sertasheep
03-30 08:52 PM
The next attorney call for free EB immigration advice is planned for 01 April 07, Sunday at 11:30 AM Eastern Time. We will be responding to questions 131 through 153 during this call. Please await more details on the time. Members who have posed questions would have received an email assigning them with this range of question IDs.
Please email us following the procedure outlined in this link : Click here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3691)
Please dial into the following number:
218-486-1300, bridge 153151
Also see the links below for more information
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3656
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3532
Please email us following the procedure outlined in this link : Click here (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3691)
Please dial into the following number:
218-486-1300, bridge 153151
Also see the links below for more information
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3656
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3532
wallpaper hair trey songz shirtless
BrickWall
03-13 01:19 PM
I know many friends of mine, who has done B.E and MS from diferent background (like Mechanical, Electronics etc) and were still able to get the LC approved from a software company since they were working there. There should not be any issue with it.
lifestrikes
02-26 02:49 PM
Copies of the documents will do. Original is not required for H-4 stamping.
2011 trey songz shirtless 2011.
Blog Feeds
03-05 02:00 PM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn7Av-RaBm5CJSbLlBbc9i56yioRSlp41hqiObnzWmNi2D7r2dKXD8iZ37_XZg0yWnKLcVPmwg1hkhanJdnE4VDo4PCMqq0-wijeXmXEFxSWCyqNH4376k-VM-C-WMTJVKB5_7a48aqG0N/s200/Snoop+Dogg.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn7Av-RaBm5CJSbLlBbc9i56yioRSlp41hqiObnzWmNi2D7r2dKXD8iZ37_XZg0yWnKLcVPmwg1hkhanJdnE4VDo4PCMqq0-wijeXmXEFxSWCyqNH4376k-VM-C-WMTJVKB5_7a48aqG0N/s1600-h/Snoop+Dogg.jpg)
BBC News - Rapper Snoop Dogg wins UK immigration fight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8551188.stm)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-8620187598579326144?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/bbc-news-rapper-snoop-dogg-wins-uk.html)
BBC News - Rapper Snoop Dogg wins UK immigration fight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8551188.stm)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-8620187598579326144?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/bbc-news-rapper-snoop-dogg-wins-uk.html)
more...
John316
05-18 07:04 PM
Hello,
It has been over two years I got my EAD, and I am also on H1 and my H1 is valid up to May, 2011. Now, if I want to switch to a new employer, I want to know if there are any complications...I read that we can always switch to new employer and can still retain the priority dates. Is it true? What is NOID? Is it possible for the old employer to revoke my I-485? or can they do anything that affects my Green Card status or the legal status in the country?
Thanks for all the help and suggestions.
It has been over two years I got my EAD, and I am also on H1 and my H1 is valid up to May, 2011. Now, if I want to switch to a new employer, I want to know if there are any complications...I read that we can always switch to new employer and can still retain the priority dates. Is it true? What is NOID? Is it possible for the old employer to revoke my I-485? or can they do anything that affects my Green Card status or the legal status in the country?
Thanks for all the help and suggestions.
max714
02-22 08:34 PM
I am a July filer and have the option of working for a reputable company as expert consultant for 6 months (initial offer). Yates memo indicates that self-employment is possible. Here is my question: Do we need to register a company to be considered self-employed? As a consultant you may not have a customer for while. Isn't it better to register a company if you want to claim self employment? What are the pros and cons of registering a company?
more...
anonymous
04-07 04:33 PM
Hello Friends,
The situation is my GC application is ongoing, while I am presently working on EAD(based on husband's application). If I change my job, within the same company, and move from one job family to another(within IT itself), what is the impact to,
a) GC process
b) EAD
I would appreciate any advice.
The situation is my GC application is ongoing, while I am presently working on EAD(based on husband's application). If I change my job, within the same company, and move from one job family to another(within IT itself), what is the impact to,
a) GC process
b) EAD
I would appreciate any advice.
2010 5 June 2011 trey songz
Shams
10-10 06:47 PM
Yes, I have received receipts for 485, EAD and AP for me and my family on 10/3.My case was filed on Aug 14th, received by NSC on aug 15th, Receipt Notice Sept 26th.
more...
wait4ever?
04-09 11:10 PM
i am waiting for my priority date to become current to file for I-485. But it looks it'll take forever, as evident from May 09 visa bulletin, in which the visa dates are unavailable for EB3 India category. Do you know why dates are retrogressing or stagnant in bulletins after bulletins.
