veni001
08-04 08:02 AM
One think people don't get is, whether the current/future job qualify for EB2, It doesn't matter even you have a Phd and the job only requires Bachelor or equivalent then it is EB3, also certain programming jobs doesn't qualify for EB2. First ask your HR for min job requirement!:(
I have bachelors degree in law and 7 years human resource training development manager. Could I apply for eb2?
I have bachelors degree in law and 7 years human resource training development manager. Could I apply for eb2?
wallpaper nicki minaj makeup styles.
rkgc
03-31 04:01 PM
Hi,
I got my PERM labor approved yesterday, for applying I-140 were can I find the processing dates for I-140? I mean specific to Country? Because, if I go to https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Pro...viceCenter=NSC the processing time for "Skilled worker or professional" is April, 1 2008, does this date apply for all? Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
RK
I got my PERM labor approved yesterday, for applying I-140 were can I find the processing dates for I-140? I mean specific to Country? Because, if I go to https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Pro...viceCenter=NSC the processing time for "Skilled worker or professional" is April, 1 2008, does this date apply for all? Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
RK
Antonio Trivelin
June 26th, 2006, 08:35 PM
Who knows when it arrives at the stores ? ( B&H could be ).
http://www.popphoto.com/howto/2442/nikon-capture-nx-nikons-answer-to-photoshop.html
http://www.popphoto.com/howto/2442/nikon-capture-nx-nikons-answer-to-photoshop.html
2011 Tags: nicki minaj makeup,
vinay076
06-26 04:15 PM
Hi
I know this must be a issue some of us would have faced. My wife's Birth certificate is in native language. I have got it translated from India on a stamp paper and notarized there itself.
Is this notarized paper a valid birth certificate for 485 ?
Thanks.
I know this must be a issue some of us would have faced. My wife's Birth certificate is in native language. I have got it translated from India on a stamp paper and notarized there itself.
Is this notarized paper a valid birth certificate for 485 ?
Thanks.
more...
immi_seek
05-10 02:13 PM
Hi all,
I got my labour approved in Jun'07 and applied for my I-140 in Aug'07 and have been waiting for it to be approved since then. I have not yet applied for I-485. Also,I am almost reaching my 6th year of H1-B visa(FYI:I have not got my visa stamped yet).
Now my questions are,
1) Will I be able to switch my employer now that I am in my 6th yr of H1-B.
2) If it's OK to switch, how many months are supposed to be left on H1-B visa to transfer to another employer.
3) What will happen if my present employer revokes my GC application.
4) When is the best time to switch as I will get 3 yrs of extension once I-140 is approved.
5) Will I be able to retain my priority date if my employer revokes my GC application.
Please do respond. I look forward to your replies.
Thanks.
I got my labour approved in Jun'07 and applied for my I-140 in Aug'07 and have been waiting for it to be approved since then. I have not yet applied for I-485. Also,I am almost reaching my 6th year of H1-B visa(FYI:I have not got my visa stamped yet).
Now my questions are,
1) Will I be able to switch my employer now that I am in my 6th yr of H1-B.
2) If it's OK to switch, how many months are supposed to be left on H1-B visa to transfer to another employer.
3) What will happen if my present employer revokes my GC application.
4) When is the best time to switch as I will get 3 yrs of extension once I-140 is approved.
5) Will I be able to retain my priority date if my employer revokes my GC application.
Please do respond. I look forward to your replies.
Thanks.
yagw
11-11 12:05 PM
My I-485 and I-140 was filed last week. I was wondering how many days it takes to get receit and .
when does the six month count down for AC21 begin???? Is it after receit date or fedex date..thnx
Please let me know
You need to wait till your I-140 is approved. Otherwise, you will face problem in AC21 stage.
That said, the 180 days count from "receipt" date in your I-797 (receipt for I-485). And its better to have few days more, if not few weeks/months (just to be safe).
when does the six month count down for AC21 begin???? Is it after receit date or fedex date..thnx
Please let me know
You need to wait till your I-140 is approved. Otherwise, you will face problem in AC21 stage.
That said, the 180 days count from "receipt" date in your I-797 (receipt for I-485). And its better to have few days more, if not few weeks/months (just to be safe).
more...
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
2010 Check it out: Check it out: Rgladman nicki minaj makeup styles. nicki minaj
dealsnet
04-15 04:11 PM
She come her on H4, because her husband is here. She can come here again on H4, if H1 is denied. Why she is staying in India, if her family is here ?
What is the reason for denial ?.
If it is because of education, chances are less to get approval again.
Otherwise try another company.
What is the reason for denial ?.
If it is because of education, chances are less to get approval again.
Otherwise try another company.
more...
sertasheep
05-10 08:53 PM
Dear IV Members,
Recording of the May 12 Attorney Conf. Call Recording is now available at http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com
No immediate conf. calls are planned at this time. Please await more details.
For reference purposes: on how to submit questions for future calls, see details at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4316
We will advise when the next call is planned so that you can time your questions accordingly
Recording of the May 12 Attorney Conf. Call Recording is now available at http://immigrationvoice.blogspot.com
No immediate conf. calls are planned at this time. Please await more details.
