rkat
09-12 09:32 PM
USA hamaaraa..!! RALLYING FOR THE RALLY...!!
C'mon everybody..!!! SEPT. 18th. 2007...Our kids will read about it in thier history books..!!
Chapt.# 1 - thousands of highly skilled immigrants marched down the streets of Washington DC to request the government to help out with their PERMANENT RESIDENCY APPLICATIONS..!! The greatest country in the world did not let them down.!! The government APPROVED..!!!:) ]
LETS MAKE HISTORY TOGETHER..!! I'm SO PROUD TO BE A IV MEMBER..!!!!
C'mon everybody..!!! SEPT. 18th. 2007...Our kids will read about it in thier history books..!!
Chapt.# 1 - thousands of highly skilled immigrants marched down the streets of Washington DC to request the government to help out with their PERMANENT RESIDENCY APPLICATIONS..!! The greatest country in the world did not let them down.!! The government APPROVED..!!!:) ]
LETS MAKE HISTORY TOGETHER..!! I'm SO PROUD TO BE A IV MEMBER..!!!!
wallpaper Rupert Grant Men Hairstyle
JSimmivoice
01-27 06:16 PM
Hi,
I was working for Company A with whom I've my H1 & I-94 valid until Aug 2010. But I was laid off from Company A in Dec 1st week and I found a new job with Company B in Jan 3rd week. So I was out of status for about 6 weeks time.
Now Company B don't wish to file a transfer but instead they are filing something called H1 "Loose Petition", obviously I'm not going to start work with Company B until this H1 gets approved and I travel out of US, get restamped based on my New H1 petition, come back to US and start work for Company B.
But my question is, while from today until this so called "Loose Petition" H1 is getting processed (since they applied premium it would take about 2-3 weeks) can I legally stay in US (in terms of I-94 I've my I-94 from Company A H1 which is valid until Aug 2010)?
My employer suggest that I stay here until H1 processing result comes out and then leave country get restamped. Please let me know if you have an Answer.
I was working for Company A with whom I've my H1 & I-94 valid until Aug 2010. But I was laid off from Company A in Dec 1st week and I found a new job with Company B in Jan 3rd week. So I was out of status for about 6 weeks time.
Now Company B don't wish to file a transfer but instead they are filing something called H1 "Loose Petition", obviously I'm not going to start work with Company B until this H1 gets approved and I travel out of US, get restamped based on my New H1 petition, come back to US and start work for Company B.
But my question is, while from today until this so called "Loose Petition" H1 is getting processed (since they applied premium it would take about 2-3 weeks) can I legally stay in US (in terms of I-94 I've my I-94 from Company A H1 which is valid until Aug 2010)?
My employer suggest that I stay here until H1 processing result comes out and then leave country get restamped. Please let me know if you have an Answer.
bikaraaneh007
10-03 02:49 PM
Hi,
I have been granted an asylum last year in July. I sent my I-485 to adjust my status this year on August 24th with the fee waiver form (sending proof of food stamp eligibility and supporting documents.)
Today is October 2nd(its been almost 40 days) and I have not received a document receipt from USCIS (we are a family of 3 and non of us has received anything in regards to this matter)
Please let me know what actions should I take or should i wait?! Is it possible to not get a receipt and just receive the finger print notice in the next few months?! (I just checked texas service center's processing times, and it says they are at March 28th,2010 now)
I have been granted an asylum last year in July. I sent my I-485 to adjust my status this year on August 24th with the fee waiver form (sending proof of food stamp eligibility and supporting documents.)
Today is October 2nd(its been almost 40 days) and I have not received a document receipt from USCIS (we are a family of 3 and non of us has received anything in regards to this matter)
Please let me know what actions should I take or should i wait?! Is it possible to not get a receipt and just receive the finger print notice in the next few months?! (I just checked texas service center's processing times, and it says they are at March 28th,2010 now)
2011 male long layered hairstyle
gc_in_30_yrs
09-06 04:28 PM
Yes that is legal to do.
more...
bbenhill
09-23 09:20 PM
soon ...
my pd march 2002 pending 485 any estimated time to get 485 approved?
my pd march 2002 pending 485 any estimated time to get 485 approved?
kumar_77
02-19 06:25 PM
Hello,
yes you can accept tuition wavier or scholarships
thanks
yes you can accept tuition wavier or scholarships
thanks
more...
sharadov
10-01 05:55 PM
Hello - I need to find out what job positions qualify for EB2 category.
2010 Japanese Layered Hairstyle
ashokmads
02-13 04:10 PM
Hi All,
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
My parents I94 is expiring on March 27th 2008.
We had filed for extension (form I 539) in California Service Centre with receipt date of Jan 02 2008.
Calif is currently processing Oct 2007 I529s.
My concerns are :
1) I think their stay here is legal till we hear back from USCIS on their extension. Please confirm if this is true.
