I-140 was filed before I-485 filing.
What should I do in this case? Any suggestion will be appreciated.
I am from India. My previous attorney paper filed my I-140 in Nov. 2006. My new attorney filed I-485 in July 2007. My new attorney has received only the copy of I-140 application and receipt from the previous attorney.
In late 2008, with the help of a congressman, my new attorney was able to figure out that USCIS has lost my original I-140 application (filed at Nebraska center) and USCIS has issued the same I-140 receipt no. to somebody else. Then USCIS auto-created a new I-140 and gave me SRC receipt no. with filing date as Jan 2008 and as electronically filed by my previous attorney.
The new I-140 (SRC one) got approved in March 2009.
Got RFE in August 2009 for my I-485 application asking for the approval notice of my original I-140. My new attorney responded with all the history and the new I-140 approval notice.
Now I have received NOID for my I-485 threatening that if I don't submit the original receipt for the original I-140 then USCIS will deny my application. The USCIS is saying that auto-created I-140 has been filed more than 6 months later than filing I-485 case and can't be the base for filing I-485.
The previous attorney has not provided the original receipt of the original I-140 application and is not reachable via any means (doesn't respond to e-mail or phone calls. Office remains locked whenever I tried to visit him). So getting the original receipt from him is almost impossible. USCIS is not happy with the copy of the receipt.
Right now I don't have any proof (other than copy of the receipt of the original I-140 filing) to support that my I-140 was filed before I-485 filing.
What should I do in this case? Any suggestion will be appreciated.
more...
house ody#39;s endocrine system
mambarg
07-26 12:57 PM
This person mailed on June 28 and app received on June 29 and got his notice date on July 24. Today.
I could have been with him today but for my attorney who got extremely busy and did not file my 485 with 140 and got stuck with July fiasco
I could have been with him today but for my attorney who got extremely busy and did not file my 485 with 140 and got stuck with July fiasco
tattoo Screenshots BODY LASER SYSTEM
ssingh92
12-30 08:52 PM
If you can take direct non-stop flight then avoid the transit visa. Sending originals by mail is always risky. Just my advise.
more...
pictures Screenshots BODY LASER SYSTEM
Blog Feeds
02-10 08:50 PM
Most lawyers that are versed in the H1B visa process, are getting busier and busier these days. As we are nearing the April 1, 2010 filing deadline for the H1B visa. Many speculations out there as to when will the Cap be reached this year. The economy is still in recovery mode, and employers are careful before hiring. Yet, many Immigration experts feel the Cap will be met early this year, but when is the big question.
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
dresses 12 major ody systems from
ps57002
09-23 09:51 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1999333595666035699&hl=en
Voice of America coverage. (in Hindi)
lol funny to see myself in there..i have a shaky voice lol...eeks..wish i could hide...
Voice of America coverage. (in Hindi)
lol funny to see myself in there..i have a shaky voice lol...eeks..wish i could hide...
more...
makeup Body Talk Systems is a new
anilsal
10-05 04:55 PM
IV Core.
Another visual proof of your dedication to the cause.
Please continue the great work.
Another visual proof of your dedication to the cause.
Please continue the great work.
girlfriend Les Mills - Body Systems
ajm
06-24 07:06 PM
485 fess from Jul 30th will be 1010USD. This also has EAD & AP fees built into it and you can keep on renewing EAD & AP with out paying fees every year unil you get your GC.
The first-time EAD/AP will definitely be free. But I could not find any explicit language indicating that renewals will be free. Here is the relevant section from the federal register notice:
Form I-485. For filing an application for permanent resident status
or creation of a record of lawful permanent residence--$930 for an
applicant fourteen years of age or older; $600 for an applicant under
the age of fourteen years when submitted concurrently for adjudication
with the Form I-485 of a parent and the applicant is seeking to adjust
status as a derivative of the parent, based on a relationship to the
same individual who provides the basis for the parent's adjustment of
status, or under the same legal authority as the parent; no fee for an
applicant filing as a refugee under section 209(a) of the Act; provided
that no additional fee will be charged for a request for travel
document (advance parole) or employment authorization filed by an
applicant who has paid the Form I-485 application fee, regardless of
whether the Form I-131 or Form I-765 is required to be filed by such
applicant to receive these benefits.
At best, this is ambiguous as to whether a fee will be required on renewals.
The first-time EAD/AP will definitely be free. But I could not find any explicit language indicating that renewals will be free. Here is the relevant section from the federal register notice:
Form I-485. For filing an application for permanent resident status
or creation of a record of lawful permanent residence--$930 for an
applicant fourteen years of age or older; $600 for an applicant under
the age of fourteen years when submitted concurrently for adjudication
with the Form I-485 of a parent and the applicant is seeking to adjust
status as a derivative of the parent, based on a relationship to the
same individual who provides the basis for the parent's adjustment of
status, or under the same legal authority as the parent; no fee for an
applicant filing as a refugee under section 209(a) of the Act; provided
that no additional fee will be charged for a request for travel
document (advance parole) or employment authorization filed by an
applicant who has paid the Form I-485 application fee, regardless of
whether the Form I-131 or Form I-765 is required to be filed by such
applicant to receive these benefits.
At best, this is ambiguous as to whether a fee will be required on renewals.
hairstyles 29k: ody system
BPforGC
08-13 06:13 PM
1) The award you submitted was academic in nature. USCIS maintains that student awards such as fellowships, scholarships do not meet this criteria. Do you have anythingelse that is nationally recognized? Show me the evidence.
2) You submitted your work at research meetings. That is what researchers are supposed to do. How is your work is above and beyond what is out there in those meetings? "Consequently, it does not follow that all scientists who are asked to present their findings enjoy sustained acclaim in their field". Show me how your presentation history exceeds others.
3) Show the clear evidence that you have performed a leading and critical role in your organization.
4) You published several papers. But scientists are supposed to publish and dessiminate their work. Please resubmit updated citation listing. Please submit objective listing that your publication history exceeds the rest of the field.
Gurus... do I have a chance with these questions. I don't have any other national or international award such as Presidential Medal or Nobel Prize.
My presentation at international conferences are posters. Nothing great such as plenary talk.
I can submit more evidence of publications and citations.
Letter about my role and responsibilities as leader in my institution.
Thats it. Do I have a chance?
2) You submitted your work at research meetings. That is what researchers are supposed to do. How is your work is above and beyond what is out there in those meetings? "Consequently, it does not follow that all scientists who are asked to present their findings enjoy sustained acclaim in their field". Show me how your presentation history exceeds others.
3) Show the clear evidence that you have performed a leading and critical role in your organization.
4) You published several papers. But scientists are supposed to publish and dessiminate their work. Please resubmit updated citation listing. Please submit objective listing that your publication history exceeds the rest of the field.
Gurus... do I have a chance with these questions. I don't have any other national or international award such as Presidential Medal or Nobel Prize.
My presentation at international conferences are posters. Nothing great such as plenary talk.
I can submit more evidence of publications and citations.
Letter about my role and responsibilities as leader in my institution.
Thats it. Do I have a chance?
El Hacko
June 17th, 2006, 12:58 AM
Great concert shots Antonio. The exposure levels and color balance/saturation are perfecto! Bravo!
gbof
01-28 03:46 PM
1. Sheela Murthy
2. Indra nooyi
3. Vikram Pandid
4. Google Founder
5. One of the Google Director/scientest from india - who found the Google news
6. One of the Sun micro system's co-founder was indian.
You can find lots people in the internet.
Add famous Dr Hargobind Khurana (Noble Laureate) of India and so many immigrants from other countries including this 2008 winners
2. Indra nooyi
3. Vikram Pandid
4. Google Founder
5. One of the Google Director/scientest from india - who found the Google news
6. One of the Sun micro system's co-founder was indian.
You can find lots people in the internet.
Add famous Dr Hargobind Khurana (Noble Laureate) of India and so many immigrants from other countries including this 2008 winners
No comments:
Post a Comment