srikondoji
12-07 07:37 PM
i did send the fax. Was reading news and thought i should make a post.
wallpaper house love quotes hindi. love
masterji
10-15 07:13 PM
I got mine in about three weeks.
msadiqali
02-15 09:54 PM
What Does the Prez Stand for? You Are Going to Be Shocked When You Learn the Name of Obama's Favorite CEO | News & Politics | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/news/145664/what_does_the_prez_stand_for_you_are_going_to_be_s hocked_when_you_learn_the_name_of_obama%27s_favori te_ceo_)
2011 tattoo Description: Katy Perry
smartboy75
11-09 06:02 PM
You can file I-485 only when your PD is current. There is no connection between filing for I-485 and I-140 approval.
more...
mhtanim
10-07 05:26 PM
Prakash is the Ex USCIS OMBUDSMAN. He retired from his position at the beginning of this year. Please read this link: http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2008/02/prakash-.html
voicerj
05-20 02:41 PM
I got my I 140 approved under Eb3 if i get another job and transfer my I 140 can i use my old PD if my new employer applies in EB2 ?
Yes you can. but in that case you need to file a new labor and new I-140 with EB2
Yes you can. but in that case you need to file a new labor and new I-140 with EB2
more...
Irs
02-17 11:58 AM
Switzerland has similar law that works well not sure of cons on this.
2010 Sanskrit Tattoo – Katy Perry
JunRN
09-13 07:32 AM
Thanks....that was truly helpful. So I have to expect it in the mail because I already got my Receipt Notice for I-485.
more...
insight08
01-14 09:47 PM
In 2002, I left my employer(A) and joined another company(B). New employer applied for my h1b and in 3 months we got an RFE. Coincidentally, I did not like that job and just left that employer(B) to join the previous employer(A).Never tried to get the h1b reciept from. Now that company is folded and there is no information about that company(B). Later that year, company B gave me a W2 for 3 months pay which I had to file later that year.
While applying for 485 in june 2007, in mad rush I had to fill up G-325 form and I did not write anything about working for company(B) for 3 months. Rather I mentioned that I worked for Company A thru 2002.
Thanks in advance for your help. Lazycis, UN and any other gurus , please help!!!
Could USCIS find that out? If so, am I in trouble? How to overcome this situation?
While applying for 485 in june 2007, in mad rush I had to fill up G-325 form and I did not write anything about working for company(B) for 3 months. Rather I mentioned that I worked for Company A thru 2002.
Thanks in advance for your help. Lazycis, UN and any other gurus , please help!!!
Could USCIS find that out? If so, am I in trouble? How to overcome this situation?
hair Katy Perry to get Freddie Mercury tattoo. 19 March 2009
martinvisalaw
11-25 12:54 PM
Yes, you don't have to be in the US while the 485 is pending. You will need to be here for any appointments - fingerprinting, interview, etc. You also need to intend to be a permanent resident and work in the position listed on the I-140 (assuming this is an employment-based case). CIS might issue an RFE on the 485, asking for evidence of this, so you need to be able to provide it.
more...
puriyu
09-15 10:47 AM
http://imminfo.com/library/calculatingvisabulletinmovementarticle.html
hot Katy Perry Tattoo
rk2006
08-12 10:08 AM
Can some one reply to my post please. My question is regarding EAD only. Once I apply for EAD and go to India what happens
1. If I am not there while it approved? Can my frnd send me the EAD to India?
2. if I get called for finger printing for EAD and if dont go for it? Will my AOS will be treated as abandoned?
1. If I am not there while it approved? Can my frnd send me the EAD to India?
2. if I get called for finger printing for EAD and if dont go for it? Will my AOS will be treated as abandoned?
more...
house good morning quotes in hindi.
Macaca
07-23 07:38 PM
Sheehan: I will beat Pelosi (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sheehan-i-will-beat-pelosi-2007-07-23.html) By Jeremy Jacobs, July 23, 2007
If Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) refuses to bring articles of impeachment against President Bush to the floor of the House, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan said Monday, Sheehan not only will challenge the Speaker in the next election but also will defeat her.
Discussing President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Sheehan said, �We put them there. We can fire them. If Nancy Pelosi doesn't do her constitutionally mandated job by midnight tonight, tomorrow I will announce that I'm going to run against her.
�And not only am I going to run against her, but I will beat her,� Sheehan added.
A spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said the Speaker and House Democrats are working toward their goals this Congress and would not address Sheehan�s proclamation.
�The Speaker and House Democrats are focused on ending the war in Iraq, holding the Bush administration accountable and delivering a new direction for the American people,� Elshami said.�Those are the priorities of the Speaker and the Democrats.�
Sheehan seized the anti-war spotlight during her extended protest outside the president�s ranch in Crawford, Texas in 2005, after her 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq. Speaking at a demonstration at Arlington National Cemetery, Sheehan argued that it is Pelosi�s constitutional obligation to impeach the president.
�The administration has abused our soldiers. They've abused our freedoms,� Sheehan said. �They have killed my son and countless others. And they must be held accountable.
�Impeachment is not a fringe movement. It is mandated in our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table,� Sheehan said.
Sheehan Arrested in Impeachment Protest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072300697.html?hpid=moreheadlines) By NATASHA T. METZLER The Associated Press, July 23, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat's refusal to try to impeach President Bush.
Sheehan was taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers' office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.
"The Democrats will not hold this administration accountable, so we have to hold the Democrats accountable," Sheehan said outside of Conyers' office after the meeting. "And I for one am going to step up to the plate and run against Nancy Pelosi."
Sheehan and about 200 other protesters had walked to Conyers' office from Arlington National Cemetery. She said Conyers told her there weren't enough votes for impeachment to move forward on the issue.
Forty-five of Sheehan's fellow protesters also were arrested. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said that after they are processed, the arrested activists could each pay a $50 fine to be released.
"Impeachment is not a fringe movement, it is mandated in our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table," Sheehan told her group of orange-clad activists before they began their march from the national cemetery.
Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, has been saying for two weeks that she would seek to oust Pelosi from office by running against her as an independent in her San Francisco district if Pelosi didn't change her mind by July 23 on trying to impeach Bush.
Conyers introduced a bill last term calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeaching Bush. Pelosi has steadfastly dismissed any talk of impeachment, saying Democrats should focus their efforts on ending the war in Iraq.
If Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) refuses to bring articles of impeachment against President Bush to the floor of the House, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan said Monday, Sheehan not only will challenge the Speaker in the next election but also will defeat her.
Discussing President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Sheehan said, �We put them there. We can fire them. If Nancy Pelosi doesn't do her constitutionally mandated job by midnight tonight, tomorrow I will announce that I'm going to run against her.
�And not only am I going to run against her, but I will beat her,� Sheehan added.
A spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said the Speaker and House Democrats are working toward their goals this Congress and would not address Sheehan�s proclamation.
�The Speaker and House Democrats are focused on ending the war in Iraq, holding the Bush administration accountable and delivering a new direction for the American people,� Elshami said.�Those are the priorities of the Speaker and the Democrats.�
Sheehan seized the anti-war spotlight during her extended protest outside the president�s ranch in Crawford, Texas in 2005, after her 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq. Speaking at a demonstration at Arlington National Cemetery, Sheehan argued that it is Pelosi�s constitutional obligation to impeach the president.
�The administration has abused our soldiers. They've abused our freedoms,� Sheehan said. �They have killed my son and countless others. And they must be held accountable.
�Impeachment is not a fringe movement. It is mandated in our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table,� Sheehan said.
Sheehan Arrested in Impeachment Protest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072300697.html?hpid=moreheadlines) By NATASHA T. METZLER The Associated Press, July 23, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat's refusal to try to impeach President Bush.
Sheehan was taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers' office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.
"The Democrats will not hold this administration accountable, so we have to hold the Democrats accountable," Sheehan said outside of Conyers' office after the meeting. "And I for one am going to step up to the plate and run against Nancy Pelosi."
Sheehan and about 200 other protesters had walked to Conyers' office from Arlington National Cemetery. She said Conyers told her there weren't enough votes for impeachment to move forward on the issue.
Forty-five of Sheehan's fellow protesters also were arrested. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said that after they are processed, the arrested activists could each pay a $50 fine to be released.
"Impeachment is not a fringe movement, it is mandated in our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table," Sheehan told her group of orange-clad activists before they began their march from the national cemetery.
Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, has been saying for two weeks that she would seek to oust Pelosi from office by running against her as an independent in her San Francisco district if Pelosi didn't change her mind by July 23 on trying to impeach Bush.
Conyers introduced a bill last term calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeaching Bush. Pelosi has steadfastly dismissed any talk of impeachment, saying Democrats should focus their efforts on ending the war in Iraq.
tattoo hair american indian tattoo
webm
01-07 02:40 PM
What will happen if my renewal EAD is still in the process while my current EAD is going to expire soon (in a week's period)?
Can I work during the expired period?
Please help..:confused:
No you shouldn't work during that expired period..and resume to work after you get new extension EAD card.
Can I work during the expired period?
Please help..:confused:
No you shouldn't work during that expired period..and resume to work after you get new extension EAD card.
more...
pictures tattoo Video: Katy Perry,
Macaca
05-15 10:07 AM
Congress's Start (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/12/AR2007051201099.html) -- It's time to begin recording concrete achievements, Sunday, May 13, 2007
FOUR MONTHS into the 110th Congress is too early to assign grades to the new Democratic majority -- but not too soon to remind lawmakers that most of their self-assigned tasks remain undone; that progress in the next few months on immigration, trade and lobbying reform is critical; and that this Congress will be judged on what it accomplished -- and on where it punted.
The biggest punt thus far concerns entitlement spending, an issue on which the administration, chiefly Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., has been seeking to jump-start discussions. This is an auspicious moment that Democrats seem determined to squander. First, the Democratic Congress has a lame-duck Republican president who could take, or at least share, the blame for cuts that will have to be part of any solution. Second, as members of Congress well know, the longer they wait to take on Medicare and, particularly, Social Security, the harder the problem they will face.
Democrats have seized on Vice President Cheney's comments to Fox News in January about raising payroll taxes -- "This president has been very, very clear on his position on taxes, and nothing's changed" -- as a rationale for why they can't risk bargaining with the administration. But this is an excuse, not a legitimate basis for inaction. After all, Mr. Cheney also said there would be "no preconditions."
Meanwhile, lawmakers for the most part have used their oversight powers usefully, though we wish more energy were spent examining torture policies, for instance, and less on subpoenaing the secretary of state. Although the budget process has yet to play itself out, the adoption of tough pay-as-you-go rules to constrain new mandatory spending has had a surprisingly beneficial effect in restraining demands for new programs. The Senate's passage of a measure to strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory powers is an important step.
Still unanswered is whether Democrats will deliver on their campaign promises and whether both sides will find ways to forge consensus on issues of common concern. House Democrats' "Six for '06" campaign pledge has so far amounted to "None in '07." Much of this (federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, for instance) is out of Democrats' control, given the Senate's supermajority rules and President Bush's veto pen; in some cases (having Medicare negotiate drug prices, for example), that's just as well. But even such relatively noncontroversial matters as increasing the minimum wage remain undone. Voters are starting to notice, and the coming weeks will be crucial for Democrats to put some actual accomplishments on the board.
On a matter that is within their control, it's still uncertain whether House Democrats will produce a lobbying and ethics reform package worthy of their campaign pledges to end the "culture of corruption." The key tests will be whether lawmakers require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of campaign cash they deliver (as the Senate version of the measure has done) and whether the House will create a more credible ethics process, including some kind of independent arm to assess and investigate ethics allegations.
On immigration, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is right to bring to the floor last year's measure, which won the support of 23 Republicans. The clock is ticking on this incendiary topic, and the administration has not improved matters by pushing an unbalanced and punitive plan. If Mr. Bush is looking for a legacy issue beyond Iraq, this could be it, but he is, so far, blowing the chance.
On trade, an agreement that seems to clear the way for approval of trade pacts with Peru and Panama is a start, but only that. Much more important is the passage of deals with Colombia and South Korea, and extension of presidential trade negotiating authority, which is needed to complete a new global trade treaty. Congressional leaders should work with Mr. Bush to extend the authority -- not because they like or trust him but because doing so will be better for the economy in which they, too, have an important stake.
FOUR MONTHS into the 110th Congress is too early to assign grades to the new Democratic majority -- but not too soon to remind lawmakers that most of their self-assigned tasks remain undone; that progress in the next few months on immigration, trade and lobbying reform is critical; and that this Congress will be judged on what it accomplished -- and on where it punted.
The biggest punt thus far concerns entitlement spending, an issue on which the administration, chiefly Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., has been seeking to jump-start discussions. This is an auspicious moment that Democrats seem determined to squander. First, the Democratic Congress has a lame-duck Republican president who could take, or at least share, the blame for cuts that will have to be part of any solution. Second, as members of Congress well know, the longer they wait to take on Medicare and, particularly, Social Security, the harder the problem they will face.
Democrats have seized on Vice President Cheney's comments to Fox News in January about raising payroll taxes -- "This president has been very, very clear on his position on taxes, and nothing's changed" -- as a rationale for why they can't risk bargaining with the administration. But this is an excuse, not a legitimate basis for inaction. After all, Mr. Cheney also said there would be "no preconditions."
Meanwhile, lawmakers for the most part have used their oversight powers usefully, though we wish more energy were spent examining torture policies, for instance, and less on subpoenaing the secretary of state. Although the budget process has yet to play itself out, the adoption of tough pay-as-you-go rules to constrain new mandatory spending has had a surprisingly beneficial effect in restraining demands for new programs. The Senate's passage of a measure to strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory powers is an important step.
Still unanswered is whether Democrats will deliver on their campaign promises and whether both sides will find ways to forge consensus on issues of common concern. House Democrats' "Six for '06" campaign pledge has so far amounted to "None in '07." Much of this (federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, for instance) is out of Democrats' control, given the Senate's supermajority rules and President Bush's veto pen; in some cases (having Medicare negotiate drug prices, for example), that's just as well. But even such relatively noncontroversial matters as increasing the minimum wage remain undone. Voters are starting to notice, and the coming weeks will be crucial for Democrats to put some actual accomplishments on the board.
On a matter that is within their control, it's still uncertain whether House Democrats will produce a lobbying and ethics reform package worthy of their campaign pledges to end the "culture of corruption." The key tests will be whether lawmakers require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of campaign cash they deliver (as the Senate version of the measure has done) and whether the House will create a more credible ethics process, including some kind of independent arm to assess and investigate ethics allegations.
On immigration, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is right to bring to the floor last year's measure, which won the support of 23 Republicans. The clock is ticking on this incendiary topic, and the administration has not improved matters by pushing an unbalanced and punitive plan. If Mr. Bush is looking for a legacy issue beyond Iraq, this could be it, but he is, so far, blowing the chance.
On trade, an agreement that seems to clear the way for approval of trade pacts with Peru and Panama is a start, but only that. Much more important is the passage of deals with Colombia and South Korea, and extension of presidential trade negotiating authority, which is needed to complete a new global trade treaty. Congressional leaders should work with Mr. Bush to extend the authority -- not because they like or trust him but because doing so will be better for the economy in which they, too, have an important stake.
dresses Hindu Tattoo Art Henna
chippilg
09-25 01:05 PM
I am a USC living in Jordan with my Jordanian husband, he was approved to apply for SB-1 visa ( because of his expired green card) and was sent the IV packet, which included the affidavit of support, just wondering how I'm going to fill the form since I don't work (never have) and live in Jordan with my husband, I was told I should fill out zeros where numbers are required and write unemployed where asked about work, is this the case? I will have a joint sponsor who is my brother in law who is a USC living and residing in the US, will this work? Please help as I couldn't find any answers on the net ( and I have been browsing all day!)
more...
makeup poems in hindi. tattoo
Blog Feeds
06-22 10:10 AM
It's hard not to watch in amazement as protesters from across Iran are managing to get videos and pictures out to the world of their fight for liberty despite the fact that most journalists are barred from reporting. They are using communications technology as their weapon against the regime and the camera phone has been at the center of it all. Two years ago I honored Philippe Kahn on this site as my immigrant of the day. Kahn, a French immigrant to the US, invented the camera phone in 1997 so that he could take pictures of his new child...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/how-an-immigrants-invention-is-helping-to-bring-freedom-to-iran.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/how-an-immigrants-invention-is-helping-to-bring-freedom-to-iran.html)
girlfriend Katy Perry Tattoos Inner Arm
kumartexas
11-07 07:54 PM
Scenario
L1 & I94 valid till late 2011 with comp A
new H1 with comp B approved effective November valid for another 2-3 years
Can some one still continue working on L1 or one must have to surrender L1 and need to switch over to H1.
What is the valid time period he can continue on L1 with comp A.
L1 & I94 valid till late 2011 with comp A
new H1 with comp B approved effective November valid for another 2-3 years
Can some one still continue working on L1 or one must have to surrender L1 and need to switch over to H1.
What is the valid time period he can continue on L1 with comp A.
hairstyles Sanskrit Tattoo – Katy Perry
Macaca
07-22 05:39 PM
Empty Promises (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/editorial/19419-1.html), July 18, 2007
As Senate Democrats were preparing to go to the mattresses over Iraq voting procedures and as Republicans threatened to stop all activity over a judicial appointment, it's worth recalling what Senate leaders were promising at the outset of the 110th Congress.
On Jan. 4, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared on the floor that "last November, the voters sent us a message - Democrats and Republicans. The voters are upset with Congress and the partisan gridlock. The voters want a government that focuses on their needs. The voters want change. Together, we must deliver that change."
Minutes later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) observed that "the challenges ahead will not be met if we do nothing to overcome the partisanship that has come to characterize this body over the past several years. A culture of partisanship over principle represents a grave threat to the Senate's best tradition as a place of constructive cooperation. It undermines the spirit and the purpose of this institution. And we must do something to reverse its course."
Six months on, the Senate has devolved into a nonstop brawl. The House, where leaders made let's-work-together promises of their own, also is a cauldron of partisanship, but at least there the rules permit a majority to rule.
But together, they've been able to pass just three pieces of significant legislation - a hike in the minimum wage, expansion of stem-cell research funding and a supplemental appropriation to fund the Iraq War. Only the first was directly signed into law. The second was vetoed by President Bush. The third was vetoed then passed.
Partisan warfare and inaction on issues from health care to immigration to energy - even lobbying and ethics reform, once the top priority for this Congress - has reduced respect for the legislative branch to its lowest level ever. Respect for the presidency is not much higher.
Who's to blame? Senate Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of "obstructionism" - systematic refusal to grant unanimous consent so that bills can be voted upon. Senate Republicans blame Reid for invoking cloture to stifle full debate and the offering of amendments.
The level of rancor is escalating now because Democrats are frustrated that Republicans are insisting on a 60-vote threshold on Iraq War amendments - as though Democrats in the past have not used the 60-vote requirement when it suited them. Republicans are threatening to create procedural chaos and allow little or no action on the floor if Democrats block a single appellate court nominee.
In January, Senators of both parties gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in what McConnell described as "a small act of bipartisanship" that he hoped would lead to a restoration of the Senate's reputation. Now, perhaps, Senators should regather there and contemplate their current level of public esteem.
As Senate Democrats were preparing to go to the mattresses over Iraq voting procedures and as Republicans threatened to stop all activity over a judicial appointment, it's worth recalling what Senate leaders were promising at the outset of the 110th Congress.
On Jan. 4, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared on the floor that "last November, the voters sent us a message - Democrats and Republicans. The voters are upset with Congress and the partisan gridlock. The voters want a government that focuses on their needs. The voters want change. Together, we must deliver that change."
Minutes later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) observed that "the challenges ahead will not be met if we do nothing to overcome the partisanship that has come to characterize this body over the past several years. A culture of partisanship over principle represents a grave threat to the Senate's best tradition as a place of constructive cooperation. It undermines the spirit and the purpose of this institution. And we must do something to reverse its course."
Six months on, the Senate has devolved into a nonstop brawl. The House, where leaders made let's-work-together promises of their own, also is a cauldron of partisanship, but at least there the rules permit a majority to rule.
But together, they've been able to pass just three pieces of significant legislation - a hike in the minimum wage, expansion of stem-cell research funding and a supplemental appropriation to fund the Iraq War. Only the first was directly signed into law. The second was vetoed by President Bush. The third was vetoed then passed.
Partisan warfare and inaction on issues from health care to immigration to energy - even lobbying and ethics reform, once the top priority for this Congress - has reduced respect for the legislative branch to its lowest level ever. Respect for the presidency is not much higher.
Who's to blame? Senate Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of "obstructionism" - systematic refusal to grant unanimous consent so that bills can be voted upon. Senate Republicans blame Reid for invoking cloture to stifle full debate and the offering of amendments.
The level of rancor is escalating now because Democrats are frustrated that Republicans are insisting on a 60-vote threshold on Iraq War amendments - as though Democrats in the past have not used the 60-vote requirement when it suited them. Republicans are threatening to create procedural chaos and allow little or no action on the floor if Democrats block a single appellate court nominee.
In January, Senators of both parties gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in what McConnell described as "a small act of bipartisanship" that he hoped would lead to a restoration of the Senate's reputation. Now, perhaps, Senators should regather there and contemplate their current level of public esteem.
gcformeornot
12-17 05:47 PM
on which PERM was filed. Audit does not alter that.
gc_vsc
01-27 04:43 PM
I am ready and will invite some friends
No comments:
Post a Comment