I have another question. My birth certificate is in an Indian language which was issued from the panchayat office where I was born. I want to know if that can be translated to English right here in US for I-485 application. Can somebody else who is not related to me write the translation in English and then get it notarized? If this is the case, then I don't have to go to India or get it done from there from the panchayat office, because this may take a long time. If anyone had tackled issues such as this, please share.
I have another question. My birth certificate is in an Indian language which was issued from the panchayat office where I was born. I want to know if that can be translated to English right here in US for I-485 application. Can somebody else who is not related to me write the translation in English and then get it notarized? If this is the case, then I don't have to go to India or get it done from there from the panchayat office, because this may take a long time. If anyone had tackled issues such as this, please share.
hair pics of trey songz shirtless.
zzsbzz
07-13 02:04 AM
Hi,
My Priority date is Jun 2006/EB2 India. After the Aug bulletin I'm now afraid that my priority date might get current next month.
My concern is that I might be getting married in the near future and I don't want to deal with an immigration nightmare for my spouse. At the same time I don't want to rush a decision like getting married based on USCIS priority dates. Is there anyway I could delay my GC adjudication for 3-4 months to get some more time ...
Thanks!
My Priority date is Jun 2006/EB2 India. After the Aug bulletin I'm now afraid that my priority date might get current next month.
My concern is that I might be getting married in the near future and I don't want to deal with an immigration nightmare for my spouse. At the same time I don't want to rush a decision like getting married based on USCIS priority dates. Is there anyway I could delay my GC adjudication for 3-4 months to get some more time ...
Thanks!
more...
kirupa
02-14 04:48 AM
Program is the name of your main application's class itself. What I am doing is creating an instance of my application and using the two methods that live inside that class.
:)
:)
hot 2011 2010 trey songz shirtless
just_wait_for_gc
06-24 09:57 AM
Our lawyer is asking for color photo copies of passport. But lot of my friends are not submitting the color copies. Is it a must.
more...
house 2010 trey songz shirtless.
crystal
08-27 04:24 PM
I guess that is also H1B as H1B for non-profit organizations does not fall under yearly quota .they can get H1B anytime , so no need to wait til Oct.
tattoo 2011 jump, trey songz called
MONCYS
04-09 01:28 PM
I filed for EAD (new application) 30 days back along with my AOS applications. Finished my FP on the 25th day.
Normally How long it take to get EAD from Texas Service center. ??
Any idea. ??
Normally How long it take to get EAD from Texas Service center. ??
Any idea. ??
more...
pictures trey songz shirtless 2011.
neoklaus
10-23 08:10 PM
Two friends of mine were in the same situation.
In both cases dependent children were approved first, then primary applicant
(in one case in a 6 month after his dependent)
In both cases dependent children were approved first, then primary applicant
(in one case in a 6 month after his dependent)
dresses house hot trey songz shirtless
cbadari99
03-01 11:52 PM
If you worked as a TA/RA and received compensation for that, you should mention your University as your previous employer.
This is what I did. However it is better if you consult your attorney.
This is what I did. However it is better if you consult your attorney.
more...
makeup trey songz shirtless 2011.
munnu77
04-04 11:54 AM
i meant any predictions..it will be out b4 10th
girlfriend 2011 trey songz shirtless 2009
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
hairstyles dresses 2010 Trey Songz
%25252525252BThanx%25252525252Bto%25252525252Bthemovementblog.jpg "trey songz shirtless 2011.")
munnu77
07-07 06:20 PM
My frnds wife came here on H4 and shifted to H! last year. Now she went back to H4 bcos they had a baby.
My question, is
If she wants to get back to H1, does she have to go thru the quota or is she exempted from the quota.
Thank you for replies
My question, is
If she wants to get back to H1, does she have to go thru the quota or is she exempted from the quota.
Thank you for replies
kaisersose
07-18 03:30 PM
Sure. Just showing evidence that you have filed your I-140 is sufficient to file for 485.
hibworker
11-24 06:26 PM
Yes he is in 'Adjustee Status' also a person can start working as soon as new employer files H1 petition on his/her behalf. So if the petition was filed on time and took 40 days to be approved your friend was in H1 status since the day the petition was received by USCIS
No comments:
Post a Comment