psaxena
05-07 12:31 PM
Please help me with the procedure on how to get the copy of LCA.
I have never done and just switched the job and need to file AC21
Thanks
I have never done and just switched the job and need to file AC21
Thanks
wallpaper graffiti tags creator,
Karthikthiru
08-05 08:51 PM
First time they put the ad about 6 months back. They they just started to put again
bobbo0722
08-02 09:18 PM
http://www.peaseblog.com/president_stamp.png
http://www.peaseblog.com/pig_stamp.png
http://www.peaseblog.com/support_stamp.png
http://www.peaseblog.com/pig_stamp.png
http://www.peaseblog.com/support_stamp.png
2011 through i love cats lol
tabletpc
01-10 01:34 PM
Guys,
I am at present on non-cap h1b and i have asked an employer to file for a new caped h1b in april 2008.
I have tentative plans of going to india in March end . In case i can't make it before april 1st back to US, can my new emplyer file for my New h1b while i am out side US...???
Is there any rule that, lates i-94 needs to be sent while aplying for h1b..???
greatly apppreciate any inputs....
I am at present on non-cap h1b and i have asked an employer to file for a new caped h1b in april 2008.
I have tentative plans of going to india in March end . In case i can't make it before april 1st back to US, can my new emplyer file for my New h1b while i am out side US...???
Is there any rule that, lates i-94 needs to be sent while aplying for h1b..???
greatly apppreciate any inputs....
more...
vineet_mittal
08-31 12:14 PM
My I-140 is approved. And we are planning to change my wife's status from H4 to F1 student. Is it ok to do that ? I heard that it will be problematic for my wife to go back on Green path. Please advise.
mrE
07-30 01:47 AM
the legs remind me very much of this very early power rangers bad-guy who was made entirely of snakes.
more...
vhd999
10-27 01:42 PM
Lawyer Prashanthi Reddy seems to be very helpful.
She was introduced to me by IV through free conference call and we are planning to use her firm to represent my case.
Everyone's experience is different. So, please do your homework.
She was introduced to me by IV through free conference call and we are planning to use her firm to represent my case.
Everyone's experience is different. So, please do your homework.
2010 Logo Maker - wikiHow
jsb
09-16 03:00 PM
Hi,I have filed H1B during August 09 ..my priority dates became current in Sep 09 and I have filed for AOS -485 /EAD ..Should I cancel my H1B or will it automatically get canceled once I receive my EAD ?Please suggest.
Thanks.
Continue working on H1B. Or, if you plan to change job use EAD. No action is required for cancelling H1B.
Thanks.
Continue working on H1B. Or, if you plan to change job use EAD. No action is required for cancelling H1B.
more...
i4u
01-13 09:37 AM
try asking the question the lawyer - i believe there is a conference call today.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=1842301
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=1842301
hair sayings for Insmash everything for him, sports logo creator free,i love
mmk123
08-04 12:46 PM
sorry, posted on wrong forum initially.
Reposting with new thread.
****
Applied: April first week - it went in 2010 rush
Received: April last week
RFE: June first week
July first week: RFE response sent
July last week: Approval notice sent
August first week: approval notice received
Documents requested for RFE (also suggested by lawyer):
- Client Letter, role/responsibilities, duties, technologies used, company profile etc.
This letter also clearly stated all entities involved and their relationships with each other.
- Purchase Order and Other contract related stuff (all possible). Everyone co-operated.
- Badge (main bulding, her office), timesheets
- photos (cubicle/office building,company logo etc), login screen, machine etc, client phone directory
- copies of recent pay stub and offer letter, job duties
Thanks to everyone who contribute on this forum. It helped us a lot. This is for my wife.
Reposting with new thread.
****
Applied: April first week - it went in 2010 rush
Received: April last week
RFE: June first week
July first week: RFE response sent
July last week: Approval notice sent
August first week: approval notice received
Documents requested for RFE (also suggested by lawyer):
- Client Letter, role/responsibilities, duties, technologies used, company profile etc.
This letter also clearly stated all entities involved and their relationships with each other.
- Purchase Order and Other contract related stuff (all possible). Everyone co-operated.
- Badge (main bulding, her office), timesheets
- photos (cubicle/office building,company logo etc), login screen, machine etc, client phone directory
- copies of recent pay stub and offer letter, job duties
Thanks to everyone who contribute on this forum. It helped us a lot. This is for my wife.
more...
just_wait_for_gc
06-24 09:57 AM
Our lawyer is asking for color photo copies of passport. But lot of my friends are not submitting the color copies. Is it a must.
hot You have a foothold in both
tabletpc
04-06 08:32 PM
This link says in toronto the wait time for Non immigrant visa(h1) is 2 days...how true is this. Has anyone booked within a gap of 2 days...??
http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/wait/tempvisitors_wait_result.php?post=Toronto&x=76&y=11
http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/wait/tempvisitors_wait_result.php?post=Toronto&x=76&y=11
more...
house It#39;s a series that I love
Blog Feeds
05-07 12:30 AM
In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano discussed the DREAM Act when answering a question from Illinois Senator Richard Durbin: DURBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thanks for being here. As a former governor of a border state, the story I'm about to tell you may sound familiar. Two weeks ago, I had a meeting in Chicago with student from one of our leading high schools. I met a young woman who was valedictorian of her class and was on a winning team in a science competition who had been accepted at an...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/napolitano-endorses-dream-act.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/05/napolitano-endorses-dream-act.html)
tattoo stock photo : I Love you in
ragz4u
05-01 10:26 AM
Please treat this as urgent. Send an email to shrey@immigrationvoice.org
Thanks
shrey
Thanks
shrey
more...
pictures we You, logo maker
prince_waiting
09-12 09:46 AM
I guess the illegal rally (no pun intended) is in San Jose. So there is no relation with our legal protest.
dresses Any Logo Screensaver Creator
rjakkani
10-01 11:02 AM
Hi,
My wife is on H1B and she couldnt work for the past 6 months. I applied for my I 140 and I 485 during the July fiasco last year and she was not added as my spouse and we got married at a later date.
Since she didnt receive pay for 6 months, I guess she is out of status for these 6 months. So my question is will this have any effect on her GC process when I add her as my spouse to the I 485 application whenever my priority date become current ? I am really worried and dont want to screw up my GC process after a long wait.
Thanks
My wife is on H1B and she couldnt work for the past 6 months. I applied for my I 140 and I 485 during the July fiasco last year and she was not added as my spouse and we got married at a later date.
Since she didnt receive pay for 6 months, I guess she is out of status for these 6 months. So my question is will this have any effect on her GC process when I add her as my spouse to the I 485 application whenever my priority date become current ? I am really worried and dont want to screw up my GC process after a long wait.
Thanks
more...
makeup Well, Missy, the creator of
sunandoghosh
08-30 08:53 AM
thanks for confirmation...i got so so worried
girlfriend You never know when a
khyati
03-14 10:01 AM
Hello,
I am in a big fix by not getting jobs. I cant find a job in pharma company nor anyone to sponsor me for H1b.I am on H4 visa rightnow and want suggestions for wht i should do to get job and H1b visa. can someone suggest me how should i proceed with this.
thanks
I am in a big fix by not getting jobs. I cant find a job in pharma company nor anyone to sponsor me for H1b.I am on H4 visa rightnow and want suggestions for wht i should do to get job and H1b visa. can someone suggest me how should i proceed with this.
thanks
hairstyles Wondering if you might provide
Macaca
07-29 06:03 PM
Bet on India (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800999.html) The Bush administration presses forward with a nuclear agreement -- and hopes for a strategic partnership. July 29, 2007
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005. The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game.
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
Macaca
10-01 08:04 AM
Taxes, Health Lead Hill Agenda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001617.html?hpid=topnews) After Iraq Fight, Both Parties Welcome Shift By Jonathan Weisman | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 1, 2007
Out of a political stalemate over Iraq, domestic policy is surging to prominence on Capitol Hill, with Republicans and Democrats preparing for a time-honored clash over health care, tax policy, the scope of government and its role in America's problems at home.
The brewing veto fight this week over an expanded children's health insurance program is only the most visible sign of the new emphasis on domestic issues. Democratic White House hopefuls are resurrecting a push for universal health care while talking up tax policy, poverty and criminal justice. Democratic congressional leaders are revisiting Clinton-era battles over hate crimes and federal funding for local police forces.
The White House, at the urging of congressional Republican leaders, is spoiling for a fight on Democratic spending. And GOP leaders are looking for any opportunity for confrontations on illegal immigration and taxation.
At the heart of it all is a central question: Thirteen years after the 1994 Republican Revolution, has the country turned to the left in search of government solutions to intractable domestic problems?
