chanduv23
11-26 09:17 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wallpaper Lady GaGa featuring Colby
reddymjm
03-12 07:40 AM
Congratulations and good luck.
Please contribute. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=325844
Please contribute. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=325844
kirupa
11-11 01:35 AM
Added :)
2011 Lady Gaga by Mariano Vivanco
xgr3
05-14 08:40 PM
What does this status message means?
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
Transferred to Texas from Nebraska.
Filing info
-------------------
Category : EB3
PD : July 2006
Labor and 140 Approved.
I-485 filed on Jul 2007
LUD - 03/30/2009
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
Transferred to Texas from Nebraska.
Filing info
-------------------
Category : EB3
PD : July 2006
Labor and 140 Approved.
I-485 filed on Jul 2007
LUD - 03/30/2009
more...
sdeshpan
04-23 01:49 PM
I believe they promise a 15-day (business days, I assume) turnaround on Premium Proc applications. So it could take anywhere between 1 and 15 days, if not longer in certain cases.
Also, why is going to India dependent on receiving on an approval of I-140??
Also, why is going to India dependent on receiving on an approval of I-140??
muthiahmerchant
06-26 09:50 AM
I am thinking of applying for 485 right now, and 5 months later for my wife. Do the dates have to current when I apply for my wife. or it does not matter. Has any one done this where they applied for 485 when dates were current but for spouse at a latter date when the dates were backlogged again.
thanks
thanks
more...
Kullesh
07-22 02:50 PM
Hi, I was in India when my husband applied for my H1B in 2008. I got it picked in lottery and got the approval too. I came to US on H4. After Oct 1st 2008, we applied for Change of Status to H4 to legally complete the work permit process. In the Change of Status applicatin form, my company accidently did a mistake of mentioning that Current status=H1B, New status required=H1B. :mad: USICIS, on seeing the application, took a decision to give me H4 with new I-94. I tried calling the USCIS helpdesk, but in vain. :confused:
1) Now what should I do to start working in H1B?
2) Was I correct in ging throughChange of Status? Or could I start working with the approval copy I had?
3) Could I apply for SSN with the 2008 approval copy?
Any answers would be greatly apprrciated!. Thanks in advance........
1) Now what should I do to start working in H1B?
2) Was I correct in ging throughChange of Status? Or could I start working with the approval copy I had?
3) Could I apply for SSN with the 2008 approval copy?
Any answers would be greatly apprrciated!. Thanks in advance........
2010 Lady Gaga doesn#39;t often open
Blog Feeds
07-21 01:10 PM
It has now been nearly two years since the Senate voted to kill an immigration reform package and the hopes of ever dealing with the mess that is our immigration system seemed over for the foreseeable future. But a lot has changed in 23 months. Most importantly, there was an election in 2008 that dramatically changed the politics on the issue. There are ten more Democrats in the Senate and nearly 30 more in the House. And there is a Democratic President that likely owes his win to Hispanic voters turning out in large numbers to deliver several states that...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/get-ready-for-the-thrilla-this-fall.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/07/get-ready-for-the-thrilla-this-fall.html)
more...
seahawks
09-26 01:39 AM
we will discuss on the need to get this chapter active again. We need to come up with a plan on contacting law makers. All inputs are welcome.
hair wallpaper Lady Gaga sings with
horus
09-07 10:16 AM
Supposed my I-485 was approved, am I legally required to go to USCIS, surrender my I-94 card and get a I-551 stamp? Could I just wait for GC to come in the mail?
more...
good idea
06-02 10:34 AM
Status of my application is updated to "Request for Evidence - Review of Reply",
Can someone share that
-if it means that they acknowledge that they got RFE reply & are (already) reviewing the documents.
or
-if it means that they acknowledge that they got RFE reply, actual review may take week(s)
thanks & regards.
Can someone share that
-if it means that they acknowledge that they got RFE reply & are (already) reviewing the documents.
or
-if it means that they acknowledge that they got RFE reply, actual review may take week(s)
thanks & regards.
hot lady gaga tattoos
Blog Feeds
05-10 09:00 AM
British-born actor/singer/writer John Keston is a world class marathon runner who regularly break records. That the 85 year old began breaking records more than 30 years ago at the age of 55 is nothing short of astonishing. The New York Times recently reported on Keston's amazing career and included some of his finishing times. Keston broke four hours in the Twin Cities Marathon when he was 71 and finished a half marathon in 1:39:25 when he was 80. I've done five marathons in my life and the time Keston hit in the Twin Cities race is about what I did...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/immigrant-of-the-day-john-keston---marathon-man.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/05/immigrant-of-the-day-john-keston---marathon-man.html)
more...
house Lady Gaga Advocates Gay Rights, Sings #39;Born This Way#39; At Rome Rally In
lazycis
12-03 02:29 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15840
tattoo Lady Gaga performs during The
TheCanadian
05-14 07:54 PM
Could you post it in GIF?
more...
pictures Lady Gaga for Hello Kitty
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
01/25/2011
Article by Frank Aquila of Bloomberg BusinessWeek who underscores several reasons why lifting the cap on H-1B petitions is essential for US Tech growth including the fact that "The U.S. Labor Dept. estimates that by 2014, 2 million high-tech jobs will go unfilled simply because the cap on H-1B visas has not been raised."
Read Article (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2011/pi20110118_876603.htm)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/bloomberg-businessweek-article---h-1b-visas-a-modest-proposal-for-immigration-reform.aspx?ref=rss)
Article by Frank Aquila of Bloomberg BusinessWeek who underscores several reasons why lifting the cap on H-1B petitions is essential for US Tech growth including the fact that "The U.S. Labor Dept. estimates that by 2014, 2 million high-tech jobs will go unfilled simply because the cap on H-1B visas has not been raised."
Read Article (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2011/pi20110118_876603.htm)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/bloomberg-businessweek-article---h-1b-visas-a-modest-proposal-for-immigration-reform.aspx?ref=rss)
dresses makeup Lady GaGa Does German
canmt
10-31 02:36 PM
AC21 is the only light at the end of the tunnel for doing such things. If you change employer before I-485 is filed and pending 180 days, all you will get will be your labor priority date. You will have to file labor and I-140 again with your new employer and when filing I-485 you can use your old priority date.
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card pursuit...
I hope this helps and good luck on your green card pursuit...
more...
makeup Googoo Gaga: Lady Gaga#39;s
ocpmachine
07-12 03:48 PM
Employment- Based
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born DOMINICAN REPUBLIC INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C C
2nd C 01MAR06 C 01MAR06 C C
3rd 01JUN04 22SEP03 01JUN04 01JAN02 U 01JUN04
Other Workers 15MAY02 15MAY02 15MAY02 01JAN02 U 15MAY02
4th C C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C C
5th C C C C C C
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs C C C C C C
All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born DOMINICAN REPUBLIC INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C C
2nd C 01MAR06 C 01MAR06 C C
3rd 01JUN04 22SEP03 01JUN04 01JAN02 U 01JUN04
Other Workers 15MAY02 15MAY02 15MAY02 01JAN02 U 15MAY02
4th C C C C C C
Certain Religious Workers C C C C C C
5th C C C C C C
Targeted Employment Areas/ Regional Centers C C C C C C
5th Pilot Programs C C C C C C
girlfriend crazy lady gaga hairstyles
glus
07-24 08:20 AM
yes, your B1/B2 visa under normal circumstances is still valid.
hairstyles Mother Monster Lady GaGa has
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
07-23 07:32 PM
Reid's Anti-Reform Maneuvers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072200881.html?nav=hcmodule) By Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/) Washington Post, July 23, 2007
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
bijualex29
05-29 01:53 PM
I spend 30mintes reading the Title V-Immigration benefit to get sense of this new immigration law.
I do not see a country cap (10%) anywhere in this bill?
Sorry for my ignorance, if I missed this paragraph.
I do not see a country cap (10%) anywhere in this bill?
Sorry for my ignorance, if I missed this paragraph.
No comments:
Post a Comment