2) If they get declined , they have to leave immediately. Is that period of stay considered illegal?
3) Is overstaying with legal extension an issue if they need to come again after 6 months or so? What is the criteria they look for for frequency of visits/stay periods at port of entry.
Will greatly appreciat all your personal experiences /wise opinion on this matter of pressing concern for us.
Thanks
Ash
more...
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
hair 2008 men layered hairstyle
amoljak
03-24 09:28 AM
This report is about low skilled workers. IV (I think) is about addressing the EB immigration, which is mostly about highly skilled workers. So I don't see how this applies here...
more...
rajenk
09-15 11:04 AM
you should consult your attorney on this. Don't expect a public answer from IV members on this issue.
Sorry.
Sorry.
hot indie hairstyle men. wars
Sravanth
10-10 03:40 PM
Any update please...
more...
house hairstyles Men Layered
Ann Ruben
01-24 05:25 PM
If you engage in employment, including self-emplyment outside of your H1 employment you violate the terms of your H1 status. If USCIS becomes aware of such employment, they will find that you gave up H1 status.
tattoo Long Layered Hairstyles Joe
jai_immigration
04-28 10:53 AM
I am planning to switch job, looking for a good attorney in New Jersey near Edison to help me with AC21, if any of you can refer a good economical lawyer, appreciate it.
Also let me know how much does AC21 filing cost on a average (for both myself and spouse)
-Regards,
Jai
Also let me know how much does AC21 filing cost on a average (for both myself and spouse)
-Regards,
Jai
more...
pictures pictures Men#39;s hairstyles
cladden
02-23 03:40 PM
I have been in the US for a couple of years working on an E-1 Visa. I am now filing my I-765 because my Visa is tied to me working for a particular company and is not transferable. I have a social security card.
I am now not sure if I should fill this out as if I am applying for a or b:
A) Permission to accept employment
B) Replacement (of lost employment authorization document)
C) Renewal of my permission to accept employment (attach previous employment authorization document). Form I-76
If it is C, should I attach a copy of my E-1 Visa and my Social Security card or something else?
Also, for question 11 (Have you ever before applied for employment authorization from USCIS)? I don't think I have. I think my E-1 Visa came with this right and that I only dealt with the social security office.
Please help if you know the answer
thanks
I am now not sure if I should fill this out as if I am applying for a or b:
A) Permission to accept employment
B) Replacement (of lost employment authorization document)
C) Renewal of my permission to accept employment (attach previous employment authorization document). Form I-76
If it is C, should I attach a copy of my E-1 Visa and my Social Security card or something else?
Also, for question 11 (Have you ever before applied for employment authorization from USCIS)? I don't think I have. I think my E-1 Visa came with this right and that I only dealt with the social security office.
Please help if you know the answer
thanks
dresses male celebrity hairstyles
chmur
04-07 06:28 PM
and escape TARP and H1B mess
more...
makeup Indie Hairstyles Men. indie
good idea
12-23 04:22 PM
Comprehensive Immigration Reform introduced in Congress - "recapture" of previously unused visa numbers (http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/comprehensive-immigration-reform-introduced-in-congress-130073.php)
Meissner pointed out that CIR ASAP would attempt recapture unused visas from the past and apply them to reducing the visa backlog. Recapturing unused visas from 1992 as the bill proposes, could yield more than 100,000 visas, Meissner estimated. (http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/11571/149/)
Meissner pointed out that CIR ASAP would attempt recapture unused visas from the past and apply them to reducing the visa backlog. Recapturing unused visas from 1992 as the bill proposes, could yield more than 100,000 visas, Meissner estimated. (http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/11571/149/)
girlfriend Layered Hairstyles Men at
payur
04-13 01:08 PM
By clicking the below link please send emails to your senators, all you need is to give your contact info and the email will be sent to the corresponding senators in your area.
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=9615496
http://capwiz.com/aila2/issues/alert/?alertid=9615496
hairstyles layered hairstyle with choppy
GCVictim
07-25 10:44 AM
If any body got receipts for July applied 485! - Or any rejections !?.
Yes, there are so many threads on this, Please don't open new
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6169
Yes, there are so many threads on this, Please don't open new
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6169
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-06 08:57 AM
Like it !
Blog Feeds
03-24 09:40 AM
The Great Depression profoundly affected the psyche of the American people, just as today's Great Recession spawns untold emotional harm that will last for generations. Like a toxic seed, the Depression planted itself deeply into the emotional minds of those who lived through it, only to be transmitted from generation to generation, as parents told their children of hardships endured and shame swallowed. I know that it affected me long after my mother shuffled off her mortal coil. As a child, I listened intently to one of her remembrances -- the humiliation she felt in receiving free shoes as a...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/03/my-entry-1.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/03/my-entry-1.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment