Jerrome
06-25 10:07 AM
Hi,
I have not filled for some of my address changes with the AR-11 forms, i was not aware of this. But in the G-325 it is asked for all the address in the past 5 years.
Will this create any problem. How should we correct this. Anybody has idea.
I have not filled for some of my address changes with the AR-11 forms, i was not aware of this. But in the G-325 it is asked for all the address in the past 5 years.
Will this create any problem. How should we correct this. Anybody has idea.
wallpaper The-powerpuff-girls-mobile-
anilsal
08-30 04:38 PM
Praveen!
jaggubhai
07-07 12:49 PM
One of my friends was in the same boat as yours and he said YES. No problem in visa issuance. And as per my friend, the officer already knew that he was attending school. I think the schools report all enrollment to USCIS.
Also my wife went for visa interview recently. She is on H4 and she also said yes to Q33.
Hope this helps.
Also my wife went for visa interview recently. She is on H4 and she also said yes to Q33.
Hope this helps.
2011 The-powerpuff-girls-mobile-
sent4dc
04-05 01:28 AM
Hi everyone:
I'm new at this forum and am hoping someone would be able to shed some light on my dilemma. My labor certification is currently under supervised recruitment. I checked the America's Job Bank website and found my ad, but the job description in it contained only the part according to O*Net occupation description. The form ETA-750 had some additional job requirements posted by the employer, which were omitted in the AJB ad. I'm afraid with the current ad at AJB they'll get tons of applications.
Can someone advice what shall I do?
Thanks in advance...
I'm new at this forum and am hoping someone would be able to shed some light on my dilemma. My labor certification is currently under supervised recruitment. I checked the America's Job Bank website and found my ad, but the job description in it contained only the part according to O*Net occupation description. The form ETA-750 had some additional job requirements posted by the employer, which were omitted in the AJB ad. I'm afraid with the current ad at AJB they'll get tons of applications.
Can someone advice what shall I do?
Thanks in advance...
more...
485_trouble
07-27 06:40 PM
Here is my case details
In US from Feb 2000 - till date
PD :Aug 2002
I140 approved on Aug 2004 (no rfe)
I485 rcpt :sep 2005 pending for approval...
worked with Company A and 2002,2003 w2's are way too low 9k and 25k. Went to home country for vacation 3 times on 2004, 2005.
my 2000,2001, 2004,2005,2006 till looks okie.. I dont have any other overstay or other issue.
Applied I485 on
2005. I guess my attorney filed my 2003 w2 with my i485 petion.
I chaged from company A to company B on 2005
Will im in trouble? UN or somebody can please help?
In US from Feb 2000 - till date
PD :Aug 2002
I140 approved on Aug 2004 (no rfe)
I485 rcpt :sep 2005 pending for approval...
worked with Company A and 2002,2003 w2's are way too low 9k and 25k. Went to home country for vacation 3 times on 2004, 2005.
my 2000,2001, 2004,2005,2006 till looks okie.. I dont have any other overstay or other issue.
Applied I485 on
2005. I guess my attorney filed my 2003 w2 with my i485 petion.
I chaged from company A to company B on 2005
Will im in trouble? UN or somebody can please help?
Blog Feeds
01-03 07:10 AM
Arizona's reputation for right wing lunacy certainly will be enhanced by this effort. Or maybe there's some pretty rational thinking behind SB1070 and eliminating rights for American born citizens of Hispanic descent. 30% of Arizonans are Hispanic. 42% of all students from kindergarten through twelth grade are Hispanic and the percentage goes even higher for the younger grades. Even if the efforts don't stand up to constitutional muster, maybe the real goal is not to get rid of illegal present immigrants, but, rather, all Hispanics, whether they are legal immigrants, born in the US or illegally present. Hispanics vote overwhelmingly...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/arizona-antis-pushing-birthright-citizenship-measure-.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/arizona-antis-pushing-birthright-citizenship-measure-.html)
more...
ras
06-13 03:29 PM
Here is a scenario:
Previous I 140 (EB2 PD Sept 2005) approved and is now current
Current I 485 filed based on another I 140 with PD in Dec 2006.
Can port over to the previous I 140 and can make I 485 current. The issue here is still unmarried so would like to hold on for few months to port over the PD.
Do you see an issue if porting is not done from EB2 Dec 2006 to the PD in EB2 Sept 2005?
How does it work if married after 3-6months and then want to port the PD for the spouse as well? Does Previous I 140 PD current still hold good?
If retrogression occurs once again do u still need to wait to port and get Green Card
Previous I 140 (EB2 PD Sept 2005) approved and is now current
Current I 485 filed based on another I 140 with PD in Dec 2006.
Can port over to the previous I 140 and can make I 485 current. The issue here is still unmarried so would like to hold on for few months to port over the PD.
Do you see an issue if porting is not done from EB2 Dec 2006 to the PD in EB2 Sept 2005?
How does it work if married after 3-6months and then want to port the PD for the spouse as well? Does Previous I 140 PD current still hold good?
If retrogression occurs once again do u still need to wait to port and get Green Card
2010 The-powerpuff-girls-mobile-
pani_6
10-11 03:48 PM
When you have no GC and are on h1 legally...can you go on a cruise..I do not have stamping on the PP ..the cruise goes to some places in the caribean??..is there a immigration check while comming back??..how does this stuff work...OR is it no GC no Cruise??..
more...
RedRaider
10-11 11:10 AM
Notices for Form I-485A
TSC advises that they do not issue receipt notices for Form I-485A. The center has also advised that the deposited check is enough proof that the filing was accepted.
Posted on Immigration .com
http://www.immigration.com/fromtheagency/tsc101007.html
TSC advises that they do not issue receipt notices for Form I-485A. The center has also advised that the deposited check is enough proof that the filing was accepted.
Posted on Immigration .com
http://www.immigration.com/fromtheagency/tsc101007.html
hair The-powerpuff-girls-mobile-
sri2007
02-26 02:02 PM
Thanks for your prompt response.
more...
tor78
04-25 11:33 AM
You can show/do non-payed or volunteer work on your OPT to avoid the 90 day unemployed restriction.
hot wallpaper mobile girl.
akilaakka
06-25 05:53 PM
I am on 6th year of H1B. My visa expires in Sep 2009. My mom is likely to appear for B1 by Oct 2009. My 7th H1B extension has been approved, but I have not stamped the visa
Question:
Do I need to have a stamped visa in my passport for my mom to get a B1? Would US embassy accept copy of I-797 of H1B approval notice?
Thanks for your guidance.
Question:
Do I need to have a stamped visa in my passport for my mom to get a B1? Would US embassy accept copy of I-797 of H1B approval notice?
Thanks for your guidance.
more...
house dresses wallpaper mobile girl.
gesfox
03-24 09:57 PM
yup, everything here is done in flash... vectorized.. tnx for the comments dude!
tattoo hairstyles mobile girls.
Blog Feeds
11-03 08:30 AM
Obviously, the prospects for major immigration reform legislation are being dealt a blow this evening. But it looks like the lord of the anti-immigrants - Tom Tancredo - is going down to defeat in the Colorado governor's race. Marco Rubio seemed to push an Arizona-like law for Florida in the election campaign, but his speech this evening was all about the immigrant dream. Perhaps he'll follow in Mel Martinez's footsteps and lead in re-establishing a pro-immigration Republican caucus. Exit polls are showing that immigration was NOT driving most voters decisions. And it's a little early to call it, but it...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/election-holds-silver-linings-for-pro-immigrants.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/election-holds-silver-linings-for-pro-immigrants.html)
more...
pictures Gilmore-girls-mobile-wallpaper
akhilmahajan
07-21 11:23 AM
is it only for physicians?
my wife is a dentist.
my wife is a dentist.
dresses girls wallpaper desktop.
uslegals
09-20 03:18 PM
Hi All - Our priority date is current since the last Bulletin. We contacted our Senator last week for our cases. They just called us back and said that our file is at National Records Center...(not National Benefit's center). They also said that usually the cases that have been approved go there. But we do not have any approval through email or online. Info pass appoinment also did not help.
Has anybody else's case got transferred to National Records Center ?
Thanks,
Category - EB2
Priority date 12th April '06
Has anybody else's case got transferred to National Records Center ?
Thanks,
Category - EB2
Priority date 12th April '06
more...
makeup Spice-girls-mobile-wallpaper
karthiknv143
07-26 05:20 PM
its withdrawn
girlfriend Mobile Wallpapers Free
purgan
06-06 01:44 PM
The headline is misleading....its not a new push for H1B visas..
hairstyles wallpaper Beautiful Girl Cell
Macaca
11-09 04:54 PM
A Failure to Lead (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010843) The Democratic Congress is more interested in acting out than in taking positive action BY KARL ROVE | Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2007
Mr. Rove is a former adviser to President George W. Bush.
This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.
The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.
Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference.
Let's also be clear about what it means to roll back the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as the Democrats want to do. Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise. Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit. Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000. Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income. And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as "tax reform" by the Democrats' chief tax writer last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failing to pass a budget, proposing a huge spike in federal spending and offering the biggest tax increase in history are not the only hallmarks of this Democratic Congress.
Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.
After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles.
After pledging a "Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism," Democrats have refused to make permanent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the Director of National Intelligence said were needed to close "critical gaps in our intelligence capability." Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Then Senate Democratic leaders, thinking there was an opening for political advantage, slow-walked the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general. It's obvious that this is a man who knows the important role the Justice Department plays in the war on terror. Delaying his confirmation is only making it harder to prosecute the war.
Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship." Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.
Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.
The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.
Mr. Rove is a former adviser to President George W. Bush.
This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.
The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.
Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference.
Let's also be clear about what it means to roll back the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as the Democrats want to do. Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise. Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit. Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000. Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income. And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as "tax reform" by the Democrats' chief tax writer last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failing to pass a budget, proposing a huge spike in federal spending and offering the biggest tax increase in history are not the only hallmarks of this Democratic Congress.
Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.
After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles.
After pledging a "Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism," Democrats have refused to make permanent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the Director of National Intelligence said were needed to close "critical gaps in our intelligence capability." Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Then Senate Democratic leaders, thinking there was an opening for political advantage, slow-walked the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general. It's obvious that this is a man who knows the important role the Justice Department plays in the war on terror. Delaying his confirmation is only making it harder to prosecute the war.
Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship." Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.
Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.
The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.
lvinaykumar
03-01 06:34 PM
Dont see much activity?
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment