smartboy75
08-26 11:03 PM
I know ...it sucks ....I have already created a thread for that ...check it out...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21141
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21141
wallpaper The Jazz Age Marcel wave at
rajeshalex
09-16 04:47 AM
Ask your brother to get a leave letter from his company. It should help.
Rajesh
Rajesh
penguin80
08-14 09:42 AM
I worked for an employer on h1b from oct,2005 to jun, 2007 and then for another employer from jun, 2007 till now (Aug, 2009). My I797 says my H1b is valid only till 05/2010. Since i wud complete my 5years in US only in Oct, 2010, is it possible for me to get H1 extension for another year in 05/2010 even if my employer doesn't file for GC or he starts GC now but I don't get I140 by 05/2010. How and when do I need to apply for H1B extension.
Thanks
Thanks
2011 hairstyle for wavy hair.
karn.anand
10-29 01:58 AM
:pleased:
Thank you for your supprt,
Now i have upload a new image
Thank you for your supprt,
Now i have upload a new image
more...
Mottolines
03-25 01:36 PM
Mottolines Worldwide - Airport Car Services
www.mottolinesworldwide.com
www.mottolinesworldwide.com
indianabacklog
06-20 08:13 AM
guys who have already filed 485.
Do u know if its possible to schedule an earlier fingerprinting date? can we just walk to a ASC with our appointment letter and get our fingerprinting done?
I filed for AOS at the beginning of May and had fingerprints done one month later. How quickly do you want them done?
Do u know if its possible to schedule an earlier fingerprinting date? can we just walk to a ASC with our appointment letter and get our fingerprinting done?
I filed for AOS at the beginning of May and had fingerprints done one month later. How quickly do you want them done?
more...
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
2010 Short Curly Wavy Hair Wig
brahmam
05-16 11:11 PM
Thanks, Subba. :)
more...
immi2006
11-05 04:59 PM
Hi,
I saw that my 485 status was updated twice.
FP done on - Oct 24, 485 LUD was 24 Oct.
Nov 3 - one more LUD on 485 app for me and spouse.
: BEC LC cleared on June 21, PD march 2001, I 140 + 485 filed on July 2 for me and spouse.
What do you make out of the two LUDs in less than 2 weeks ?.
My I 140 is still pending. (EB2 Category)
I saw that my 485 status was updated twice.
FP done on - Oct 24, 485 LUD was 24 Oct.
Nov 3 - one more LUD on 485 app for me and spouse.
: BEC LC cleared on June 21, PD march 2001, I 140 + 485 filed on July 2 for me and spouse.
What do you make out of the two LUDs in less than 2 weeks ?.
My I 140 is still pending. (EB2 Category)
hair 1920 hairstyles, 1920#39;s haircut, flapper bob, bob cut, flappers,
uma001
06-25 12:41 PM
5 more Representatives co-sponsor for CIR ASAP of 2009 bringing it to 102 sponsors.
However, unless the Senate moves on Immigration .. nothing will happen in the House.
What happened to STEM bill? When is it coming to senate?
However, unless the Senate moves on Immigration .. nothing will happen in the House.
What happened to STEM bill? When is it coming to senate?
more...
nkhari
01-11 04:18 PM
yes, was and thought about it. Just woke up to see Life without GC is still the same and I am a day old. Now, I feel relaxed. Now, there is no need to check or wait for bulletin for the next one year or to atleast have any hope.
hot finger wave hairstyles
andycool
10-25 01:13 PM
Hello Attorney,
I filed AP for me and my Dependent , Unfortunately USCIS just picked the application on the top of packet ( My Application ) and i got the receipt No , I dont know what happened to my Spouces Application her check is not cashed and no receipt no , I suppose her applicaiton is was just placed with my applicaiton and was considered as just one application .
Now what are my options , can i go ahead and file one more application , i know its literally impossible for me to call uscis and Track my wife's application , can i go and file a new application for my Spouse . Please advice.
Thanks
I filed AP for me and my Dependent , Unfortunately USCIS just picked the application on the top of packet ( My Application ) and i got the receipt No , I dont know what happened to my Spouces Application her check is not cashed and no receipt no , I suppose her applicaiton is was just placed with my applicaiton and was considered as just one application .
Now what are my options , can i go ahead and file one more application , i know its literally impossible for me to call uscis and Track my wife's application , can i go and file a new application for my Spouse . Please advice.
Thanks
more...
house Short Curly Wavy Hair Wig
Blog Feeds
11-04 09:40 AM
An old, old friend who is a major voice in conservative politics in this country agreed with this when we spoke about the election today (he was obviously a lot happier today than me). He also agreed that if the GOP needs to understand that the voter anger over economy gave them a short term opportunity to retake power, but that maintaining that power when things get back to normal will depend on broadening their coalition to include Hispanics. Anyway, here's the news from National Council of La Raza: Latino voters proved pivotal in several hotly contested midterm elections, including...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/ncsl-latino-voters-saved-senate-for-democrats.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/11/ncsl-latino-voters-saved-senate-for-democrats.html)
tattoo s tru-wave clips used in the
leo2606
09-28 04:33 PM
What is the point?:confused:
Please post here in case anyone sees 485 approval between 09/29/2008 to 09/30/2009
Please post here in case anyone sees 485 approval between 09/29/2008 to 09/30/2009
more...
pictures {fazendo marcel waves!
setpit_gc
12-17 02:05 PM
My current AP expires on July 30, 2008. I am planning to apply for renewal in Jan or Feb 2008, which is 6 months prior to expiration. I understand that nowadays it takes more than 3 months for approval.
In case of emergency, Can I travel to India with my current AP while AP renewal petition is pending?.
Thanks for your help.
In case of emergency, Can I travel to India with my current AP while AP renewal petition is pending?.
Thanks for your help.
dresses his name, the Marcel wave.
bishwas123
04-24 08:47 PM
Hello everyone,
I have heard that if you cancel your first LC and apply for a Second one you can still use the advertisements and all from the first one if you fall withing that "6 month" period. My question is -
Is it 6 month from the first day that the advertisement was published or is it 6 month from the day your first LC was approved? :confused:
Experts please shed some light on this.
Thanks in advance
I have heard that if you cancel your first LC and apply for a Second one you can still use the advertisements and all from the first one if you fall withing that "6 month" period. My question is -
Is it 6 month from the first day that the advertisement was published or is it 6 month from the day your first LC was approved? :confused:
Experts please shed some light on this.
Thanks in advance
more...
makeup Short Finger Waves Hair Style
immigration1234
09-24 02:17 PM
We have filed for our I-485 application.
I came to know from one of my friends that we do not receive our EAD after 90 days of receiving the receipt no
we can go to nearest immigration office to get it.
Is this the right span of time or we need to wait for more time.
How does this work.
Thanks in advance.
I came to know from one of my friends that we do not receive our EAD after 90 days of receiving the receipt no
we can go to nearest immigration office to get it.
Is this the right span of time or we need to wait for more time.
How does this work.
Thanks in advance.
girlfriend Very Thick Wavy Hair - What do
jcgamboa
04-30 11:32 AM
Hi guys,
I got as well the unlucky audit like almost 80% of the people filing for a PERM.
My L1 visa is expiring on May 14th and the PERM audit reply was on Jan 28th and based on the current cases pending, I will hearing back from Atlanta sometimes between July-August.
I also applied for the H1-B and get approved but it is starting on Oct-1st,2008
1.- Can I stay "out-of-status" based on the INA 245 that "allow us to stay up to 180 days because change of status in process"?
2.- This changes of status process is valid only when you file the I-485 or for anyone already starting GC process like PERM in process?
3.- If I need to come back to my country and get the H1-B stamped, Do I loose the current PERM even if it get aproved or can I use the same PERM once aproved and apply for I-140/I-1485 concurrently (because EB-2 category) no matter I 'll have a different Visa H1-B instead of L1-B stated in the PERM?
Thanks for your soon reply.
I got as well the unlucky audit like almost 80% of the people filing for a PERM.
My L1 visa is expiring on May 14th and the PERM audit reply was on Jan 28th and based on the current cases pending, I will hearing back from Atlanta sometimes between July-August.
I also applied for the H1-B and get approved but it is starting on Oct-1st,2008
1.- Can I stay "out-of-status" based on the INA 245 that "allow us to stay up to 180 days because change of status in process"?
2.- This changes of status process is valid only when you file the I-485 or for anyone already starting GC process like PERM in process?
3.- If I need to come back to my country and get the H1-B stamped, Do I loose the current PERM even if it get aproved or can I use the same PERM once aproved and apply for I-140/I-1485 concurrently (because EB-2 category) no matter I 'll have a different Visa H1-B instead of L1-B stated in the PERM?
Thanks for your soon reply.
hairstyles Hairstyles Book Flapper Era Marcel Wave Hairstyles 1926 | eBay
prajarajyam
11-19 06:06 PM
Hi All,
My AP got approved with incorrect A#.
Where as receipt notice has correct A#.
Please let me know, what I need to do to get correct A# on my AP?
Thanks for your help.
Praja
My AP got approved with incorrect A#.
Where as receipt notice has correct A#.
Please let me know, what I need to do to get correct A# on my AP?
Thanks for your help.
Praja
ita
01-14 09:56 PM
Just voted...Thank you.
dollar500
11-07 12:46 PM
bump
No comments:
Post a Comment