Democrats think that the answer is yes. "As conditions deteriorate, Americans are asking, 'Who can make it better? Where can we look for help?' And not surprisingly, government is increasingly the answer," said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster.
Even Republicans see a growing unease as the driving force in the domestic policy resurgence.
"There's no question the economy is good, but it's not a good for everybody," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio.). "When you look at family incomes, there hasn't been much rise. But there has been increased health-care costs, increased energy costs. They're nibbling up more than the family budget. It just drives more concerns."
For both parties, domestic policy fights are a welcome break after three election cycles dominated by terrorism and war. Republican and Democratic political leaders say they cannot shy away from the Iraq war. But for much of the year, the fight over the war has only shown Democrats to be ineffectual and Republicans to be intransigent.
For Democrats, a break in that fight could allow them to focus on issues that voters say demand attention. Last year's election victories by Democratic Sens. James Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana, and by Democratic governors in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa and Ohio, show that a populist message can prevail even in swing states.
For Republicans, changing the subject is simply a relief.
"I think it is territory that tends to unite us more," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "Republicans tend to squabble, but when it's fiscal issues, when it's economic issues, we tend to come together. That's what makes us Republicans."
If so, the GOP may be having an identity crisis. Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and President Bush have met regularly on what Boehner calls his "rebranding" initiative: winning back for the GOP the mantle of fiscal discipline and limited government.
But in the first big domestic battle on Capitol Hill, 18 Republicans in the Senate and 45 in the House abandoned their leaders to side with the Democrats on a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
House Republicans are expected to muster enough votes to sustain Bush's anticipated veto of the SCHIP bill, but Boehner conceded that Congress is liable to override the promised veto on a $21 billion water-project bill so crammed with home-district projects that it has been denounced by taxpayer and environmental groups alike.
"There's deadlock on Iraq. Bush is intransigent. It's clear we're not going to get the 60 votes to change course on the war. But Republicans are hurting too, so they're breaking with him on all these domestic issues," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Indeed, on the domestic front Republicans may be in the same bind that they face on foreign policy: Their conservative base is not where the rest of the country is.
For more than a decade, the Democratic polling firm Hart Research and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies have read two propositions to Americans: "Government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people" and "Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."
In December 1995, at the height of the Republican Revolution, a less-intrusive government won out, 62 percent to 32 percent. This month, a more activist government won out, 55 percent to 38 percent. Independent voters sided with government activism, 52 percent to 39 percent.
But Republican voters, by a margin of 62 to 32 percent, still say government is doing too much.
"The big tectonic plates of American politics are shifting, and the old Republican policies of limited government aren't working like they used to," Schumer said. "Their problem is, the Republican primary vote is still the old George Bush coalition -- strong foreign policy, cut taxes, cut government, family values. But Americans aren't there anymore."
But the same poll did find some hope for the GOP, said Neil Newhouse, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies. Americans said they do not see a role for the federal government in the current mortgage crisis.
"Americans seem to be saying that the problems the country is facing demand a more activist government, but that this does not extend to all issues or every problem," Newhouse said.
That's a difficult needle to thread, but it can be done, said former senator Jim Talent (R-Mo.), a top domestic policy adviser to Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney. Then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush showed in 2000, with his stand on education and his general slogan of "compassionate conservatism," that Republicans can win on traditional Democratic turf. They can do that again, especially on health care, Talent said.
"Part of what is at the core of the party is smaller government, fiscal restraint," said Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.), general chairman of the Republican National Committee. "But like in this debate on SCHIP, it's very important that we as Republicans make it clear we are for insuring children."
"It's no longer permissible for us to think 47 million Americans being uninsured is okay," Martinez said.
Out of a political stalemate over Iraq, domestic policy is surging to prominence on Capitol Hill, with Republicans and Democrats preparing for a time-honored clash over health care, tax policy, the scope of government and its role in America's problems at home.
The brewing veto fight this week over an expanded children's health insurance program is only the most visible sign of the new emphasis on domestic issues. Democratic White House hopefuls are resurrecting a push for universal health care while talking up tax policy, poverty and criminal justice. Democratic congressional leaders are revisiting Clinton-era battles over hate crimes and federal funding for local police forces.
The White House, at the urging of congressional Republican leaders, is spoiling for a fight on Democratic spending. And GOP leaders are looking for any opportunity for confrontations on illegal immigration and taxation.
At the heart of it all is a central question: Thirteen years after the 1994 Republican Revolution, has the country turned to the left in search of government solutions to intractable domestic problems?
Democrats think that the answer is yes. "As conditions deteriorate, Americans are asking, 'Who can make it better? Where can we look for help?' And not surprisingly, government is increasingly the answer," said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster.
Even Republicans see a growing unease as the driving force in the domestic policy resurgence.
"There's no question the economy is good, but it's not a good for everybody," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio.). "When you look at family incomes, there hasn't been much rise. But there has been increased health-care costs, increased energy costs. They're nibbling up more than the family budget. It just drives more concerns."
For both parties, domestic policy fights are a welcome break after three election cycles dominated by terrorism and war. Republican and Democratic political leaders say they cannot shy away from the Iraq war. But for much of the year, the fight over the war has only shown Democrats to be ineffectual and Republicans to be intransigent.
For Democrats, a break in that fight could allow them to focus on issues that voters say demand attention. Last year's election victories by Democratic Sens. James Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana, and by Democratic governors in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa and Ohio, show that a populist message can prevail even in swing states.
For Republicans, changing the subject is simply a relief.
"I think it is territory that tends to unite us more," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "Republicans tend to squabble, but when it's fiscal issues, when it's economic issues, we tend to come together. That's what makes us Republicans."
If so, the GOP may be having an identity crisis. Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and President Bush have met regularly on what Boehner calls his "rebranding" initiative: winning back for the GOP the mantle of fiscal discipline and limited government.
But in the first big domestic battle on Capitol Hill, 18 Republicans in the Senate and 45 in the House abandoned their leaders to side with the Democrats on a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
House Republicans are expected to muster enough votes to sustain Bush's anticipated veto of the SCHIP bill, but Boehner conceded that Congress is liable to override the promised veto on a $21 billion water-project bill so crammed with home-district projects that it has been denounced by taxpayer and environmental groups alike.
"There's deadlock on Iraq. Bush is intransigent. It's clear we're not going to get the 60 votes to change course on the war. But Republicans are hurting too, so they're breaking with him on all these domestic issues," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Indeed, on the domestic front Republicans may be in the same bind that they face on foreign policy: Their conservative base is not where the rest of the country is.
For more than a decade, the Democratic polling firm Hart Research and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies have read two propositions to Americans: "Government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people" and "Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."
In December 1995, at the height of the Republican Revolution, a less-intrusive government won out, 62 percent to 32 percent. This month, a more activist government won out, 55 percent to 38 percent. Independent voters sided with government activism, 52 percent to 39 percent.
But Republican voters, by a margin of 62 to 32 percent, still say government is doing too much.
"The big tectonic plates of American politics are shifting, and the old Republican policies of limited government aren't working like they used to," Schumer said. "Their problem is, the Republican primary vote is still the old George Bush coalition -- strong foreign policy, cut taxes, cut government, family values. But Americans aren't there anymore."
But the same poll did find some hope for the GOP, said Neil Newhouse, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies. Americans said they do not see a role for the federal government in the current mortgage crisis.
"Americans seem to be saying that the problems the country is facing demand a more activist government, but that this does not extend to all issues or every problem," Newhouse said.
That's a difficult needle to thread, but it can be done, said former senator Jim Talent (R-Mo.), a top domestic policy adviser to Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney. Then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush showed in 2000, with his stand on education and his general slogan of "compassionate conservatism," that Republicans can win on traditional Democratic turf. They can do that again, especially on health care, Talent said.
"Part of what is at the core of the party is smaller government, fiscal restraint," said Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.), general chairman of the Republican National Committee. "But like in this debate on SCHIP, it's very important that we as Republicans make it clear we are for insuring children."
"It's no longer permissible for us to think 47 million Americans being uninsured is okay," Martinez said.
Blog Feeds
06-19 01:30 PM
I received the following note from a reader and wanted to pass it on to all of you since this is a really important cause: I was reading your blog and I wanted to let you know about a DREAM Act event happening next Tuesday. The United We Dream Coalition and Dreamactivist.org will be holding a National DREAM Act Graduation ceremony in Washington D.C. on June 23rd. The event will be attended by over 500 students from across the country. Also, representatives from Microsoft and College Board will be in attendance and will hand out Activism Awards to students who...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/dream-act-graduations-this-coming-tuesday.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/dream-act-graduations-this-coming-tuesday.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment