sanjay02
08-08 12:44 AM
Since ur I-485 is approved which means you will get Green card in abt week to 10 days they have denied EAD. So there is nothing to be concerned.
wallpaper star-wars-jedi-knight21.jpg
miro
01-18 11:47 AM
I had an H1 for about 3 years (2 different employers), and then was hired by an international organization. I gave up the H1 and got a G4 visa, which I still have. Over the last 3 years with a G4, my credentials have changed, and am due to get my masters degree in May 2008. If I were to move to a job requiring H1 when I get my masters, will the total number of years allowed for me to hold an H1 roll back to 6 years? I'm thinking that since the skills I had as an H1B visa holder before have changed now.
Any info would be appreciated! Thanks.
Any info would be appreciated! Thanks.
watzgc
09-18 04:36 PM
what type of cases, you meant ?
I can't help but notice that about 1/4 of recently processed audit cases were denied. As it goes now, I'll have to wait about another 6 month for a 75% chance to pass. Well for where the economy is headed right now it all probably won't matter anymore in 6 months.
I can't help but notice that about 1/4 of recently processed audit cases were denied. As it goes now, I'll have to wait about another 6 month for a 75% chance to pass. Well for where the economy is headed right now it all probably won't matter anymore in 6 months.
2011 Star Wars Tales of the Jedi:
sxk
04-19 04:08 PM
I have EAD, AP and H-1B. I don't have H-1b stamped on my passport. I would like to travel on AP.
According to my lawyer;
"For every paper (AP) you have, you can make one trip with it. So if you have 3 original papers, you make 3 trips in and out of the country."
Is this true? My friends who traveled outside the country were told at the port of entry that AP can be used for multiple entry and the above does not hold true.
Any insight would be appreciated.
thanks in advance
According to my lawyer;
"For every paper (AP) you have, you can make one trip with it. So if you have 3 original papers, you make 3 trips in and out of the country."
Is this true? My friends who traveled outside the country were told at the port of entry that AP can be used for multiple entry and the above does not hold true.
Any insight would be appreciated.
thanks in advance
more...
logiclife
06-05 04:11 PM
CPA is not something thats awarded as a graduate degree by an accredited university. So probably no.
But make sure you are not shutting your option by talking to an immigration lawyer and finding out for sure if you are qualified.
But make sure you are not shutting your option by talking to an immigration lawyer and finding out for sure if you are qualified.
Blog Feeds
06-22 12:50 PM
Well, he didn't exactly use that phrase, but pretty close. Here's how the Washington Post is describing the war of words: The White House and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz), the No. 2 man in the Senate GOP leadership, feuded Monday over immigration policy, as the Arizona senator said that President Obama personally told him the administration will not support stricter border enforcement until Republicans back broad immigration reform. The White House strongly denied the claim. At a town hall in Arizona on Friday, Kyl responded to a voter's question about immigration by detailing a one-on-one meeting he had with Obama....
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/prez-to-kyl-you-lie.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/prez-to-kyl-you-lie.html)
more...
joshraj
04-08 04:44 PM
Hi Friends,
Starting this thread for NSC 140 applicants to track LUDs and Approvals.
The whole purpose of this thread is to get the indication of where NSC is with the appoval process for 140.
I hope every one who is connected to NSC for I140 application will update this thread.
Cheers!
JoshRaj
Starting this thread for NSC 140 applicants to track LUDs and Approvals.
The whole purpose of this thread is to get the indication of where NSC is with the appoval process for 140.
I hope every one who is connected to NSC for I140 application will update this thread.
Cheers!
JoshRaj
2010 Star Wars Jedi Knight. star
prince_waiting
09-07 11:28 PM
My biometrics appointment is scheduled at ATL ASC on the 19th of this month which is a Saturday. Has anyone on this forum visited ATL ASC for any work on a Saturday? Should I call up the USCIS customer service to reschedule my appointment? Or, do I need to be happily surprised to see my the USCIS working hard for me even on a weekend? ( The later part sounds like a 'Bizzaro World' from Seinfeld )
Maybe they are going to advance the dates in the next visa bulletin to Jan 2006. Well something to think about for the number crunchers and the PD forecasters on this forum.
Maybe they are going to advance the dates in the next visa bulletin to Jan 2006. Well something to think about for the number crunchers and the PD forecasters on this forum.
more...
Blog Feeds
08-08 09:40 AM
The country's best known Hispanic GOP politician, Florida Senator Mel Martinez, announced this morning that he would not be returning to the Senate after the August recess ends. Martinez had already announced he was retiring in 2010 and it is not clear why he accelerated his departure. Martinez has been a consistently pro-immigration voice and he has criticized his party numerous times for alienating Hispanic voters. Many say that this criticism led to his being replaced as the chair of the Republican National Committee a couple of years ago. Florida Governor Charlie Crist and state legislator Marco Rubio have already...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/gops-efforts-to-court-hispanic-voters-dealt-blow-by-martinez-early-departure.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/gops-efforts-to-court-hispanic-voters-dealt-blow-by-martinez-early-departure.html)
hair star wars jedi knights jedi
sk.aggarwal
04-08 02:08 PM
Now hiring of foreign workers won�t be an easy job for the employers. The government is on its way to make foreign worker rules tougher from this very week.
canada immigration (http://www.canadaupdates.com), canada immigration news (http://www.canadaupdates.com)
HAVE A INFORMATIVE SUBJECT... tougher immigration rules where????
canada immigration (http://www.canadaupdates.com), canada immigration news (http://www.canadaupdates.com)
HAVE A INFORMATIVE SUBJECT... tougher immigration rules where????
more...
smohan
02-07 04:38 PM
Yesterday I called Senator Cornyn's office to know about Skil bill. The immigration person told me to check back with him after at least one month. He had no word on Skil bill to share with me at that time.
I hope it helps.
I hope it helps.
hot got Star Wars Lego game
vikrant29nov
03-10 11:36 PM
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2824/manageflash.jpg
more...
house Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi
tntgirl
02-24 09:35 PM
My sister filed 1-130 for me in 1997. I am currently living in the US on an H1B visa and the I-130 has been approved. As requested by the NVC, my sister submitted her affidavit of support (I-864) and paid the immigrant visa fee. However, I recently found out that I should have filed I-485 instead. I was advised that I cannot file the DS-230 because I live in the US. Is this true? Which could/should I do, DS-230 or I-485? Is there a way to get the immigrant visa fee returned?
I will appreciate any advice.
I will appreciate any advice.
tattoo Star Wars Episode I: Jedi
EB2_Jun03_dude
01-09 10:41 AM
I am planning to apply for my EAD/AP renewal. This would be my 4th EAD/AP application, but this is the first time I am planning to e-file.
My I-485 was filed with VSC but later got transfered to TSC. While my wife's I-485 is transfered to Newark, NJ USCIS local office. Given this situation where should be the supporting documents be sent ?
1) VSC: since all my previous EAD/AP were applied there
2) TSC: since my case is currently pending here.
3) what @ my wife's EAD/AP renewal? here case is pending at local USCIS office.
:confused: :confused:
My I-485 was filed with VSC but later got transfered to TSC. While my wife's I-485 is transfered to Newark, NJ USCIS local office. Given this situation where should be the supporting documents be sent ?
1) VSC: since all my previous EAD/AP were applied there
2) TSC: since my case is currently pending here.
3) what @ my wife's EAD/AP renewal? here case is pending at local USCIS office.
:confused: :confused:
more...
pictures Star Wars Revenge Of The Sith
gcdedo
06-26 04:09 PM
Guys ..,check this out..
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/14905516.htm
It might be time to ride on this boat..
Best Luck
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/14905516.htm
It might be time to ride on this boat..
Best Luck
dresses Adult Star Wars Jedi Robe
Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
more...
makeup Star Wars: Return of the Jedi
engineer
11-27 04:42 PM
If one has Green Card based on family preference (son of US citizen), how long he has to stay in USA to maintain his Green Card. I heard it is min 180 days in a year ? Is that correct ?
What are other restrictions ? Does it impact citizeship ?
A detailed answer would be very helpful.
Also If one has Green Card which one if faster router to get his spouse to USA:
1. Applying as daughter in law of US Citizens. Or
(what family preference catergory this is ?)
2. Applying as wife of person having Green Card
(what family preference catergory this is ?)
What are other restrictions ? Does it impact citizeship ?
A detailed answer would be very helpful.
Also If one has Green Card which one if faster router to get his spouse to USA:
1. Applying as daughter in law of US Citizens. Or
(what family preference catergory this is ?)
2. Applying as wife of person having Green Card
(what family preference catergory this is ?)
girlfriend Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi
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.
hairstyles Star Wars Jedi Divas
swarnapuri
06-28 04:08 PM
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=161571&page=237&pp=15
NKR
02-24 08:45 PM
You will not be contacted.
A new visa bulletin gets released every month sometime during second week. Keep checking for your date and when it becomes current, you can apply for I485 and if need be you can apply for EAD and/or AP.
Check the bulletin to have an idea on how long you will have to wait.
Good Luck
A new visa bulletin gets released every month sometime during second week. Keep checking for your date and when it becomes current, you can apply for I485 and if need be you can apply for EAD and/or AP.
Check the bulletin to have an idea on how long you will have to wait.
Good Luck
black_logs
02-01 12:04 PM
Just a reminder. We are having this conference call today
No comments:
Post a Comment