Circus123
09-10 01:24 PM
The September visa bulletin should be out soon!!!
Any predictions , comments on this. The Rally on September 18th will be of utmost importance since I am wary of those numbers...
Any predictions , comments on this. The Rally on September 18th will be of utmost importance since I am wary of those numbers...
wallpaper Free Hairstyle Generator Online Free Virtual Hairstyles Online: a Guide to
seeking_GC
06-11 09:01 PM
If you are working on H1 then dont renew your AP, you can always travel and enter using your H1. If you plan to use your EAD pretty soon (or your H1 is expiring soon and you dont plan to renew it ) then apply 60 days before you plan to start using EAD and you should be fine.
You can even apply for AP after the current one has expired, its just that you wont be able to travel till you get your new AP if you have abandoned your H1 status.
You can even apply for AP after the current one has expired, its just that you wont be able to travel till you get your new AP if you have abandoned your H1 status.
Nitu Singh
06-21 02:42 PM
When is it safe to change employment once you file for I-485?
thanks!
thanks!
2011 Image of Virtual Hairstyle
Irs
02-17 11:58 AM
Switzerland has similar law that works well not sure of cons on this.
more...
franklin
04-14 01:53 AM
16th congressional district - volunteers needed
Calling for Nor Cal volunteers in the 16th congressional district.
http://www.house.gov/lofgren/district_16map.pdf
We were given advice to meet with Hon. Zoe Lofgren the congresswoman for this district. As we as being an immigration attorney, she is Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
We need to visit her!
Calling for Nor Cal volunteers in the 16th congressional district.
http://www.house.gov/lofgren/district_16map.pdf
We were given advice to meet with Hon. Zoe Lofgren the congresswoman for this district. As we as being an immigration attorney, she is Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
We need to visit her!
ca_immigrant
05-06 02:09 PM
Hi,
I had a quick question on about the package/application that is being used to build this forum ?
Can someone give me the name please ?
Is it a ready to go package or is it something with extensive customization ?
Thanks,
I had a quick question on about the package/application that is being used to build this forum ?
Can someone give me the name please ?
Is it a ready to go package or is it something with extensive customization ?
Thanks,
more...
gregspirited
08-27 11:15 AM
This is related to the experience letter and PERM.
I have been working with my current employer for last 3 years in software engineering role. Now I'm planning to move to program management role and planning to apply PERM from this new role.
1. To get experience letter for PERM, can I use the experience gained in my current company. What are the chances of AUDIT if I do so?
2. With my previous employer (3 yrs back) I worked in software and consulting role. Does this experience suffice for my PERM in program management role...Is it something the lawyer has to worry and not me..
Any answers are appreciated..Thanks in advance for the reply.
I have been working with my current employer for last 3 years in software engineering role. Now I'm planning to move to program management role and planning to apply PERM from this new role.
1. To get experience letter for PERM, can I use the experience gained in my current company. What are the chances of AUDIT if I do so?
2. With my previous employer (3 yrs back) I worked in software and consulting role. Does this experience suffice for my PERM in program management role...Is it something the lawyer has to worry and not me..
Any answers are appreciated..Thanks in advance for the reply.
2010 Upload Your Photo, Select
kumar_77
02-28 09:07 PM
First check if the check you or your company sent for H-1 fees got cashed , if so see behind the check ( normally banks post scanned copy of check ) the Receipt number will be written behind the check ..hope this helps
more...
Macaca
11-14 09:30 PM
Congress Needs Both Comity and Accomplishments (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27104,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call, November 14, 2007
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
hair virtual hairstyles upload
fishingshu
06-17 02:30 PM
How's this guy's reputation? I made an appointment with him for 485 physical. Read some horrible stories here about skin test and X-ray, hence the question.
Thanks,
Thanks,
more...
Grudge
07-14 04:59 AM
Ok, I managed to find a simple solution. Just flip the Y of the container, which means I need to flip the children too, but that's easy.
hot Virtual Hairstyles For Men
prinive
04-10 05:36 PM
Own labor
more...
house virtual hairstyle gallery
Joey Foley
August 29th, 2005, 04:56 PM
I just posted a ton of photos
Just thought you might want to check out a few photos I took of Green Day (direct link below).
I kind of went over and posted too many (67) .
Check'em out!
I'm also taken photo in Indy of them.
http://www.musicandentertainment.org/cpg133/thumbnails.php?album=36
Anything you like in there? Let me know.
I only had one lens with me that night my canon 70-200mm 2.8L
I'm not really used to shooting shows with just that lens, but I think I got a couple of keepers (well I think):o
Just thought you might want to check out a few photos I took of Green Day (direct link below).
I kind of went over and posted too many (67) .
Check'em out!
I'm also taken photo in Indy of them.
http://www.musicandentertainment.org/cpg133/thumbnails.php?album=36
Anything you like in there? Let me know.
I only had one lens with me that night my canon 70-200mm 2.8L
I'm not really used to shooting shows with just that lens, but I think I got a couple of keepers (well I think):o
tattoo Virtual HairStyle Fab 1.0
Macaca
03-08 09:19 AM
senate panel on Hold
Who Stalled the Intelligence Bill? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702461.html)
Thursday, March 8, 2007
For what could become the third year in a row, the Senate on Tuesday evening did not pass an Intelligence Authorization Bill, over the objection of a lone Republican senator whose name is being protected by his colleagues.
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called the delay "one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been associated with in my 24 years in this body." The panel's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), took the Senate floor Tuesday and called on "any person who has a hold on this bill to come forward and find out what is in the bill."
Rockefeller and Bond have been working over several months to meet objections to items in the bill that the committee passed last May. With changes that Rockefeller and Bond worked out, the measure was reintroduced Jan. 27 and put on the unanimous consent calendar on Feb. 8.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was named by Congressional Quarterly yesterday as the member who put the bill on hold. A DeMint spokesman said the senator's office "does not comment on holds," but other congressional sources said that DeMint was the one.
Those sources said that they believe the hold is due to White House objections to specific provisions, including public disclosure of the national intelligence budget; a requirement for a report on secret CIA prisons; and response to information requests by the committee chairman and vice chairman within 30 days.
"We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to have an impact on the intelligence community," Bond said.
Who Stalled the Intelligence Bill? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702461.html)
Thursday, March 8, 2007
For what could become the third year in a row, the Senate on Tuesday evening did not pass an Intelligence Authorization Bill, over the objection of a lone Republican senator whose name is being protected by his colleagues.
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called the delay "one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been associated with in my 24 years in this body." The panel's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), took the Senate floor Tuesday and called on "any person who has a hold on this bill to come forward and find out what is in the bill."
Rockefeller and Bond have been working over several months to meet objections to items in the bill that the committee passed last May. With changes that Rockefeller and Bond worked out, the measure was reintroduced Jan. 27 and put on the unanimous consent calendar on Feb. 8.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was named by Congressional Quarterly yesterday as the member who put the bill on hold. A DeMint spokesman said the senator's office "does not comment on holds," but other congressional sources said that DeMint was the one.
Those sources said that they believe the hold is due to White House objections to specific provisions, including public disclosure of the national intelligence budget; a requirement for a report on secret CIA prisons; and response to information requests by the committee chairman and vice chairman within 30 days.
"We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to have an impact on the intelligence community," Bond said.
more...
pictures Hairstyle Suits Me Upload
vinoddas
02-06 09:20 PM
My friend has his I-485 filed and has got EAD/AP, but the priority date is so behind, that he has no chance of getting a green card before his marriage. So, as I understand he should be able to bring his wife on H4 (as long as he maintains H1). My question is: does he have to re-file for I-485 to include his wife and if so will the priority date remain the same as the first application?
dresses Virtual Hairstyle Viewer.
boldm28
06-13 12:20 PM
Thanks appreciate it
more...
makeup tattoo Virtual Hairstyles
willgetgc2005
04-06 01:34 AM
Hello,
Any suggestion on a good immigration Attorney in NY state ? Please recomend. Employer says I can use my own attorney. So I need to find a good Attornye who can file PERM in NY state as the employer is in NY/NJ area
Any help is appreciated.
Regards
Any suggestion on a good immigration Attorney in NY state ? Please recomend. Employer says I can use my own attorney. So I need to find a good Attornye who can file PERM in NY state as the employer is in NY/NJ area
Any help is appreciated.
Regards
girlfriend upload ,virtual hairstyles
wayne3alford
07-30 07:21 AM
There should be some action taken!!!!!!!
hairstyles of virtual hairstyles,
pgtech77
08-03 05:18 PM
hi,
I am unmarried son of citizens of usa and have my priority date current.I filed for I485 adjustment of status to permanent resident, which earlier got rejected,but then on refiling,I got a MSC receipt number saying next process is biometrics
My question is that as I am presently on student visa and my classes are starting from august 17th.Do I still need to maintain my student visa status and enroll in 12 minimum units,or is it ok If I don't enroll and just wait for my further case processing,and I won't be considered out of status as my I-485 adjustment of status is being processed?Is there still chance of my I-485 being denied(I don't have any criminal or any wrong record and maintained my status prior to filing my I-485 adjustment of status).Please guide whether to still enroll in 12 units and be on student visa or is it ok if I don't enroll as I no more want to pay high fees but,am worried about maintaining my status.
I am unmarried son of citizens of usa and have my priority date current.I filed for I485 adjustment of status to permanent resident, which earlier got rejected,but then on refiling,I got a MSC receipt number saying next process is biometrics
My question is that as I am presently on student visa and my classes are starting from august 17th.Do I still need to maintain my student visa status and enroll in 12 minimum units,or is it ok If I don't enroll and just wait for my further case processing,and I won't be considered out of status as my I-485 adjustment of status is being processed?Is there still chance of my I-485 being denied(I don't have any criminal or any wrong record and maintained my status prior to filing my I-485 adjustment of status).Please guide whether to still enroll in 12 units and be on student visa or is it ok if I don't enroll as I no more want to pay high fees but,am worried about maintaining my status.
vaishnavilakshmi
07-09 07:35 PM
Hi,
Yes,there is a topic mentioned that AILF's legal actoin center seeks more palintiffs on EB visa number availability!And Murthy.com is going to update the details soon on this topic in their website.Probably after sometime,it would be posted.
Refer to after few hours.
WWW.Murthy.com
vaishu
Yes,there is a topic mentioned that AILF's legal actoin center seeks more palintiffs on EB visa number availability!And Murthy.com is going to update the details soon on this topic in their website.Probably after sometime,it would be posted.
Refer to after few hours.
WWW.Murthy.com
vaishu
smartimss
10-23 02:09 PM
Dependent application got approved and received card in couple of months back but primary application is still pending? Is any one in same boat? Please advice?
No comments:
Post a Comment