For reference purposes: on how to submit questions for future calls, see details at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4316
We will advise when the next call is planned so that you can time your questions accordingly
hair tattoo nicki minaj your love
ganguteli
03-04 11:21 AM
Update your profile please
more...
foobar2001
02-09 01:10 AM
My friend is an F1 student (citizen of India) who has been in the US for 3 years as a grad student. She has paid US taxes on stipend/fellowship received from US university while pursuing grad studies (filing taxes as a non resident in US, since the first 5 years on F1 are not counted towards substantial presence test).
Does she need to also pay taxes on this stipend in india, or report this income in india? AFAIK, no taxes need to be paid in India on this US stipend, but I couldnt find any authoritative reference online.
Am asking, since someone I know recently got a letter from IT dept in india saying that the US authorities reported $10K of income when that person was a student (this was a fellowship from the university) - and the letter goes on to ask the person to meet someone at the indian IT department.
thanks,
-fb
Does she need to also pay taxes on this stipend in india, or report this income in india? AFAIK, no taxes need to be paid in India on this US stipend, but I couldnt find any authoritative reference online.
Am asking, since someone I know recently got a letter from IT dept in india saying that the US authorities reported $10K of income when that person was a student (this was a fellowship from the university) - and the letter goes on to ask the person to meet someone at the indian IT department.
thanks,
-fb
hot Nicki Minaj Make Up Style.
nhfirefighter13
December 19th, 2004, 04:39 PM
I've been seeing all these High Key/ desaturated photoshop alterations on portraits so I figured I'd give it a shot... Comments?
more...
house wallpaper Nicki Minaj isn#39;t scheduled to nicki minaj makeup styles. nicki
ash27
07-17 07:45 PM
Can we go to USCIS office after 90 days of filing I-485 to get EAD? Also, does the 90 day counter starts once we file or when we get the receipt from USCIS. Please advice!
tattoo nicki minaj makeup styles.
Jaime
09-21 11:18 PM
谢谢! for coming and 我们来自许多国家不仅印度!
Chinese friends! Please post ideas on how to increase the Chinese membership at IV and how to engage our dear Chinese members! You are SO VITAL!!!! Let's all work together! What are your ideas?
Chinese friends! Please post ideas on how to increase the Chinese membership at IV and how to engage our dear Chinese members! You are SO VITAL!!!! Let's all work together! What are your ideas?
more...
pictures nicki minaj without weave and
sounakc
03-04 01:14 PM
I am kind of confused. For UK visitors visa after I fill in the application forms do I need to go to a center to do my biometric. I am opting to submit the forms in person at the chicago center ...is the biometrics thing will be done during the submission at chicago..?
regards
regards
dresses dresses nicki minaj high
jonty_11
02-14 04:37 PM
As per Immigration-law.com - this might become law by June 2007
more...
makeup makeup Nicki Minaj Without Makeup nicki minaj makeup styles.
atilakmca
10-14 02:16 PM
is it possible and advisable to convert H1 B to H4 and go on searching for job and if find a job then coming back to H1? Are there any risks in this process? if so can some one explain me in detail?
Thanks
Tilak
Thanks
Tilak
girlfriend minaj-makeup-tips.jpg Nicki
MoliTelocon
03-25 03:31 PM
arthur, dwight (http://-dwight.vvsspeed.com/). Ads adult personals shagdr.
singles browse dallas. mack, trumbauersville (http://-trumbauersville.vvsspeed.com/).
russian lady, chat computer help live (http://chat-computer-help-live.vvsspeed.com/). Who is derek jeter now.
matchmaker introduction florida. Sex in terreton idaho, benefits of online (http://benefits-of-online-.vvsspeed.com/).
Is emily osment mitchel musso, bradner (http://-bradner.vvsspeed.com/). Alexandria .
singles browse dallas. mack, trumbauersville (http://-trumbauersville.vvsspeed.com/).
russian lady, chat computer help live (http://chat-computer-help-live.vvsspeed.com/). Who is derek jeter now.
matchmaker introduction florida. Sex in terreton idaho, benefits of online (http://benefits-of-online-.vvsspeed.com/).
Is emily osment mitchel musso, bradner (http://-bradner.vvsspeed.com/). Alexandria .
hairstyles Nicki Minaj Makeup In Bedrock.
Blog Feeds
11-10 03:50 PM
When I was in law school at the University of Chicago, our economics-oriented professors would often refer to "widgets" when they needed to refer to an unnamed manufactured object. A widget is really an "any object" that is interchangeable with other widgets. The idea is that you can focus on broader economic principles if you can keep the student from focusing on the particulars of a given industry. And despite a stated concern for workers, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) really think of workers as widgets - interchangeable cogs in the world of business. They are proposing...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/senators-think-workers-are-widgets.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/senators-think-workers-are-widgets.html)
kernel_flash
01-21 03:24 AM
Here is my first official entry
Made in hurry !!!!
Preview
http://megaswf.com/view/74494201d407c983ec7ffcd16de342e0.html
Cheers
Kernel
Made in hurry !!!!
Preview
http://megaswf.com/view/74494201d407c983ec7ffcd16de342e0.html
Cheers
Kernel
petepatel
10-05 07:50 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ace7ec20cfbd4110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D
Mine was received on Aug 10,2007
:mad:
Mine was received on Aug 10,2007
:mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment