cool_guy_2007
10-08 03:11 PM
I am one of those unfortunate guys who missed the July 2007 boat.
Is there any chance of the priority date getting current again (soon) like in July 2007 even for a month?
What do you guys think??
Is there any chance of the priority date getting current again (soon) like in July 2007 even for a month?
What do you guys think??
wallpaper Hair Styles Men Google
namu01
06-21 10:25 AM
In the form it asks the following questions:
Have you ever before applied for employment authorization from USCIS?
If yes, which USCIS office?
Date for application:
my question: I had applied to Vermont service center and later it was transferred to Texas Service center... So Should i put Vermont or Texas as the applied USCIS office?
Also, The date of application is that the day i signed the application? or the received date that i see on the approved EAD?
Thank You. input would be highly appreciated.
Have you ever before applied for employment authorization from USCIS?
If yes, which USCIS office?
Date for application:
my question: I had applied to Vermont service center and later it was transferred to Texas Service center... So Should i put Vermont or Texas as the applied USCIS office?
Also, The date of application is that the day i signed the application? or the received date that i see on the approved EAD?
Thank You. input would be highly appreciated.
IAMINQ
02-06 07:13 AM
samachar.com
rediff.com
timesofindia.com
chalomumbai.com
rediff.com
timesofindia.com
chalomumbai.com
2011 christina hendricks haircut.
supers789
07-21 02:29 PM
yes. ur 140 is still valid. you don't need paystubs from company A, but its better to be working for company A the time you are filing 485 with them to make your case more authentic.
hope it helps!
hope it helps!
more...
carbon
12-21 08:02 PM
Hello IVians,
I am not fully aware of all the benefits of having EAD after filing 485. If you have the knowledge about it could you please list down it in this thread.
Thanks.
I am not fully aware of all the benefits of having EAD after filing 485. If you have the knowledge about it could you please list down it in this thread.
Thanks.
Sandhya
03-09 10:28 PM
I moved apartments and in the process unfortunately lost all my passport and visa documents. I do not have the original I-797 with me anymore. I have only a photocopy.
My I-797 was extended till may 2012 though my visa stamp on my passport expires this year. I was supposed to travel to India to get the visa stamped in May.
Can I still travel without an original I-797? What is the procedure? Can somebody please help?!!
Regards
Sandhya
My I-797 was extended till may 2012 though my visa stamp on my passport expires this year. I was supposed to travel to India to get the visa stamped in May.
Can I still travel without an original I-797? What is the procedure? Can somebody please help?!!
Regards
Sandhya
more...
file485
01-09 09:39 AM
Hello..
please add in a feature where a member from here can invite their friends thru their email addresses....
this is an easy way to have a larger no.of members which is crucial at this point of time...
please add in a feature where a member from here can invite their friends thru their email addresses....
this is an easy way to have a larger no.of members which is crucial at this point of time...
2010 Ads by Google
rajesh_kamisetty
08-03 09:33 AM
Why should we join the cause and raise our collective voice?
"Squeaky wheel gets the grease."
"Crying baby gets milk first." (probably not from English..but heard from a friend)
Why should we _do anything more than writing on forums?
"Actions Speak Louder Than Words"
"All Bark And No Bite"
(hahaha.. that's what i am doing right now)
Why should we stop infighting?
"A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand."
"All In The Same Boat" (more or less)
What do you think?
"Squeaky wheel gets the grease."
"Crying baby gets milk first." (probably not from English..but heard from a friend)
Why should we _do anything more than writing on forums?
"Actions Speak Louder Than Words"
"All Bark And No Bite"
(hahaha.. that's what i am doing right now)
Why should we stop infighting?
"A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand."
"All In The Same Boat" (more or less)
What do you think?
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
hair Share to Google Buzz
dan19
03-22 10:44 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/22/kennedy_mccain_partnership_falters/
more...
fatboysam
03-07 09:22 AM
I am on L1B visa from Apr 2008. I have my PERM and I140 approved.
I got a email from my attorney stating that they want to file my H1B petition this year so that they can keep on renewing my H1b as long as my company wants.
Suppose they file H1B COS petition then my status will automatically change on Oct 1 2010.
I am planning a vacation to India in November 2010, what are the options with me when come back to US.
- Do i have to stamp the H1B visa OR
- I can still come back on my existing L1B visa ???
Please suggest
Thanks
I got a email from my attorney stating that they want to file my H1B petition this year so that they can keep on renewing my H1b as long as my company wants.
Suppose they file H1B COS petition then my status will automatically change on Oct 1 2010.
I am planning a vacation to India in November 2010, what are the options with me when come back to US.
- Do i have to stamp the H1B visa OR
- I can still come back on my existing L1B visa ???
Please suggest
Thanks
hot Veronica Lake Hairstyle.
genuser
02-02 12:01 AM
I held an H1 B Visa from 2005 to 2008. I worked in the US from for 1 year from 2006 to 2007. I had to return to my home country and my visa expired in 2008. I have been out of US for more than a year and now I am on H4 status (not employed currently) and I would like to know the below:
1. Am I eligible to renew my previous H1 visa. Will my visa petition be considered as an extension of my previous H1 B?
2. Will my application fall under the cap exempt or will I be subject to cap limit
3. If the above fail, what other options do I have?
Pls guide.
Thanks.
1. Am I eligible to renew my previous H1 visa. Will my visa petition be considered as an extension of my previous H1 B?
2. Will my application fall under the cap exempt or will I be subject to cap limit
3. If the above fail, what other options do I have?
Pls guide.
Thanks.
more...
house Pixie Asian Haircuts
excogitator
10-30 02:31 PM
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9594/frogprince.png
Am I your prince? Am I not? Go ahead and Find out.
Guaranteed never to work so expect loads of kisses :)
Am I your prince? Am I not? Go ahead and Find out.
Guaranteed never to work so expect loads of kisses :)
tattoo prom hairdos for black people.
Blog Feeds
09-11 12:00 PM
A voice of reason in the GOP on immigration departs. He will be missed in this process. In the mean time, Florida's new Senator, George LeMieux, is certainly not sounding like a fighter for immigration reform. According to the Orlando Sentinel: LeMieux appears likely to steer clear of Martinez's controversial attempts to overhaul immigration law, which would include a path to citizenship for the undocumented. 'We need tosecure our borders,' LeMieux said. 'After we do that, we can figure what happens to people already here.'
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/martinez-bids-farewell-and-urges-senate-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/martinez-bids-farewell-and-urges-senate-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
more...
pictures found on http://www.google.com
vayumahesh
11-08 04:39 PM
My I-140 got approved and priority date from EB3 got ported to EB2. I read in one of the forum threads that USCIS system would automatically identify that application is current and appropriate action will be taken. Also, I read about initiating interfile process of existing EB2 I-140 (current) with Pending I-485 application (under EB3). I am not sure whether I should wait few weeks before initiating interfile process.
I have given my biometrics in 2007 while filing I-485. Will USCIS send appointment for Biometrics again ?
I have given my biometrics in 2007 while filing I-485. Will USCIS send appointment for Biometrics again ?
dresses tudor hairstyles. hairstyles
danalvidrez
04-05 02:40 AM
Here are a few ideas...
http://www.danalvidrez.com/_kirupa/stamps/jerry.jpg
http://www.danalvidrez.com/_kirupa/stamps/pills.jpg
http://www.danalvidrez.com/_kirupa/stamps/infin.jpg
http://www.danalvidrez.com/_kirupa/stamps/griffin.jpg
http://www.danalvidrez.com/_kirupa/stamps/jerry.jpg
http://www.danalvidrez.com/_kirupa/stamps/pills.jpg
http://www.danalvidrez.com/_kirupa/stamps/infin.jpg
http://www.danalvidrez.com/_kirupa/stamps/griffin.jpg
more...
makeup tips for hairstyles.
Redeye
01-15 12:53 PM
Did you staple them altogether and surrender them?
girlfriend Short Choppy Hairstyles Lisa
morchu
06-12 01:00 PM
You could be in H1 till Dec 2010. Nothing in the law states that your already approved H1 has to be revoked, with the PERM denial.
hairstyles hype hairstyles.
ajaykk
01-24 11:45 AM
Hi Gurus,
If you look at my signature, My 485 has been transferred to TSC from NSC and AP is still stuck at NSC. I have some emergent situation back home , I have faxed the doctor certificate and called USCIS using POJ method and the guy says it might take another month. wat the *****....tried infopass..my local office doesnt have no more appointments.
My questions:
1. Can I take Infopass appointment anywhere else which is not my local office?
2. Can I apply a new 131 application at TSC as my 485 is there now?
Someone pls advise.
Thanks
AJ
If you look at my signature, My 485 has been transferred to TSC from NSC and AP is still stuck at NSC. I have some emergent situation back home , I have faxed the doctor certificate and called USCIS using POJ method and the guy says it might take another month. wat the *****....tried infopass..my local office doesnt have no more appointments.
My questions:
1. Can I take Infopass appointment anywhere else which is not my local office?
2. Can I apply a new 131 application at TSC as my 485 is there now?
Someone pls advise.
Thanks
AJ
jonty_11
07-19 05:09 PM
please post articles in News Article thread..
das0
12-09 02:39 AM
can anyone pls help?
No comments:
Post a Comment